FALSE CONNECTIONS

TRANSFER DEVICE
The psychological mechanism of "Transfer" is used by the disinformationist to boost an authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept. For example, most people respect and revere their church and the nation. If the disinformationist succeeds in getting ‘church’ or ‘nation’ to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may unwittingly accept something which otherwise we might reject.

The transfer device typically uses symbols for its best effect. The cross represents the Christian Church. The flag alludes to the nation. Cartoons depicting "Uncle Sam" allude to U.S. nationalism and an implied consensus of public opinion. Those symbols reliably stimulate emotions. (Don’t forget that concept.) The visual contact/association with such symbols will INSTANTLY arouse an entire menu of feelings we have with respect to community, church or nation.

A cartoon showing "Uncle Sam" as approving or disapproving something is powerful. Thus, the ‘Transfer’ device can be readily used both for and against the target causes and ideas. The key for the casual observer is in distinguishing the intent.

"Transfer" can be effected with deeds. When a political activist closes a speech with a public prayer, the attempt is to transfer religious prestige to the ideas being advocated – and the person/entity. As with all propaganda devices, the use of this technique is not limited to one side of the political spectrum. Pacifists can pray for peace, as quickly as a chaplain can pray for victory.

Authority can be "transferred" (or taken away). The disinformationist may attempt to transfer the reputation of "Science" or "Medicine" to a particular project or set of beliefs. A slogan for a popular cold medication serves to encourage the target audiences to "Applaud the miracles of medicine." Most have seen many TV commercials, with an actor dressed in a white lab coat tell us that "Brand-X is the most powerful pain reliever which can be bought without a prescription." In both of these examples, the transfer technique is being employed.

In the negative arena, the association of a Washington Post writer being a recipient of a Pulitzer Prize might be attacked by citing the faked story about the drug addicted child.

Transfer techniques can also take a nefarious/evil turn. A major engineering group prepared the Oklahoma City bombing report; using blatantly flawed data – yet, it sold! In history, the propaganda of 1939 Nazi Germany rationalized racist policies by appealing to anthropology, history, sociology and religion.

With a controlled ‘spin,’ even religion and science can be prostituted in almost any issue. The observer should be aware that any idea or program should not be accepted or rejected simply because it has been linked to a symbol such as Justice, Medicine, Science, Democracy, or Christianity.

When the observer is confronted with the "transfer device," it is appropriate to ask the following questions:

• What is the apparent – or not so apparent - intent/goal of the speaker?

• What is the intended message which the disinformationist is seeking to ‘transfer’ the authority, sanction, and prestige?

• Is there any legitimate association between the message of the disinformationist and the revered thing, person or institution?

• Independent of the "transfer mechanism," what are the merits of the message, when viewed alone?

DISSOCIATION DEVICE
Dissociation is the reverse of "Transfer," usually serving to produce a "Plausible Innocence." This technique is closely associated with Name Calling/Labeling. Quoting someone who is reasonably assumed to be honest serves to effect the excuse – or a ‘safe’ distance, "Hell, I didn’t know he was lying; why would ANYBODY suspect that?"

Displacing an arena allows the illusion of truth, via a shift in focus. To say that U.S. forces didn’t do something, serves to distance the Pentagon from condemnation. The close association of U.S. forces to those who did the actual act (a guerilla group, for example) operates as a ‘breakout’ device. "Nobody would have suspected that rebel bunch would do such a thing?" The guerilla unit is referred to as a "cutout."

Often the "breakout" [action] effort is cleverly programmed; the Delta Force, for example. No matter what they do, their involvement is always protected under the flag of "National Secrecy." Their involvement also serves as a peripheral insulation. To hold a secondary group responsible might "compromise" Delta Force – a "national security interest."

Another tactic is to use disassociation to discredit a group or person,

• "He/they are not qualified to say…"

• "He/they have a reputation for being dishonest"

• "He/they are liars"

• "He/they are ridiculous/absurd"
   

DEALING OFF THE BOTTOM OF THE DECK
It is often enough seen that events, information or statements are methodically taken out of context. Often, context is presented with strategic information missing.

Early in the accident investigation of the Egypt Air 990 crash, a set of translators insisted that the copilot began his religious chant with the statement, "I’ve made my decision!" Yet, the ‘official’ account leaves that statement out. In the end, the report ‘diplomatically’ reads that mechanical failure could not be cited as the cause of the crash.

The copilot was not cited as having committed suicide-murder. While all indications pointed to a suicide-murder, the FBI insisted that there was no criminal ‘element’ warranting their taking over the investigation. The ‘official’ omission misled the public – to say the least.

Often, information or statements are methodically taken out of context. When citing regulations, for example, supporting information can often be quoted as though the particular statement is totally governing. In the FAA regulations, for example, there is a regulation prohibiting a pilot from leaving the flight deck for arbitrary reasons.

Such events as a bathroom break or attending to an emergency are excepted. However, by leaving out the stated exceptions, a captain couldn’t legally leave the cockpit – for any reason. Absurd? It’s happened! The FAA took the supporting language out of context, and successfully processed a violation – committing a felony, in the process!

Back to Contents

MANUFACTURED REALITY

The alleged assassin of Bobby Kennedy plead guilty - now serving a life sentence. The world bought off on the idea that Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy. However, the autopsy demonstrated that Sirhan didn’t hit Bobby with a single round!

The fatal bullets came from an alternate direction and range. The media recordings identified five more shots than Sirhan’s weapon was capable of firing. Yet, what does the world believe???


PANIC AND CHAOS 
Panic, confusion & chaos are opportunity environments for those who have the capacity to know – or estimate - the limits of the presented ‘threat.’ Survival and security become the first-up priorities, versus ‘facts.’ These scenarios also allow those in power to manufacture a reality, as the populace will normally grant leaders total ‘trust;’ even blind trust, hoping to receive survival and safety in return.

The world has rarely seen such panic and chaos as the events following 9-11. The damage was factual – but the deaths were distorted out of proportion. Despite early and relatively accurate data, the actual number of deaths at the World Trade Center was kept hidden for months.

The original figures being kept incredibly high – until after the Afghan invasion was well under way. During the ‘assumed fatalities’ period, several national charities received huge sums of money. Amidst that ‘chaos,’ it took an investigative reporter to reveal that the greater percentage of the charity money was being kept by the charities, versus being distributed to the intended victims.

In the shadows of the 9-11, the pre-written "Patriot Act" was scammed into law. Americans never dreamed that the ‘law’ would usurp the U.S. Constitution. Amazingly, most Americans related 9-11 to Pearl Harbor, without questioning the possibility of a similar internal government facilitation – which was factual. More amazingly, the early ‘official’ claims of "no warnings" were quickly debunked. Even then, most America didn’t ask the obvious questions.


ASSUMPTION
"Assumption" is a major element in the world of PSYOPS. The application of ‘Assumption’ is reliably operated from the "conditioning" of the targeted audience. One assumes that the President would never do anything wrong. It is assumed that the justice system works; after all, didn’t Clinton nearly get impeached? Yet, the post 9-11 events are filled with Bush’s violations of his Federal Oath of Office,

"…to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Yet, he quickly signed the infamous "Patriot Act," which removed America’s entitlement to the key elements in the Bill of Rights. With his knowledge and consent, at least two "suspects" rotted in a military prison, because there was no ‘evidence’ to charge them in a federal court. They were denied legal council, despite court orders. They were interrogated relentlessly, under the guise of ‘national security.’

In the Iraq invasion, the assumption was that the USA would NEVER do something terribly immoral; let alone commit a war crime. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The invasion was a war crime, by itself. After the ‘formal’ combat was finished and Iraq had no army, the Hussein brothers were killed in a combat operation. There was no arrest attempt, they were just killed.

Possibly, they deserved to die at the hands of a court; they didn’t deserve to be murdered in a U.S. military attack. WHY? Because of the international agreements which the U.S. is a signatory to; however unpopular the idea may be.

Yet, ‘Assumption’ worked for the ‘system’ – beautifully! Too much of America’s history is fraught with false information.

Thus, except for natural disasters, one should quickly ask:

• Is there something which just doesn’t look right?

• Is there a conflict between what’s seen and heard, versus the ‘official’ account?

• Is there room for legitimate confusion in the information presented?

• What might be missing in the presented ‘picture?’

• What is the intent/goal of the ‘official’ account?

• Do the observed actions support the ‘official’ account?

• Could the reverse be more factual?

• What is the intended message?

• Who is delivering the ‘official’ account?

• Is there any ‘salesmanship’ being witnessed, versus honest information?

• Is there any more information obviously needed?

• Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the merits of the event(s), when viewed without the ‘official’ narrative?

• Are the opposing viewpoints more reliable?

IGNORANCE AND APATHY
It’s unusual for the U.S. to uniquely conduct a military invasion, versus being part of a U.N. effort. Given the horror of 9-11 (as presented) America was ready to take on the world – single-handedly. In hindsight, we discover many fallacies associated with 9-11, leading to the question, "Was 9-11 an inside-job?"

The issues don’t end with the consideration of a simple possible mistake, made in the proverbial heat of battle. Given the facts – as they were known at the time – there was no legitimate provocation for war. Although it appeared that there was a ‘time’ pressure, few looked past the end of their noses at such documents as the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Accords and the Nuremberg Charter. If they had, it would have been discovered that the Afghan and Iraq invasions constituted war crimes. In the assumption that America was totally above committing a war crime, few Americans ever looked at the pertinent documents – not even the military!

In the ‘convenient’ void of ignorance, Americans didn’t relate to the meaning of the opium fields of Afghanistan being replanted (following the Taliban destruction of those fields). The replanting of those fields meant cheaper heroin being supplied to European and American drug dealers!

Assuming integrity in the White House, Americans couldn’t grasp the significance of the U.S. interests militarily seizing control of Iraq’s oil production. Few Americans have even heard of Zbigniew Brezenski’s book, "The Grand Chessboard." The book essentially lays out the American control/takeover of the Middle-East, in the spirit of "America’s Manifest Destiny." Fewer Americans connect the "Corporate America," versus the "American Government." Imagine the U.S. Military doing the dirty work for Unocal, Chevron, et al! They did it!

Few Americans know of Bush’s Presidential Executive Order No. 13303. That Order laid claim to Iraq’s oil production. Iraq could not even decide who could buy their oil! For all intents & purposes, Iraq became an American corporate colony.

Yet Americans believed that ‘democracy’ was the intent of the continued American military presence in Iraq!

While post 9-11 "Homeland Security" seemed to take on a mandatory mission, few Americans caught the political sleight-of-hand which substituted the content of the "Homeland Security Act," at the last minute. The result was billions of dollars in "pork." Amidst the ‘reliable ignorance,’ the tax-dollar rip off missions successfully flew.

Given the routine and convenient omissions in the American mass media, it’s clearly wise to ask:

• Is the public up-to-speed with the pertinent issues?

• Is there a credible outraged claim of ulterior motives? If so, what are the details?

• Does any one group have a monetary motive for lying?

• Is there a sense that something is seriously wrong in the presented ‘picture?’

• What is the stated intent/goal in the ‘official’ account?

• Could there be a pre-existing secret agenda?

• What is the intended message?

• Who is conveying the ‘official’ account?

• Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the merits of the event(s), when viewed without the ‘official’ narrative (spin)?

 
SHADOWS
The well-documented history of political events in America display a clear nefarious intent from the nation’s leaders; dating to at least Bill Clinton’s election. During the Clinton terms in office, a host of anti-terror laws were written; tailored to 9-11, including the "Patriot Act." Likewise, the military "Project for a New American Century" was developed. BUT, not by a military group! Among other matters, the PNAC – as it’s called – cites America’s global military "Constabulary Duties." Holding North Korea at bay is one thing, but playing "Globo-Cop" is another! Post 9-11 was pre-planned in the shadows of the Clinton years!

Amazingly, America seems to be oblivious to another effort; the implementation of the Gestapo-style "Model Emergency Health Powers Acts;" alternately called the "Model State Emergency Powers Acts." (MSEHPA) The "model" is a generic statute, intended to be enacted by the individual states. As "suggested," the individual state health personnel could ultimately wind up under the control of the federal government; expected to act as an extended police force.

Their ‘emergency powers’ would be Gestapo in nature, including the power to arrest people who refuse to take prescribed "immunizations," or carting them off to "Quarantine Camps." The associated civil rights would not be worth talking about.

• Doubts? Look to - > http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/26/mehpa.htm

• For a copy of the proposed law, look to – > http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/MSEPHA2.pdf 

By June 30, 2005, the MSEHPA had been introduced in whole, or in part, by 44 states; 37 states had passed laws which include provisions from - or similar to - those in the MSEHPA. In fairness, the compliance varies, as to the extent of the MSEHPA provisions.

Any state which adopts such a ‘conforming’ law gets an immediate five-million dollar "signing bonus." The federal subsidies increase dramatically, from there.

The questions:

• Is this something which was methodically ‘low key,’ or possibly supposed to be nearly secret?

• Does the presented account seem to come out of thin air?

• Does the ‘logic’ hold up as being consistent?

• Did something ‘magically’ change?

• Is there an important piece of information in-hiding?

• Did something happen with a fortuitous timing – defying claims of ‘coincidence?’

• Does the presented account smack of nefarious propaganda?

• Is there any viable outraged claim of ulterior motives – including profiteering?

• Is there ANY reasonably compelling suspicion amidst the information presented?

• Is there a sense that something is seriously wrong in the presented ‘picture?’

• Does the ‘official’ account meet a reasonable test of ‘integrity?’

• Could there be a secret agenda?

• What is the intended message – express or implied?

• Who is ‘fronting’ the ‘official’ account?

• Are there any people or groups protesting; and what do they have to say?

• Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the independent merits of the associated event(s)?

TESTIMONIAL DEVICE
Babe Ruth is on the cereal box, promoting a breakfast cereal as part of a balanced breakfast. Britney is presented in a commercial endorsing a specific line of clothes. A church member attests to a ‘miracle.’

Such is the classic use of the "Testimonial Device" which readily comes to the minds of most, when the term ‘testimonial’ is used.

When we hear/read that,

• "The New York Times said"

• "John L. Lewis said..."

• "Herbert Hoover said..."

• "The President said..."

• "My doctor said..."

• "Our minister said..."

The "Testimonials" may simply emphasize a legitimate, valid and accurate idea - a ‘fair use’ of the device. In other cases, however, the "Testimonial(s)" may represent the sugar-coating of a clever distortion, a blatant lie, a misunderstood notion; or any anti-social suggestion. Such "Testimonials" may have the element of "association creep."

For example, when speaking to priests convicted of pedophilia, the overt expression may be, "…these God-hated priests…" when directly referring to the pedophilia issue. However, there is the risk/intent that the subconscious GENERAL association will uniquely be "…these God-hated priests." Thus, the discounting of priests, in general, can occur, whether by accident or design.

There is nothing inherently wrong with citing a qualified source; the testimonial technique can be used to construct a fair and well-balanced position or debate. However, it is often used in ways that are unfair and blatantly misleading.

With respect to a "Testimonial, the "Transfer" device can also be used as a "Trojan Horse," in the case of a prominent personality duped into making a false statement. Or, conversely, such a prominent personality forced to issue a denial or distortion of an otherwise obvious fact.

Another PSYOPS application of a "Testimonial" - as a "Transfer Device" – is essentially a bank-shot. An alternate source is quoted (Testimonial) in such a fashion as to lead someone to believe that they are a uniquely qualified – or unqualified - source. The reader/viewer is misled into believing a given slant. Often, the intent of the quotation (Testimonial) is lost in an unwitting presumption of an honest debate.

For example, the American segment of the bin Laden family was factually evacuated by private aircraft, immediately following 9-11! One person may cite the fact in a debate, while the clever disinformationist "bonds" the discussion to the same ‘revelation’ by America’s ‘favorite,’ Michael Moore. The ‘first-up’ effect tends to seal the fate of such discussions, despite the fact that the debate originator was actually quoting from the Tampa Tribune, but failed to cite the source, in the beginning.

A "Testimonial" can be centered on a seemingly authoritative document. For example, in the 9-11 affair, a Tom Kenney was quoted from a conversation with Dan Rather as implying – at least – that a FEMA rescue team arrived in New York the night before 9-11 – in preparation.

In the ensuing debate, an individual polled FEMA – via the "Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA) - using an incorrect name, "Tom Kennedy." The FOIA response (authoritative Testimonial) came back in the essence of "No information was responsive to your request."

The mis-spelling might have been deliberate. However, the real name was "Kenney," not Kennedy." The illusion (Testimonial) was that the assertion that FEMA rescue arrived the night before 9-11 was FALSE. The requested information was NOT forthcoming. The illusion of a straight-forward FOIA response served as a Testimonial, whatever the actual facts may – or may not - be.

In congressional testimony, Rudi Guiliani admitted that FEMA was already set up on Pier 92, under a conveniently timed "Operation Tripod."

The most common misuse of the testimonial involves citing individuals – such as celebrities - who are not qualified to make judgments about a particular issue or person. In 1992, Barbara Streisand supported Bill Clinton; Arnold Schwarzenegger threw his weight behind George Bush. While both are popular performers, in their own right, there is no viable reason to think that they know what is best for America. The "Testimonial" takes advantage of the psychological device, known as "identification."

The false testimonial is not bound by any restraints. In the Oklahoma City bombing, the FBI "expert" was caught both unqualified and in a lie, as to the explosive substance in the truck. His fate was a promotion!

Unfair testimonials are usually obvious; most people have seen through the obviously rhetorical trick at some time or another. In the experience of human nature, however, this probably happened when the testimonial was provided by a celebrity whom we did not respect. Conversely, if the testimony is provided by an admired celebrity, we are much less likely to be critical.

When encountering the obvious "Testimonial," it is appropriate to ask:

• What is the apparent – or not so apparent - intent/goal of the speaker?

• ‘Who’ or ‘what’ is actually being quoted in the testimonial?

• Why should anyone regard this person/organization/publication as containing expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question?

• Independent of the "Testimonial," what does the message/idea amount to?

INJECTED ASSOCIATION
Honest people are vulnerable to the disinformationist; the honest person thinks in honest terms. Honest people simply don’t expect to be given blatantly dishonest treatment, as a victim or an observer. Thus, there is the risk/probability that an honest statement can be methodically and forcibly associated with a bad source.

To cite the imagery of the burning Pentagon in the early AP picture, citing the lack of evidence of an aircraft impact can result in the claim,

"Oh, you’re obviously referring to the picture on the cover of that socialist Frenchman Theirry Meyssan – the conspiracy nut!"

The reality may be that the speaker had ONLY seen the AP photo. Still, the ‘first-up’ effect and the injected association will have a dramatic effect on the casual observer.


RHETORIC PASSION AND TONE OF VOICE
Even in text presentations, ‘passion’ and ‘tone of voice’ can be conveyed – and quite effectively. With that in mind, it’s academic that a passionately told lie creates the illusion of truth. Thereafter, the tactical use of language is important to observe. An honest person rarely needs to resort to the tools used by the disinformationist.

However, when passionate rhetoric is used in an obviously styled manner, suspicion – at a minimum – is in order. This is particularly true when associated with unreasonable discounting of an issue, source or personality. Dynamic communication skills are to be admired – but not when they are utilized for a nefarious purpose. Again, the key is in distinguishing the intent of the message.


REPACKAGING AND "SCOPE"
Long after the fact, the White House abruptly announced that they were dealing with faulty information, when deciding to invade Iraq. The presentation was in the spirit of "See, it wasn’t our fault; the information came from dishonest people, whom we were duped into believing!"

If one’s attention is fixed to that latest position (scope), the position sounds good, until one remembers (expanded scope) that – prior to the Iraq invasion - countries were lined up telling the White House that the information was false. France and Germany – in particular - trashed their diplomatic relationship with the USA, in an effort to prevent a senseless bloodbath.

Just prior to the invasion announcement, the U.N. inspection team was reporting increasing evidence that Saddam had – in fact – destroyed his prescribed weaponry; or at least transported it out of the country. "Selective trust" (limited scope) is no excuse in that picture; too many were attesting to Saddam’s actual compliance and the lack of any viable evidence of WMDs.

Yet, the White House statement would have the reader believe that there is only one side to the issue - "See, we were lied to; it’s not our fault. It was an innocent mistake, see?" The attempt was to "Repackage" the truth with the device of "Plausible Assertion."

When encountering the obvious "Repackaging," it is necessary to ask:

• What is the intent of the statement/position? Clarification? Deceit? Excuse making?

• How does the statement/position compare with other previous information?

• Is this a radical perception/position change worth inquiring more deeply?

• Is there a reliable opposing position worth comparing the statement/position to?

• Does alternate information condemn the "Repackaging?"

Back to Contents

IMAGING

ORDINARY FOLKS
The "Ordinary-Folks" technique, attempts to convince the target audience that the celebrity and their ideas, are "…those of the common people." The device is used by advertisers and politicians alike.

Obviously, America's recent presidents have all been millionaires, who have gone to great lengths to present themselves as ordinary citizens.

• George Bush Jr. was reading to school children on 9-11.

• Bill Clinton partied with the rest of his peers, but "…didn’t inhale."

• George Bush Sr. hated cooked broccoli, and loved to go fishing.

• Ronald Reagan was often photographed as the outdoorsman, chopping wood.

• Jimmy Carter presented himself in the fashion of an humble Georgia peanut farmer.

The political candidates reliably deliver the phony promise to "clean out the barn" and set things straight in Washington. The political scene is filled with politicians who ignore any corruption issues, while appearing to challenge the economic and privilege disparity of the mythical "cultural elite," trying very hard to identify with the needs and desires of "ordinary American people." The baby-boomers of the fifties no longer find significance in whether the candidate inhaled or not. George Bush Jr. never bothered to answer the drug questions; America didn’t care.

Again, the pertinent questions:

• What is the intent, relative to the "hidden" person?

• Disregarding the sales pitch, what are the presented messages/images worth when divorced from the presented personality?

• Is there a trait or history methodically being left out?

• What could he or she be trying to cover up with the ordinary-folks approach?

• What are the facts, relative to the presentation?

BANDWAGON DEVICE
The campaigning politician IS a propagandist; the world accepts that. The candidate always needs "numbers;" real or otherwise. The political candidate rents a hall, attracts radio and TV stations, fills a super-stadium, marches thousands of people in a parade. He/she employs prejudicial colors, symbols, music, movements and Hollywood special effects. He/she induces great numbers to write letters, send E-mails, and contribute money or time to his/her cause. He/she appeals to the desire - common to most of us - to identify with and to "follow the crowd."

In modern politics, the propagandist (and disinformationist) needs to similarly affect the masses. He/she directs the "appeal" to ‘bonded’ groups with the common ties, ties of nationality, religion, race, gender, vocation or social status [unemployed, for example]. In a similar fashion, the disinformationist campaigning for or against a given program, position or perception will appeal to their target audience as Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Jews...as farmers or as school teachers; as housewives or as miners. Truth is almost the last priority, versus "results."

Using all other propaganda devices, all the means of positive imagery are used to inspire the respective hopes, fears and hatreds, the desired prejudices, convictions and ideals common to a target group. Thus emotions are employed to push and pull the members of a targeted group onto a prescribed Band Wagon – or to create a fear of "charging" that band wagon with an attack, given the apparent numbers or sheer power behind the particular bandwagon. Following 9-11, there was no hope of winning against ANY position, taken by the Bush administration. 9-11 manufactured the biggest bandwagon, since Pearl Harbor.

The basic message of the Band Wagon appeal is "everyone else is on board; therefore, so should you be." In the primordial quest for ‘safety in numbers,’ few want to be left behind, thus the technique is quite successful in all arenas. The gimmick is in taking a close look at the particular bandwagon, versus an emotional reflex to immediately climb onto the presented Band Wagon. The disinformationist’s mission is obviously to make the targeted audience think there is such a priority; "Opportunity only knocks once!"

The element of "consensus" often rules the bandwagon effect. In regard to the First Amendment, most reflexively agree that "...you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater." No one bothers to ask, "What if it's on fire?"

A recent example is in the Afghan and Iraq campaigns. While the "Victory Bandwagon" approach worked, the illustration of the lies, in advance of - and after - the invasions left America in the lurch of "War Crimes." – NOBODY seemed to notice! The Band Wagon approach was that successful.

"American" War Crimes? What person could possibly think the unthinkable? Who could conscience the thought, let alone explore the possibility that such could EVER possibly be factual? Why, not even Hollywood could so dare!

Fear and uncertainty are powerful forces to nudge or push people onto a pandered bandwagon as a "solution" to their anxieties. During the Vietnam War years, the frequent citation of the "Red Menace" created acceptance and approval of the war, inducing many into enlisting. The war was factually about oil and Texas profiteering; few noticed. The PSYOPS worked.

When the "Bandwagon" approach is noted, it would be prudent to ask the following questions:

• What is the actual agenda/program?

• What is the evidence, both for and against the program?

• Is there a hidden agenda?

• Regardless of who and how many are supporting the program, is it appropriate or prudent to also support it?

• Does the "Bandwagon" program serve - or undermine - the individual and collective interests of the typical person?

FEAR DEVICE
How many times has America heard this speech,

"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive."

More and more people are recognizing the speech from Adolf Hitler, in 1932 – the speech is that commonly used, in some format. Yet, its equivalent also served the "establishment" for ten years of the Viet Nam War. Surprisingly, the ‘establishment’ lost the war!

With rare exception, only a true disinformationist or generic propagandist handily stimulates fear, while immediately citing a recommended "solution." When the "Fear" device is being used, the disinformationist warns the members of the target audience that disaster will result if they do not follow a particular course of action. The intended "Fear" is accompanied by the convenient ‘solution;’ fear on one end, with ‘hope’ on the other.

By using/prostituting "fear," the disinformationist plays upon the emotions; especially on the target audience's deep-seated fears and emotional reflexes. The technique is typically used to redirect attention from the merits of a viable proposal; toward steps that claim to reduce ‘fear’ or ‘threat.’

A joke portrays the common reality: "My buddy George is one smart SOB. He told me, during the 1964 campaign, that if I voted for Goldwater, the USA would be at war in Viet Nam inside of six months. Damn - he was right – I voted for Goldberg; and look what happened!"

As the 1964 election indicated, ‘truth’ is often an enemy of politics. Lyndon Johnson was elected, but the war took off - anyway. The induced-fear technique can be highly effective when wielded by a clever demagogue. However, the technique is typically used in less dramatic ways.

Consider the following:

• A television safety commercial portraying a terrible automobile accident (inducing fear), reminding the viewers to wear their seat-belts (the fear-reducing [hope] solution).

• An information packet from an insurance company uses pictures of houses destroyed by floods (inducing fear), then inserts ‘convenient’ details about home-owners' insurance (the fear-reducing [hope] solution).

• A letter from a pro-gun organization begins by describing disarmed citizens in a lawless America in which only criminals possess guns (inducing fear). The letter goes on to cite the Constitution; asking the readers to oppose a ban on semi-automatic weapons (the fear-reducing solution).

At least since the end of the World War II, psychologists and communication specialists of all types have conducted studies to learn more about the effectiveness of fear/hope inducements – as it pertains to herding the masses [directing a mass action]. Some valid criticisms have been made, but the general conclusions are worth considering as being valid.

In general, the studies have concluded:

• The more genuinely frightened a person is, from any communication, the more likely they are to take viable preventive action.

• The "Fear" approach will not be successful, unless the threat is believed to be PERSONAL, factual, imminent and pertinent, with the target audience otherwise feeling powerless to change the threatening situation.

• "Fear" is far more likely to succeed in producing a positive response, if the target audience is given specific and viable recommendations to reduce the threat - if the audience feels empowered by the information. The targeted audience needs a high degree of faith in the recommendations.

In general, there are six elements required for a successful fear appeal:

1. An identified (perception control) and pertinent threat. (emotional control)
2. A specific safety recommendation. ("hope" solution)
3. The targeted audience must be made to feel a sense of OBLIGATION.
4. The targeted audience perception (trust) that the safety recommendation will be effective.
5. The targeted audience’s perception/faith that they are reliably (personally) capable of performing the recommended solution – with assured (faith) results. [As they are believed in.]
6. There must be a tangible reward for the targeted audience having lived up to the actual or imposed OBLIGATION. Personal satisfaction may be enough.

When "fear" tactics do not include all six elements, they have a certain probability of failure. During the intensity of the Cold War, the anti-nuclear movement, successfully aroused a high degree of public fear of a nuclear war. However, lacking specific, viable and "easy" action recommendations, the effort fizzled, as the populace perceived themselves as generally doomed, with no effective or workable solutions. They were frightened, but took little action.

In contrast, however, simple fall-out shelters did become popular, as people were instructed on their construction and believed that shelters would protect them. Installing a simple shelter was something that they could actually do.

During the 1964 campaign, Lyndon Johnson was probably successful in swaying voters with a television commercial, which portrayed a young girl being annihilated in a nuclear attack. The commercial linked (transferred) the threat of nuclear war to Barry Goldwater - Johnson's opponent. Johnson was presented to the voters as an effective, and viable way of avoiding the nuclear threat.

Pay attention to how that operated!

1. Goldwater was identified (perception control) as the threat. (emotional control)
2. The safety recommendation ("hope" solution) was not to vote for him.
3. The concept of "Americanism" (obligation) was used.

4. The target audience believed (trusted) in that solution.
5. The target audience was given a personal, easy and workable solution – which they believed in. (faith)
6. The election victory left the usual reward of political victory, and at least the illusion (tangible reward) of evading nuclear war.

History records that while the feared nuclear war might have been averted, the Viet Nam War pressed onward. Thus, "clarity of probable results" ends up being the responsibility of the masses, given that they are usually an unwitting ‘means to an end!’ Often, in politics, the decision is simply the lesser of two evils – as perceived. In the case of the Viet Nam War, the scammed "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" hadn’t been identified as to its corruption; praise be to the mass media!

Under the illusion of averting nuclear war, the American voters unwittingly enabled a ten-year war; costing 58,000 American lives, plus casualties, plus cost, plus….. The election "Timing" was everything.

To better illustrate these principles, look to a reversed case. During the summer of 2003, the Liberian crisis left thousands murdered and starving – yet, America barely noticed; WHY?

1. With little news coverage, Liberia was not effectively presented or identified (perception control) as an imminent or pertinent threat to Americans. (emotional control)
2. A specific safety recommendation was not cited. ("hope" solution)
3. The minimally targeted audience was not made to feel a sense of OBLIGATION.
4. The minimally targeted audience perception (trust) didn’t see any safety recommendation that would be effective.
5. The targeted audience did NOT have the perception/faith that they were (personally) responsible for, or capable of performing any particular recommended solution – with assured (faith) results.
6. There was too little tangible reward for the targeted audience – if they lived up to any actual or imposed moral [distant] OBLIGATION. Personal satisfaction was not be enough.

Certainly, in this case, many American churches did get involved, but not to the extent needed to meet the Liberian crisis.

In current politics, "fear" continues as a political device – emotional control. The tactic is simple; agitate public fear of terror, illegal immigration, or crime; proposing that the candidate will successfully reduce the threat. The issue almost gets comical in the sense of "My terror-bandwagon is bigger than your terror-bandwagon."

Such emotionally persuasive "fear" messages should trigger the following questions:

• Is the intent to prostitute an issue to get panic votes?

• Are the issues complete and factual, as presented?

• Is there an unreasonable exaggeration in the ‘fear’ or ‘threat’ issue?

• How pertinent or even legitimate is the cited ‘fear’ or ‘threat?’

• Will the proposed solution actually reduce the supposed threat?

• When viewed dispassionately, what are the independent merits of the proposal?

LOGICAL FALACY
Logic is utilized to draw a conclusion from one or more premises. A simple statement of fact (as opposed to a ‘conclusion’) should not be considered in the light of being either logical or illogical. The typical response to a ‘fact’ is to simply weigh the statement as true or false.

Most are familiar with the following argument:

• Premise 1: A cat is an animal.

• Premise 2: A dog is an animal

• Conclusion: A ‘cat’ and a ‘dog’ are one and the same creature.

Thus, good judgment and insight are required to wade through even a simple argument of logic. Imagine a celebrity getting asked the question, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes; or no!’ Hence the basis for the ‘logic’ of an argument needs to be effectively tested, in order to translate the basic terms; relative to the conclusion. The inherent rule being, ‘Verify the facts, define the terms; and test your assumptions.’

That’s not to say that correct conclusions require a long list of observations. Some are more heavily weighted than others. If one were to insist, ‘Give me ONE good reason to believe that 9-11 was an inside-job!’

The easy answer is,

• ‘One, there was no legitimate investigation.

• OR; two ‘ Anyone who got in the way of 9-11 was creamed.

• AND; three, the official ‘bad-guys’ were protected to the max; the Saudis. TAKE YOUR PICK!’

Inside of three observations, the conclusion is nearly impossible to evade. Add a fourth, for good measure -

‘NONE of the ‘official’ claims bear up under elementary scrutiny. The ‘official’ positions almost exclusively come up as nefarious lies.’

Obviously, a message or conclusion can be illogical without being propaganda or disinformation. What was the intent of the message or conclusion? Is a particular flaw simply the human experience of a logical mistake? The discovery of the intent is important, toward discovering whether or not a true disinformationist is involved.

It must be discovered whether or not there is the element of intent, with a deliberate manipulation of information/logic in order to promote a desired result. Particularly with respect to 9-11, it is important to distinguish whether the leaders are being scrutinized, versus the nation.

Assuming that propaganda is the intent, there are certain ‘classic’ methods to be aware of -
 

UNWARRANTED EXTRAPOLATIONS
Making major predictions on the basis of ‘limited’ or questionable - facts is a common mistake - or a methodical and deliberate logical fallacy. Often, passionate (emotional) assertions are injected, creating the illusion of factual information. The astute observer intuitively weighs the probability of the presentation as being fact, or fallacy.

With clever rhetoric and tone of voice, an absurd assertion takes on the character of being ‘persuasive.’ To use this tactic effectively, it becomes a matter of pushing one's case to the extreme limit. As a tactical decision, the effect can serve to force any opposition into a weaker ‘credibility’ position. To make a timely, passionate and persuasive assertion overpowers a responsible position of, ‘We don’t know; the facts haven’t been ascertained.’

In such a scenario, the immediate general assertion is up against the more responsible position. Timing and time, itself, is everything. A passionate ‘first-up’ position has a tremendous amount of psychological power. Any opposition is forced into a defensive light, finding a tough challenge to both establish the truth, while also illuminating any disinformationist position in a ‘false’ light. Once the public ‘invests’ in a liar, they will normally defend the liar, versus taking responsibility for their own gullibility.

An opportunistic assertion normally gains the advantage over a party challenged to disprove something which has not yet been absolutely proven or possibly not yet happened.

The 9-11 assertion was that America had been attacked by external terrorists; more was expected. Against the imagery of the 9-11 events, any opposing view was swimming up a high waterfall. The public ‘need-to-know’ was immediately satisfied by the al Qaeda references.

The assertions came with a style; in the case of 9-11, the ‘enemy’ was theoretically unknown. Yet, ‘magically’ Mohammed Atta’s passport was found on the streets of New York. Say, what anyone wants; but the ‘first-up’ position won.

Three years later, the events of 9-11-2001 continue to power the perceived ‘terror trend,’ despite the TOTAL lack of events since that day. In the style of the Nazi ‘Reichstag Fire,’ accusations are made, arrests are made, associations are made; but no factual attacks are witnessed. Even in the light of factual history, Bush maintains a continuous ‘National State of Emergency; (just in case). In the success of the PSYOPS, no one has protested after two years!

‘Extrapolation’ is what scientists label such predictions, with the advisory that extrapolation must be used with responsibility and caution. Imagine the driver who passes through a city, observing approximately four gas stations per mile. He exits the city, concluding that there must be plenty of gas all the way across the desert. NOT necessarily so!

Such logical sleights-of-hand are often prostituted as a basis for an effective ‘fear’ campaign. Think back to 9-11; despite an official denial of responsibility, a ‘poor-quality’ videotape portrayed a distant look-alike of Osama bin Laden confessing to the 9-11 strikes. When comparing side-by-side ‘known’ images of ‘Osama,’ the tape easily failed the test of reality. Yet, it was still successful ‘ and never officially questioned.

Consider a more contemporary example:

‘If Congress doesn’t pass additional terrorism legislation, giving the FBI more ‘investigative’ powers, America will slide down a slippery slope which will ultimately result in more ‘terror.’’ (The appeal doesn’t mention the ‘terror’ laws destroying the Constitution, and the creation of a totalitarian police state.)

When a message cites a particular action or inaction - as leading to either disaster or to utopia, it is prudent to ask the following questions:

• What is the intent of the message; what’s in the ‘fine print?’

• Is there enough valid data/information to support the predictions?

• Does the scope of the conclusions apply to the cited environment?

• Would a reasonable and objective person arrive at the same conclusion?

• Are there other reliable/valid forecasts as to how things might turn out?

• If there is a variety of conclusions which are viable, how does the particular position merit a higher level of probability?

Back to Contents

EXAMPLES

NEWT GINGRICH
This example was offered by IPA, as occurring somewhere more than ten years ago. However, it serves as a major indicator of the personal application of the better-known propaganda techniques. The Newt Gingrich political action committee (GOPAC) mailed a pamphlet entitled Language, A Key Mechanism of Control to his associated Republicans, earning the ‘Doublespeak Award’ by the National Conference of Teachers of English in 1990.

The booklet contained two lists of selected words. The interested parties were instructed to use one set of "positive, governing words," (sparkling generalities) when describing about themselves. A second set of negative words (name-calling words) were offered for use against their opponents.

The two lists can be generally described as being associated with the techniques of ‘sparkling generalities’ and ‘name-calling.’ In simple terms, the standard ‘We, against they.’

The Gingrich's lists suggests a scientifically selected list of powerful terms, such as ‘courage,’ ‘commitment,’ "vision,’ ‘lead,’ ‘learn,’ ‘empower, ‘ and ‘freedom." Obviously, these terms are common to many groups, including politicians. Forums such a radio and television call-in programs regularly use words such as ‘liberal,’ "ideological,’ ‘lie,’ ‘bureaucracy,’ ‘crisis,’ and ‘endanger’ to discredit certain personalities or ideas.

This is the list of the Gingrich "positive, governing words":

This is the list of negative words and phrases, to be directed at opponents.

• "Compassion" is not enough.

• Anti-(issue) flag, family, child, jobs

• Betray

• Coercion

• Collapse

• Consequences

• Corruption

• Crisis

• Decay

• Deeper

• Destroy

• Destructive

• Devour

• Endanger

• Failure

• Greed

• Hypocrisy

• Ideological

• Impose

• Incompetent

• Insecure

• Liberal

• Lie

• Limit(s)

• Pathetic

• Permissive attitude

• Self-serving

• Sensationalists

• Shallow

• Sick

• They/them

• Threaten

• Traitors

• Unionized bureaucracy

• Urgent

• Waste

MOTIVE, CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY
A common PSYOPS tactic is the personal attack. The observer is steered into the mistaken thought that ‘bad’ messengers always deliver ‘bad’ messages. When found, the intent of the attack is important, toward deciphering the central message. Very often the embedded message to the casual observer is ‘PLEASE - don’t look behind that curtain!’

Information normally stands by itself. Some information is documented, some is simply common sense. However, if a suspect source issues the information, the information automatically begs for independent corroboration.

The solution is to look for simple common sense approach. The statement -

"If one looks to the imagery of the WTC South Tower strike, noting the fireball, then looks to the Pentagon videotape & imagery of the damage, it’s academic that the Pentagon was NOT hit by a plane carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel."

- then one can compare the images & form their own conclusions. However, if the rebuttal is ‘

"All the witnesses said there was a plane, and there was black smoke typical of a jet fuel blaze, and the fire damage is well chronicled’’

- the hearsay directs the attention of an astute observer to investigate further. In that investigation, the photographic imagery clearly shows the ‘thick black smoke’ coming from an adjacent construction equipment vehicle; not anything to do with burning jet fuel, from within the Pentagon.

In a different example, if an addicted street hooker ‘ with a long criminal record - turns in a license plate number involved in a drive-by shooting, the car & owners must be tracked down forensically ‘ the hooker just saved the police a lot of footwork. If the forensics independently ‘make the crime,’ the character and/or motive of the informant is moot.

Imagine the hooker facing a jury, the defense attorney can attack her character all day. Yet, in the end, the jury is faced with judging the remaining forensic evidence, not her motive or past. If she gave a wrong license plate- via a revenge motive, the remaining forensic evidence won’t hold up.

Similarly, ‘good’ messengers don’t always deliver ‘good’ messages. For all the alleged Saudi funding of al Qaeda by Saudi Arabia, the U.S. President refuses to allow the public to know the facts. Nor does that President take any action against the Saudi interests. For all the legal and political power in the USA, the ‘protection’ goes without investigation or punishment.

Back to Contents