Category Archives: Guest Writers

NIL BY MOUTH

Please don’t add to an ongoing shit show, by showing your support (or donating any cash) for the following ‘Campaign’….

It is just another slush fund to line the pockets of Brian “Jesus” Gerrish, and all you are doing by supporting this, is preventing Melanie from getting justice, and undoubtably prolonging her obvious suffering.

The UK Column and the rest of the Alt Media parasites, need to be stopped from billboarding ‘celebrity’ and high profile cases simply to fund their own lavish life styles.

Fake help is no help whatsoever.

If you are at all concerned, then you can help by ensuring that Melanie Shaw receives the mental health help she clearly needs -before it is too late.

No real justice has ever resulted from UK columns involvement in cases of this type.

Ever!

PLEASE DO NOT FEED A SELF SERVING ORGANISATION BASED AROUND PROMOTING INJUSTICE AND ASKING FOR YOUR MONEY.

Note: All donations care of UK column on behalf of Melanie Shaw, only go towards continuing Melanie’s suffering and them profiting from it.

*Courtesy of Flo Destroyer*


FURTHER READING:

BATS OUT OF HELL ….

TWENTY FIVE WAYS

The following article expands upon ‘Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression’ by David Martin, and what it contains may prove helpful to anyone who not only values the truth, but has grown sick of the endless lies, and the disinformation being disseminated, both online and in the mass media – and wishes to identify instances of when the truth is being suppressed.

Whenever an instance of ‘wickedness in high places’ is revealed, or any publicized event in the mass media, for example, becomes subject to the inevitable cries of ‘Conspiracy’ in certain quarters, it is, for the average person, notoriously difficult to ascertain where the truth actually lies.

If said event is in any way suspicious, or does not appear how it has been presented, by the mass media for instance, there is a fair chance that there is a disinformation campaign, launched against those attempting to find the truth, running alongside it.

I am not saying that every single event that has been, and is currently being reported upon in the mass media is a ‘False Flag’, but there are almost certainly some events that have been ‘staged’ or ‘made to happen’ for any number of reasons (more often than not with a political motive).

There are specific tactics which professional (or even amateur) disinformation artists tend to apply, and hopefully, there will be a number of points in this article which will be helpful in identifying both those responsible for disseminating the disinformation, and indeed their motives for doing so.

It may also be helpful to understand, that when genuine seekers of the truth are attempting to navigate any available information, they will always try to present facts, and will construct their argument based on that, as well as any solid evidence that they have been able to discover.

It should also be noted that this can be a largely experimental process, although it may be based on careful observation and meticulous research, there is also a degree of trial and error involved, so is therefore extremely vulnerable to attack, and when any disinformation artist worth their wages can do the greatest harm.

Some, if not all of these 25 rules can be observed everywhere, in the mass media, through political debate, on television shows, the internet via websites, forums and social media through to what appear to be innocuous and random comments on a blog.

Keep your eyes and ears open, and continue to question everything.

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth

The Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney.

© 1997 All Rights Reserved

Permission to reprint/distribute this information hereby granted for any non commercial use, provided the information is reproduced in its entirety and with author information intact.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it – especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant.

Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme.

This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumour mongers.

Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as simply being rumours and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent media, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumours”. If you can weigh up the material against what can be found on the Internet, use this to certify it as a “wild rumour” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man.

Find or create an element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack any opponents with name calling and ridicule.

This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “nutter”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “racist”, “fascist”, “terrorist”, “conspiracy theorist”, “radical”, “militiant”, “religious fanatics”, “paedophiles”, “Paedo protectors” and so forth. This makes others back away from supporting anyone out of fear of gaining the same label, and therefore, avoid dealing with the issues.

6. Hit and Run.

On any publicly accessible forum, make a brief attack on the opponent or the opponent’s position, and then run away before a response can be fielded, or simply ignore the answer. This works extremely well on the Internet and in letters-to-the-editor environments, where a steady stream of new (‘Sock’) identities can be called upon, without having to explain criticism or reasoning – simply make an accusation or launch another type of attack, never discuss the issues, and never respond to any subsequent responses, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives.

Twist or amplify any fact which could imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority.

Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and clever words to illustrate you are “someone who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating why, or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb.

No matter what evidence or logical argument is presented, avoid discussing the issues with denial, claim that they have no credibility, claim they do not make any sense, claim they do not provide proof, claim they make no point, claim they have no logic, or do not support any conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate your opponent with old news.

A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues – so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.

Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution.

Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime or event, and the multitude of players, and paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.

Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions.

Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.

This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses.

If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject.

Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.

If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.

This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence.

Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call for an Inquiry, a Grand Jury, a Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.

Subvert any process to your benefit, and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you control the prosecuting lawyer, it can insure a Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and becomes unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth.

Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions.

If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics.

If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish.

If you are a key holder (Gatekeeper) of secrets or are otherwise getting unwanted attention, and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, leave the kitchen.