The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies

The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies

In 3 sections:

  • COINTELPRO - Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
  • Traits of the Disinformationalist
  • Rules of Disinformation

COINTELPRO - Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum…

There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it…BUT:

These techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM

Technique #1 - ‘FORUM SLIDING’

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by ‘forum sliding.’ In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to ‘age.’ Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a ‘forum slide.’

The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public.

To trigger a ‘forum slide’ and ‘flush’ the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then ‘replying’ to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting ‘slides’ down the front page, and quickly out of public view.

Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.

Technique #2 - ‘CONSENSUS CRACKING’

A second highly effective technique is ‘consensus cracking.’ To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting.

Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger ‘evidence’ or disinformation in your favour is slowly ‘seeded in.’

Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then ‘abort’ the consensus cracking by initiating a ‘forum slide.’

Technique #3 - ‘TOPIC DILUTION’

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a ‘RESOURCE BURN.’

By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a ‘gossip mode.’ In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion.

The less informed they are, the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to ‘drive in the wedge.’ By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Technique #4 - ‘INFORMATION COLLECTION’

Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a ‘show you mine show me yours’ posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered.

An example is to post your ‘favorite weapon’ and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon.

This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite ‘technique of operation.’ From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.

Technique #5 - ‘ANGER TROLLING’

Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking.

To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to ‘stage’ a fake abuse video.

This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to ‘lead’ the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you ‘do not care what the authorities think!!’ inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.

Technique #6 - ‘GAINING FULL CONTROL’

It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavorable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public.

This is the ‘ultimate victory’ as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline.

By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a ‘honey pot’ gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.

CONCLUSION

Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precedence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline.

This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.


Eight Traits of the Disinformationist

  1. Avoidance.
    They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

  2. Selectivity.
    They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

  3. Coincidental.
    They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

  4. Teamwork.
    They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

  5. Anti-conspiratorial.
    They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

  6. Artificial Emotions.

  • An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin – an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.

  • Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later – an emotional yo-yo.

  • With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game – where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

  1. Inconsistent.
  • There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

  • I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

  1. Time Constant.
  • Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

  • ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

  • When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.

  • In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.


Rules of Disinformation

  1. 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.

  2. Create rumor mongers.
    Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.

  3. Use a straw man.
    Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to 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.

  4. Sidetrack 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 ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

  5. Hit and Run.
    In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning – simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

  6. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to 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.

  7. Invoke authority.
    Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

  8. Play Dumb.
    No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

  9. Associate opponent charges 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 - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.

  • 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 then 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.

  1. 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, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

  1. Enigmas have no solution.
    Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, 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.

  2. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
    Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

  3. Demand complete solutions.
    Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

  4. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
    This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.’

  8. 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, it may be required that 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.

  1. 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.
15 Likes

Some good information there. And good for all to consider

3 Likes

I think it would be good to mention the original source of the text.

8 Likes

Great study material, I will take a second read later in the day.
Not weird enough, while reading this a few nicknames from this forum suddenly popped out of my imagination. How many of these are between us?

2 Likes

Yes, dates back to 1964:

Best selling non-fiction book of the 1960s and spent over 100 weeks on the New York Times Best Seller List. Introducing his theory of Transactional Analysis to the population at large. Games People Play by Psychiatrist Dr. Eric Berne uncovered the dynamics of human relationships.

Examples, “I’m Only Trying to Help You”, “Why Don’t You – Yes But” or IWFY:

This unfortunate adventure, along with similar ones, laid out some important aspects of her marriage. Out of her many suitors, she had picked a domineering man for a husband. She was then in a position to complain that she could do all sorts of things “it if weren’t for you.” Many of her woman friends had domineering husbands, and when they met for their morning coffee, they spent a good deal of time playing “If It Weren’t For Him.”

3 Likes

Be careful, it seems the original document was from 2012:

The Gentleman’s Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)

Me mentioning that other book in this forum is not listed in there.

For instance, “Disinformation rule” #10:

– Associate opponent charges with old news.

Let me assure you, does not apply.

1 Like

Ok. what’s your rebuttal concerning AI chatting with you? Are you too biased to consider that tactic?

I believe so (well somewhat). Its more to do with approaching launch and groups that do not like that might engage in some of the above activities in an attempt to disrupt.

1 Like

Considering this forum is NOT about rights, I still think you are missing the point

In a way, old hat as well, for instance ELIZA dates from 1964 too.
Executed the DOCTOR script (heading is also a functioning link):

Eliza emulates a Rogerian psychotherapist

> Hello, I am Eliza. 
* Wrong number 
> Don't you ever say Hello?

Trust it to come back with the same answer as in this example each time.

1 Like

It used to come up some some interesting responses. Mucked around with it a couple of times when i went through Uni. But at a $1 per second of CPU time, it was not much at all.

OK. Been there, done that:

Talk to Transformer

Built by Adam King (@AdamDanielKing) as an easier way to play with OpenAI’s new machine learning model. In February, OpenAI unveiled a language model called GPT-2 that generates coherent paragraphs of text one word at a time.

Invites me to “Type at the custom prompt” saying “See how a modern neural network completes your text”:

The Gentleman’s Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)

It then returns as generated “Completion”:

[This post is written by a female. Her real name is Elizabeth G. Lee and she is the author of the book Spooks: The FBI, Federal Agents & the Rest of Their Gangs. Click here to read it.]

And on posting what you posted:

Please update for advances like gpt-2.04.

It had an artificial reply to that as follows:

(see the new version in this thread)

I am unable to find this issue with my Dell Inspiron M3850 and M4220:

[…]

Can anyone provide any links to more specific information regarding the various components of a Windows Server 2008 R2 server?

I have had these issues but they seem to be fixed in Windows 8. I’m trying to build something that works

Too long to read? Just typing:

tl;dr

Causes ‘Transformer’ to come up with:

General Summary


The following paragraphs describe the process the United States Office for Civil Rights, the Department of Justice (DOJ) used when deciding whether or not to investigate and decide whether or not to prosecute alleged violations of the laws that the DOE enforces. These procedures ensure that the DOJ, with input from the FBI, the FBI, the US Marshals Service, and other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, takes the necessary steps to ensure that law enforcement agencies are acting within the law and to protect the privacy of persons and entities, including federal agencies, who are subject to investigation.

1 Like

Then start a topic in #off-topic
This topic is about the issues of people maybe in future joining the forum with the purpose of hurting the project and/or the public’s perception of the project.

It is not a spy drama or human rights topic.

Within the constraints of my limited understanding, time and ability to follow there have been a couple times when it seemed there were people possibly intentionally trying to sway SAFE in a negative direction.

  1. Gubenator and the OpenBazarr crew kept trying to get SAFE to abandon GPL3 and go with something more proprietary and black box. They got really nasty and ideological about it.

  2. If I’ve understood there is a member presently arguing for opening the price of SAFE coin to market speculators. They keep arguing the actual coin price has to be subject to free market mechanisms or currency speculation. Seems like arguing that blood pressure needs to be subject to speculators.

I always imagine or hallucinate that people are trying to turn SAFE into something top down that will subtly disempower end users especially through interfaces, control over end user devices or the coin in ways that result in censorship and make SAFE into less of a clear net replacement.

I am concerned people will find some sophisticated subtle way to make SAFE miss the mark and keep it from having a critical impact. That people may try to bloat and delay the project or outright side track it because I do believe it is a huge threat because of the transparency it will bring to the unjustifiable rent seeking in the world. And I worry that opponents stuck in triaging their own vast but still limited resources will begin to prioritize the destruction of the project as launch approaches. For instance they may get more aggressive with p2p crack downs before SAFE is able to scale and lock them out of messing with real p2p- the kind we’ve never seen before. The new EU copyright provisions seem to have a phone home aspect which would allow them pretense to say the SAFE client is forbidden etc.

1 Like

I deleted my postings as you saw them as noise or off topic. I see that the user Warren has echoed a few of my personal concerns. Warren articulated in a better fashion than I. So my postings will remain deleted as my intention is anything but a desire to distract from this threads issue. I will always post from the viewpoint that no encryption is no balance. No privacy is no balance. I would hope that does add to the discussion on how to spot “Forum Spies”.

Where did you get his from? Can you post the source please.

:point_up_2: [20 characters]

1 Like

Well - not really helping but I saw pretty much exactly this post/content somewhere browsing Tor hidden services a few years back :face_with_monocle: :man_shrugging: so maybe just using torch with some of the phrases might point you to the/a source

@JPL already gave someone else the finger to point him to a link to the possible origin given earlier:

The Gentleman’s Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)

Taken from that Pastebin-page under “Rules of Disinformation”:

18. 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)

1 Like