25 Rules of Disinformation – Kerodin’s playbook

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 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 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” which can have no basis in fact.
22 more rules of disinformation HERE

Now if he would just invoke Rule 25…..

This entry was posted in Blog and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to 25 Rules of Disinformation – Kerodin’s playbook

  1. HAHAHAHA Here’s a few standouts,
    5. 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 deviants”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

    Free Shit Army, Racist, NeoNazi, Commie, cunt….etc

    7. 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.

    Who hasn’t he accused us of working for?

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

    Remember, he represents “Serious III”

    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.

    Fortunately, people can judge the facts we present for themselves, because our facts trump his spin.

    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.

    Mullinex, Tonedeaf, LT…. The complete III Person Society

    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.”

    ‘Nuff said

    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.

    Judicial findings much?

    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.

    How many people has he threatened, or implied threats towards?

    The bottom line is that he is obviously just one of many (that’s why this list exists). He’ll make accusations, and we’ll show facts.

    • gamegetterII says:

      I think the facts about the scams,personal attacks,and lack of completed projects is now becoming common knowledge- and Scammy provides a lot of the material himself. He’s his own worst enemy.

  2. gamegetterII says:

    By the way-what happened to the “outside audit” that was gonna prove scammy wasn’t supporting himself and the Akita whisperer with IIIPSFA dues money? And/or otherwise enriching himself via IIIPSFA dues/donations/contributions?

  3. idahobob says:

    Fuck sammy secret squirrel.

    Fucking douche nozzle.


  4. From now on, when you mention Rule 25, we will know what you mean. And who!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *