Today is October 6th, 2021. The Twitter account @therealninjabob responded to Godyssey’s post by asking if they had “heard of the missed 1000 years new chronology theory”. Godyssey tweeted back saying they weren’t sure and then asked “ninjabob” what it was. Hours had gone by and no response was made, so I chimed in to briefly summarize Fomenko’s New Chronology. I did this because in the last 5 years that I’ve been looking into “new chronologies”, I’ve only ever seen FNC being credited as the source of the “missing 1000 years” idea.
Bob was not happy with my response and told me “Hey, crazy person..no one asked you. You’re ludicrous proposition has nothing to do with the theory I’m talking about. Mind ya business”. Leaving Bob’s insult and poor grammar aside, I asked him “Who’s New Chronology are you talking about?”. Instead of clarifying, he blocked me.
This short interaction prompted me to look back over an article titled “Information about Shills and Disinformation online. Recovered from Bobby Garner’s “Congregator.net” via the Wayback Machine“. This was posted on my friend S. B. Alger’s blog on Feb. 1st, 2021. He shared it with me after a different Twitter discussion about FNC went south. He expressed to me that he thought maybe the person was a disinformationalist. According to Alger, the article is almost entirely copy and pasted from an older post originally made by Bobby Garner.
The article has two parts. The first part discusses “25 rules of disinformation” and was last updated in 2001. The second part discusses “8 traits of the disinformationalist”. I found one or both of these parts posted on a number of webpages and so here I present a collection of some of those. All of these were accessed by me on Oct. 6th, 2021:
1 – http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page4.htm
2 – (S.B.’s article) http://www.sewneo.net/2021/02/information-about-shills-and.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR2s4C8ODq3ehTQjwqWkfvO87_Ztsdg0i0KpvBMQegzgx8z1dp0sJ0d6BHU
3 – https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2019/06/twenty-five-ways-to-suppress-truth-the-rules-of-disinformation-h-michael-sweeney-1997-2001/
4 – http://pressreform.blogspot.com/p/twenty-five-rules-of-disinformation.html
5 – http://newworldordersurvival.yolasite.com/25-rules-of-disinformation.php
The expanded lists are covered in more detail in the original publication. Here I list the concise lists and then discuss some of them in the “Commentary” section of this article.
25 Disinfo Rules
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
8 Disinformationalist Traits
6. Artificial Emotions
8. Time Constant
I think there are people who engage in the above actions wittingly and unwittingly. Some people know full well they are trying to avoid the topic at hand, while others are not be aware what they are doing. I also think that some of the “rules” might not qualify as “disinformation rules”. For example, #7 is “question motives”. Context is key. Questioning motives is an important part of determining someone’s reasons for doing what they’re doing. If motives haven’t been stated, it’s worth asking what the person’s motives are. If they have been stated, it might be worth asking if the person’s actions align with what they say their motives are.
I don’t think any of these rules or traits (in the proper context) have a place in academic/professional discussions.
#5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
Possibly this is what the person in my opening story tried to do. If so, it didn’t work because I ignored it to focus on what I saw as more important, that being determining which new chronology was being mentioned. Possibly blocking me could be considered Rule #6, the hit and run.
#8. Invoke authority.
This reminds me of the University of South Florida’s PhD History student Angela L. Costello’s response to me when I asked her a few questions on Twitter. The question was avoided, some type of authority on the subject was insinuated, and also attempt to ridicule me was made. She engaged in #7 too by questioning my motives. As if my questions were asked for some reason other than to see what she had to say.
The number one trait that I see is #1, “avoidance”. This happens when I ask direct questions and those get ignored.
I think teamwork is a good thing and so the context of how the team is working together is important. Therefore teamwork can be a trait of disinformationalist, but it’s also a trait of honest people who work with others.
It’s interesting you got blocked, and with such speed. We get the same treatment regularly. It would seem the divide is no longer between orthodoxy and crazies — who have worked out their own demarcation and rarely bother one another — but between minor revisionism and radical revisionism.
It happens, people can block who they want. For someone so hostile, it wasn’t too surprising.
Who’s the “we” in your second sentence?
Also divides exist anywhere difference exists. Orthodox vs unorthodox, minor vs major revisionist, etc
Harriet Vered gets banned on Twitter and Facebook, I get the bum’s rush more from forums. Individuals — whether academics or crazies — tend to reply politely first time and pull the plug when we don’t go away. I disagree about divides existing. That presupposes an underlying unity that has been ruptured. All I see is armed camps wandering around. C-truth does, I agree, provide a decent road map but only at the price of non-committal. A good question to ask is, “OK, they banned me, fair enough, but would I have banned them?”
What is the decent road map of that Ctruth provides? How is non-committal its price?
You provide lists of sources that would not, in my experience, appear elsewhere i.e they include both academic and crazy ones. Imagine, for instance, Fomenko being on a university reading list, even if it is a historiography course. I don’t suppose you regard ‘non-committal’ as being a price but from my perspective I would prefer you take a more judgemental approach. You must realise nobody can possibly devote enough time to even browse such extensive listings so a bit of bish-boshery from you would be welcome. Though this does not apply to this particular thread, a model of its kind, though each of ‘the traits’ requires a short essay. We go in for this kind of thing on the AEL but not very systematically.
You think nobody can devote enough time to browse the listings on my website?
A more judgmental approach on what exactly?
What do you mean by bish-boshery? Maybe I can add some
Blimey, I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition. It is not the completeness of the listings that is at issue but the lack of guidance from you as to which ones to arrow into. Or ‘bish-boshery’ to use the technical term.