Terrorist – Just a Word


Somebody sent this to me yesterday. The guys voice and timing is perfect and the words hit the ground with a hollow haunting lilt.

‘Terrorist’ – Just a Word.

Just a Word

‘Terrorist’ is just a word, one I wish I’d never heard

When it’s used to vilify, without the need to question why

Only fools would swift condemn, that which has not befallen them

Until you know what lies behind, the actions of a tortured mind

Thank your God for sparing you, the suffering others have lived through

Where are the cries of just demand, for Arabs driven from their land?

Blame the victim, turn the cheek, praise the bully, kick the weak!

Mock the man who truth does speak

Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy, greed, corruption, torture, lies!

Blair invasion, sly persuasion, annihilation, massacred nation

Keep on running, karma’s coming!

Money talks, truth walks, oil spills, greed kills

Tide is turning, London’s burning!

Bombs will fall and blood will flow, as sure as my own name I know

Until corrupt dictators go, brutal, rotten, to the core

Their day has come, they rule no more

Show me the man who will not fight, to save his child, his home, his right!

You can call him what you like, you’re not in his sorry plight

Cowards stay and Martyrs go, I know not where, but this I know

Speak your truth and stand your ground, fight your corner

When all around, point the finger, purse the lips, pin the label, ‘Terrorist’!

Just a word, but one that sticks, even when the cap don’t fit

But for the grace of God go I, remember that, before you cry

False accusation, names of shame, at those who may not be to blame,

Their crime, refused to play the game, of meek acceptance, dumbing down,

Your life, your choice; Warrior / Clown

Mhara Costello 22nd August 2011

Published on 7 May 2013

Spies in your Forum? A Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)

I came across this paste bin on my travels and it has some very interesting and useful advice in it. Where as the piece I posted “Infiltrators, Informers and Grasses.How, why and what to do if your group is targeted”  http://wp.me/p3Celi-2H  was about the physical infiltration into groups and movements this is more about the virtual world of activism.
1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
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. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a ‘uncontrolled forum.’
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.
A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at http://www.abovetopsecret.com) 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.
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 so 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 ‘favourite 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.
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 unfavourable 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.
Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. 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 precidence 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.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
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 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.
4. 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.
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 deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. 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.
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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
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, 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.
12. 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.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which 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 with issues 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. Vanish 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, 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.
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 a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (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 own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. 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.
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 destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
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.
7) 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.
8) 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:
a) 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.
b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, 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.
c) 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.
How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?
1) The message doesn’t get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.
FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.
Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.
Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.
The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.
This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.
It is the agent’s job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.
In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:
“You’re dividing the movement.”
[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]
This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of “dedication to the cause.” Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she – being truly dedicated to the movement – becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that “on purpose.” It’s amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: “they did that unconsciously… they didn’t really mean it… I can help them by being forgiving and accepting ” and so on and so forth.
The agent will tell the activist:
“You’re a leader!”
This is designed to enhance the activist’s self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.
This is “malignant pseudoidentification.” It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist’s identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist’s vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.
Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.
The goal of the agent is to increase the activist’s general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist’s self-concepts.
The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of “twinship”. It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.
The activist’s “felt quality of perfection” [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim’s own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is “mirroring” them.
The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that “twinship alliances” between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally “lose touch with reality.”
Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be “helpers” endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.
Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist’s narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.
The agent’s expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.
It can usually be identified by two events, however:
First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being “emotionally hooked,” will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.
As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that “the play has ended, the curtain has fallen,” and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.
The fact is, the movement doesn’t need leaders, it needs MOVERS. “Follow the leader” is a waste of time.
A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.
Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:
1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.
Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.
Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ….
1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
Cool Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone’s time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist’s work.
1) Want to establish “leaders” to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.
1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.
Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.
Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.
ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.
At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!
Scare Tactics
They use them.
Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up “exposure,” they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.
This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.
If an agent is “exposed,” he or she will be transferred or replaced.
COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.
The FBI counterintelligence program’s stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. “National Security” means the FBI’s security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people’s civil liberties.
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.
1. Dummy up. If it’s not reported, if it’s not news, it didn’t happen.
2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you?” gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to believe the “rumors” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)
4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “skeptics” to shoot down.
6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as “old news.”
9. Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster “suicide” note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven’t reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.
15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges “expose” scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

Who the fuck is John Beddington and why isn’t he a household name?

Who is John Beddington ?

Let me give you a little back ground to this man and why we should all know his name.

Sir John Rex Beddington, CMG, FRS. (born 13 October 1945)is Professor of Applied Population Biology at Imperial College London and until last year (2013) was the UK Government Chief scientific Adviser.

Employed by Gordon Brown was awarded The prestigious Heidelberg Award for Environmental Excellence for his contributions into Fish Conservation and Management. Recently he was Adviser to the House of Lords Sub-committee on Fish Conservation and Management.

Whilst in the position of Government Chief scientific Adviser he advised the government on the Swine Flu outbreak in 2009, in 2010 the Volcanic Ash incident, and the emergency at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011.

So all in all he is pretty up there as far as being in the know and I would say what he has to say is quiet important. (Unless you are a conspiracy type on either side). This is a report I came across that proved some very uncomfortable reading and for all his specialised knowledge I think this is why we should know who this man is and should be listening to what he is saying….


By John Beddington CMG FRS

Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government

Government Office For Science

Kingsgate House

66-74 Victoria street





There is an intrinsic link between the challenge we face to ensure food security through the 21st century and other global issues, most notably climate change, population growth and the need to sustainably manage the worlds rapidly growing demand for energy and water. It is predicted that by 2030 the world will need to produce 50% more food and energy, together with 30% more available fresh water, whilst mitigating and adapting to climate change. This threatens to create a “perfect storm” of global events. Science and technology can make a major contribution, by  providing practical solutions. Securing this contribution requires that high priority be attached both to research and to facilitating the real word deployment if existing and emergent technologies. On food, we need a new, “greener revolution”. Techniques and technologies from many disciplines, ranging from biotechnology and engineering to newer fields such as nanotechnology, will be needed. On water, managing and balancing supply and demand for water across sectors requires a range of policy and technology solutions. Meeting the demand for energy, while mitigating and adapting to climate change, will require a mix of behavioural change and technological solutions.



 After 20 years if low food commodity prices, the price shock of 2007/08 brought agriculture, food production and food security sharply back into thelimelight.

Wheat and maize prices peaked at around triple their early 2005 levels, with an even higher peak in rice prices (IMF 2008). High commodity prices quicly fed through into increased costs to consumers in developed and developing countries alike (FAO 2008), escalating to civil unrest in some, ranging from strikes in Italy to riots in Haiti

Whilst food prices have now stabilised we should avoid being complacent (current stocks of cereals are at a 40 year low, which implies continued uncertainty). The predicted increase in demand for food, energy and water in the next 20 years, driven by the growing population coming out of poverty will ultimately put pressure on food prices. This is described below.


Population increase and urbanisation

Global population is set to increase to around 9 billion by mid-century, rising at a rate of 6 million people per month, with Africa’s population alone projected to double from 1 billion to 2 billion  (UNPD 2006) during this period. This continued population increase combines with other transformational change, particularly in the developing world as people move from rural livelihoods to cities, cities that will need to be serviced with food, water and energy. Half the world’s population now live in cities, a figure projected to rise to 60% by 2030 (UNPD 2007). It is estimated that there will be 29 cities with greater than 10 million inhabitants in 2025, up from 19 today. Half of these new “megacities” will be in Asia.

Economic changes

Population increase will be coupled to increasing prosperity. Economic advances projected for the developing world will help lift millions out of poverty, but in other respects will add to the challenges. As incomes rise in developing and middle income countries, people eat more meat and dairy products causing rapid growth in demand for agriculture commodities to feed livestock. Strong growth in demand over the past few decades has been driven particularly by rising consumption in China and Brazil, and the future trend is likely to be strongly influenced also by the extent of income growth in India and sub-Saharan Africa, where per captia meat consumption is still low  (FAO 2003) 

Rising demand for food, energy, water and land

The FAO projects total crop and livestock demand and production will rise by around 40% between 2008 and 2030 ie a yearly increase of 1.5% (figure 1). However, this overall figure conceals a larger increase in meat demand (FAO 2006, UNPD 2006). The World Bank predicts a 50% rise in cereals demand compared with an 85% increase for meat between 2000 and 2030 (World Bank 2008). Other assessments predict a doubling of meat demand by 2050 (Beintema 2008). The overall projected rate of demand growth is lower than in previous decades (FAO 2006, IPCC 2007), but must be met within the greater constraints on land water and energy use outlined below.


 Energy demand is projected to increase by 45% between 2006 and 2030, based on the IFA’s reference scenario (IFA 2008) Biofuels for transport and biomass for heat and electricity will be used to meet some of this demand, leading to greater competition for land and crops between energy and food markets (Mitchell 2008). The majority of this energy demand rise is predicted taking place in the non-OECD, notably China and India, proportionally, through the use of coal (Figure 2)



 Today, 1.2 billion people live in areas already affected by water scarcity, and this figure is projected to increase as global water demand rises (IWMI 2007). Water demand is a function of population, incomes, diets and the extent of irrigated agriculture, leading to a wide range of projections into the 2020s and the 2050s (IWMW 2007, Shen 2008, Shiklomanoc 2000). It has been estimated based on mid-range population scenarios, that demand for water for agriculture could rise by over 30% by 2030, while modelling based in the IPCC’s SRES scenarios suggest that total global water demand will rise by 35- 60% between 2000 and 2025 (Chatres 2008, Shen 2008). Figure 3 shows the predicted global water withdrawal levels between 1995 and 2025.


Agriculture is by far the largest user of water world-wide, at around 70% of total supplies (FAO 2007). The agriculture sector will increasingly need to compete with the world growing cities for water. As a result, it is unlikely that water will remain a free commodity in the future. It seems inevitable that demand for land will progressively increase, both for food production and linked to the urbanisation and enrgy trends noted above (IWMI 2007) This growing competition and concern can be illustrated by increased purchaces of land in the developing world by some countries with hot and dry climates, such as Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and China. Multinational companies are also investing in agricultural land. The challenge for global agriculture is to grow more food on not much more land, using less water, fertiliser and pesticides than we have historically done.

Climate Change

The backdrop against which these demands must be met is one of rising global temperatures, impacting on our water, food and ecosystems in all regions, and with extreme weather events becoming both more severe and more frequent. rising sea levels and flooding will hit hardest in the mega-deltas, which are important for food production and will impact too on water quality for many. Oceans will become warmer, more acidic, less diverse and over exploited. The ocean acts as a reservoir for carbon dioxide, but the resulting increase in acidity, seriously impact ocean food webs and ecosystems, on which many of the worlds poor are dependent (Figure 4). Continued over-fishing is expected to further pressure these delicate resources.




Even since the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, new evidence suggests that climate change is impacting the real world faster than the models predicted, and global greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise at the high end of projections. For example, in 2007 the IPCC concluded that large parts of the Arctic were likely to be ice-free in the summer by the end of the 21st century. Record lows in sea ice extent in 2007 and 2008, combined with other evidence on ice thinning and age, have caused scientist to radically review these estimates, with some analyses now suggesting the Arctic may be near ice free by 2030 (Figures 5 & 6). This has major implications not just for the Arctic region alone but for the world as a whole, as strong positive feedbacks effects are expected to drive climate changes even faster.




The need is both to mitigate climate change and to adapt to that which it is to late already to avoid is clear. It has been suggested that global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by at least 50-60% by 2050 compared to current levels. The UK’s target to reduce emissions by 80% on that timescale means that all sectors must make a major contribution, achieving steps changes in past performance.



Science and technology has long been a major driver for UK and global prosperity, and has helped meet the ever in creasing demand for energy, food, and commodities. Global food production has more than doubled in the past 40 years, despite an 8% increase in the use of land for agriculture since the 1960’s (IPCC 2007)/. Much of the success over this period can be attributed to technological and process innovations, such as the introduction of chemical pesticides, fertilisers, irrigation and crop improvement though breeding. Science and technology must play a leading role in meeting increasing demand over the coming decades in a sustainable manner. Scientific evidence also underpins the range of domestic policies and international agreements needed. On food, we need a new, “greener revolution”. Important areas for focus include: crop improvement to increase yields and tolerance to stresses such as droughts; smarter use of water and fertilisers:new pesticides and their effective management to avoid resistance problems: introduction of non-chemical approaches to crop protection: reduction of post harvest losses; and more sustainable livestock and marine production. Techniques and technologies from many disciplines, ranging from biotechnology and engineering to newer field such as nanotechnology, will be needed. On water, managing and balancing supply and demand for water across sectors requires a range of policy and technological solutions. Agriculture water use efficiency can be improved through the development of drought resistance crops and the use of low cost and efficient drip irrigation systems by small farmers. Solutions for water storage, such as underground reservoirs, will be needed, particularly in areas where climate is expected to radically alter river flow patterns through melting of glaciers and changes in precipitation. In the home, recycling of domestic “grey water”  will be needed to reduce consumption. Meeting demand for energy while mitigating climate change will require a mix of behavioural change and technological solutions. Renewable, carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy technologies are the options to de-carbonise electricity generation – which the Climate Change Committee estimates must be largely achieved within around two decades, but innovative technologies and processes will also be needed to radically reduce emissions from transport, buildings and industry, and increase the efficiency of energy use throughout the economy.


The growing global population coming out of poverty will create an increased demand for food which will need to be produced on not much moreland, using less water, fertilisers and pesticides than we have historically done. Through the 21st century this is achievable, but must be tackled coherently with other global challenges of climate change and energy, food and water security. It is predicted that by 2030 the world will need to produce around 50% more food and energy, together with 30% more fresh water, whilst mitigating and adapting to climate change. This threatens to create a “Perfect Storm” of global events (Figure 7) The Key questions for policy makers and scientists are these:

  • Can 9 billion people be fed equitably, healthily and sustainably?
  • Can we cope with future demands on water
  • Can we provide enough energy to supply the growing population coming out of poverty
  • Can we do all this whilst mitigating and adapting to climate change?

These issues are inextricably linked. Science has contributed greatly in the past to finding solutions, and it can do so into the future if the investments are made. A new greener revolution can be built on the foundations of the first green revolution, but we will need to fully explore the range of science and technology opportunities at our disposal in the 21st century in order to overcome the greater constraints. The vital contribution from science will not happen by default.






Beintema N, Bossio D, Dreyfus F, Fernandez M, Gurib-Fakim A, Hurni H, Izac AM, Jiggins

J Kranjac-Berisavljevic G, Leakey R, Ochola W, Osman-Elasha B, Plencovich C, Roling N,

Rosegrant M, Rosenthal E, Smith L, 2008, Global Summary for Decision Makers,

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for

Development (IAASTD), http://www.agassessment.org, accessed 29/01/08

Chatres C, 2008, Invest in water for farming or the world will go hungry, Daily Monitor:


FAO, 2003, World agriculture towards 2015/2030, Rome, Italy: FAO

FAO, 2006, World agriculture towards 2030/2050, Rome, Italy: FAO

FAO Global Perspective Studies Unit, 2007, State of Food and Agriculture 2007, Rome,

Italy: FAO

FAO, 2008, Crop Prospects and Food Situation, 3, July 2008, Rome, Italy: FAO

IEA, 2008, World Energy Outlook 2008, Paris, France: International Energy Agency

IMF, 2008, IMF primary commodity prices, Washington, D.C.: IMF

available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.asp

IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P.

IWMI, 2007, Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water

Management in Agriculture, Ed. David Molden, London, UK: Earthscan

IWMI, 2007, Water for Food, Water for Life, ed David Molden, London: Earthscan, and

Colombo: IWMI

Mitchell, D, 2008, A Note on rising food prices, World Bank Policy Research Working paper

Series, No. 4682, New York, NY: World Bank.

Shen Y, Oki T, Utsumi, N, Kanae S, Hanasaki N, 2008, Projection of future world water

resources under SRES scenarios: water withdrawal, Hydrological Sciences 53 (1) p.11-33

Shiklomanov, I. 2000. Appraisal and Assessment of World Water Resources. Water

International 25 (1): 11–32.

UNPD, 2006, World population projections, the 2006 revision, New York, NY: United Nations

Population Division

UNPD, 2007, World urbanisation prospects, the 2007 revision, New York, NY: United

Nations Population Division

World Bank, 2008, Annual World Development Report, New York, NY: World Bank

Not a typical New Years Eve

So  it’s New Years eve and I found myself sat in the pub in the depths of Summers Town. Surrounded buy Celtic paraphernalia, Hurling teams and of course the Rugby team , Men in one room and women in the other. Children sitting off away, bored of adult shenanigans and a few bar stool republicans. It was so 1990’s minus the smoke. It was a pub you knew you could discuss business and business was discussed.

We were all gathering to take part in Global Noise demo for Prisoner Solidarity. This is an event inspired by the North American call for a day of action in solidarity with prisoners and against the prison system, which itself has long been a symbol of struggle against our oppressors. Private prisons and capitalist companies running these institutes, they who make money out of the incarceration of our brothers and sisters have to be brought under some form of control. Recent reports from the Prison Inspection team show a reoccurring system of abuse against a large part of our population including, mentally ill, vulnerable,  and the largest numbers of minors after the USA. Prisoners all over the world are routinely raped, abused, tortured and kept in the most inhuman conditions. This has to stop.

The first event was held on New Years Eve 2010/2011 and again on New Years Eve 2011/2012 and is growing each year in numbers. This year we went to Pentonville Prison and wished them Happy New year with our pots and pans, horns and whistles. The boys in the cells started to flash their lights and bang the windows and began to chant along with us. After an hour we moved on to Holloway Women’s Prison. We chanted Happy New year and made our selves heard………


Solidarity to every man, woman and child incarcerated by the state. This act of terrorism is archaic and should be abolished. Humanity over profit !!!!