6 ways corporations and governments deal with opponents
Thursday 24 February 2011, 12.01am HKT
I’ve decided to redact this post since the time of my drafting it because (a) I’m a lawyer by training and I don’t want to give the game away, (b) this is stuff learnt the hard way in law school (all those tuition fees and bingeing with tutors and classmates cost money, you know), and (c) there’s no reason why people or establishments flushed with money can’t pay people like me to know what is really legal tradecraft. So there.
* * *
Corporations and political parties are increasingly resorting to disinformation techniques by smearing and coercing opponents’ personal lives, family members and acquaintances, and hiring law firms to do that dirty legwork.
N.B. The “[⚫]” denotes one or multiple words have been obscured for the purposes of this post.
1. A disinformation campaign that includes at least one [⚫] project.
2. Create at least one false [⚫] that highlights some form of [⚫] information about the opponent. Then associate that in some manner to the opponent and subsequently [⚫] that fake [⚫] to undermine the credibility of the opponent.
3. Connect the opponent with some other [⚫] with seemingly [⚫] qualities, subsequently explaining that the two are [⚫].
4. Create two [⚫], using one as leverage to [⚫] the other while confirming the [⚫] of the second. This is hard to do, but if done well, it can lead to [⚫] being asked by [⚫].
5. Target the [⚫] using same above, bogging them down between protecting themselves and protecting their [⚫].
6. A history of economic insecurity and class stratification often lowers the bar for effective coercion.
* * *
Why not just tell us what those ‘redacted’ parts are? What’s ‘redacted’ anyway?
I have given you three reasons already (above). This is legal tradecraft. This is one trade secret of lawyers. Despite the fact that I’m not practising lawyer, it still behoves me to not disclose this knowledge. Kinda understandable, dontcha think?! I’ve done more than anyone could expect of a lawyer.
And ‘redact’ (verb) means to edit in a way that certain parts of the text have are obscured for legal or security reasons. Look up the word in a dictionary.
Have you yourself ever done this kind of work before?
Not personally, but I personally happen to know some people who have. In the end, the work bites them back in the backsides. I’m quite capable of doing it. It’s just that the targets suck so much on their own generally that it just isn’t worth my while to get involved.
Why are you telling us but redact the juiciest parts?
As it relates to the above, I wanted to remind ourselves of this:—
If you tolerate this, your children will be next. — English proverb
Because I want people to know this kind of thing happens in real life, on a daily basis, to real people. There are other more terrifying techniques, involving no physical violence, but nonetheless results in completely breaking down the victims, quite often leading to suicides. Stay tuned to this channel for future posts on this stuff.
My whole point is to tell but not give too much away. Too much, and some psychopath out there will treat it like a flaming operations manual. We’ve got enough clinically certifiable psychopaths in the government already, thankyouverymuch.
Not to put too fine a point on things, most people wouldn’t have to spend too much time and still be able to figure out what the redacted parts are. That is, if you’ve got half a brain left or not a bowl of jelly.
Isn’t it a bit pointless to give and then take away at the same time?
Welcome to the world of corporations and government, which do exactly the same thing to you and me. Have you learnt anything now?
© The Naked Listener’s Weblog, 2011