1. Subtly or not so subtly intimidate anyone who might be open to the possibility of a conspiracy by pretending they are "unpatriotic" outcasts of society whose opinions nobody cares about.

Additional explanation: This tactic deserves to be mentioned first because it probably is the oldest and most universal one. It plays on the primitive instincts of humans to follow authority and to be part of the group. It also preys on the emotional need for affection, and the more existential need to be able to make a living, all of which often fall away when someone is ostracized from the "tribe".



Apart from a Christian conservative outlet as Fox News, overtly this tactic is used less and less, because in today's society we recognize the rights of individuals and minority groups. Covertly - or indirectly - this tactic is ever present though. All the other tactics listed here basically have been invented to hide this one.

2. Subtly or not so subtly intimidate anyone who might be open to the possibility of a conspiracy by questioning the mental health of conspiracy advocates.

Additional explanation: Insinuate that anyone interested in unfavorable subjects, which can even be as innocent as looking into the role of Bilderberg or the Trilateral Commission in the globalization process, is a complete nutter who needs his head examined. A subtler approach might be to pretend how we all get so tired of these people, for example by saying or writing, "Yes, I hear you thinking, here you have them again. But let's find out, what is it exactly that they want to convince us of this time?"

3. Put the word "theory" behind the word "conspiracy", no matter how great the evidence, and preferably do this several times in the article to make the (supposedly) theoretical nature of the conspiracy really sink in.

Additional explanation: It's not unusual for a conspiracy advocate to use the word "conspiracy theorist" on himself, because somehow he has to set his ideas apart from the "coincidence theorist" or "human failure theorists". Followers of different ideas about history or science are often referred to as "theorists", and in those cases it has nothing to do with ridicule. However, misplaced or overuse of the term "conspiracy theory" will automatically prevent people from (openly) accepting this point of view because of the strong negative connotations attached to this term.

4. Imply that conspiracy theories are literally made up out of thin air and that there never was any significant evidence to support any of them.

Additional explanation: Be as condescending as possible by taking on a parental role. Fill your news reports with words like "paranoid", "urban legend", "folklore", "myth", "fantasy", "imagination", "legend", "gullible", "hype", "hoax"., etc. Works better the more grades and authority you have.

5. Present different pieces of the same conspiracy as independently made up and conflicting conspiracy theories.

Additional explanation: This will result in people thinking that conspiracy theorists are in some kind of turf war, trying to protect their own little pet theories. The John F. Kennedy assassination is a great example. The overall theory most researchers agree on is that the CIA, largely through the mafia and anti-Castro militants, and with support of some important businessmen, was behind the assassination. However, skeptics have usually broken this overall theory in four separate pieces: theory 1: the CIA did it; theory 2: the mafia did it; theory 3: anti-Castro militants did it; or theory 4: big business did it. This is a ridiculous approach of course. Here's another example from Belgium which relates to the Dutroux affair: February 2, 2005, Nieuwsblad, 'Ze zijn vermoord maar door wie?' ('They have been murdered, but by whom?'):



"Father Dellaert was grilled. Her [Carine's] mother, of whom he had divorced, threw some additional oil on the fire by claiming that he [the father] had an incestuous relationship with his daughter. Additionally the man had already been convicted once for sexual affairs. But he kept denying. Still, three months later he was in jail. But because of a lack of evidence justice had to let him go. Regina Louf, also known as X1, made up another story : she would have met Carine during sex parties."

Here you have another world class piece of disinformation on which details can be read in ISGP's ' This will result in people thinking that conspiracy theorists are in some kind of turf war, trying to protect their own little pet theories. The John F. Kennedy assassination is a great example. The overall theory most researchers agree on is that the CIA, largely through the mafia and anti-Castro militants, and with support of some important businessmen, was behind the assassination. However, skeptics have usually broken this overall theory in four separate pieces: theory 1: the CIA did it; theory 2: the mafia did it; theory 3: anti-Castro militants did it; or theory 4: big business did it. This is a ridiculous approach of course. Here's another example from Belgium which relates to the Dutroux affair: February 2, 2005, Nieuwsblad, 'Ze zijn vermoord maar door wie?' ('They have been murdered, but by whom?'):Here you have another world class piece of disinformation on which details can be read in ISGP's ' Beyond the Dutroux affair ' article. What's important here is: A) the tone of the sentence that is underlined ("made up"), and B) the fact that X1's story is not at all incompatible with the claims of Carine Dellaert's mother. The father had been doing the abuse when the mother was away--which was most of the time--and also allowed his daughter to be abused by his circle of friends. This information came from Carine's former closest friend, who was ignored by newspapers and investigators. They also ignored all evidence showing that X1 had known Carine. In other words, this newspaper presented two witnesses with apparently conflicting testimonies, while in reality they described two aspects of the same crime.

6 Carefully select the evidence that is to be presented. Leave out anything that cannot be explained. Focus on evidence that is easy to discredit, or at the very least, inconclusive.

Additional explanation: This is one of the most common and fundamental tactics used. The fact that the majority of the conspiracy community might reject a certain theory, or is aware of much stronger evidence, doesn't matter to the media, because the general public is unaware of that and has no time or interest to check the facts for themselves. This tactic might backfire during live interviews, unless a conspiracy theorist is picked who supports the theory that will be used to discredit the entire community.



A great example of bogus claims continually being repeated and "discredited" by the media are the no-plane and pod theories of 9/11. Anyone who really does his homework knows there are many other aspects of 9/11 that are much more interesting--not to mention, true. Other examples might be reports that tie criticism on today's Zionist Lobby to holocaust denial, or people who believe in UFOs to fake Moon landings.



If you're attacking an individual, and not a whole group, dig up every mistake in his work, however small, and discuss these flaws one after another. It will seem to most people the author's work is riddled with mistakes, while in reality 98 or 99 percent might be perfectly accurate, including the overall picture.

7 Isolate quotes in order to misrepresent and/or discredit.

Additional explanation: This tactic is very closely allied to the previous one of carefully selecting evidence, but this time primarily focused on conspiracy thinkers themselves and not their work. So if, let's say, conspiracy advocate A has produced documentary B, then the previous tactic is primarily used to misrepresent documentary B, and this tactic of isolating quotes is based on a follow-up interview with conspiracy advocate A to finish him or her off even more. A true disinformer will even bait a conspiracy advocate into making certain claims that are perfect for isolation and discrediting. This, however, usually does require a degree of knowlegde about the conspiracy advocate and his or her work.

8. As a talk-show host, don't let any person arguing in favor of a conspiracy speak uninterrupted for even one minute.

Additional explanation: As soon as the person interviewed tries to bring up a serious piece of evidence, immediately counter with a joke, a seemingly damning counter-argument (there's no time to further discuss anyway) or simply change the subject. Keep the interview nice and short so there's no time to go into any kind of detail.

9. For interviews, preferably pick prominent individuals from the conspiracy movement who either have no credentials or irrelevant credentials. Place these conspiracy theorists against academics and other experts who have impeccable credentials.

Additional explanation: When doing basic research, in many cases a lower-educated person with some experience can do just as good of a job as someone who has his M.A. or Ph.D. However, highly-educated, respected individuals interviewed by the media are usually trusted on their word while it's necessary for anyone else to step by step go over all the evidence. There's seldom any time for the latter approach so the lower-educated conspiracy advocate finds himself in a severely disadvantaged position.

10. During video interviews, allow the skeptics to present themselves more properly than the conspiracy advocates.

Additional explanation: Interview conspiracy theorists on video from angles that make them look a bit awkward, like really up close to show off that wart, or a little bit from below so we can all enjoy those nose hairs. Also, limit their make up, don't ask them to shave, and if possible, interview them in plain, simple clothes. Do the interview in an environment which further diminishes credibility, like a messy living room or next to a replica of a gray alien in a UFO museum. In contrast, interview the skeptical "experts" from their most affectionate angle with suit and tie in a nice and comfortable place. Make sure their make up is perfect.

11. Quote from generally respected government investigating committees and present their conclusions as gospel.

Additional explanation: If anyone asks or says that these government committees are misrepresenting the evidence, instead of listening to the arguments the reaction will be along the lines of, "So everybody is in on it?", if needed followed by "Impeccable expert A, B and C disagree with you." After that the topic is steered away in a different direction. As stated in point seven: "Highly-educated, respected individuals [or institutes] interviewed by the media are usually trusted on their word while it's necessary for anyone else to step by step go over all the evidence. There's seldom any time for the latter approach so the [in this case high or low-educated] conspiracy advocate finds himself in a severely disadvantaged position."

12. Automatically dismiss articles from conspiracy advocates as "unreliable", no matter how well-sourced these articles are.

Additional explanation: Don't go into the specific issues raised in the article. If the promoter of the article asks you to look at these issues, just ignore him and keep coming back to the fact the author of the article is "not reliable". ISGP experienced this, for example, when a particular "self-published website", keeping the myth alive on Wikipedia that full membership lists of the group were not available in the public domain. Don't go into the specific issues raised in the article. If the promoter of the article asks you to look at these issues, just ignore him and keep coming back to the fact the author of the article is "not reliable". ISGP experienced this, for example, when a particular Wikipedia admin continually deleted links to unique 1001 Club photocopies on ISGP under the guise of, keeping the myth alive on Wikipedia that full membership lists of the group were not available in the public domain.

13. Always question the motives of conspiracy theorists.

Additional explanation: Any conspiracy writer who has any kind of income from his writings can be accused of being in it for the money. Another popular accusation is that conspiracy theorists are anti-semites and have the same beliefs as fundamentalist Arabs. The latter tactic has been especially popular after 9/11 (for example, the false claim that thousands of Jews were aware of the WTC attack) and the London bombings (there was a report that one of the bombers was a 9/11 skeptic).

14. Make the well known claim that everybody is in on the conspiracy.

Additional explanation: This can be formulated as a question or as a sarcastic comment, in both cases serving to ridicule and discredit the unprepared interviewee.

15. Make a few jokes, usually involving little green men, Elvis, the grassy knoll, and aliens. Then there also is the classic "out to get you" comment.

Additional explanation: Jokes like these only serve to make conspiracy advocates uncomfortable by ridiculing them and to intimidate anyone from looking into possible conspiracies. Reading some of the articles of skeptics, these days it apparently also seems possible to suggest that the average conspiracy theorist really believes claims that Elvis was abducted by aliens. It should be quite obvious that in reality this belief is (virtually?) non-existent. December 18, 2000, BBC, 'Conspiracy Theories': "This [the National Enquirer] is the natural reading matter for those who sincerely believe that Elvis was abducted by aliens, this being more comforting than the traditional explanation that he simply took too many drugs."

16. Ask if the conspiracy advocate believes in any other (unrelated) conspiracies.

Additional explanation: For example, when you interview someone who is skeptical about the official 9/11 story, ask him about UFOs; or vice versa. Even if the person only states he's open to the other conspiracy, it can be used to discredit him in the eyes of many people; even more so in follow-up reports. Example: "Person X is convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. He also recently stated he believes in flying saucers."



A variation on that can be found in the New York Times of February 23, 1997, entitled 'Clinton Crazy': "Nearly half the population believes the C.I.A. was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy; 1 in 10 adults thinks the moon landing was a hoax." The second fact mentioned here is used to undermine the rather shocking first one.

17. Make the claim that governments can't keep secrets.

Additional explanation: In a way governments and intelligence agencies do have a hard time keeping secrets, especially in the West. There are a few "buts", however. First of all, a huge amount of coverage over an extended period is needed for a large enough portion of the public to change their beliefs or even take action. One or two one-time reports, even in a large newspaper, are not going to change anything, certainly not in the long term. People will forget or doubt themselves if the message is not continually repeated and eventually taught at home by their parents or at school.



Secondly, counter measures to prevent exposure are usually in proportion to the sensitivity of the secret. Just by looking at the amount of investigators, witnesses and whistleblowers who have been intimidated or suicided over the years, it appears that the most sensitive secrets are highest-level involvement in the international drug trade, arms trade, assassinations, pedophile networks and terrorism, or, on a hardly lighter note, "legal" deep black programs involving extremely high technology. Without the internet we would still be absolutely clueless as to what is going on at this level. At least we now have a vague idea, even though there's still much that needs to be uncovered. None of these topics are discussed in the mainstream press or tv.



And third, in addition to intimidation and assassination, psychological warfare and disinformation have been used to prevent the public from finding out about the deepest secrets and to discourage anyone from looking into them in the first place. Ridicule is a powerful weapon.

18. Repeat the claim that we have free press because scandals are regularly exposed.

Additional explanation: Virtually everything can be discussed in the media except a handful of topics that are really important. If one allies himself with the left it's possible, of course, to expose the right to some extent, and vice verse, but it's virtually impossible to publish serious articles on the JFK assassination, the 9/11 Truth movement, high level pedophile rings, the true influence of NGOs, or other extremely sensitive subjects that cross establishment lines and will change people's whole concept of government. This kind of reporting is just not done. It's only a tiny spectrum of all the news, but it's enough to prevent any revolutionary changes in society.

19. As soon as a conspiracy theorist brings up witness testimony, counter with the standard argument that eyewitness testimony is "notoriously unreliable".

Additional explanation: A former fundamentalist Christian turned professional debunker, Michael Shermer, took this argument to the limit during a July 2007 debate about UFOs on the Larry King Show. Even after others present told him that numerous military officers and pilots have claimed to have seen UFOs, and that the Phoenix Lights incident involved thousands of witnesses who all saw the same thing, Shermer just countered with: "... Eyewitness testimony is not all that reliable... Trained observers are no better than just regular observers."



Of course, there are hardly any sides to take in this debate due to the enormous amount of disinformation spread about the UFO subject. Most subjects interviewed about the Phoenix Lights, and certainly all researchers, are con artists. The whole event might have been a case of psywar. Who knows. But the manner in which Shermer dismisses eyewitness testimony is just ridiculous.



More recently I heard Shermer do the same thing during a March 7, 2016 conversation on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. As the discussion turned to eyewitness testimony the ever-curious Joe Rogan (when it comes to conspiracy) stated: "I just don't buy eyewitness testimony in a murder like that." At this point Shermer had begun to make the case that witnesses all heard a different number of shots, which by itself is an "That's good. That's right, because it's not reliable."



Anybody who knows anything about the JFK assassination though, knows the hundreds of eyewitnesses testimonies are A former fundamentalist Christian turned professional debunker, Michael Shermer, took this argument to the limit during a July 2007 debate about UFOs on the Larry King Show. Even after others present told him that numerous military officers and pilots have claimed to have seen UFOs, and that the Phoenix Lights incident involved thousands of witnesses who all saw the same thing, Shermer just countered with:Of course, there are hardly any sides to take in this debate due to the enormous amount of disinformation spread about the UFO subject. Most subjects interviewed about the Phoenix Lights, and certainly all researchers, are con artists. The whole event might have been a case of psywar. Who knows. But the manner in which Shermer dismisses eyewitness testimony is just ridiculous.More recently I heard Shermer do the same thing during a March 7, 2016 conversation on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. As the discussion turned to eyewitness testimony the ever-curious Joe Rogan (when it comes to conspiracy) stated:At this point Shermer had begun to make the case that witnesses all heard a different number of shots, which by itself is an overgeneralization in order to distort. As expected, the second Rogan brought up his opinion that eyewitness testimony is by definition unreliable, Shermer hopped on the same train:Anybody who knows anything about the JFK assassination though, knows the hundreds of eyewitnesses testimonies are extremely important in confirming what we see on the Zapruder film and to get a general sense of what happened in the seconds around the assassination, including who was where when. It is also very clear that the FBI and Warren Commission threw out more than half of the key witnesses who most clearly thought a shot came from the grassy knoll and even saw smoke arising here. So what Rogan and Shermer were doing here with throwing out all the witness testimony without going in any detail is just ridiculous.

20. When aspects of the permanent government have slowly been exposed over the years, oversimplify by stating this or that conspiracy theory "has had its best time".

Additional explanation: There are many reasonable questions that could be asked, like why the mainstream media has not been the one responsible for shedding light on the "conspiracy" they just mentioned, or why they don't expand on the information now the word has come out, or if there are similar conspiracies going on. Of course, some conspiracies are never mentioned, so this argument doesn't apply to them. The exposure we're talking about here mainly deals with Bilderberg and the Bohemian Grove, or more recently, the 1001 Club and Le Cercle.

21. Start out with, or only report, conclusions, and leave out most, if not all, evidence that this conclusion has been based on. Also leave out all nuances brought up by the person that has been interviewed.

Additional explanation: Generally only works with pre-recorded interviews or a review of a person's work. As the conclusions that must be drawn from conspiracies or conspiracy theories are usually quite disturbing, especially to someone never exposed to this point of view, this tactic is one of the most effective in discrediting even men and women with impeccable credentials. Here's an example, a paraphrase from a recent Dutch article on Daniel Estulin's Bilderberg book (lost the article, which, by the way, was the inspiration for this article): "Estulin warns us that there's a plan for global dictatorship in which a great portion of the world's population will be exterminated. Those who survive will be implanted with a microchip in their brain." I can't tell if it's a good or a bad book - because I've not read it - but the intention of the newspaper is clear.



Some day another example might be: "ISGP is claiming that leading officials in government (including prime ministers), business, the judiciary and intelligence are involved in illegal arms trafficking, drug running, pedophilia and terrorist attacks on their own population." What casual reader is going to believe that? It must be said though that ISGP has a significant advantage over book writers, because this site is freely accessible to everyone, so it's basically very easy for people to take a peek and check some of the facts reported in the newspapers. And any links to the site will only help build it up its rankings and visibility - which the security services clearly know all to well.

22. Oversimplify by stating that the official head of state must have been directly involved in planning and overseeing whatever conspiracy. Don't allow the subject to explain the supranational, largely privatized, permanent government in any coherent way.

Additional explanation: The "permanent government", or superclass, consisting of many different elements in business, politics, the judiciary, intelligence, the military, private clubs, and think tanks, seems to be the backbone of every conspiracy. Its existence is always ignored or denied, which probably has a lot to do with the major media networks belonging to this same superclass.

23. Dismiss and ridicule the idea that the prime minister, president and cabinet ministers of a country could possibly have been involved a major conspiracy.

Additional explanation: One of the biggest things in the way of people accepting conspiracies is that the average person cannot wrap his or her mind around the fact that the leaders we elect and see every day on television might know a few secrets that we at home absolutely have no clue about. This is a childish belief though. In contrast to the usual stereotypes the media loves to promote of the dear old grandfather or the rising young idealist, it might be more accurate to look at political parties as competing mafia clans and at another sterotype often portrayed in the media: that of a charming mafia don (or political leader) who in reality is a ruthless criminal and maybe even a serial killer. Or think about a vicious war criminal who has reintegrated back into society. Or about a video of Hitler playing with his dog.



The moral of the story is that you can't judge an individual, certainly not one who has accumulated great power, by the charming little smile he or she puts on, or whatever PR activity is being engaged in. Always keep your eyes on the facts. And the facts are that we have had endless streams of political leaders who supported unnecessary wars, death squads, barbaric dictators, guns-for-drugs schemes, political assassinations, false flag terrorism, bills and executive orders that permanently undermined the democratic process, the jailing and harrassment of political protestors, the smearing of political opponents, and everything else under the sun that is more than a little objectable. And if a political leader actively supports a cover-up of, let's say,



In fact, it really appears as if in most cases our political leaders feel restrained by the democratic process and, exactly like human civilization has operated in the past 8,000 years, prefer to revert it to a fascist crony dictatorship. Of course, that's really tough to do in the modern world, but it really appears this is what many political leaders are trying to get away with.



Looking at it from another angle, one thing any superclass establishment is always trying to accomplish is to elevate its "members" to the highest positions of official power by donating money and using the media outlets they own to sway popular opinion. Thus by definition our elected political leaders, at least for the most part, have been groomed by the superclass or are already established members of the superclass. What we usually see is that the elected head of state is picked and promoted by an establishment and upon election surrounds him or herself with key members of the establishment. This certainly goes for key positions as the secretary of state, defense secretary and national security advisor. These individuals literally always have a background at leading think tanks and foundations. Absolutely always, no matter who is elected president.







In other words, the whole idea of a "shadow government" is only partially accurate because ordinarily the elected heads of state and certainly their chief cabinet officials are a very important visible aspect of this permanent government. We know, for example, that more than a few presidents, prime ministers and cabinet officials have ordered assassinations of foreign leaders or (genuinely) dangerous terrorists. That's something few people would like to acknowledge, but it nevertheless is a political reality. Yes, sometimes the role of these public officials might revolve around having plausible deniability, but ultimately, as "establishment representatives" occupying the reigns of power, they are the ones deciding on long-term and short-term policies and in all cases have to be fully trustworthy when it comes to supporting any kind of cover ups - and therefore have to be in the know to a degree. We can only speculate what our elected and appointed leaders have done to earn such trust and why they literally never dissent past the usual left-right paradigm, but it remains a fact that any "shadow government" in the security services or at major think tanks is powerless without the support of the elected and appointed civilian authorities. The latter control most resources of the state and have unlimited access to the media. And therefore any covert establishment tries to control the overt positions of political and economic power in a country, making these establishments relatively easy to map in the modern world of broadband internet and still relatively potent individual freedoms.



We should emphasize an aspect of this sections once more: if we look at a conspiracy like One of the biggest things in the way of people accepting conspiracies is that the average person cannot wrap his or her mind around the fact that the leaders we elect and see every day on television might know a few secrets that we at home absolutely have no clue about. This is a childish belief though. In contrast to the usual stereotypes the media loves to promote of the dear old grandfather or the rising young idealist, it might be more accurate to look at political parties as competing mafia clans and at another sterotype often portrayed in the media: that of a charming mafia don (or political leader) who in reality is a ruthless criminal and maybe even a serial killer. Or think about a vicious war criminal who has reintegrated back into society. Or about a video of Hitler playing with his dog.The moral of the story is that you can't judge an individual, certainly not one who has accumulated great power, by the charming little smile he or she puts on, or whatever PR activity is being engaged in. Always keep your eyes on the facts. And the facts are that we have had endless streams of political leaders who supported unnecessary wars, death squads, barbaric dictators, guns-for-drugs schemes, political assassinations, false flag terrorism, bills and executive orders that permanently undermined the democratic process, the jailing and harrassment of political protestors, the smearing of political opponents, and everything else under the sun that is more than a little objectable. And if a political leader actively supports a cover-up of, let's say, 9/11 , and even exploits the event and is willing to send tens of thousands of clean up workers on an agonizing route towards an early grave, it's obviously very rational to suspect that this political leader played a role in the conspiracy to some extent. And when we see that little to nothing changed under his Democratic successor when it comes to the War on Terror or the reining in of civil liberties, we are forced to conclude that our political leaders are NOT on the side of people.In fact, it really appears as if in most cases our political leaders feel restrained by the democratic process and, exactly like human civilization has operated in the past 8,000 years, prefer to revert it to a fascist crony dictatorship. Of course, that's really tough to do in the modern world, but it really appears this is what many political leaders are trying to get away with.Looking at it from another angle, one thing any superclass establishment is always trying to accomplish is to elevate its "members" to the highest positions of official power by donating money and using the media outlets they own to sway popular opinion. Thus by definition our elected political leaders, at least for the most part, have been groomed by the superclass or are already established members of the superclass. What we usually see is that the elected head of state is picked and promoted by an establishment and upon election surrounds him or herself with key members of the establishment. This certainly goes for key positions as the secretary of state, defense secretary and national security advisor. These individuals literally always have a background at leading think tanks and foundations. Absolutely always, no matter who is elected president.In other words, the whole idea of a "shadow government" is only partially accurate because ordinarily the elected heads of state and certainly their chief cabinet officials are a very important visible aspect of this permanent government. We know, for example, that more than a few presidents, prime ministers and cabinet officials have ordered assassinations of foreign leaders or (genuinely) dangerous terrorists. That's something few people would like to acknowledge, but it nevertheless is a political reality. Yes, sometimes the role of these public officials might revolve around having plausible deniability, but ultimately, as "establishment representatives" occupying the reigns of power, they are the ones deciding on long-term and short-term policies and in all cases have to be fully trustworthy when it comes to supporting any kind of cover ups - and therefore have to be in the know to a degree. We can only speculate what our elected and appointed leaders have done to earn such trust and why they literally never dissent past the usual left-right paradigm, but it remains a fact that any "shadow government" in the security services or at major think tanks is powerless without the support of the elected and appointed civilian authorities. The latter control most resources of the state and have unlimited access to the media. And therefore any covert establishment tries to control the overt positions of political and economic power in a country, making these establishments relatively easy to map in the modern world of broadband internet and still relatively potent individual freedoms.We should emphasize an aspect of this sections once more: if we look at a conspiracy like 9/11 , one of the first questions to ask is: Who is responsible and who should be forced out of office? That's the president, his national security advisor, the defense secretary, the CIA director, the NSA director, etc. At the very least they all failed and if there are questions to be asked that they refuse to answer, we are fully in our right to label them as suspects who had an involvement in plotting and/or allowing the attacks to happen. It's our right to have these suspicious and they are entirely rational. We shouldn't allow the media to tell us otherwise.

24. Try to force a conspiracy advocate into confirming or denying oversimplified yes-no answers.

Additional explanation: How many times have we seen this basic tactic from Fox News hosts? It's somewhat linked to the above tactic, because this one usually involves a question about the elected head of state. Such as: "Do you think President Bush blew up the towers? Yes or no."

25. Claim that the internet is responsible for the recent increase in conspiracy theories, because frothing conspiracy theorists are hyping each other up in chat rooms and message boards.

Additional explanation: It's true, of course, that the internet is responsible for the huge increase in awareness of conspiracies, the simple reason being that alternative theories are just as accessible on the net as the lies pushed by the government and mainstream media. However, anyone with a (conspiracy) site can tell you that links posted on forums will not get you many hits, as there always are a few individuals who drive everyone away by posting lengthy, irrational, and often abusive statements 24 hours a day. Skeptics will claim otherwise, but in reality few want to be associated with some of these forum people, including the average conspiracy-oriented person. Chat rooms are often private and generate even less hits. Most people use the internet to find and order books, read (alternative) news sites and use Google and Wikipedia to find additional information. That's it.

26. Have a conspiracy theorist argue with a victim of a conspiracy who actually doesn't believe in the conspiracy. Even better, the victim is disabled and dying.

Additional explanation: Apparently a relatively new tactic, which was used by FOX News' Planet Mancow in November 2006 when he confronted Kevin Smith, producer of Infowars and Prisonplanet, with the disabled and dying 9/11 firefighter Brian Harvey. During the planning and recording of the show Planet Mancow used numerous other disinformation tactics, all of which have been described here

27. When covering demonstrations, mainly focus on the eccentric and the violent. Ignore all the presentable, calm and intelligent demonstrators.

Additional explanation: It must be said that in anti-globalist (mainly US conservatives) or different-globalist (mainly liberals, including in Europe) demonstrations there's usually no shortage of eccentric individuals the media can pick from. On the other hand, there also are many knowledgeable individuals in government and business who have no interest in going to the streets with a bullhorn and a banner, but can very articulately explain what the present globalization process is all about and some of the aspects that are worrying. However, these are the people the media likes to ignore.



Additional note: There's also some evidence that small, extreme left wing groups are used to disrupt peaceful demonstrations, followed by a heavy crackdown on all demonstrators (the 1999 WTO negotiations in Seattle for example). This, of course, gives the media yet another opportunity to further stereotype the anti-globalist and different-globalist crowds as uneducated, left-wing nutjobs.

28. Don't write about the topics conspiracy theorists bring up. Instead, write about conspiracy theorists.

Additional explanation: A great example is when this author was approached by a journalist of a major Dutch newspaper in mid 2007. The whole email read, "Can I call you some time about your ISGP website? Maybe I want to devote an article to it in Het Parool." The thing that immediately popped in my mind was, "Why write about my site? Do your own investigative article on Le Cercle, the 1001 (perfect for a Dutch investigator), the Pilgrims, or whatever. You don't need to know anything from or about me. The less you say about me the more credible you are." So I declined. And seeing the article some weeks later I certainly knew I had done the right thing. It was yet another superficial article about conspiracy theorists (evangelists; reincarnation therapists) and there was no investigative journalism to verify some of the more serious aspects of the conspiracy community. There was, of course, space reserved for talk about the 13 bloodlines of the Illuminati and Icke's lizards. What a surprise.

29. See if you can link credible writers to not-so-credible writers.

Additional explanation: Basically anything will do: a friendship, a compliment of one about the other, a reference in one of your works, etc. In the same Parool article mentioned in point 24, it was written that, "It is clear that Van der Reijden has let himself be inspired by David Icke... [talk about lizards, etc.]" This is a really dubious statement, but the writer of the article can get away with it because at the bottom of my article it was mentioned that the first time I heard about Le Cercle was on a DVD of David Icke. Now, this cheap exploit can't really bother me, because the minute I put that minor acknowledgement there, even if it was with a good number of reservations about basically all of Icke's theories, I knew "skeptics" would sooner or later jump on it. And that's fine; anybody can visit my site and compare it to any newspaper articles written about me.



Now, I know I'm not a particularly credible writer, but you get the point.

30. See if you can dig up some dirt on a prominent conspiracy advocate.

Additional explanation: When it comes to politics, basically anything can be used against you: a criminal past, a few misdemeanors, dubious friends, having visited porn websites, cheated on your wife, a bitter ex-girlfriend, a son or daughter using drugs, etc. Personal attacks are the most often used against politicians because of their prominence, but they can also be used against conspiracy theorists.

31. Introduce a "logical fallacy" to prevent getting into specifics.

Additional explanation: A good example of this is when professional skeptic Michael Shermer on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast of March 7, 2016 stated with regard to 9/11: "For [the plane impacts] to have happened AND explosive devices to have been planted at the exact floors where they knew ahead of time which floors and what angles the plane hit - okay, there, stop. Full stop. That can't be." The ever-curious Joe Rogan (when it comes to conspiracy), of course, goes: "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, it's very, very, very unlikely."



This is not how an investigation or even theorizing works. Ordinarily you first look at all the evidence and then you build a theory around that. Shermer is literally ignoring every piece of evidence that indicates the Twin Towers were rigged with explosives from at least the first skylobby at floor 44 and up. He also ignored the completely unexplained massive heat, the fact that the sudden collapses didn't start out at the most compromised impact floors, that explosives at just one floor still shouldn't have collapsed the entire building in seconds, and just everything else. All he does is insert a "logical doubt" into his listerners' minds. And just for those interested in looking up the "facts", Shermer manages to bring up disinformation as "tesla technology" (introduced by no-planer A good example of this is when professional skeptic Michael Shermer on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast of March 7, 2016 stated with regard to 9/11:The ever-curious Joe Rogan (when it comes to conspiracy), of course, goes:This is not how an investigation or even theorizing works. Ordinarily you first look at all the evidence and then you build a theory around that. Shermer is literally ignoring every piece of evidence that indicates the Twin Towers were rigged with explosives from at least the first skylobby at floor 44 and up. He also ignored the completely unexplained massive heat, the fact that the sudden collapses didn't start out at the most compromised impact floors, that explosives at just one floor still shouldn't have collapsed the entire building in seconds, and just everything else. All he does is insert a "logical doubt" into his listerners' minds. And just for those interested in looking up the "facts", Shermer manages to bring up disinformation as(introduced by no-planer Dr. Judy Wood ) and disinformative no-planers as Jesse Venture

32. Stick to generalities or counter specifics with generalities.

Additional explanation: Sticking to generalities works perfect when skeptics and mainstream media pundits talk amongst each other or provide information to the public at large: "There are people who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy." Both of these are very general statements from which no one learns anything.



Examples of much "Bechtel employees measured temperatures of "more than 2,800 degrees F [1,540°C]" in the rubble at Ground Zero in the days after 9/11, close to 40 publicly-available testimonies claim that molten steel was found and it took more than three months, until December 19, for the underground fires to die out." You immediately notice the severity of the impact statements like these will make in comparison to the more general statement.



Once conspiracy advocates are able to make these specific charges, it becomes exponentionally hard to dismiss them, especially when they have proper sources on hand. So a situation like this has to be prevented at all costs. This is generally ensured by inviting a controlled opposition asset who doesn't make too many waves and allows himself to be discredited. Otherwise, the only options at this point would be to ridicule and deflect, in which the mainstream media or professional skeptic most likely would resort countering with generalities. In this case making any effective counter-claims appears to have been absolutely impossible. Statements as "You can't trust witness testimonies." or "What people saw most likely was aluminum" simply don't cut it. So clearly the latter situation of allowing genuine conspiracy advocates to make highly specific charges is also highly undesireable. Sticking to generalities works perfect when skeptics and mainstream media pundits talk amongst each other or provide information to the public at large:Both of these are very general statements from which no one learns anything.Examples of much more specific claims include:You immediately notice the severity of the impact statements like these will make in comparison to the more general statement.Once conspiracy advocates are able to make these specific charges, it becomes exponentionally hard to dismiss them, especially when they have proper sources on hand. So a situation like this has to be prevented at all costs. This is generally ensured by inviting a controlled opposition asset who doesn't make too many waves and allows himself to be discredited. Otherwise, the only options at this point would be to ridicule and deflect, in which the mainstream media or professional skeptic most likely would resort countering with generalities. In this case making any effective counter-claims appears to have been absolutely impossible. Statements asorsimply don't cut it. So clearly the latter situation of allowing genuine conspiracy advocates to make highly specific charges is also highly undesireable.

33. Prevent losing an argument by claiming you're "not familiar enough" with a certain aspect of conspiracy and therefore have "to keep it in the middle".

Additional explanation: Certainly when it comes to specialized debates this tactic falls in the "last resort" category, because it makes one look unprepared and ideally conspiracy theorists are opposed, ridiculed and marginalized in every possible way. It is quite applicable, however, in cases of a general conversation about a multitude of issues/conspiracies.

34. Pretend to be open-minded and accepting towards conspiracy theories as long as there's a gentleman's agreement that "opinions can differ", "nothing will ever be solved" and the other party doesn't push for answers to highly specific questions.