The Troll’s Guide to Internet Disruption

Sourced from WashingtonsBlog

The 15 Rules of Web Disruption

David Martin’s Thirteen Rules for Truth Suppression, H. Michael Sweeney’s 25 Rules of Disinformation (and now Brandon Smith’s Disinformation: How It Works) are classic lessons on how to spot disruption and disinformation tactics. We’ve seen a number of site disruption tactics come and go over the years. Here are the ones we see a lot of currently.

  1. Start a partisan divide-and-conquer fight or otherwise push emotional buttons to sow discord and ensure that cooperation is thwarted. Get people fighting against each other instead of the corrupt powers-that-be. Use baseless caricatures to rile everyone up. For example, start a religious war whenever possible using stereotypes like “all Jews are selfish”, “all Christians are crazy” or “all Muslims are terrorists”. Accuse the author of being a gay, pro-abortion limp-wristed wimp or being a fundamentalist pro-war hick when the discussion has nothing to do with abortion, sexuality, religion, war or region. Appeal to people’s basest prejudices and biases. And – as Sweeney explains – push the author into a defensive posture:

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule … 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.

(The person trying to smear reputation may not be a random knucklehead … he may, in fact, be a government agent, or a member of the group he’s smearing.)

  1. Pretend it’s hopeless because we’ll be squashed if we try. For example, every time a whistleblower leaks information, say “he’s going to be bumped off”. If people talk about protesting, organizing, boycotting, shareholder activism, spreading the real facts, moving our money or taking other constructive action, write things to scare and discourage people, say something like “we don’t have any chance because they have drones and they’ll just kill us if we try”, or “Americans are too stupid, lazy and greedy, so they’ll never help out.” Encourage people to be apathetic instead of trying to change things.
  2. Demand complete, fool-proof and guaranteed solutions to the problems being discussed. For example, if a reporter breaks the story that the big banks conspired to rig a market, ask “given that people are selfish and that no regulation can close all possible loopholes … how are you going to change human nature?”, and pretend that it’s not worth talking about the details of the market manipulation. This discourages people from reporting on and publicizing the corruption, fraud and other real problems. And it ensures that not enough people will spread the facts so that the majority know what’s really going on.
  3. Suggest extreme, over-the-top, counter-productive solutions which will hurt more than help, or which are wholly disproportionate to what is being discussed. For example, if the discussion is whether or not to break up the big banks or to go back on the gold standard, say that everyone over 30 should be killed because they are sell-outs and irredeemable, or that all of the banks should be bombed. This discredits the attempt to spread the facts and to organize, and is simply the web method of the provocateur.
  4. Pretend that alternative media – such as blogs written by the top experts in their fields, without any middleman– are untrustworthy or are motivated solely by money (for example, use the derogatory term “blogspam” for any blog posting, pretending that there is no original or insightful reporting, but that the person is simply doing it for ad revenue).
  5. Coordinate with a couple of others to “shout down” reasonable comments. This is especially effective when the posters launch an avalanche of comments in quick succession … the original, reasonable comment gets lost or attacked so much that it is largely lost.
  6. Use an army of sock puppets. You can either hire low-wage workers in India or other developing countries to “astroturf” or – if you work for the government – you can use military personnel or subcontractors to monitor social media and “correct” information which you don’t like (and see this), or use software which allows you to quickly create and alternate between numerous false identities, each with their own internet address.
  7. Censor social media, so that the hardest-hitting information is buried. If you can’t censor it, set up “free speech zones” to push dissent into dank, dark corners where no one will see it.
  8. When the powers-that-be cut corners and take criminally reckless gambles with our lives and our livelihoods, protect them by pretending that the inevitable result –nuclear accidentsfinancial crisesterrorist attacks or other disasters – were “unforeseeable” and that “no could have known”.
  9. Protect the rich and powerful by labeling any allegations of criminal activity as being a “conspiracy theory”. After all, it was the CIA itself which created the perjorative term “conspiracy theorist” and gave advice on how to attack people on that basis. For example, when Goldman gets caught rigging markets, label the accusations as mere conspiracies.

The following 4 tactics from Sweeney are also still commonly used …

  1. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so 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.
  5. 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. 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 cause them to 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.


32 thoughts to “The Troll’s Guide to Internet Disruption”

  1. this is definitely a great guide to all of us truth seekers and freedom fighters; once again thankyou Darkmoon for such great efforts to end injustice in our dear battered planet
    the avatar

  2. The best one yet is to OWN the MSM, then you can kick off anyone who doesn’t agree with your views or propaganda, then you can spin lies 24/7 and call people anti-Semites or conspiracy theorists who dare to think for themselves.

    It also helps to have the NSA peeking over your shoulder so if your someone like Seth Rich or Michael Hastings–who have real balls, and were going to speak the truth–then they can be taken care of…permanently.


    -When something is written that goes against the elitist agenda, just hack into the troubling website, say for argument sake, and take-out, that is delete, the troubling webpage or article, and pretend nothing has happened!
    Or am I stretching that one?

  4. Please see “Weaponizing the Term “Conspiracy Theory” ( ) as well as “In 1967, the CIA Created the Label Conspiracy Theorists” ( ). Original documents, such as CIA Document 1035-960 and others show how the most loaded term in the English Language got started. See also Ridicule, however, is a two way street…

    1. Kind of ironic that Master Zen aka Don Ferguson talks about weaponizing the term of conspiracy theory. His website is long gone by the way, he finally had to call defeat. He, his wife and children were part of a cult called “The Children of God” for 27 years which later was renamed “The Family”. Of course, he never mentioned anything like that on his blog and people were flogging to him because of his ‘wisdom’ and ‘spirituality’. COG was all about sexually abusing children in the name of Jesus. Zen/Don , after having been found out, wrote an essay about his ‘missing’ 27 years which was not very well received in the community.

      That guy has no remorse. I’m just mentioning this so people are being aware and watch out not only for the usual culprits but also for the pretenders. In the end, Zen aka Don was PR manager, propaganda minister, at this cult conceived by David Berg.

      Sorry to be a spoil sport.

      1. Not at all, stick with the CIA documents (or do an FOI search) for “weaponizing the conspiracy theory” on other sites where Berg/Don lifted the original report and thanks for info, seems like Berg run Don was a planted fuse in the circuit. By the way, have you seen Dutch Banker Ronald Bernard’s story on's-satanic-elite ? You have my permission (and encouragement) to take all 8,000 or so self appointed elites out and shoot them. Mr. Bernard now helps run an interest free loan people’s bank in the Netherlands called Bank of Joy. He states in the interview transcript his drawing the line at Child sacrifice, and how his experience working on top draw banking operations for many years exposed Intelligence agencies as essentially criminal racketeers (though I’d add many, such as analysts, would probably be more ‘civilian’ like elements). Interestingly Mr. Bernard also now views The Protocols of Zion as not only a genuine document but in practice worldwide on a daily basis.

      2. Which brings us to the “Planting of a Fuse in the Circuit”, covered in number 12 above. Install a straw man or false piece of information in the place or narrative so people say : “See, that was fake. Therefore it’s ALL fake.” A frequently used technique by many Intel agencies.

      3. Usually, I am a hit and run commenter and not much of a debater. Ask Brownhawk. In your case I will make an exception.

        A fuse is an automatic means of removing power from a faulty system. No doubt that the system is faulty, electrical or otherwise, but you cannot call Zen a strawman. Because he tried, and was successful in having people follow him as a guru for a time. It’s almost tragic, the gullibility of some.

        If I had some faith left in our current predicament, I would say the intentions of Mr. Ronald Bernard are very noble. Bank of Joy? Are you kidding, wait for the Ponzi.

      4. A fuse can also be something combustible. In this case, it was probably Berg running the ego maniac, a light touch type of op. I really can’t debate this as your info was the first I heard, however, #12 is well known. In any event, all you have to do is look at to see the documents 1035-960. Why not have a look? What’s interesting about Mr. Bernard’s experience is that fantastic claims have been made about Satanic cults all over the place, usually with utterly nothing to substantiate said claims. Mr. Bernard claims he saw it first hand – if true. Bank of Joy as an appealing new speak idea name resonates with many, though not with me. I prefer Canal City Bank or something far less dreamy. Mr. Bernard may turn out to be a fuse as well, I’ve never met him. If the venture is real, someday it might earn a Christian stamp of approval because the idea is “interest free”, a novelty, but one that inspired Christ to show what he thought of moneylenders in a place of worship. I do appreciate the information about Mr. Berg. I welcome any further information about Mr. Bernard, pro or con. I’m not “married” to any position, I’m working to “breed out” the Neanderthal.

  5. “Censor social media, so that the hardest-hitting information is buried. If you can’t censor it, set up “free speech zones” to push dissent into dank, dark corners where no one will see it.”

    This is happening quite a bit now now with youtube comments. Politically incorrect comments are being deleted and users are being IP and account banned.

    I cannot presently make any comments on any video whose subject matter deals with Trump, politics in general, current events, news, Biblical prophecy, etc.

    Based on some simple “experiments” I did, I think they’re monitoring all comments using fancy algorithms looking for keywords, certain grammatical qualities, etc., and creating different levels of censorship, accordingly. Also IMO there seems to be a lot of human effort behind the censorship project. I would bet money that the NSA and/or other “government” agencies are involved.

    And it’s difficult to get around it by creating another account because new accounts cannot be set up without a phone number. They’ve clearly taken the gloves off.

    1. That’s why places like Darkmoon are so valuable and needed. To the Darkmoon’s of the Internet, I salute you!
      Salve Altraluna!

    2. All true. I am of the opinion that yahoo comments have a mirror site that gives you the idea that your comments take. Every time I post something and go back to the article to see if it is still there I am taken to a new page for the article. Completely different formatting and not given the option to see “my comments”.

  6. Will the article on Adolf Hitler be put back on this site , I missed it .

    1. @Geraldine…
      As the ADMIN stated in the last notice (its still there look for yourself), it got nicked! Yep, seriously, soon after I wrote a really damning comment on the Hitler book by Ernst Hanfstaengl, it disappeared, like a thief in the night! Darkmoon guard wolves are now grounded, without food, as punishment. The super-sleuths of the Darkmoon are out searching for the villains, and all those with their names attached to the comments section, including myself, are going in hiding! 😉
      As per my post above, I will repeat everything again, when given the chance…come what may…CIA, GCHQ, NSA, or Trump! So stay tunned Geraldine, for the next exciting episode of this intriguing story, so keep tunning in, same bat-time, same bat-channel!

      Cue….1960s batman theme….dadadada dadadada BAT MAN! dadadada dadadada BATMAN!

      1. I got booted off the internet 6+ times about half a week ago when I was trying to read a Hitler article Henry Makow had on his page. It also featured Hafnstaengl and Churchill!

  7. “A breakdown of methods for winning arguments in online situations and in real life”

    You don’t change leftists’ minds when you defeat them in arguments, but you demoralize them, which is the next best thing. Two truths become apparent to them when you handle yourself right. First, they learn that they do not know what they thought they knew—they learn that screeching “Racist!”, citing “colonialism,” etc. will not debilitate an intelligent opponent. Second, and probably most important, they learn that their views are not social gospel, as they had assumed.

    The leftist is a herd animal. His confidence comes from the certainty that he and his allies can form a circle around dissenters and stone them to death. He swaggers and boasts so obnoxiously due to the belief that he has a rabid pack to call upon. When the rocks bounce off you, or when his fellow Marxists fail to show up, his nerve fails him every time.

    The main leftist tactic is to dare you to “go there.” They want you to cross a moral line, to violate a cultural Marxist taboo, so they can invoke a trick word and declare victory. If you embrace your heresy, however, they have no clue what to do next.

    Tactic 1: Be in full command of your data and chains of logic

    Do your homework. Understand what you believe and why. That’s what the material on this site is aimed at helping you with.

    Tactic 2: Never show remorse

    As I have said, the leftist is not debating by any honorable standards, but is operating by primal logic. A basic law of the jungle is that a show of weakness is an invitation to be attacked. This is because animals are generally in permanent states of both hunger, and fear of others’ hunger. They do not want to know who is logically right, they want threats neutralized and advantages maximized. The leftist does not want to hear you out, even when you make a flawless argument. He wants you shamed into silence, and then to point at you as he preens and moralizes.

    If he can make you apologize for “racism,” or can stigmatize you through some kind of theatrical device or mockery (see anti-white Hollywood or Jon Stewart for details), he is satisfied with never knowing what you actually thought. But if you never apologize for what you know is true and, furthermore, always meet mockery with your own smiles and mockery, the leftist is knocked off balance, and is bound to either flee in confusion or fall to narcissistic rage and expose his belief system as fraudulent.

    Tactic 3: Stay calm and keep it dry

    Even if you’re more clever than the leftist, it is never advantageous to get into a womanish insult contest with him. This is, in fact, his preferred debate medium. He is looking for fireworks, for rhetorical detonations, not for a cold-blooded counting up of data and testing of logic. He wants it established that people who disagree with him are defective. His best chance for this outcome is to incite you to anger and carelessness.

    What works best is to calmly pick his inflammatory statements apart. Expose his devices. As the Ancient Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu said, the best strategy is to attack the enemy’s strategy. Simply saying, “The fact that you’re trying to shame me, rather than address my points, shows the weakness of your position,” rotates the spotlight away from your supposed thought-crime and back to the leftist’s silly attempt to win by cheating.

    Ad hominem attacks are always inadvisable, because they are in invitation to roll in the mud, which is exactly where the leftist wants you. Do not get personal. Keep it dry and unemotional. A leftist’s ad hominem is best met with, once again, turning the spotlight onto his trick—something along the lines of, “You’re now resorting to ad hominem. If I’m as stupid [awful, incompetent, or whatever] as you say, it should be easy for you to refute my argument without going off topic.”

    Spice up your arguments with rhetoric only to add insult to genuine injury. When you catch the leftist in a contradiction, or sense their confidence failing, point it out with a sharp, painful barb, such as adding the word “moron” to a particularly good take-down.

    Tactic 4: Deal principally in principles

    Someone who has sound principles always has a frame of reference in an argument, and can therefore never become hopelessly lost or conclusively defeated. This is our primary advantage over leftists. Their unifying theory is perfect equality, across every type and class of human, which is an absurdity. All of their dishonesty and grandstanding is designed to distract from and avoid discussing the essential fallacy of their worldview. Any statement that seems confusing can always be refuted with a statement of principle, such as:

    *The fact remains that IQ is just another way to say ‘smartness,’ and nobody can deny that some people are smarter than others. Since IQ tests make valid prediction about life success, they are proven to be sound science.

    *The fact remains that all group trends, from IQ and other test scores, to income and crime rates, to historical achievements, are best explained by innate differences in the races.

    *Blacks may have built the pyramids but in modern times, when we have the most reliable data, their social failure is all but universal, and they have not independently produced other than stone age technology.

    *The fact remains that there is no instance in modern times of dark-skinned people creating or maintaining a first world society, so your entire worldview is guesswork. (A first world society being defined as Western-style individual rights, complex legal systems, complex economies, complex technology, complex art and philosophy, low crime, robust sanitation and infrastructure.)

    *The fact remains that, were it not for Jews, Marxism, Bolshevism, cultural Marxism, feminism, black power movements, the pornography industry, the homosexual agenda, mass third world immigration, and our predatory banking system would not exist in such monstrous forms because they would lose their intellectual foundations and their most essential agitators and activists.

    *The fact remains that, in nature, the trait of homosexuality is simply a reproductive defect that manifests as a behavior, and it would not duplicate itself and therefore would quickly die out.

    *The fact remains that mass shootings never occurred before the age of liberal values, multiculturalism, etc.

    Reduce every position—from your “racism” to your “bigotry” to your “antisemitism”—to a principle, a statement of fact, that proves it must be true—or that it is the best theory based on the preponderance of evidence. This self-proof, that you can bear in mind, will function as a lighthouse that you can use to stay oriented when pulled into a vortex of rhetorical silliness.

    Tactic 5: Know your opponent

    The starting point should always be to assume that your opponent is interested in an honest exchange of ideas. This approach clears you of genuine intellectual bigotry, and also opens up the real possibility of educating someone.

    However, once you sense the tell-tale hostility and/or dishonesty, it will save you much time to remember that leftists come in a few basic types. Each one argues in a different way and is worthy of a different amount of effort.

    The liberal woman

    Leftist women tend to be the quintessential leftists, because leftism, with its emphasis on narrative over reality, and gestures over substance, is an essentially feminine ideology. Expect to make no progress with leftist women, but simply point out that they are making no sense, and politely disentangle yourself.

    The feminized liberal man

    Arguing with the feminized liberal man is much like arguing with the leftist woman, except you may expect bursts of machismo, as he tries to compensate for the inherent “gayness” (sometimes literal defense of gayness) of his rhetoric and positions. The best approach with this character, once any reasonable exchange of ideas is off the table, is to let him know he has become a hysterical woman, and to politely end the discussion.

    The cuckservative

    This character will agree with you on everything except the tenets of Marxism, i.e., class realism, gender realism, race realism, and Jew realism. Since he loves free markets and the Constitution, he is used to reasoned and logical debate, so will probably just find a way to quickly end the discussion once he is made aware of the painful contradictions in his worldview.

    The cuckservative, in many cases, is an excellent prospect as far as someone to recruit away from Marxist beliefs, because he knows humans do not have the same innate capacities, but is just terrified of exploring the implications of this reality.

    The #BlackLivesMatterer

    The typical black Bolshevik bears out the IQ data. He cannot be argued with, because he does not understand anything except the equality pabulum he has been fed his whole life. The idea of proven intelligence differences, the concept of averages, the nuances of evolutionary processes, etc., are a language he does not speak. Don’t waste your time.

    The intelligent #BlackLivesMatterer

    There are intelligent blacks deeply invested in the Marxist narrative who can nonetheless be made aware of the problems with it. Be prepared to fend off the range of Jewish anthropological sophistry and mythology about black civilizations. The best to be hoped for here is to plant seeds of doubt. The best thing for our future with this race would be for intelligent blacks to influence the rest as far as the group’s limited capacities.

    The ineffectual intellectual

    This is usually a white liberal male who fancies himself, and is often educated as, a scientist. He thinks your race realism or history-based arguments are “pseudointellectualism” and he thinks he’s going to sweep in and set you straight. This is a case where it will be good to have worked out your principles, and to have some familiarity with scientific language and concepts. This fellow will be most likely to stymie you, because of his high IQ and language skills, and his dogged will to prove that non-Marxist views are factually wrong.

    The Jewish partisan

    The Jewish partisan, once they know you do not subscribe to Marxian equality theory, and are even an “anti-Semite,” will simply end the discussion as quickly as possible and find someone to talk to about the coming Holocaust 2.0. To the extent they do engage, expect the most disappointing and trite sophistry. They will attempt to inflame, will use the litany of scare-words, and will try to lure you into parsing the fine print of various issues. Jews tend to regard lying as their right, and they tend to make an art-form of lying, because they see it as serving the larger agenda of maintaining their group. If their lies do not go over, they have no interest in getting to the truth of racial differences, Jewish behaviors and agendas, etc.

    Tactic 6: Remember, demoralization is victory

    This has been the left’s key tactic since Freud. This is the thesis of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. We are at war, and in all war, the real objective is to make your enemy stop fighting. You have won when you find your debate opponent becoming exasperated and seeking escape routes. Remaining calm and picking apart both their methods and their assertions is precisely what the leftist does not want you to do. You win when they panic, block you, storm off, become hysterical, etc. You have now sown seeds of doubt, and they will avoid arguments such as this in the future, and any onlookers will come away seeing them and their arguments as ridiculous.


      @ Russian Limbaugh:

      Seriously, I nearly got a cerebral hernia trying to keep all your tactics in thought!
      RL, I hope you don’t mind if I refer to you as RL, I agree largely with all your suggestions, but for one thing. Politicians and polite people, like for example Chamberlain, work like this all the time. And look what it got us!
      Seriously, this kind of thinking only works if you are with people who respect it, but when you are dealing with serious morons and upper class snobs, it is a waste of time. Take a look at history, did you see apartheid in South Africa with people treating the racist White South African government cordially? NO! THE WORLD, called them racist and worst! And after serious pressure and hell of a lot of justified name calling they changed. Take look at slavery in the USA, that had to end with a civil war! Talk is cheap, when you don’t have blood invested, and my family, have blood and a lot more invested, do you!

      In short, you call a spade a spade. If people’s sensibilities are hurt, then good! May be then they will start seriously questioning their morals! Besides words like RACIST are not rude, or unkind. If you are a racist you are a RACIST!

      Ladies and Gentleman of the Darkmoon, hear these words and hear the words sincerely. I know comments made by RL, are largely directed to me. It is obvious. But consider what I now write to you. In days gone by, before the Politically Correct movement evolved, words like Nigger (for blacks), Chico (for Mexicans), Slope (for Chinese), Wog (Italians/Greeks/Lebanese) and many others, where used by the Anglos define these people in brackets. I grew up being literally beaten, for what I am, a human being, of different color, and speaking another language to the White Race. Other children, teachers, bosses, women, all of them white, thinking what I am was less then human, you have no idea how many teachers found it easy to call me a racist name. Then came the Political Correct movement, and guess what? The words disappeared, but do you think that changed anything? Nope. I and many like me suffered still racism, not by words but by deeds! Today the European Union, where I live, has Racist Laws. Do you know what they are? Laws that forbid calling other people names. WHAT ABOUT THE DEEDS! Racism is not about words, RL! Do you understand that? It is about bad deeds! Like whipping the nigger. Read that sentence again, everyone! What do you think is worse, the pejorative “nigger”, or the “whipping”? What if I said, whipping the man? Not stating that the man is black, is that better now for you? The whipping is the bad, that is cruelty, but if you are whipping a black man only, and you don’t literally say he is black, IT IS STILL RACISM, because it is whipping ONLY men that are black.

      A racist is a racist. When you direct your vile actions only at solely one kind of people who are not your color, then, irrespective of the action, it is race based. Words or no words, it matters not, it is about deeds. You do the dirty deed, you get called the dirty name. Like it or lump it, you own it. So live with it.

      If you are white, you have NO RIGHT to judge. As I have said, the master has no right to say to the slave he is a good master. If you want non-white-anglos to understand you, then try understanding what you are doing to the rest of the colored world.

      Furthermore, don’t get indignant by using other vile crimes committed by colored people. When I see a colored race invade your country, USA, Britain, Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, and treat you like the scum you have treated the rest of the world, then you may pass judgment. Until then, remember who is dropping the bombs on whom!

      And lastly, racism, is not about just color based. Generally I never touch Wikipedia since it is terribly actioned (yes I use the word “actioned”, meaning there is premeditated intent, usually nefarious) by very questionable people, but for expediency i can work with this:

      Race is the classification of humans into groups based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics, or social relations, or the relations between them.First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. The term was often used in a general biological taxonomic sense, starting from the 19th century, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.

      You see earlier race was not just about physical traits but even social relations; example Russians vs. Ukrainians, but you couldn’t tell the difference between a Russian and Ukrainian, and yet I know many Ukrainians, and Russians who consider the other lower race, like animals. Later race, was about phenotype. Do you know what that means? No I bet you don’t. Here …

      A phenotype is the composite of an organism’s observable characteristics or traits, such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird’s nest).

      READ THAT YOU IGNORANT PEOPLE. By that definition, all human beings are the same race! Middle Eastern people are not biochemically, physiologically, behavior wise different that you! And yet you all treat the rest of the world on the out of date, backward understanding of how racism is defined in the 19th century. Why? Anglos differentiate, Europeans, which seem to be more acceptable now (not in the 50s though), to Asians and Africans. Why? Because of the European Union? Give me a break, Britain. Look how you refer to the Polish, and Romanians. You see them as second class citizens. That’s racism! Do you treat the IRISH that way! You do know you have more Irish in Britain, than Poles you know. So why are the Irish nicer to have around? Better color, non of that stinking polish sausage, or is it that the Poles work harder than the typical Englishman, and you are too ashamed to say so! That’s racism.

      Just because you have laws in your countries that protect minorities it doesn’t mean, you treat minorities with the same respect as you do your own color. Take a look at Australia, it had a White Australia Policy, by White meaning the 19th century definition of White, right up until the 1970s. Did things change? Hell no! Check out the race riots between the Lebanese and WHITE Australians, checkout how the aboriginals are murdered by white police in jails, just like in the USA.

      You see, you need to focus on your deeds and actions. Not on your laws. And writing a set of tactics about how to win an argument is just bullshit. Because in the end, like it always goes, you have to win your argument, with a fight, and usually a bloody one. Because, that person who is in the more powerful position, like a government, will never give you equal rights to winning an argument with words, because words are only used to govern the stupid and cowardly who don’t fight for their freedoms! Freedoms and equality are never argued into existence, only through spilling blood do you win. Why should a white superior person give more rights to a non-white, when that white person wields the power. Yes that argument works the other way too, but like I said, who is dropping the bombs from the comfort of their air-conditioned bunkers, drinking coffee and chatting with your bunker mate, while the children are playing in the homes that will shortly explode.

      To you British, remember that when you go vote later! Thousands of children all over Asia are counting on it.

      1. “Besides words like RACIST are not rude, or unkind. If you are a racist you are a RACIST!”

        –Dorian 2017

        “BIGGLY” Brilliant..!! I am one.. 🙂

      2. “Racism” helps us “Celebrate Diversity”! 🙂 (I do my best..)

      3. Dorian, you are right that truth and deeds being the main determinants of moral behavior but nonetheless mind-turf does count in a secondary fashion, and so RL’s advice is valid (amusing and well written).

        Your plain truth speaking reminds me of a foreign born dark skinned gentleman taxi driver who took me from one London airport to another. Naturally riding in the front to enjoy conversation better I asked him, a resident of 25 years, if the British were racist. As a chemical engineer he had originally had a good job in the UK but after he was made redundant he fell back on taxi driving. He replied ‘No’. He explained that once a foreign element rises above 3% in any population then it was natural and unavoidable for tensions to arise. He went on to complain how the nanny-UK state had removed his parental rights: one daughter had become a doctor, another daughter was on course to become a doctor but his teenage son was a drug taking extra marital sex enjoying freeloader. Were the father to raise his voice against the son, the son would call a government agency and the father would be taken and imprisoned for the night. He yearned to go back to Pakistan but he considered the cultural gap between his family and Pakistan to be too great.

        Getting back to “actions rather than words”, yes this is a fundamental principle of morality and freedom that the Tribe have removed from the West. It can be considered as a secular form of blasphemy. So now we have blasphemy laws almost the world over.

      4. Lol. I’ve recently been called a “bigot” and a “fascist”. How times have changed Oo

    2. @Russian Limbaugh – Outstanding. Fine analysis. Watch out for the quiet ones.

  8. Ok I just lost another post. I was replying to above, it got nicked! I am not going to bother doing it again.



  9. does anyone remember the “gemstone files”? late 60’s early 70’s,
    outrageously salacious ( for the time) divulging”secret” information,
    typically re the kennedys and the mafia,
    marilyn munro, onnasis,vietnam, vatican secrets etc.
    passed around on grubby type written sheets with an exhortation to make further copies
    chain letter fashion,
    stuff once “far out”, now long since considered old hat.

    did “conspiracy theory” evolve from the typed and stapled,
    contra the www
    that serves now, amongst other things,
    to make instant looney in most peoples eyes of anyone that confesses to having “seen/read it online”,
    whatever “it” may be.

    a make do and mend on the part of TPTB that didn’t see it coming?
    or was it always part of the plan……….

  10. If you truly want to know about Adolf Hitler, google “The greatest story never told.” This documentario consists of about 12 segments of video each about 45 minutes long. The download is free. Hitler was a great man. Just watch. Andale!

  11. “…classic lessons on how to spot disruption and disinformation tactics.”

    “2. Pretend it’s hopeless…”

    Maybe I’ll spice up my occasional post concerning “the hopeless ones” the next time with this tidbit of info. 🙂

  12. Demand complete, fool-proof and guaranteed solutions to the problems being discussed. For example, if a reporter breaks the story that the big banks conspired to rig a market, ask “given that people are selfish and that no regulation can close all possible loopholes … how are you going to change human nature?”, and pretend that it’s not worth talking about the details of the market manipulation. This discourages people from reporting on and publicizing the corruption, fraud and other real problems. And it ensures that not enough people will spread the facts so that the majority know what’s really going on.

    I have long seen this mindset in action among the gullible goyim. Jews have actually programmed the idiots to parrot this type of illogical banality. I cannot count how many times I have heard the reply: “So what are you going to do about it? There is nothing you can do.”

    For years now I have received a fair amount of irritating, forwarded, e-mail propaganda. These short eye-bites are invariably about evil Muslims, building fences, war stories from the “greatest generation,” support the troops in the nearby, Eastern slaughter, maudlin nostalgia, (do you remember how your prom shoes actually had laces?) etc.

    There must be an army of Mossad operatives who do nothing but jinn up this patriotic drivel; the cyber equivalent of the media soundbite. (They used to say, “you need to write at about a fifth grade level.” Today they should say, “you need to write for the fifth grad attention span.” Anything over a paragraph is wasted, so you should probably quit reading this right now.)

    When I send these same regurgitating grist mills of banal propaganda truly informative articles addressing various aspects of the monumental problems faced by western civilization, like WWIII, the obvious moral decay of the West or white slavery in Israel, these are never forwarded. For the stupid, gullible goyim its all “Rah! Rah! Rah! Keep waving the flag for American High boys! Look at how stupid and corrupt the Democrats/Republicans are! Whatever you do, don’t bother examining any facts concerning those matters about which we constantly whine and kvetch, just forward another inane e-mail and keep on bitchin’.”

    Another debilitating aspect of white culture is the demand for absolute, incontrovertible evidence from everyone – everyone but Jews that is. I recently commented to a friend about how Spielberg once said he filmed Schindler’s List in a documentary format that would later allow segments of the movie to be woven seamlessly into actual historical footage. This is in the same Jewish tradition of taking photographs of German victims of allied firebombing raids and passed them off as dead Jews in concentration camps.

    My young friend came back saying: “I found comments by Spielberg stating how he purposely filmed the movie to look like a documentary, but I could not find any reference to him talking about using the effect to modify actual documentary films.” I will concede that, to his credit, my young friend added: “Of course this is> something like Jews would do.”

    Now I know I read the statement and while there is the definite possibility that I misread it as being attributed to Spielberg, what does it matter? When one knows the depths of lying, Jewish depravity, one fully understands this is exactly the mental process that goes through Jewish minds like Spielbergs. So it matters not whether he said it, this fits the Jew’s typical modus operandi and therefore has factual validity. Therefore I assign the concept, if not the statement, to Spielberg.

    Yet, when Jews intentionally play fast and loose with facts, no one insists they validate their lies with documentation. When Dan Dingbat says in his best multimillion-dollar, stentorian tone: “Muslim terrorists were behind the atrocity,” how many get in his face screaming, “Prove it! Show us some real evidence beside the phony passport or bandana that was obviously planted at the scene.” Instead the gullible goyim nod their head in sagely agreement. After all, what need is there for evidence when Dan Dingbat has delivered the authoritative, word o’ god from on high? Because as we all know – god never lies and neither does Dan Dingbat on the nightly news.

    This slavish demand to produce verifiable facts of every jot and title of every statement, every claim one makes is a peculiar twist programmed into the goyim. The concept of the need for empirical evidence is based upon the much ballyhooed “scientific method.” Yet, how many times have we found “evidence” established by this method to be pure bullshit? Margaret Mead and “global warming” are but two subjects that come to mind in this regard.

    By the way, have you noticed that while the public is mesmerized by the one hand whirling and twirling its hotly intemperate, global terror, the other hand can’t be seen manipulating a giant conspiracy to lace earth’s atmosphere with aluminum nano particles that have a demonstrable cooling effect? Don’t believe it? Walk outside after a few days of chemtrail spraying, take a temperature reading and then compare it with a sunny day. Hey! Are those Jews psychos or what? The question is what is behind this particular psychosis?

    I know what you are thinking: Arch, how do you know its Jews behind the spraying, assuming of course such a thing even exists. Have you ever seen any document signed by a Jew in connection with this alleged spraying claim? We need proof Arch. Of course we know the Nadzees never had signed orders for the genocide of European Jewry, but that’s different!

    Does it walk like a Jew? Scope alone proves this is a very expensive program. A lot of black budget money is being spent, yet no reason can be found for the spraying. Therefore the spraying must be authorized and administered by top level money men aware of the reasons for the program – that would be Jews.

    Does it lie like a Jew? The program is highly secretive and constantly denied. Therefore it must have serious deleterious effects that administrators do not want revealed to the public. Who but Jews deal in such massive subversion and deception while having the victim design, develop and pay to build his own guillotine?

    Why is it perfectly acceptable for Jews to play fast and loose with facts and figures when it is unacceptable for everyone else? I have yet to see any among the gullible goyim pin a Jew to the wall and scream, “Prove it! Prove it! Prove what you say! I want to see documented facts for every last detail of what you are telling me! I want documented, empirical evidence for your claims!” Perhaps if the goyim held Jews to the same standard to which they hold their fellow goyim, the world would be different place. As it is, Jews have a get-out-of-any-lie-free card they play to Trump the goyim mind.

    Jews continuously hammer their hallowedhoax lie without ever facing the same withering demands required by those producing evidence to the contrary. Because such evidence to the contrary does exist in copious quantity, the next step is a refusal to examine the evidence. In this we see the Jew’s programmed meme at work, to wit: When one cannot refute facts, avoid, deny, lie and attack the messenger.

    Jews have totally inverted, not only our culture, but our minds as well. We have now developed the very same lying, hypocritical, duplicity that is the Jew’s hallmark of insanity. In this case, it is the lack of demand for evidence allowed the Jews, counterbalanced by an incessant demand for evidence for every detail of information provided by the goyim.

    I use the Jew’s own yardstick to invert this thinking. If it sounds like the kind of depraved, morally corrupt activity traditionally attributed to Jews, then that’s all the evidence that is required.

    When a story comes out with smudged, greasy, Jewish fingerprints all over it, that’s all the proof I need to attribute the act to Jews. There is no need for a signed confession from dod Sholomo stating that he indeed was the hateful “anti-semite Nadzee” that murdered Poles in the Katyn forest, bombed the King David Hotel or spray-painted swastikas on the local synagogue.

    By the same token, when I hear information coming from a Jew, I demand exhaustive evidence for every last detail. I have to be presented with documented evidence for every jot and tittle of their claim. I demand proof beyond question – and even then I don’t believe a word Jews say or write. They have been lying to us for far too long to ever be believed. It’s the old story of the Jew who cried Naaaaadzee.

    Take the absurdly, stupid Khazarian theory promoted by Jews to baffle, bamboozle and misdirect the gullible goyim. What matter that modern Jews may or may not be related to Biblical Jews? What matter if modern day Jews are actually Khazarian Turks? These Jews walk, talk, steal, lie and murder just like Old Testament Jews. The modern Jew is in fact a perfect fit for the description provided by Jesus in Matthew 23. So as far as I’m concerned, the arguments over this exhaustive question of blood relation minutiae is nullified to the point of useless insignificance.

    So get on board! Always give the utmost benefit of the doubt to every deliciously, hateful, anti-Jewish or anti-minority story. Take it as fact until proven contrary and even then never admit it was wrong. e.g. “Say did you hear Jews have begun kidnapping American children to use as blood sacrifices for their new Temple in Israel?” “You don’t say? Everyone should know about that.” Remember what dod Shmuley says: “Rumors of elephants carry far more weight than mousy facts, so use them often.”

    Conversely when one hears any anti-white story, one should immediately question its validity. Take nothing for granted. Insist every claim against the white man be proven and validated seven ways from Saturday and even then it should be left with a lingering question. Remember what dodah Golda says: “Camp down Jews are running strong, do dah, do dah. We never admit that we are wrong, oh do dah day.”

    Remember too those iconic Jewish words spoken by Luke Streetwalker’s master, Yada, yada, yada: “One is never accused of committing the crime for which they were a victim.”

    An dat’s da name of da tune for da day. I don’t know about everyone else, but I was much happier when America was run primarily by white men, it was a much happier, saner and more productive nation.

  13. Dorian
    May 31, 2017 at 10:41 pm
    “If you are white, you have NO RIGHT to judge. As I have said, the master has no right to say to the slave he is a good master. If you want non-white-anglos to understand you, then try understanding what you are doing to the rest of the colored world. Furthermore, don’t get indignant by using other vile crimes committed by colored people. When I see a colored race invade your country, USA, Britain, Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, and treat you like the scum you have treated the rest of the world, then you may pass judgment. Until then, remember who is dropping the bombs on whom!”

    It would be far more accurate to point out that RULING CLASS JEWS AND THEIR SHABBOS GOY UNDERLINGS are the ones who should be held accountable for dropping bombs on places like Iraq and Syria and Libya, etc. etc. Judaism represents a particularly galling ideology of racism and racial supremacy. Ergo, you really ought to hold JEWISH RACISM accountable for all of the monstrous things which have been and which ARE being done to the innocents of the Middle East. Not so long ago, the white nation of Germany underwent similar treatment. How do you account for that discrepancy ??

    (If you have submitted other comments, they have gone astray.
    Not our fault. This is happening to lots of people.

    Dear Admin
    Pretty sure that this will end up in your spam but I am reposting because I accidently posted on the wrong post…

    It appears to me that Virginia Holmes was a hasbarat that only came here to push the Masonic agenda of the Manchester Arena staged event. I posted the following reply to her comment but it’s gone into spam as per usual.
    For more real information on the subject please go to You Tube and see what “How I see the world” has to say and for a more amusing education see what Peekay22 has to say (but only if you can cope with the four letter expletive). Peekay rarely mentions the J word because they very nearly got him into a mental institution in retaliation for him trying to call the bluff on a jewish Melbourne Street victim that was supposed to be in hospital. There are many other clever people who tear their hoaxes to shreds. “Seek and ye shall find”.

    Here is a copy of my reply to (((Virginia))) that’s gone… into spam again:

    Regarding your quotation Virginia:
    “ I have actually been to visit my best friend R in hospital… at the Manchester Royal Infirmary to which she was rushed by ambulance. She was one of the many victims of this very real terrorist atrocity. Her wounds were REAL. She had lost her left leg… nails and bolts had disfigured her beautiful face.”.
    OK, any chance of a name and a photograph of her face post injury?

    I very much doubt you will be forthcoming with the photo and its news to me that the media has claimed such unique injuries. Most injuries appear to be superficial leg injuries as with most of the other so called “terrorist attacks” of late.

    Nearly 5 years ago I had what I thought was one of my best friends who went by the name of Justin. He told me that one of his cousins was in the world trade centre when it was hit by a plane. (LOL)
    He was the IT man for my business and a few months later he deleted all of data from my “ant-Semitic” computer, attempted gross espionage against my business and then called police to tell them that I was mentally ill.
    Which brings me to the subject of gaslighting and falsely accusing people of being mentally ill:

Comments are closed.