The original post was by u/TheGoombler, I'm simply reformatting the image into a text post.

We need to know our enemy and their tactics in order to stop falling for FUD, panicking, and letting our emotions take control. This information is really useful for those purposes.

Changes: I have removed bits and pieces of extra detail from a few sections because there is a limit to how large the post can be. I've also adjusted the grammar of some sections and condensed some wordier sentences. The original information, while largely the same, can still be viewed in the original post.

If you spot any sections that need cleaning-up, just let me know and I'll get right on it.

Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor, this is not financial advice, and I do not condone the actions described here, nor am I accusing others of these actions.

SECTION 1: Techniques for Dilution, Misdirection, and Control of an Internet Forum

Technique #1 - FORUM SLIDING

• If an important post has been made that goes against you, it can be quickly removed from public view by forum sliding. In this technique, many unrelated posts are made quietly on the forum and allowed to "age". Each of these misdirecting forum posts can then be called upon at will to trigger a forum slide.
• The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to hide this from the public the public. To trigger a forum slide and flush the post out of view it is simply a matter of logging into each account, both real and fake, and replying to unrelated posts with a simple 1 or 2 line comment.
• This brings the unrelated posts to the top of the forum list, and the critical post 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the post, it is now lost in a sea of unrelated, useless posts. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.

Technique #2 - CONSENSUS CRACKING

• Under the guise of a fake account, a post is made which looks legitimate truthful, but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back it. Once this is done, under alternative fake accounts, a very strong position in your favour is introduced over time.
• It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As more posts and replies are made, the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly seeded in. Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you, their opposition to your post will be most likely dropped.
• In some cases where the forum members are smart, and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked posts, you can then abort the consensus cracking by initiating a Forum Slide (Technique #1)

Technique #3 - TOPIC DILUTION

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding, it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and unproductive issues. This is a useful technique to cause a resource burn. By implementing continual and non-related posts that distract and disrupt (troll) users, one can inhibit their productivity.

If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are, the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in.

It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic, too quickly, it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Technique #4 - INFORMATION COLLECTION

Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique, in a light and positive environment, a 'show you mine so me yours' post is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered.

An example is to post your 'favourite possession' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns what. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite technique of operation. From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop their activities.

Technique #5 - ANGER TROLLING

Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction.

To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look.

Sometimes it is useful to 'lead the forum by replying to your own post with your own statement of violent intent, and that you do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.

Technique #6 - GAINING FULL CONTROL

It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable posts, and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms.

Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring posts, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.

CONCLUSION

Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants are unaware of them. Once they are aware of these techniques, the operation can completely fail and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precedence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline.

SECTION 2: Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it - especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'racists', 'fanatics', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning - simply make an accusation or other attack, then never answer any questions.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man – usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Simply label subsequent charges as rehashes of the original.
11. Establish and rely upon fallback positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made – but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.'
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld.) It may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, or deny that witnesses are acceptable.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations - as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. There are a few methods described in the image, but think about people being reported or banned for breaking rules that they didn't break, being threatened, or being harassed until they quiet down for the sake of their mental state.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

SECTION 3: Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2. Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3. Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4. Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5. Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6. Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin – an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.
   1. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation.
   2. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later - an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game – where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7. Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8. Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work... Section 8, parts A through C removed for post-length preservation.

SECTION 4: How to Spot a Spy (Agent)

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1. The message doesn't get out.
2. A lot of time is wasted
3. The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4. Nothing good is accomplished.

Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female. The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists. It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:

"You're dividing the movement."

Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault.

This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

"You're a leader!"

This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. Their narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts. The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist's "felt quality of perfection" (self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments (self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them. The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding.

The agent's expression of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion. It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the activist may be able to remain unaffected by emotional outpourings by the agent.

As a result of this unaffected attitude, the second event will occur. The agent will compensate too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," then move quickly to another activist/victim.

The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions. Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1. To disrupt the agenda
2. To side-track the discussion
3. To interrupt repeatedly
4. To feign ignorance
5. To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will...

1. Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2. Print flyers in English only
3. Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4. Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5. Display banners with too many words that are confusing
6. Confuse issues.
7. Make the wrong demands
8. Compromise the goal.
9. Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.

Provocateurs

1. Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2. Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3. Encourage militancy.
4. Want to taunt the authorities.
5. Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6. Attempt to instigate violence. Activism ought to always be non-violent.
7. Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

Informants

1. Want you to sign up, sign in, sign everything.
2. Ask a lot of questions.
3. Want to know what events activists plan to attend.
4. Try to make activists defend themselves to identify their beliefs, goals, and commitment.

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters (emails] in the name of the activist, and more; they will do whatever society will allow.

This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists If an agent is "exposed," he or she will be transferred or replaced.

SECTION 4 has been removed for post-length preservation.

It mostly reiterated the first section, with some examples.