Monopoly Media Methods

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The 25 Rules

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliation of Detroit Community Activists: General Discussion: The 25 Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By RobTruth on Monday, March 6, 2000 - 06:43 pm:
Read the rules and PLEASE DON'T BE DISTRACTED by his examples. Think of your own
especially as they apply to local issues.

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.

Example: Media was present in the courtroom when in Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby when 
CIA
agent
Marita Lorenz "confession" testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the
planning and
assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported is that E. 
Howard Hunt
lost
his liable case against Liberty Lobby (Spotlight had reported he was in Dallas 
that
day and
were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's Plausible Denial for the full 
confessional
transcript.

Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the 
material
and can
make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known 
silent
party as
likely complicit in a cover up.

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.

Example: "How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI 
and
BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate 
under
the
strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the 
President
could want to
appoint."

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. 
Your
high
opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge 
and any
number
of other examples, and you will see a pattern that demands attention to charges
against
FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation 
tactics
(rule
2 - become incredulous and indignant)?

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" which can have no basis in fact.

"You can't prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre
Salinger had a
chance to show his 'proof' that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, 
and he
didn't. All
he really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating around the 
Internet
for
months."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The 
Internet
charge
reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a 
supportive
statement by a Congressman who has not actually seen Pierre's document. As the 
FBI is
being
accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his 
material
is not
Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his 
material in a
negative
light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's 
credentials
and
unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is 
in
question.
Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. 
At best
you may
say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require 
addressing
the
actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation 
tactics
(rule 3 -
create rumor mongers)?

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's 
argument which
you
can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. 
Either
make
up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent
arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. 
Amplify
their
significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, 
real
and
fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat 
images
reveal an
object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. "If these 
exist,
the public
has not seen them."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You 
imply
deceit and
deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly 
natural
that the public
has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To 
produce them
would
violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities 
and
limitations, and
you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such 
disinformation
tactics
(rule 4 - use a straw man)?

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the
primary
attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that 
approach.
Associate
opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", 
"left-wing",
"terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious
fanatics", "sexual
deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of 
gaining
the same
label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Example: "You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis 
DeCarto,
is a
well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible 
have a
swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, 
right-wing
conspiracy
theory."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your 
imply
guilt by
association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is 
well
known Populist
media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream 
media
will
discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Why do you refuse to address 
the
issues by use
of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling 
and
ridicule)?

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the
opponent
position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore 
any
answer.
This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments 
where a
steady
stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism
reasoning --
simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never
answering any
subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

Example: "This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with 
this
crap? I
hope you all get run over by black helicopters." Notice it even has a farewell 
sound
to it, so it
won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your 
comments
or
opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless 
except
to pander
to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these
matters. Why do
you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 
- hit
and run)?

7. 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.

Example: "With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can 
make a
pretty
good living spreading lies."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your 
imply
guilt as a
means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer 
any
concrete
evidence that this is so. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation
tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?

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.

"You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic 
considerations,
much less
the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek 
plane
is started
with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with 
dual 450
CFM
Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) 
using a
dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with 
confidence
that no
Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals have ever been trained to fly 
it,
and have
certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a 
drone from
it that
flew over China. I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by
American
pilots."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your 
imply
your own
authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to 
address
issues and
cite sources. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such 
disinformation
tactics
(rule 8 - invoke authority)?

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid 
discussing
issues
with denial 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.

Example: "Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts
nonexistent.
Better go back to the drawing board and try again."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your 
evade
the issues
with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you 
pretend
to be,
have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by 
use of
such
disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?

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. 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 them 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.

Example: "Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. 
Digging
up new
witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting 
for it
with 50
agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years 
ago."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your 
ignore
the
issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant. Why 
do you
refuse to
address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate 
charges
with old
news)?

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or 
element of
the facts,
take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in
hindsight, was
made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of
proportion and
imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this 
on your
behalf, later.
Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and 
"owning up"
to
your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

Example: "Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to 
question the
data
provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian 
response to
its
use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she 
now
believes
was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your 
evade
the true
issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you 
did not
know
that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno 
with
the
Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy feeling it makes us, so much so 
that we
are to
ignore more important matters? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use 
of such
disinformation tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?

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 loose interest more
quickly
without having to address the actual issues.

Example: "I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you 
can't
prove a
motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole
controversy
over everything that went on in the White House and Arkansas, and even then, 
you would
have
to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel 
Office, and
on,
and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your
completely
evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much 
bigger
mountain
than necessary. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such 
disinformation
tactics
(rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)?

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning 
backwards
with
an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

Example: "The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where 
stories are
gold.
This means they dig, dig, dig for the story -- often doing a better job than law
enforcement. If
there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City 
bombing,
they
would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so 
there
can't have
been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your
backwards
logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew 
it? No,
despite their presence at a courtroom testimony "confession" by CIA operative 
Marita
Lornez
in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us 
the
trial verdict.
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics 
(rule 13
- Alice
in Wonderland logic)?

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve 
the
crime at
hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, 
who
really
killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame 
Ray and
fool
the FBI, and why?"

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is 
not
necessary to
completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached 
issue.
Why do you
refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - 
demand
complete
solutions)?

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking 
unless the
crime was
planned with contingency conclusions in place.

Example: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, 
perhaps,
Arlan
Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report.

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your
imaginative
twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren 
Report. We
all know
why the magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues by 
use of
such
disinformation tactics (rule 15 - invoke authority)?

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and 
you won't
have to
address the issue.

Example: "You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was faked and 
the
list of CIA
agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. 
You have
no
proof. Why can't you accept the Police reports?" True, since the dental records 
and
autopsy
report showing his body was two inches two long and the teeth weren't his were 
lost
right after
his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could 
view it --
all
that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.

Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or
persons, unless
you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a 
cover up
or other
criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the 
discussion,
you can
respond... You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you 
can
say is that
the matter is in contention based on highly suspicious matters which themselves 
tend
to support
the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by 
use of
such
disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)?

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.

Example: "There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena,
Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it 
simply
didn't
happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance 
and at a
disadvantage in the election because Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing 
to
offer that
they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply 
has no
real
platform." Response. "You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong 
with
Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the
environment, and every woman he can get his hands on..." One naturally feels
compelled,
regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one...

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your 
evade
discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional 
response -- a
trap
which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political 
rhetoric,
please drop
out of this discussion, as it is not germane unless you can provide concrete 
facts to
support
your contentions of relevance. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use 
of such
disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?

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".

Example: "You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a 
paranoid
conspiracy
buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with 
microwaves,
which is
the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel." After a 
drawing an
emotional
response: "Ohhh... I do seemed to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. 
What's the
matter?
The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the 
Psychic
Friends
Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help..."

Proper response: "You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You 
attempt
to draw
me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have 
something
useful to
contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide 
and
unwarranted
personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless 
rhetoric
serves no
purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the 
issues by
use of
such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad 
opponents)?

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant 
of the
"play
dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in 
public
forums,
claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the 
opponent to
come by
(it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is 
known to be
safely
destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid
discussing
issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books 
as
valid
sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made 
by
government
or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Example: "All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses 
who
aren't
qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a 
missile
hit it!"

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You 
presume
for us
not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig 
Gordon
or Liam
Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta 
Jr.,
reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the 
Associated
Press -- as
being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither 
would
you allow us
to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., 
Special
Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk
County
Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy 
divers, crash
investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft 
representatives a
part of the
crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, 
dismisses
this material
out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't
qualified. Only
YOUR are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar 
tracks be
damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned?
Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to
address the
issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, 
demand
impossible proofs)?

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.

Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian 
separatists,
the
Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy "confession", 
since
Jack and
Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now 
known
that Jack
worked directly with CIA in the assassination.

Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it 
clearly,
such as in the
following example, where more is known today than earlier in time... You are 
avoiding
the
issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have designed 
to side
track this
issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court 
in E.
Howard
Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night 
before
the
assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a 
coconspirator
whose
"Solidarist confession" was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the
murder. Why do
you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 
-
false
evidence)?

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 an unavailable to 
subsequent
investigators. Once a favorable verdict (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) is
achieved,
the matter can be considered officially closed.

Example: According to one OK bombing Grand Juror who violated the law to speak 
the
truth,
jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their
choosing,
denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated 
to
hearing only
evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed 
fraudulent and
intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.

Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to
complain loudly
at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover 
up.

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.

Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and
American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their
founding
members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control
research.
Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these
organizations
focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such 
thing as
Mind
Control.

Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic 
and know
of the
background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are well
equipped to
fight this tactic.

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.

Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that 
seems to
be
uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion 
of
skaters
whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of 
the
Waco trials
that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. 
summer. To
distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the 
danger
of
exposing government involvements, come up with something else (any day now) to 
talk
about
-- keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and 
players
during a
game and the whole gun control thing?

Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and 
interest in
the true
issues alive and point out that the "news flap" or other evasive tactic serves 
the
interests of
your opponents.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing 
opponents
from
circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is 
removed
entirely.
This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of 
their
character by
release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with 
blackmail or
other
threats.

Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with 
respect
to flight
800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted 
further
they would be
subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to 
register
as a foreign
agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn't work, you can always 
plant
drugs and
bust them.

Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself 
potential
victim of
this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for 
yourself an
insurance
policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a 
matter
which
requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in
execution to
avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for 
suggestions
on how
this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing).

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.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody 
in your
organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except 
to
focus on the
vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul pl