⁣MASONIC DIVERSION TACTICS - DEVIL'S PLAYBOOK EXPOSED

529 Views
Shane St Pierre
Shane St Pierre
17 Oct 2021

⁣MASONIC DIVERSION TACTICS - DEVIL'S PLAYBOOK EXPOSED
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vN4tXV0lG4td/


Masonic Diversion Tactics1. 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 or lodge official. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, andyou never have to deal with the issues.2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on sideissues, which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanctgroup or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.3. Create rumormongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless ofvenue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutuallyexclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press,because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. Ifyou can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor”which can have no basis in fact.4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument whichyou can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Eithermake up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of theopponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakestcharges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk allthe charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.5. Sidetrack opponents with name-calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primaryattack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kook”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”,“terrorist”, “conspiracy theorist”, “radical”, “militia member”, “bigot”, “racist”, “religiousfanatic”, “crazy person”, “slanderer”, “sexual deviant”, and so forth. This makes others shrinkfrom 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 on your opponent or the opponentposition and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer.This works extremely well in online and letters-to-the-editor environments, where a steadystream 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 answeringany subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that theopponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussingissues and forces the accuser on the defensive.8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority, and present yourargument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, andsimply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing anysources.9. Play dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussingissues 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.10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man, usually, in anylarge-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be orwere already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a strawman issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequentcharges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated withthe original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address currentissues, so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.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, wasmade, but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion andimply 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” toyour mistakes without addressing more serious issues.12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding thecrime 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 quicklywithout having to address the actual issues.13. Alice in Wonderland logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backward with anapparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crimeat hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule #10.15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking, unless the crimewas planned with contingency conclusions in place.16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have toaddress the issue.17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find away to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turningattention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions whocan “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoiddiscussing more key issues.18. Emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide andtaunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make themlook foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat lesscoherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if theiremotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusingon how “sensitive they are to criticism”.19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “playdumb” 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 comeby (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 avoiddiscussing issues that may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media orbooks as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statementsmade by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed andmanufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitiveissues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed withcontingencies for this purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from thefabrications.21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert theprocess to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without opendiscussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret whenproperly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Juryhears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequentinvestigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guiltyinnocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) isachieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) orinfluence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or socialresearch or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually addressissues, you can do so authoritatively.23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract fromsensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such astrials, 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 fromcirculation 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 characterby release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or otherthreats.25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated, and you thinkthe heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Show more

2 Comments Sort By
pvirtssr
pvirtssr 1 month ago

hmm I wonder how much money that I could make from 80 million people if I told them what they want to hear and didn't have to prove anything just collect donations and profit off all venters selling my merchandize and pay others to agreed with me. lol

1 0 Reply
Show more

Up Next