How to Detect and Expose the Criminal Agenda of Defamation
This report is provided as a Public Service, to help protect all humanitarian and professional services organizations against false Defamation as sabotage, and protect the People from fraud depriving them of the benefits of such services.
Most organizations with humanitarian projects or professional services, almost unavoidably, eventually experience attacks of Defamation, using lies against their reputation to sabotage their providing benefits to society.
The best way to defend one’s positive missions against false Defamation, is to expose its methods of deception, to empower the People to see through it.
Before examining the tactics and methods of false Defamation, to expose the standard “bag of dirty tricks” always used to discredit good people and institutions, it is important to first understand why the good are inevitably targeted, and why Defamation reveals the criminal minds of the attackers.
Organizations who successfully develop services of great benefit to humanity, or serious humanitarian projects, especially those with capabilities for large-scale meaningful positive impact, learn quickly that there exists a counter-culture of people who work just as hard, only to make sure that something good will not be given to the world.
Attacks of sabotage are most common in the sphere of business and commerce, especially for professional firms. One would expect to be able to avoid such adversity and aggression by only doing the most innocuous humanitarian non-profit work. However, that only provokes even more aggressive attacks.
Many diverse charities and non-profit institutions share such experiences:Â The closer they get to having real positive impact of major benefit to many people, the more groups seem to form only to sabotage those good works.
Such attacks by bad actors, for the sole purpose of blocking the good, are almost exclusively driven by the most despicable practice of Defamation, traditionally called Character Assassination.
Saboteurs almost always attempt to attack an institution through false Defamation against its best individuals. Defamation most commonly comes in the form of personal attacks, targeted especially against those who give the most, volunteer the most, and work the hardest to lead humanitarian institutions or implement their missions.
As William Shakespeare (ca. 1564-1616) explained: “That thou art blamed shall not be thy defect… So thou be good, slander doth but approve thy worth the greater, being wooed of time.” (Sonnet LXX).
The political satirist Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) perhaps best explained: “The worthiest people are the most injured by slander, as is the best fruit which the birds have been pecking at.”
The more one does and gives goodness, the more one seems to attract negativity, from the destructive counter-culture of people who rely on Defamation as their default method of sabotage.
Accordingly, the occurrence of Defamation against an individual is not a sign of any problem or fault, but more likely is rather a monument to the visibility and expected impact of one’s good works.
Human rights advocates, usually fighting for rights by exposing corruption to demand Justice, describe this reality with the traditional military saying: “You always get flack [shot at] when you are over the target.”
Those who attack others with false Defamation, by doing so, only reveal their own criminal character of unlawful, immoral and destructive aggression. Â
This almost always evidences that the defamers have nothing, only seeking to elevate themselves by disparaging others, or to violate the rights of others for ego or an agenda.
The theologian Tryon Edwards (1809-1894) explained that Defamation as Character Assassination is actually a criminal behaviour: “To murder character is as truly a crime as to murder the body: the tongue of the slanderer is brother to the dagger of the assassin.”
The famous American literary writer and poet Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849) noted that “To vilify a great man is the readiest way in which a little man can himself attain greatness.”
The Irish playwright and poet Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) also noted that “What is said of a man is nothing. The point is, who says it.”
Defamers demand attention to their negative and destructive accusations against others. Ironically, if one does pay attention, this actually reveals their own habit of aggressive behaviour, exposing their willingness to violate the lawful rights of others, which constitutes real criminal tendencies.
Therefore, such bad behaviour alone should cast suspicion on the accuser, despite their noisemaking to deflect attention away from their own defects, through their energetic Defamation of others.
All of the inflammatory words and phrases of false Defamation distract from the fact that the defamers themselves are necessarily guilty of the same accusations, by the fact of saying those deceptive words.
This is the old folk wisdom saying: “What goes around comes around.”
This is also the popular Navajo Native American wisdom saying: “When you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you.”
Law enforcement “profiling” (behaviour analysis) establishes that Defamation is commonly used by criminals, to deflect and distract from their own crimes:
Most defamers are actually frauds and con artists with no qualifications, charging “consulting fees” as a false “expert” in the sphere in which they attack targets. They can also be incompetent amateurs, trying to make themselves a “guru” to followers to feed their ego.
Thus, when genuine qualified professionals with credentials appear on the scene, and seem positioned to gain popularity, they see this as a threat, by the risk of exposing the defamer’s own fraud.  This provokes the defamer to attack all professionals which cross their path, calling everyone else a “fraud” and “scam”.
There is a principle of psychology called “projection”, when someone psychologically deals with their own wrongdoing and defects, by “projecting” those onto others:
Because the defamer knows what they are guilty of, they are often sure that their target must be doing the same things, so they boldly make accusations. This also serves to deflect attention away from their own guilt, by focusing accusations on others.
Therefore, whenever someone is engaging in false Defamation, typically calling professionals a “fraud” and “scam”, it is almost certain that they themselves are lying frauds scamming people, first by attacking others to falsely elevate themselves.
Most commonly, defamers will loudly proclaim they are “doing due diligence” on their target, a phrase of corporate law meaning an obligation to simply exercise “due care” by some “reasonable diligence”, before engaging in a commercial contract.
That declaration of “doing due diligence” is filled with an inherent egotism, as it falsely implies that everything must stop, and everyone must bow down to them, while they aggressively make no end of demands on their targeted victim.
The legal term “due diligence” originated from the United States Securities Act of 1933, which required a duty of “reasonable investigation” by some degree of effort considered to be diligent (Section 11(b)(3)). This became the legal precedent for due diligence practices in corporate law and banking compliance.
This practice of diligence – the opposite of negligence – protects against legal liability for any third-party information later found to be undisclosed or unproven, by preventing any misleading statements which are falsehoods or misrepresentations.
Unfortunately, supposed “due diligence” increasingly attempts to justify the willful or negligent creation of criticism that is provably false. Usually, this quickly develops into negative talking points of accusations, without any evidence of relevant facts of claimed defects, typically disregarding all law proving legitimacy.
The end result is that such claimed “due diligence” actually ends up instead proving “undue negligence” of the critic, as the source of illegal false Defamation.
Such abuse of “due diligence” is a flagrant violation of the legal obligation to verify truth of legitimacy, by willful disregard of positive evidence and even relevant law. Ironically, that only results in creating negative falsehoods and misrepresentations – precisely what required due diligence was supposed to prevent.
Therefore, any officials or executives responsible for supposed “due diligence”, who create negative information ignoring evidence and law proving legitimacy, commit a serious violation of their responsibilities, and thus can be terminated from employment, and incur legal liability for unlawful false defamation.
Real “due diligence” is merely something to do, quietly. It is supposed to be simply asking for routine documents, privately. Merely doing it should be routine and polite. Its conclusions should be internal, either accepting or declining to engage.
However, this is increasingly abused as an excuse to play self-appointed “judge and jury and executioner”, treated as a “power trip” to be lorded over others, bombarding the target with false accusations, all intended for an audience of third parties.
Because all false Defamation relies on being inflammatory, criminals claiming to do “due diligence” will actually pretend to be angry (for no reason), with a belligerent and defiant tone, all to stir up emotions and false fears among the audience.
False Defamation is essentially fear-mongering, by inflammatory rhetoric intended to cause a false moral panic, all in the name of false claimed “consumer protection”, in order to sabotage a legitimate good reputation.
The infamous Witch Hunts (ca. 1450-1750 AD) of Europe and America, which resulted in tens of thousands of executions of alleged “witches”, were driven entirely by artificially generated fear and “moral panic” [1] leading to psychological “mass hysteria” [2] as a collective psychosis.
All of those massively discredited tragic abuses against innocent victims, were driven solely by groundless accusations of false Defamation.
As a result, the term “Which Hunt” became a pejorative metaphor for wrongfully condemning an individual by mere accusation alone (called “guilt by accusation”). This is perhaps the most compelling example in world history, exposing the willful and knowing lawlessness and criminality of false Defamation.
The judgment of history has universally condemned the Witch Hunts as a malicious practice of intentionally provoked insanity, driven by egotism and the corruption of selfish motives of the accusers:
It was repeatedly proven, each time after mass deaths and pervasive damage to society were caused, that the accusations were almost always motivated either by jealously of someone else’s accomplishments or status, an intent to destroy something which one had built or developed, retaliation for one exposing some wrongdoing by the accuser, or a desire to seize something of value owned by the accused.
All of those very same motives fully apply to the phenomenon of unlawful false Defamation in the modern era. The new version of accusing someone of being a “Witch” is the accusation of “Fraud”:
The term “Witch” was so vaguely defined as to apply to anything at all, such that it could convict the target for doing even nothing at all;
So too, the vague word “Fraud” is used to mean any false artificial misunderstanding which can possibly be taken out of context, even when the accused was entirely truthful, has not breached any obligation whatsoever, and owes absolutely nothing to anybody.
Therefore, the word “Fraud” is truly the new “Witch” of the modern era.
The word “Fraud”, and its companion synonym “Scam”, fits perfectly with the deceptive methodology of false unlawful Defamation as Ad Hominem attacks by Character Assassination: It is highly inflammatory, highly prejudicial, and effectively instills irrational fear, as the ultimate provocation to distract people from all facts, law, evidence and truth.
For this reason alone, the mere use of inflammatory words such as “Fraud” or “Scam” should instantly expose defamers as highly suspicious themselves, revealing their unlawful intent to use manipulation only to cause as much damage as possible.
This behaviour thus proves that the defamers have a criminal mind.
[1] Erich Goode, Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance, 1st Edition, Wiley-Blackwell (1994), p.195.
[2] Lois Martin, A Brief History of Witchcraft, Running Press (2010), p.5.
The practice of “Ad Hominem” attacks (Latin meaning “against the person”) is the oldest proverbial “dirty trick” in human history, and the last refuge of cowards and saboteurs. This is generally defined as personal attacks against an individual, as an intentional deception by distraction, to indirectly and falsely imply criticism of an idea, an institution or its missions.
An Ad Hominem attack is formally recognized as a “Logical Fallacy” (meaning “false logic”), in which facts and truth are ignored and dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant claim about an individual, only because the critic has nothing truthful or relevant to say against the actual idea or institution.
This was best summarized by the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013), who famously said: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
This proverbial “knee jerk reaction” of scoundrels, to use Ad Hominem attacks against good people and institutions who do good works, is most commonly perpetrated by the infamous methods of “Character Assassination”:
This involves borderline criminal behaviour such as making knowingly or recklessly false accusations, manufacturing artificial situations to use as false accusations, and falsifying or manipulating information, all for aggressively vilifying the targeted individual.
Ad Hominem attacks and Character Assassination are closely related to what is called the “Straw Man” argument, which means discrediting an invented false substitute for the target, such as pretending to “debunk” claims which were never actually made.
Attacking a Straw Man is an intentional deception by distraction focusing on a fiction, as a cheap tactic to falsely “discredit” a good person or an institution of merit which the targeted individual happens to support.
The 21st century political analyst and satirist Jon Stewart addressed Ad Hominem attacks against himself as follows: “Yes, I’m an idiot, and yet even I can see the gaping flaws in your argument. So the question is: why can’t you?”
Just as all types of attacks are essentially based upon false Defamation, all defamers reliably use variations of the same limited sets of words and phrases, which are the telltale signs of a false Defamation attack.
In fact, Defamation attacks are so predictable and uniform, that it strongly seems that all defamers must have gone to the same “school” to learn the same deceptive tactics, as the same timeless “back of dirty tricks” which never changes.
This gives apparent credibility to the “conspiracy theories”, that bad actors sabotaging good institutions and humanitarian projects are either from subversive secret societies, or corrupt government agencies, or both.
In any case, defamers who only attempt to tear down what others have built, have a criminal mind, and thus are primarily destructive, and rarely or never create anything of their own. Thus, they tend to simply copy and imitate other attacks which they have seen, as such false attacks are so common and widespread.
As a result, defamers always seem to be following exactly the same “script”. This behaviour alone exposes and proves that they are common criminals, using a known method of criminal attacks for sabotage.
False Defamation relies entirely upon deception, which in turn is largely dependent upon artificially provoking emotional reactions. This serves as a distraction to dismiss all facts, and as manipulation to falsely portray even positive facts in a negative light. In the legal profession, this is called “False Light Defamation”.
Therefore, the central telltale sign of false Defamation is attacks primarily relying on “inflammatory language” as much as possible, to cover for the lack of any real facts or substance of the accusations.
This by itself should be highly suspicious, when the content is loaded with inflammatory words, designed for emotional appeal known to cloud logic, which can only be intended to “push your buttons” for psychological manipulation.
All of the other telltale signs of false Defamation consist of the diverse forms of inflammatory words and phrases typically used for such “emotional button pushing”, simply adapted for a variety of topics.
The following sections explain the traditional standard categories and topics of such inflammatory words and phrases used for Defamation attacks:
The core premise of false Defamation is always the “Ex Cathedra” assertion (Latin meaning “from the chair”, meaning argument from claimed authority), that their accusations are true simply because they say so themselves, only because of who they think they are or who they falsely pretend to be.
The Ex Cathedra assertion is formally recognized as a “Logical Fallacy” (meaning “false logic”), in which it is presumed that they cannot be wrong only because they believe or claim that they are more important than others.
Of course, this is in sharp contrast with the other Logical Fallacy primarily used for false Defamation, that of “Ad Hominem” arguments (personal attacks). Argument from authority elevating the defamer is the “flip side” of argument by personal attacks denigrating their target.
The result is a false “Double Standard” artificially manufactured by the defamer:
The accuser can do no wrong, all his lies need no proof, and he is always right, only because he says so himself; But the accused can say nothing right, all his proof is not proof, and he is always wrong, only because he was accused.  (This is the same infamous “guilt by accusation” tactic from the historical Witch Hunts.)
Defamers will usually declare that they are “Connected” with supposedly “Important” and “Good” people, usually anonymous “Sources”, who are all implied to be superior to anybody who disagrees with the Defamation they are promoting.
About the targeted subject, however, everything is wrapped in inflammatory language, and all facts, evidence, law and truth which contradict their false accusations are aggressively and arbitrarily dismissed, ridiculed, or covered up with other lies and distractions.
All of the various tactics of false Defamation are generally driven by one primary tactic, of false demands for instant complete evidence, even of things which are irrelevant to the matter at hand, even when the matter is already proven by relevant evidence.
Defamers will interrupt and harass the target, frequently repeating the confrontational phrase “prove it” or “show the evidence”, always “right here” and “right now”.
This demand for instant evidence typically disregards the fact that a complex matter is proven by sets of multiple laws and documents, which are usually not all in one place, and require time and effort to collect, deliver and present to others with clarity.
This tactic also irrationally dismisses the fact that the target’s institution usually has publicly presented all that evidence of legitimacy on its official website, or at least accurately summarized that evidence with details, making it verifiable.
One who is likely to be targeted by false Defamation cannot be expected to walk around with a briefcase full of all evidence at all times, nor to have all digital files and scanned documents organized and stored on every digital device everywhere. This innocent practical reality is precisely what false defamers rely upon for this ambush tactic.
While appearing to simply want to see evidence, these demands are actually false and deceptive, because defamers in fact do not want any evidence to prove the matter, and will never accept any evidence. Defamers only want more details which they can misrepresent out of context, using all the other Defamation tactics.
Standard Defamation tactics make frequent use of the following typical negative words, which are blatantly dismissive of all provable facts, to make people unreceptive to evidence of the positive truth:
“Claimed” – dismisses a statement, despite tangible and legal evidence which was already provided or can be verified upon request.
“So-called” – dismisses a status, despite the matter being an established fact which was already proven or can be confirmed upon request.
“Self-appointed” – dismisses a title, role or position, despite the fact of available evidence that one was duly elected or formally appointed by others.
“Self-proclaimed” – dismisses a title, role or position, despite the fact of available evidence that it was earned by one’s merit and granted by others.
“Unrecognized” – dismisses a status, despite the fact of available evidence that one was licensed or accredited or registered by an official authority which itself recognized it.
“Questionable” – dismisses a fact or action, despite the fact of available evidence that it is proven or can be verified as being accepted and legitimate.
“Dubious” – dismisses a practice or activity, despite the fact of available evidence that it is generally accepted or recognized as being lawful and ethical.
“Fake” – dismisses a status, title, role, position, or an entire career in a profession, despite the fact of available evidence that public laws and official legal documents prove that it is real and legitimate.
All of these inflammatory accusatory “button pushing” words deflect from the reality, that the defamer himself is actually making false “claims” of “so-called” defects, as the “self-appointed” and “self-proclaimed” judge over others, himself “unrecognized” with any qualifications or authority to do so, by “questionable” and “dubious” accusations by deception, thus himself being a “fake” critic making false accusations.
Other “False Light” tactics make frequent use of the following typical negative phrases, which misrepresent innocent facts as falsely perceived guilt, to make people unreceptive to evidence of the truth:
One “formulates elaborate plans” – misrepresents the innocent fact that one simply does responsible diligent planning and honest hard work to build something legitimate and beneficial for others.
One “has an agenda” – misrepresents the innocent fact that one simply has dedication to a higher purpose and pursues lawful and ethical means reasonably expected to make something good happen.
One “does everything only for himself” – misrepresents the innocent fact that one happens to benefit equally with others, from working for the good of all.
One “must have ulterior motives” – misrepresents the innocent fact that all can see that one is asking nothing in return, merely by invoking unspecified fears.
All these inflammatory phrases deflect from the reality, that the defamer himself has “formulated elaborate plans” and “has an agenda” to falsely accuse others, “only for himself” for ego or influence, and actually has an “ulterior motive” of falsely discrediting others for advantage or sabotage.
There is a whole separate inflammation topic all about anything related to money in any way, to misrepresent legitimate facts as unfounded fears, to make people biased and prejudiced against the truth:
One “only cares about money” – misrepresents the legitimate fact that real costs of a project happen to be paid for, despite evidence that one’s projects are transparently and inherently beneficial for a good cause for others.
One “only wants to get paid” – misrepresents the legitimate fact that one’s own out-of-pocket costs or labour costs happen to be paid for, despite the fact that one has the same right to earn a living to survive as every other human being.
One “takes money” – misrepresents the legitimate fact that money is rightfully earned and thus voluntarily paid, as if it were somehow “taken” from others by force;
One “embezzles funds” – misrepresents that one is legitimately paid, under a valid lawful contract or approved by a board or partners, having performed and delivered, only by the absurd philosophy that nobody has any right to ever be paid at all;
One “worships money” or is “motivated only by greed” – misrepresents the legitimate fact that a project or individual receives any money for anything at all, despite the fact that one also visibly gives much valuable work product for free as a volunteer.
All of these inflammatory phrases reveal that the defamer himself “only cares about money”, although not to receive it, but rather to make sure that nobody else can ever cover real costs of getting anything done at all, as sabotage of all projects. This is a wholesale rejection of the timeless reality that all charitable and humanitarian projects ever done throughout history required and received necessary funding.
Another tactic is highlighting an individual’s “intelligence” and “creativity” as negative and suspicious, to falsely imply that one might therefore use special skills to deceive others.
This is supposed to be an attack on one’s credibility, only by invoking the irrational fear that someone who is “smart” and “well educated” is thus “clever”, and could somehow go around fooling everybody.
This emotional manipulation is supposed to make the audience forget, that truly intelligent people are smart enough to know that substance and truth backed by evidence always win over false claims, that lies never work and always backfire, and that aggressive and abusive behavior logically always must backfire. (Only the defamers themselves never seem to understand those most basic realities of life.)
These good words, twisted into false fears, deflect from the reality that the defamer himself is making great efforts to use “intelligence” and “creativity”, trying to be “smart” and “clever”, by using as many as possible of the inflammatory words needed for the deceptive dirty tricks of false Defamation.
Defamers typically taunt and harass their target, rapidly repeating demands to “prove it” and “show evidence”. However, no matter what is shown as proof, it is always completely dismissed, rejecting all related law, only to falsely discredit the proof.
This standard behaviour proves they do not want any proof at all, they only want to lie about one’s legal evidence to ridicule it.
A special deception tactic is used for falsely discrediting matters of proven legal substance and legitimacy, by dismissive phrases of contempt for the rule of law itself. These are the phrases of a real “scofflaw” anarchist, who rejects all valid legal proof of facts, by ridiculing all law and rights:
“Just paper”, “only documents”, etc. – ridicules the fact that official legal documents are shown which do legally prove the matter, such as licenses certificates and registrations, merely by superficially dismissing all documents as worthless.
“Legaleze”, “legalistic fine print”, etc. – ridicules the fact that documents showing evidence use descriptions of or references to any legal concepts or laws at all proving the matter, misrepresenting that as somehow either confusing or trivial.
“Legal smoke and mirrors”, “legal fodder”, etc. – ridicules the positive fact that documents showing evidence quote numerous public laws referenced by section numbers, specifically proving the matter in detail, as if that were negative.
“Only on paper”, “empire of documents”, etc. – ridicules the fact that one holds many official and legal documents of conclusive proof, by dismissing the fact that having a reality of substance was required as the basis for obtaining such documents.
All of these inflammatory phrases reveal the defamer’s own philosophy of lawlessness as a hardcore scofflaw, revealing their own criminal tendencies and flagrant disregard for the rights of others.
Ideas of bigoted nationalistic discrimination are used as another superficial and baseless excuse to reject any and all evidence of legitimacy:
When solid official government documents are shown proving a status, the issuing country as a whole is often off-handedly dismissed as “not as good as” some other country, or a “not serious” country which “doesn’t count”, or a “suspicious” country, regardless of the legal fact of its full and equal sovereignty under international law.
By such arbitrary discrimination, as the defamer goes around in circles, never accepting any evidence that even a Court of Law would be obligated to accept, literally no amount and quality of evidence can ever be “good enough” for the malicious accuser.
Another false Defamation tactic is making misleading implications of a fantasy of supposed “investigations”, relying on these empty inflammatory phrases:
“We are investigating” – portrays a fiction that the defamer has some role as an “investigator”, allegedly doing some type of “investigation” of the target, despite not having any qualifications, credibility, nor authority to investigate anybody.
“Authorities are investigating” – portrays a fiction that some “authorities”, usually vague and unspecified because none are doing anything, are allegedly “investigating” the target, despite not having any basis of facts or law.
“Reported to authorities” – portrays a fiction that some alleged defect of the target was or could be supposedly “reported” to some “authorities”, despite no evidence of any wrongdoing and no liability of the target under any law.
These phrases are only empty inflammatory language, only to make the defamer sound important by false association with authority. In the end, the loudly declared supposed “investigation” either is nothing more than admitting illegal espionage in furtherance of criminal sabotage, or more likely, is nothing at all.
Another telltale Defamation strategy is peppering people with loaded and highly inflammatory supposed “questions”. While the questions are sometimes irrelevant, it is the peppering which serves to manufacture a false light portrayal of something being generally in doubt. This is merely a tactic to invoke false or irrational fears.
“Calls into question”, “in question” – portrays a fiction that verifiable evidence proving the matter which was already shown is somehow in doubt, allegedly because of irrational fears or irrelevant facts which do not disprove it.
“Questions must be answered” – coercively demanding to defend against irrational fears or irrelevant facts, often seeking information protected by lawful privacy rights, despite the fact that it would not disprove the evidence of legitimacy.
“Only asking questions” – hides behind a false moralistic posturing disguised as innocence, despite the purported questions being nothing more than thinly veiled highly inflammatory false accusations without any factual basis.
This tactic is used to superficially imitate supposed objectivity, reminiscent of antiquated stereotypes of investigative journalists of a free press (before the modern epidemic of corrupt propaganda and censorship), to deflect and distract from the fact that the false defamer will never accept any truth as an answer to any question.
Defamers almost always insist that they are “just asking questions”. However, loaded questions, packed with false premises, which are misleading and falsely inflammatory, are not “just questions” at all – they are pure deception.
Furthermore, such loaded questions in front of an audience is obviously nothing more than an attack of aggression, for the sole purpose of Defamation damaging reputation, with no intention of seeking any truth.
Another Defamation tactic is insisting that others address or consider supposed “concerns”, which are always false and entirely alarmist, designed and intended only to instill false or irrational fears, by using these simple phrases:
“Having concerns” – The tone of alleging that “I have concerns” is filled with an inherent egotism, as it falsely implies having such weight of credibility and authority, that one’s mere question or uncertainty must rise to the level of “concerns”, implying that everything must stop while they demand and require to be taken seriously.
“Only raising concerns” – This is another superficial false moralistic posturing to cover thinly veiled inflammatory false accusations, the same as “Only asking questions”.
Such typical insistence upon highlighting supposed “concerns” is transparently a euphemism for aggressive baseless accusations, thinly masked as mere questions.
While defamers use falsely negative words about others, of course they also use falsely positive words about themselves. While defamers dismiss and deny the real credibility of others, they often attempt to superficially boost their own credibility (even when they are completely anonymous).
For themselves, defamers typically use these empty words without any basis, only to deceive as always:
“Reputable” or “Credible” – claims false credibility, without stating any real basis, while also falsely implying that their target does not have their claimed credibility.
“Objective” or “Impartial” – hides behind a false moralistic posturing disguised as neutrality, despite using inflammatory language and rejecting all evidence of legitimacy, which could not possibly be more flagrantly biased and prejudicial.
“Corroborated” accusations – claims false confirmation by others who are supposedly credible, despite those usually being anonymous or unnamed people, who if they even exist have simply agreed with the same lies from the false defamer.
These words are misused to give a false sense of confidence to the audience, despite the fact that defamers are not “reputable” nor “objective” nor “corroborated” only because they themselves say they are.
They have no credibility to call themselves “credible”, when they are lying about almost everything though all the other false “button pushing” words, which are the telltale signs of illegal false Defamation.
Those who engage in false Defamation as sabotage, most commonly, portray themselves as if they were “Fraud Police” supposedly “Protecting Others” from potential “fraud” or “scams”. In this truly self-appointed role, they hide behind this false moralistic posturing, to deflect attention away from their own lies and deceptions.
They are “doing due diligence” – (See the “False Due Diligence” topic above.) Defamers use this to sound important, as if some form of their professional responsibility is involved, to give them some false credibility, supposedly representing the audience, in the self-appointed role of “protecting people”.
One is “scamming people” – Defamers will accuse their target of “scamming people”, even if one is not offering or selling anything, sometimes just for having any title of office or a profession at all, even when that status is unrelated to the project of one’s interaction with the audience.
Others are “good upstanding people” – Defamers will call the audience “good upstanding people”, portraying them as likely victims of the accused, absurdly implying that their target does not respect them as good people, and falsely pretending that the accuser has any respect for others at all.
Contrary to the defamer pretending to care about people, this “Saviour” ego-posturing, claiming to “save” people from “fraud” or “scams”, is actually extremely insulting to the whole audience. This only implies that people have no mind of their own, and are just waiting for some self-appointed “fraud police” to come and “save” them.
The inflammatory vocabulary for all of these Defamation tactics heavily relies on emotional “string pulling” and psychological “button pushing”, using all types of exaggeration and distraction, all for deception.
Defamers are forced to rely on such psychological manipulation, which is needed for the intended destruction, because they have little or no truth or substance, and little or no relevant facts or evidence to support their accusations.
Having excluded any and all Truth disproving their own lies, all they have left is to do “whatever it takes”, whatever they have to say, whatever they think the audience may need to hear, “throwing enough mud” to “see if anything sticks”, all calculated solely to cause as much damage as possible.
All of the typical “buzz words” used for Defamation only serve to metaphorically “paint a false picture”, even when the accuser does not have any canvas, nor any paint. This method of using inflammatory language for deception, is nothing more than to turn black into white, turn good into bad, and turn all Truth on its head.
Such vocabulary alone, without making any actual statement whatsoever, would create a negative impression sufficient to vilify and demonize even a Saint.
Appealing solely to the basest and most vile aspects of fear, defamers aggressively seek to cause imagination to overcome intellect, fear to overcome logic, and their lies to overcome verifiable provable truth.
However, all the deceptive inflammatory language in the world cannot change the truth, and cannot make anything legitimate not so, just because they say so.
As William Shakespeare wrote: “Truth is truth, to the end of reckoning.”
Sadly, these typical telltale Defamation methods sometimes manage to cover and distract from the fact that the defamer has little or no truth or reality to contribute, and little or no value of their own to offer.
Such methods prove, transparently and noticeably, that their only intent is purely destructive: to tear down what others have built, and discredit the truth which others have proven, as long as anybody is willing to believe the defamer’s lies.
Good people do not waste time attacking others with accusations just to cut them down, but instead focus on doing and giving their own good works, and thus always have positive news and inspiration to share with others.
Defamers, however, demonstrate by their words and conduct that they have few or no good works of their own which they believe are more important than attacking others, and thus offer only negativity and destruction.
Note that normal, ethical and honest people do not use such prejudicial and inflammatory tactics. They do not go on the offensive, attacking by “mud-slinging” using dismissive words and deceptive phrases, rejecting all facts and evidence.
Normal people simply do not use such vocabulary, which comes only from destructive and criminal minds, who actively studied such methods with the malicious intention to violate the rights of others, only to cause harm.
Honest people look for the positive side of things, asking without bias or prejudice for a desirable factor of legitimacy to be confirmed, showing genuine open-minded interest in the evidence, and fairly accepting the reality that proof is proof, law is law, and that official status is official.
Good people communicate any verified adverse facts only privately, directly to the individual involved, in a truthful and non-misleading manner, in context together with mitigating positive facts. If adverse information is unverified, the most that they can or would say is that they “haven’t yet seen evidence” of legitimacy.
Most Defamation to sabotage professional services or humanitarian projects relies on a general strategy of creating sufficient doubt in the minds of people. That is done solely by distraction and confusion, with much psychological manipulation.
Defamation is designed to discourage people to “give up” on a beneficial service or good cause, simply because they “don’t know who to believe”, or because it is “too much effort” to sort through the bickering false accusations to see the Truth of legitimacy.
What most people can easily believe, is that the behaviour of unlawful false Defamation exposes the criminal mind of the defamer.
Accordingly, the best way to defend against Defamation is to expose its deceptions, and simplify one’s own presentation of evidence of Truth, to help people focus on the merits and substance of legitimacy.
The best way to counter and neutralize false Defamation is by exposing its deceptive methods, and then showing the Truth.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) wrote: “Slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; ere [before] long she shall appear to vindicate thee.”
Likewise, the American President Abraham Lincoln (ca. 1861) said: “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”
The first Truth to show, should be how Defamation reveals a criminal mind of the accuser. Pointing out the standard “dirty tricks” and “button pushing” words and phrases of Defamation exposes both its intentional deception and its hypocrisy.
Sharing this report should greatly help to expose the standard methods of Defamation attacks, empowering people to see through the insidious deceptions, to focus on the merits and substance of the institution or project working to serve humanity.
For expert strategies and guidance on how to best defend against false Defamation attacks and prove legitimacy of one’s organization, the IVU free report “Stopping Unlawful False Defamation” provides practical methods and details.
(Click for Stopping Defamation report)
As an effective deterrent, to uphold your credibility with an audience, and to help you prepare your own Criminal Complaint, the IVU free report “False Defamation as a Criminal Offense” provides specific laws proving that false Defamation is in fact a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment.
(Click for Criminal Defamation report)
For expert help by qualified International Barristers of the Independent Legal Profession, to develop Evidence Packages of legitimacy and/or a Criminal Complaint, officially issued with international law firm certification, organizations can hire the IVU law center “Magna Carta Bar Chambers”.
(Click for Law Center overview)
You cannot copy content of this page