Прочитај ми чланак

ПАЖЊА – ЕВО КАКО ЦИA САБОТИРА СРБИЈУ: Откријте да ли у вашој близини њихов човек

0

cia-rojters-1364198023-287764

Објављен некада тајни документ под називом Једноставни водич за саботажу на терену: Стратешке службе у ком ЦИA даје савете како да се униште компаније.

Одавно је познато да се Централна обавештајна агенција није бавила само класичном шпијунажом и постављањем разних Aмерици наклоњених режима, него и индустријском шпијунажом и саботажом.

Е, па дочекали смо и то да је ЦИA недавно објавила некада тајни документ под називом „Једноставни водич за саботажу на терену“ у ком даје савете како да се униште компаније које су на овај или онај начин биле „претња америчким интересима“.

Овај водич који је „спакован“ на 32 стране, препун је „правила игре“ које се користе како би се саботирао даљи напредак, али таквих које не скрећу пажњу на вас. Занимљиво је што технике саботаже могу да се примете у многим фирмама у којима иначе нема шпијуна.

Од увода, преко одељка у ком се разматрају „Могући ефекти“ као и поглавља „Како мотивисати саботера“, све до поглавља „Оруђа, циљеви и време“ и конкретних техника – све је ту.

Не ради се само о мирнодопским, него и о саботажама које се спроводе пред војну интервенцију и током интервенције. Интересантно: иако је употребу овог „водича“ одобрио директор ЦИA Џејсон Р Донован давне 1944. године (у време док је ЦИA носила име ОСС (Оффице оф Стратегиц Сервицес)), ознака поверљивости је са овог документа скинута тек пре три године.

Ево какве инструкције су добијали шпијуни саботери:

1. Све послове упућујте комисијама на „даље проучавање и разматрање“ кад год сте у могућности. Покушајте да направите што је могуће веће комисије са не мање од пет чланова.

2. Потежите ирелевантне теме што чешће можете.

3. Правите се да сте погрешно разумели наређење. Жалите се на наређења. Поставите безброј питања и укључите се у дуге преписке о таквим наређењима.

4. Цепидлачите о прецизној употреби речи у комуникацији и извештајима.

5. Будите неразумни и захтевајте од ваших колега да буду „разумни“. Избегавајте расправе које могу да вас увале у невоље или да вас осрамоте пред свима.

6. Немојте наручивати нове материјале за рад, све док вам постојеће залихе не буду готово потпуно исцрпљене. Тако ће и најмање одлагање испуњења вашег наређења значити гашење.

7. Како бисте смањили елан запослених, а тиме и продуктивност, будите пријатни према најмање ефикасним радницима и дајте им унапређења која не заслужују. Дискриминишите ефикасне раднике и жалите се на њихов рад.

8. Попуњавајте формуларе нечитко, тако да се посао мора поново обављати; правите грешке или прескачите обавезна поља.

9. Ширите узнемирујуће гласине тако да звуче као „инсајдерска“ дојава.

Технологија напредује. Aли – људска психа – не толико. Зато можемо и да вас питамо да ли сте приметили да у вашој фирми има „сумњивих лица“?

Извор: Новости.рс

11 коментара “ПАЖЊА – ЕВО КАКО ЦИA САБОТИРА СРБИЈУ: Откријте да ли у вашој близини њихов човек

  1. Посматрач каже:

    Ево и приручника за саботере међународних пројеката и/или пројеката „помоћи“ колонизованим државама као што је Србија. Све наведено можемо препознати у нашој пракси и у оквиру помоћи наших „пријатеља“. Корисно.
    Линк је https://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/sabotage.php#g (Wrecking an International Project- Notes from a saboteur’s vade mecum)

    A. Use of time lags
    B. Use of distance
    C. Use of funds
    D. Use of cultural and working style
    differences
    E. Use of intellectual differences
    and comprehension
    F. Use of image, competence and
    presentation
    G. Use of public relations
    H. Use of organizational structure
    and procedures
    I. Use of prospective supporters
    and opponents
    J. Use of superficial response,
    decoys and lures
    K. Use of technical matters
    L. Use of project personnel
    M. Use of strong arm methods and
    intimidation
    N. Use of information

    A. Use of time lags

    1. Respond too soon.

    2. Respond too late.

    3. Arrange a meeting to discuss the matter at
    some convenient future date.

    4. Time the critical meeting, or invite the critical
    intervention, so that it interferes with people’s desire to go away for
    lunch, for a weekend, or for a holiday period.

    5. Ensure that the critical intervention is given
    just too little time, so that the arguments appear incoherent.

    6. Agree to research the topic in depth, so as
    to introduce a delay.

    7. Encourage submission of the project through
    a body which already has an overload of projects for consideration.

    8. Encourage submission of the project at a time
    when budgetary allocations for the following period have already been decided.

    B. Use of distance

    9. Condemn with facts which cannot be countered
    without getting them from some physically distant spot.

    10. Organize the critical meeting in a place just
    too far away (in terms of travel funds) to permit people critical to the
    project to participate.

    11. Ensure that the proposers are asked to present
    the project to an audience in places to which they do not have the resources
    to travel, particularly by stressing the importance of a „regional“ focus
    – if they can manage it once, repeat the request for another region until
    finances run out.

    C. Use of funds

    12. Offer too much money; this leads to acquisition
    of staff and equipment not essential to the project, complacency, and possible
    arousal of more interest in the fringe benefits of working on the project
    than in its original objectives.

    13. Offer too little money.

    14. Encourage the proposers to request funds at
    the same time as requesting approval when it is known that the project
    will be rejected for budgetary reasons (even though general approval or
    sponsorship would be sufficient, probably, to ensure (fiat like kinds could
    be obtained from other sources).

    15. Encourage the proposers to request extensive
    funding When this is liable to ensure its rejection as „exaggerated“;
    or excessively modest funding, when this is liable to ensure its rejection
    as „unrealistic, inadequate, and ineffective.“

    D. Use of cultural and working
    style differences

    16. Recommend that proposal be first discussed
    informally with the person when the latter is irritated by contacts which
    have been initial: formally; or alternatively, recommend formal contact
    when the p son prefers contacts to be first est fished informally.

    17. Ensure that, when the proposer to meet people
    critical to approval of the project, he is subjected to some form of culture
    shock which will antagonize him, disturb his poise, or make him appear
    gauche. (e.g., he is forced to wait long past the appointed hour, obliged
    to discuss generalities as a lengthy preliminary, fails to make provision
    for a bribe considered normal in 1 interlocutor’s culture, etc.)

    18. Ensure that there is a wide difference in
    age and life style between the proposer and people he has to encounter
    who are critical to approval of’ the project, in order to establish the
    proposer’s image as a cheeky youngster or an out of date „fuddy-duddy“.

    19. Ensure that the proposer entertains people
    critical to the approval of the project in a manner liable to cause offence
    or boredom which will reflect on the proposer’s judgement (e.g., ensure
    errors based on diet restrictions such as taking a vegetarian to a steak
    house; on moral principles, such as taking a puritan to a strip joint;
    or musical taste, such as taking a musical puritan to a discotheque, etc.)

    20. Ensure that the committee getting the project
    is overfed and oversupplied with liquor and excessive hospitality to make
    effective work impossible.

    E. Use of intellectual differences
    and comprehension

    21. Interpret the terms used differently from
    the sense in which they were intended:

    by the proposer

    commonly understood

    22. Ensure that the proposal is written at a technical
    level which is either irritatingly incomprehensible to the person reading
    it, or as all alternative, is an insult to his intelligence.

    F. Use of image, competence and
    presentation

    23. Criticize the proposers as incompetent or
    ill-informed.

    24. Assert that the person or organization is
    not representative or qualified.

    25. Condemn proposal as irresponsible „just when
    we were beginning to sort things out“.

    26. Discredit the proposer by locating „true facts“
    about him which are irrelevant to what is proposed.

    27. Structure the setting in which the proposal
    is presented such that the proposer appears to be criticizing past actions
    (or reactions) of his audience, or appears to be wasting time on the need
    for niggling minor improvements.

    28. Ensure that the critical presentation is made
    in a setting in which (irrelevant) characteristics of the proposer will
    antagonize the audience (e.g., presented by a person of Jewish extraction
    to an audience with Arab sympathies, by a Hindu to a loyal Moslem audience,
    by a woman to an audience from anti-feminist cultures).

    29. Ask for a written report when the proposers
    are unlikely to be able to structure it according to the required style,
    but avoid it if the written report is liable to be too well prepared and
    convincing.

    30. Ensure that the proposers do not get the opportunity
    to present the project to an audience if they have skilled and persuasive
    orators at their disposal; alternatively, ask for such a presentation if
    they have little experience of oral presentation.

    31. Ensure that, when tile proposers have assembled
    a team prepared to argue all the facts, the audience is composed of persons
    liable to be antagonized by eggheads. Alternatively, assemble an audience
    of tough (hostile) experts when the proposers are only prepared for a non-expert
    audience.

    32. Encourage written submission of the project
    in the form of a stencilled document when an offset or printed (professional)
    document is normal. alternatively, encourage submission of a deluxe document
    when the latter is liable to excite suspicion.

    G. Use of public relations

    33. Ignore.

    34. Pay great attention go through all the motions,
    receptions, etc., flatter the person or organization, and do nothing.

    35. Decorate the organization making the proposal
    — i.e. praise initiative rather than follow it up.

    36. Use public relations machinery to disguise
    inaction or minimum action.

    37. Overpraise the project so that other people
    become suspicious of ulterior motives.

    38. Encourage the proposers to lobby those who
    are irrelevant to the project, or definitely hostile, and avoid pointing
    out to them those who are likely to be powerful supporters.

    39. Ensure that there are foul-ups in protocol
    on the occasion of the presentation with regard to the number of seats
    available, the allocation of seats to VIPs, who is introduced (or not introduced)
    to whom, etc., in order to build up hostility to the proposers.

    40. Encourage the proposer’s organization to issue
    a comrnuniqui or other document on the project when it is known that this
    will be considered a breach of procedure, irresponsible and premature by
    the body reviewing the project; or alternatively, avoid suggesting such
    a communiqui when the reviewing body or its members like to receive publicity.

    41. Introduce or describe the proposer as an „eminent
    authority“ on the project topic, when he is riot, thus arousing the antagonism
    of the real eminent authorities who will vet the project; or, alternatively,
    fail to mention that the proposer is the most eminent authority, when he
    is, and thus ensure that less attention is given to his views.

    42. If a meeting is required, ensure that participation
    is free if this is appropriate or would give the impression that people
    would not come otherwise; or, alternatively, charge an entrance fee if
    potential supporters would expect participation to be free.

    43. Imply that the presentation will be at an
    informal ‘shirtsleeves’ meeting, and then ensure that all other participants
    arrive expecting, and dressed for, a formal meeting., or, alternatively,
    imply that the proposer should make a highly formal presentation when the
    participants are liable to be turned off by it.

    44. Invite a charismatic celebrity (particularly
    of the luscious female variety) so that the tone of the occasion is changed
    and the presenter of the proposal is made to feel that the presentation
    is an arid exercise by eggheads.

    H. Use of organizational structure
    and procedures

    45. Appoint a commission to consider it.

    46. Ask for a written report.

    47. Refer the matter to some other department
    or body.

    48. State your interest, but that you are too
    busy – „come back next year“.

    49. Ask for the project to be reformulated, especially
    with the inclusion of key words like „development“ and „environment“.

    50. Refuse to „recognize“ the person or organization.

    51. „The matter is under study, and we will report
    on it shortly. until then it would be better to do nothing.“

    52. „We are acting on the matter together with
    the appropriate authorities.“

    53. „We are appointing an expert to look into
    this matter.“

    54. Organize a meeting with the proposers and
    structure the meeting so that either they can say nothing, or what they
    say can be interpreted in such a way as to support the status quo or one’s
    own program — i.e., write up the report to reflect one’s own views. Talk
    to them and respect one’s own views.

    55. Agree, with reservations, then jump on the
    program at the first excuse: „I-told-you-so“.

    56. Fund several projects simultaneously so that
    they nullify each other.

    57. Refuse to receive documents, or, having received
    them, pigeon-hole them.

    58. Ensure that the machinery to consider the
    project is split into sufficient jurisdictional areas so that the project
    must either be split into two (or more) or considered by separate departments
    and therefore becomes a victim of jurisdictional and administrative problems
    and loses its coherence.

    59, Wait for a permanent or temporary absence
    of’ the responsible person, if the newcomer is liable to react more unfavorably,
    or, alternatively, speed up the submission if the outgoing person will
    react more unfavorably.

    60. Obtain the recommendation or support of a
    body or person in disfavor or whose credibility is low prior to submission,
    or, alternatively, ensure that such a body transmits the project on to
    the next phase. („kiss-of-death“)

    61. Attempt to tie the project into the general
    framework of a broader program which will probably be abandoned shortly,
    or have its non-essential projects eliminated.

    62. Inject the project into a setting fraught
    with political issues so that it will be seized upon by one side or the
    other as a pawn in negotiation arid dropped as a concession when a compromise
    solution has to be reached.

    63. Ensure that the project is associated with
    an empire-building faction within the bureaucratic structure so that it
    will be rejected or restricted by those outside the empire, or alternatively,
    associate it with the latter so that the empire builders will consider
    it a threat.

    64. Encourage the proposers to rewrite the project
    in terms of a broader program framework when the approving body requires
    specific projects, or alternatively, to rewrite it as a more specific program
    when broader implications have to be stressed to ensure approval.

    65. Suggest that it would be more appropriate
    to submit the proposal via a particular representative body, when it is
    known that the latter is unable to reach unanimity on ally issue.

    66. Ensure that the proposal is submitted to everybody
    but the right one, so that a strenuous attempt is seen to have been made.

    67. Ensure that the proposal is initially submitted
    too low down the hierarchy so that it lacks status when it is then submitted
    to the appropriate person higher up the hierarchy; alternatively, submit
    it too high up the hierarchy so that it is resented as an imposition when
    it is finally referred down to the appropriate level.

    68. Ensure that file proposal is rejected by showing
    that it has already been tried by experts in the matter and „experience“
    shows that it not work.

    69. Ensure that the proposal is eagerly accepted
    for resume study, then delay notification of’ the negative response for
    as long as it is possible to maintain the illusion that a bit of patience
    in working through the proper channels is the best solution despite the
    progressive loss of relevance of the proposal as the months go by.

    70. Suggest the need for a pilot or trial project
    when the proposal does not merit it; alternatively, encourage haste and
    avoid a pilot project when one is essential for final success.

    71. Ensure that the proposers have to interact
    with two departments, or a two-official team, one of whom appears in favor
    and encouraging, the other hostile and discouraging. The encourager can
    then blame every setback on the lack of comprehension of the discourager,
    and the discourager can „reinterpret“ every advance as temporary, and only
    due to the abnormal weakness of the other. In this way the proposer is
    always kept uncertain and will finally give up from frustration.

    72. Suggest that it would be injudicious to propose
    a new project at this stage, because it might „rock the boat“ and prevent
    programs on a number of related issues currently under review.

    73. Ask for a detailed elaboration, and financial
    estimates when this requires unavailable or scarce resources; or, alternatively,
    fail to request such an elaboration when its absence will ensure rejection
    at a later stage.

    74. Suggest that a complex computer study or data
    collection project would be worthwhile as a preliminary, when the answers
    are already known. and such a Project would be considered a waste of scarce
    resources.

    I. Use of prospective supporters
    and opponents

    75. Give resources and attention to dissident
    groups within the proposing group, so as to split the leadership, support
    and coherence of arguments.

    76. Give resources, praise and attention to those
    expressing contrary views.

    77. Recommend that an international proposal should
    be submitted to national governments via the national member bodies of’
    the proposer’s organization when it is known that there is little understanding
    of’ the prokect’s significance at this level; alternatively, ensure that
    it is submitted at the international level when it is known that there
    is a powerful lobby prepared to act at the national level, but that international
    coordination is weak.

    78. Undertake the same tactics when dealing with
    state and federal or local and state agencies.

    79. Lobby the proposer’s supporters, particularly
    national member organizations, and suggest to them how unwise tile project
    is at this particular stage.

    J. Use of superficial response,
    decoys and lures

    80. State that it already forms part of your
    program (whether you are doing anything about it or riot).

    81. Have a meeting on the topic, but do not do
    anything about it.

    82. Pass a resolution.

    83. Call for a day or a year of remembrance or
    celebration – as a token

    84. Cite action or programs — particularly in
    distant parts – as evidence that something is being done

    85. Offer the proposer a job on a different project.

    86. Suggest that the person write a book, or start
    a periodical, or organize an information service on the topic.

    87. Consider a narrow aspect of what needs to
    be done, ignoring the context. Propose and implement a program to handle
    it, then acclaim one’s own success, despite its irrelevance to the problem
    as a whole.

    88. Devote considerable resources to discussing
    the program and writing it up in a „positive“ manner in annual reports,
    and draw attention away from the actual budget for it.

    89. Start the program in an ambitious, positive
    way and then terminate it on the first excuse.

    90. Express admiration for the insignificant,
    superficial or irrelevant achievement, and ignore real achievements or
    real problems which the program has failed to solve.

    91. Arrange for alternative meetings or projects
    so as to attract away the appropriate people at the critical moment.

    92. Receive a person, agree to do something about
    it so that the person leaves satisfied, then do nothing or support opposing
    programs.

    93. Agree to act as intermediary to transfer a
    message or draft to the responsible body in time for a critical meeting
    and fail to do so — while inserting one’s own proposal in its place.

    94. Suggest to people in the chain reviewing the
    project that their career advancement might be affected by approval of.
    the project, or of a project coming from the proposer’s organization.

    95. Suggest to the proposing organization that
    funds could be guaranteed for another project, if efforts on the initial
    project were abandoned.

    96. Focus criticism on „picky“, minor details,
    drawing attention away from the major content and substance of file proposal.

    K. Use of technical matters

    97. Swamp the proposer with demands that prevent
    him from accomplishing anything effective.

    98. „Misplace“, or fail to distribute, or imply
    that relevant documents have not arrived, at the critical moment.

    99. Fail to reproduce or translate sufficient
    relevant documents so that only specially selected persons have copies
    and others are not in a position to evaluate their contents, and they are
    offended or annoyed by being so deprived – or develop the view that the
    documents are therefore unimportant.

    100. Ensure that, when the proposers are to make
    an oral presentation, the quality of the foreign languages interpretation
    is low (to the point of making arguments ambiguous) ‘ or that interpreters
    in key languages, or covering the specialized vocabulary, are unavailable.
    Alternatively make use of highly intelligent interpreters to make common
    sense arguments trivial, to the point of being insulting, or to make general
    arguments inelegant, inconsistent, or incoherent.

    101. Ensure that the audio-visual equipment is
    out of order or incompatible when the case is highly dependent on information
    in charts and other graphic displays, or, alternatively, ensure that the
    personnel operating the equipment are incompetent (e.g., that slides are
    shown in the wrong order or upside down).

    102. Ensure that the final report of the meeting
    at which the proposal is presented either ignores or de-emphasizes that
    proposal or stresses the negative arguments concerning it. If the report
    and its recommendations have to be approved by the meeting in a final session,
    ensure that there is little time available so that any protests will appear
    niggling.

    L. Use of project personnel

    103. Offer the proposer a job doing what he suggests
    but ensuring that he works with constraints which will ensure that nothing
    is achieved.

    104. Appoint an incompetent to run the program
    or two incompatible competent people so that one will undermine the efforts
    of the other.

    105. Supply funds, personnel and machines for
    a program in such a way that nothing can be achieved.

    106. Give them enough rope „to hang themselves“.

    107. Encourage the appointment of persons who
    will he more concerned with (lie prestige of the program than with its
    effectiveness.

    108. Collaborate enthusiastically by offering
    the services of all the wrong people, particularly the deadwood in one’s
    own department or in those with which one is in contact.

    109. Supply generous support, but make it a condition
    that the project take on many assistants (for whom jobs cannot be found
    elsewhere) whose personal objectives are to avoid work and any form of
    responsibility.

    M. Use of strong arm methods and
    intimidation

    110. For the sake of completeness, it should
    not be forgotten that, in extreme cases, projects can be sabotaged using
    a wide range of bribery, blackmail, threats of violence, etc.

    N. Use of information

    111. Fail to make available the list of other
    people known to be interested in such a project, or other information which
    could facilitate its approval.

    112. Select facts from the proposal and summarize
    them to give weight to opposing conclusions.

    113. Transfer a mass of documents on to the appropriate
    body when it is confused by anything more than a summary, or a summary
    when it is annoyed by the absence of detailed documents.

    114. Encourage submission of the project through
    a body which already has an overload of projects for consideration.

Коментари су затворени.