"Boy, these are the last of the rules or tactics as used by radicals to gain power. The use of them will depend upon the situation. Memorize them, understand them enough to realize their purpose. For, if you do not, you will never successfully be able to defend your own beliefs.
10th rule
"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
In other words, repeat a lie enough times and people will see the lie as being the truth. Alternatively, since there is always a positive and a negative, repeat the negative and people will forget that there is a positive side.
11th rule
The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
To put it bluntly, this is the moment of appeasement.
12th rule
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
In other words find someone to blame for everything and carp on it until he caves in to it. The rest will fall like dominoes. Even if he doesn’t cave in, the idea is to demonize him in the eyes of everybody.
The thing about these tactics, boy, is that while you are using them to attack your opponent you are also recruiting others to your way. The longer you can keep up these tactics the more people will be recruited if for nothing else than to appease you.
Your grandfather was never one to agree with another just to appease him. Appeasement only can lead to a greater conflict later. For the man who appeases can only harbor resentment towards the one he has appeased.
The thing is that a radical is never satisfied. If you appease him once, he’ll come back and demand more from you. Another thing is, that he won’t compromise on the things you have already appeased him on. Compromise is the tool of the radical because he knows he comes out the winner in the compromise.
The point of my describing these rules to you, boy, is so that you may recognize when they are being used against you. You need to be aware of them so that you will not fall prey to them. Now here comes the hard part.
Just because you recognize a tactic being used against you does not automatically declare that person a radical. There are many out there that will use some of these tactics without realizing what they are doing. I’ll admit I do sometimes too. We must remember though, that these tactics are meant to be used to manipulate the thoughts of others not convince them.
I will also admit that in looking back I can see how these tactics have been used for years without my realization of it. I will also admit, boy, that this is the first time of being aware of their use and can see what the consequences are. I can only hope that your generation can learn from our mistakes and ignorance and right them."
i could see by the tone of the last words that grandpa felt that he and his generation had failed us.
For some reason I could feel a weight being placed upon my shoulders that I have never felt before with these last words spoken by grandpa.
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
"In other words, repeat a lie enough times and people will see the lie as being the truth."
Therein lies the biggest reason NObama won.
he used a few others in that list also.
As I said on my last post, Obama studied the methods of the Marxist, Saul Alinsky, who said that the agitators job "is first to bring folks to the 'realization' that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent 'self-interest' in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease." A huge lie repeated over and over, and many people swallowed it lock, stock and barrel!
You don't have to post this.
I want to take the time to read all three of your posts on the subject of the "Tactics of Power". It looks like you've done three of them, including this one.
Sorry if I was too hard on you in the "Radical verses Extremism" post. Just like Gayle, I think the comments were more confusing than the post. Sometimes part of being understood begins with listening more closely to the arguments of the other person.
What I saw was that you misunderstood Repsac just as much, if not more so, than Repsac misunderstood you. You need to really try and listen and understand before responding, even if this means a time delay in your response.
It also almost seemed as if you were taking offense in some way. As I suggested, the word Radical does not have to be taken as an Emotionally Charged word that insults anyone's intelligence. Repsac's definition was more neutral than offensive.
Good post, Griper. I look forward to reading the other two posts on this subject.
gayle,
i agree and these same tactics are used by unions in their negotiations with businesses.
lista,
these posts were my reasons for separating the words i did.
From a fair and balanced standpoint, the described tactics
apply to all sorts of radicals :)
from a fair and balanced standpoint i'd have to say i agree, BB. but we'd also have to accept my definition of a radical in order to say it.
Some of these tactics are listed in the literature as legitimate marketing strategy, others are well-known used-car sales techniques...and a few were invented by P.T. Barnum. :) One suspects voters of either stripe may fall for these (based on the inevitable personal bias)..Grandpa and I will never fall for them. :)
i told gramps what you said, BB and all he did was chuckle and say "no comment"
but as pt says "a sucker is born every minute" says a lot for the three professions doesn't it?
also, i've seen both sides try to use these tactics in argument but i'd say unwittingly too. which is why i gave the radical the description i did.
Griper,
Wow! I'm surprised you posted that. I thought I was starting to become a little confrontive with you, yet your skin appears to be quite thick and that's good.
"We'd also have to accept my definition of a Radical in order to say it." Your words.
Actually, this isn't true. There are other ways to say the same thing. Whether than defining the word "Radical" in an Emotionally Charged way, implying wrong motives and wrong tactics, all you have to do is add adjectives such as Manipulative and Deceptive Radicals.
Everyone,
There continues to be a discussion about the definitions of words in Griper's post entitled "Radicalism vs. Extremism", which is at the top of October's Archive.
Repsac3 defined the word Radical in a More Neutral way than Griper did. Using a Political Science Source, he presented the Definition of Radical as "one who seeks immediate, fundamental change from the status quo". In this definition, there is no implication of wrong motives or tactics, just a desire for change.
One of Repsac's Internet sources states that "The term Radical is used in a pejorative manner here in the USA." I like to call "Pejorative" words, Emotionally Charged Terms. Same difference.
The main point that I just recently made is how I try really hard to avoid Emotionally Charged words or the defining of words in Emotionally Charged ways.
The comment I just submitted below the above mentioned post explains why. To find the comment, look for the same date as this one.
Very, very true.
Reminds me of something Hitler said... people will more easily fall for a big lie than a small one.
Post a Comment