Skip to comments.(Vanity) The Societal Diamond Strategy, or Swine Before Pearls
Posted on 12/22/2009 9:32:04 PM PST by grey_whiskers
Before reading this thread, try clicking this link or reading the excerpt below, from a post by FReeper littlejeremiah:
HOW COLLECTIVISTS USE THE DIAMOND TACTIC TO SWAY PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HOW TO THWART THEM
by G. Edward Griffin
In the 1960s, I came across a small training manual distributed by the Communist Party that showed how a small group of people as few as four could dominate a much larger group and sway the outcome of any action taken by that group. It was called the Diamond Technique.
The principle is based on the fact that people in groups tend to be effected by mass psychology. They derive comfort and security from being aligned with the majority, especially if controversy or conflict is involved. Even if they do not like what the majority is doing, if they believe they are in the minority, they tend to remain silent and resigned to the fact that the majority should rule. This being the case, the Diamond Techniques is designed to convince the group that as few as four people represent the majority. Here is the strategy:
1. Plan ahead of time what action you want the group to take: nominate or oppose a candidate, support or oppose an issue, heckle a speaker, or whatever. Everyone on your team must know exactly what they are going to do, including contingency plans.
2. Team members should arrive at the meeting separately and never congregate together.
3. Team players should arrive early enough to take seats around the outside of the assembly area, roughly in the shape of a diamond. They must not sit together.
4. The object of the tactic is place your people around the perimeter of the audience so that, when they begin to take action, those in the center will have to do a lot of head turning to see them to the right, then the left, then the rear of the room, then the front, etc. The more they turn their heads, the greater the illusion of being surrounded by people in agreement with each other, and the more they will be convinced that these people represent the majority opinion.
I have seen this tactic used by collectivists at numerous public meetings over the years, and I have participated in it myself on several occasions when confronting collectivists in their own tightly held organizations. It works. The only way to thwart the Diamond Tactic is to always be prepared to match it with your own team.
Never take a meeting for granted, especially if something important is scheduled to transpire, such as nomination of officers.
Even a simple gathering to hear an important speaker can turn into a nightmare if opponents send in hecklers. So, always plan for the worst and be prepared to spring into action with comments from the floor such as: I want to make it clear that these people do not speak for me. I am in total opposition to what they stand for. In fact, I would like to ask them to identify themselves. Who are you? Why did you come to this meeting? What is your agenda?
If comments such as this are heard from three or four people around the outside of the room, the meeting will be very exciting, but the tactic will be defused.
194 posted on Fri Aug 7 11:12:06 2009 by little jeremiah
This details a technique known as the "Diamond Strategy" which is used for social engineering of larger groups, say within a parlimentary meeting, a Town Hall, or similar: it is designed to be used to shepherd a large group of people towards a desired conclusion (or one planned in advance, but which is meant to look "spontaneous"). It does this by playing on people's fear of making noise, of standing out like a sore thumb -- and by giving the impression that the majority is already in favor of the preordained conclusion, so that those who have come to the meeting undecided quickly decide to follow the apparent consensus.
I feel that what we are seeing in the
Democrat Communist Party (the one of Reid, Pelosi, Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, and President Clinton) is an attempt to affect the attitudes and beliefs of America's heartland on key issues, using the mainstream press and entertainment culture, to effect the Diamond Strategy on a larger scale. It has been used before, of course, but never so comprehensively -- and, paradoxically, to so little effect.
Let me give a few examples from the past to make it clear what I am talking about. Remember when George Bush first ran for President? The *immediate* cry -- from the Democrats, from the talking heads, from the annointed -- was a single word: "Gravitas". Bush was a child whose father had placed him into the Presidency, one for which he was *clearly* unprepared. Allowing a child of privilege (probably drunk and coke addict) into the White House was tangential to national *suicide*. Thank GOD Dick Cheney was there to keep an eye on the child.
Until 9-11 happened, and Cheney used his decades of experience in public life and around DC to help make weighty decisions. Then the mantra changed: Bush was the puppet of Cheney, and Cheney was Darth Halliburton.
And every time circumstances changed, or the talking point de jour was focus-grouped not to work, the meme was changed.
Until the left settled on "Bush lied, people died."
Ummm, yeah. How many people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the moment the Oceans began to rise, and our planet began to heal?
I thought we were supposed to have pulled out from Iraq like Bill Clinton from Monica Lewinsky by now.
But we'll burn that dress when we come to it.
Back to memes, and the Diamond Strategy.
The Diamond Strategy works best when one is dealing with an easily understood catchphrase (remember Goebbels' teaching here) and a group who is undecided. Remember how long it took to mount an objection to Sarah Palin which even *pretended* to be about substance? Why was this? Because the target was unknown, and the little that people had seen of her, they liked. So the long knives came out for personal character assassination of the vilest kind -- one well-known blogging faggot was even allowed to hold his head up among civilized humans for suggesting that Palin's special-needs child was actually the offspring of one of her own daughters. But remember -- the politics of personal destruction is *over*.
Fast forward to the present day. The attacks on Sarah Palin have continued unabated -- but surprisingly, to no avail. In fact, in a number of recent polls, Palin's favorables and unfavorables are within reach of the President (have *you* accepted Barack Obama as your Personal Saviour, mmm, mmm, mmm ?) The Diamond Strategy is NOT working here -- by Palin's popularity ratings, by her book sales, by the lines at her book signings. Why is this? Because this is not a mass event on which consensus is to be reached, for one thing: deciding you like the sounds of a public figure, or that they have been the victim of a smear job, or that you want to find out more about them through an Astroturfed hit parade of lies, are all personal decisions. And for those who are not "poor, ignorant, and easily led" just having the talking heads on the TV tell you that Palin is an airhead is not enough -- you feel you owe it to yourself to read about her in her own words. And the spin withers.
Sic semper Astroturf.
In the case of the Obamacare debate, the American people have been the subject of a "shock and awe" propaganda carpet bombing not seen since...well, since the beginning of the Obama election campaign. Consider the following pieces of "Diamond Dust" being thrown our way since the summer:
1) the announcement that the AARP was supporting Obamacare
2) the announcement that the AMA likewise was supporting it
("why, if even the old folks and the doctors are for this, it must be good.")
3) the demonization of average Americans attempting to meet with their representatives peacefully to seek redress.
Some legislators ran and hid; some invited union thugs who literally beat up minorities in wheelchairs; some called the protestors "terrorists" and "Nazis"; almost all the propagandists called them "Teabaggers" (a reference to a mild form of sexual molestation, often practiced in the homosexual community).
Way to show your concern for the common man, there, Axelrod & company...
And so what we see, is the complete and utter and epic *FAILURE* of the Diamond Strategy on the large scale.
If it had worked, there wouldn't have *been* Tea Parties in the first place; and if had worked later, the mass of people would have turned against the Tea Parties, and the common opinion would have been what the Manhattan-L.A. Axis tried to imply, that the parties were merely an odd rabble of racists and paid thugs from the G.O.P.
So what we are getting to see in real time, is the reaction of the enemies of freedom, to their favorite techniques blowing up in their face.
Note that the first instinct, after a searing, hissing drone of hate and contempt towards the very people they are trying to "serve", that Pelosi, Reid, et al. do not welcome public comment. Nor do they seek to work the public's concerns (well articulated now for months) into the bill. Instead, they retreat towards the following, each more frightening than the next:
WE THE PEOPLE say, we have had enough of SWINE before Pearls.
Bend over, Reid and Pelosi. We've got your REFORM right here. Coming Nov. 2010 -- or maybe sooner, eh Rep. Griffith?
(+)You might want to read The Federalist Papers for more on this. In particular, there is a section in Federalist 7 which talks about difficulties in apportioning levies among the states -- it begins with "Suppose the difficulties of agreeing upon a rule surmounted, and the apportionment made...". The idea seems to be that in order to *preserve* the Union, the Federal government cannot impose a tax on some states and not on others. You can also read from Federalist #9 on a "Confederate Republic":
This form of Government is a Convention, by which several smaller States agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to form.
For those of you in the Senate who are too Ivy-League educated (Al Franken (Smalley-MN), John Kerry(Pussy-MA) come to mind) to think that the Federalist papers matter, try and find a home-schooled high school kid to walk you through it. You might even be able to follow them with enough hand-holding.
(*)Oh, that's right. The part which they are trying to set in stone by unconstitutional FIAT -- are the parts that Sarah Palin warned us about -- and that the powers that be mockingly told us didn't exist. The Death Panels.
Fresh birdcage liner.
Thanks for the interesting post
Thanks for noticing, and writing! :-)
. . . . Long, worthwhile article. Bookmarked.
"...a small training manual distributed by the Communist Party that showed how a small group of people as few as four could dominate a much larger group and sway the outcome of any action taken by that group.
This details a technique known as the "Diamond Strategy" which is used for social engineering of larger groups, say within a parlimentary meeting, a Town Hall, or similar: it is designed to be used to shepherd a large group of people towards a desired conclusion (or one planned in advance, but which is meant to look "spontaneous").
It does this by playing on people's fear of making noise, of standing out like a sore thumb -- and by giving the impression that the majority is already in favor of the preordained conclusion, so that those who have come to the meeting undecided quickly decide to follow the apparent consensus.
[Thank you grey_whiskers.]
Like, *PING*, dude.
I wrote you a private FReepmail on this
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Dovetails nicely with this one...
( Old article, may take 5, 10, or more F5’s to load it, but it’s still here )
THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Keywords: DELPHI TECHNIQUE, MEDIA BIAS, CNN
Published: ? Author: Lynn Stuter
Posted on 11/11/2000 17:43:19 PST by Huck
This technique has been used successfully to counter Delphi techniques.
One addition: whenever the facilitator attempts to pass over or ignore someone’s questions, other people arranged as described begin to loudly question:”Why don’t you answer their question?” or, if they can get recognized, to make the statement:”You didn’t answer [that other person’s] question.” These people must stay polite and present in a non-threatening manner.
The incident I am aware of took place in South Dakota a few years ago. A group of activists wanted to make one tiny village a *deaf only* community that demanded EVERYONE living there or even visiting, use sign language. The meeting was ostensibly about putting up State-funded signs on the Interstate announcing the *attraction*. Ironically, one of the organizers against this plan is a hearing individual who is fluent in sign and has many deaf friends. The organizers were not supported by the majority of hearing-impaired, but were simply using this demographic as the hook for acquiring a State grant.
IIRC, you can google “defeating Delphi Technique” for a similar blueprint of action.
The Alinskyites haven't figured out why their techniques aren't working.
And I won't be the one to tell them why.
The technique works both ways. As long as we can get participants into critical meetings to expose the tactics. The approaches only work on unwitting targets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.