This sounds a lot like a summary of the playbook for the left. We should all read up on the Alinsky Method, so we know what they are puling and how to deal with it. Interesting info here also http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/roa018.htm
1 posted on
10/01/2009 9:53:42 AM PDT by
kaizen
To: kaizen
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
by DCDave
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.
- Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
- Wax indignant. This is also known as the How dare you? gambit.
- Characterize the charges as rumors or, better yet, wild rumors. If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through rumors. (If they tend to believe the rumors it must be because they are simply paranoid or hysterical.)
- Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
- Call the skeptics names like conspiracy theorist, nutcase, ranter, kook, crackpot, and, of course, rumor monger. Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the more reasonable government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own skeptics to shoot down.
- Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
- Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
- Dismiss the charges as old news.
- Come half-clean. This is also known as confession and avoidance or taking the limited hangout route. This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal mistakes. This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
- Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
- Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster suicide note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
- Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
- Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
- Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as bump and run reporting.
- Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the facts furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
- Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5 (e and f), have your own stooges expose scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
- Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics? Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
Sorry...it was kinda hard to follow without the paragraphs or outline.
2 posted on
10/01/2009 10:01:13 AM PDT by
AreaMan
To: kaizen
To: kaizen
4 posted on
10/01/2009 10:01:35 AM PDT by
cvq3842
(I don't ask what my country can do for me - I ask my government to STOP doing things TO me!)
To: kaizen
The money quote:
The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.
It's okay folks, we're safe...
6 posted on
10/01/2009 10:20:11 AM PDT by
null and void
(We are now in day 253 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
To: kaizen
Omitting paragraphs is also part of it, apparently.
A good read nonetheless.
8 posted on
10/01/2009 10:29:18 AM PDT by
domenad
(In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
To: kaizen
17 posted on
10/04/2009 10:48:39 AM PDT by
GOPJ
(MSM BIAS: the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson