A number of us are still trying to figure out how prohibitionists work their evil magic.
Various strands of rhetoric and tactics are essential to successful prohibitionist campaigning. Here’s how it works.
Framing the ‘confidence trick’
In 2006, a year before England’s smoking ban came into effect, ASH explained in The Guardian how the legislation was passed. Note the title of the article: ‘Smoke and mirrors’. Emphases mine below:
… It marks the culmination of one of the most successful social change lobbying campaigns of recent times. The campaign showed the importance of sound strategy, sharp tactics and a lot of luck, and holds lessons for future campaigners.
First, frame the argument. For years, action on smoking in public places was mired in discussion about the claimed “freedom” and “rights” of smokers, and the need for “voluntary” shifts towards compromise solutions, particularly in pubs, restaurants and clubs. We changed the terms of the debate to health and safety at work. We argued that secondhand smoke is a killer – making a smoke-free workplace a right for everyone, and that there is no “compromise” solution …
The next step is to split the opposition. In every country where smoke-free legislation has been mooted, the most vocal opponents are the tobacco trade and the hospitality industry. But the preferences of these allies are subtly different …
It is crucial to exploit opportunities that come your way …
… John Reid (an ex-smoker), publicly stated that banning smoking in public places was not on his agenda. “Show us the votes,” said his political adviser, when we tried to convince him of the public health arguments. But Reid overreached himself. His description of smoking as a “working-class pleasure” created a media firestorm that we could exploit …
Political champions are essential. Our coalition owes a sincere gratitude to numerous politicians and officials …
It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we “knew” we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side …
The struggle for smoke-free legislation went from nowhere to victory in a short time. It routed powerful opponents and exposed many of them as incompetent or insubstantial. It shifted public opinion from indifference to overwhelming support. Some ideas reach a point at which their time has come. But some will also often need a vigorous campaign before politicians notice the obvious.
Components of a successful campaign
From ASH’s description of the ‘confidence trick’ above and looking at other tactics used in prohibitionist campaigns, the following elements are necessary:
– Shifting to an argument which works. ASH moved from the defensive in fighting off accusations about personal liberties to the attack once they switched their argument to ‘health’.
– Ensuring your target groups are too divided to band together. The way bans are currently shaping up reveals that prohibitionists are targeting three groups: smokers, drinkers and the obese. Non-smoking drinkers are unlikely to align with smokers. Nor are the obese, some of whom are ex-smokers. End result: smokers have only themselves on whom to rely. The obese — some of whom are practising pietist Christians — are unlikely to band together with drinkers. So, each group is on its own.
– Obfuscating the real issue. Non- and anti-smokers still believe the smoking ban is about health and have fully taken ASH’s arguments about second-hand smoke on board. In reality, this is, as ASH say, about ‘social change’. A number of us would say that this social change involves property rights, as this Orphans of Liberty post explains:
It was never about health because the public have always had the right to choose not to enter a pub if they were concerned about their health. The ban was about a seizure of property by the state.
This opens the next door for the Tobacco Control Industry; Banning smoking in cars.
Cars are also private property but the government has decided it now controls private property so they can also dictate what you do in your car.
Banning smoking in cars would be for one reason and one reason only – To protect children. There is no other argument in favour of a ban in cars. In order to effectively police this law however, the ban must extend to all cars.
Simply banning smoking in cars where children are present would be unenforceable. Small children cannot often be seen in cars and it’s hard to tell exactly how old teenagers are.
– A one-size-fits-all ‘remedy’ to a ‘problem’. ASH say, ‘There is no compromise solution’. Therefore, all enclosed public spaces must be non-smoking. Again, consider the issue of property rights. Although pubs are ‘public houses’, they are no more public than any other privately-owned business is. However, all business owners have been deprived of making their own choice as to whether they could provide a smoking room for their customers and/or employees.
– Demonising perceived opponents. The media and ASH took Labour’s John Reid apart when he stated that those living in poor areas found comfort in smoking. However, every public comment from media personalities falsely made him out to be a man who was nonchalant about health and — more importantly — children. I might disagree with John Reid politically, but his was an accurate observation, like it or not. However, the constant media attacks forced him to adopt a compromise position.
– ‘Think of the children’. Any prohibitionist rhetoric concerning legal adult activity — consumption of tobacco or alcohol — must have a family or future generations element. ASH and others say that if smokers really cared about their children, they would either smoke outdoors or give up altogether. Therefore, according to ASH’s spurious reasoning, a parent who smokes indoors does not love his children. As soon as the smoking ban came into effect, ASH and other experts started criticising smoking in cars — especially where children are present. However, in order to protect children’s health — or ensure that the state controls your private property — no one must be allowed to smoke in their private cars, children or not.
– Encouraging hypochondria. This study describes in a rather sinister way the way cigarette smoke has gone from an unnoticed background odour to a life-threatening menace:
… In the last half century the cigarette has been transformed. The fragrant has become foul . . . An emblem of attraction has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.
This change from fragrant to foul has not come from the smoke which has remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one. Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory propaganda warps perception. Ambient tobacco smoke was essentially a background phenomenon. Now exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS) has been fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon like, say, sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they “can’t stand” the “stench” of smoke, or the smoke is “overwhelming”; there are now those, hand cupped over mouth, that attempt to avoid even a whiff of dilute smoke. This is a recent phenomenon. It says nothing about the physical properties of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda.
– Organising international networks of like-minded people. From one or two cranks in the 1970s and fringe movements from the 19th century, the prohibitionists have managed to team up into a worldwide army of people. The Australian prohibitionist Simon Chapman, known worldwide, started his MOP UP — Movement Opposed to the Promotion of Unhealthy Products — in 1979 with four people. He describes in his 1983 book The Lung Goodbye how his ‘movement’ — a word he highly advocates for its psychological connotation of an unopposable force — grew from a handful of people with little money to a larger national group. The same thing occurred elsewhere in the West and, as a result, these groups have joined forces, gaining strength over the past 30 years.
– Getting good PR and maximising media appearances. Having a good public relations person is essential, even better if they are part of your group and can provide their services free of charge. Continuing media exposure is essential. There is no such thing as overkill, even if you repeat the same spiel time after time. Refrain from answering any difficult questions and respond with something peripherally related or repeat yourself. Talk over other people. Make the words ‘concern’, ‘safety’ and ‘health’ part of your mantra. Use them often.
– Appearing concerned and presentable. Never appear in public, especially in the media, unless you are well scrubbed and presentably dressed. Wear conventional clothes and a normal hairstyle, both of which lend gravitas and credibility. Make sure that your public mien conveys concern, sobriety and love of mankind. There’s no mandate to actually mean it.
– Getting buy-in from (inter)national organisations, politicians and other leaders. Send out press releases as well as post them online. Keep your website up to date. Write to and lobby your elected officials. Ask them for their active support. Make sure that other health bodies know your group exists. Align your group with WHO objectives and quote massaged statistics often.
– Ensuring that you can obtain government — taxpayers’ — money to finance yourselves. Lobby, lobby, lobby — get in politicians’ faces.
– Starting small and seeing how other groups and countries effect bans. Make a long-term plan of what you would like to see, e.g. full prohibition and denormalisation of alcohol and tobacco. Then begin breaking that larger plan down into smaller, cumulative ‘interventions‘ which elicit a ‘So what?’ reaction from the public. Remember how anyone on a flight could smoke wherever they were sitting? Eventually, because airlines were bombarded with anti-smokers’ complaints, these turned into smoking sections in the late 1960s or early 1970s. Then, in the 1980s, a better organised anti-tobacco network lobbied for certain flights to be non-smoking: ‘All we’re asking for is that flights under two hours be smokefree.’ Note the words ‘all we’re asking for’; it sounds like such a small, harmless, one-off request. Also observe what other countries do and say, ‘In ———-, this has proven very successful’. Whether it actually is ‘successful’ doesn’t matter but saying that it has been ‘proven’ seals off debate. Cite bogus statistics in your favour and say ‘studies show’.
– Lather, rinse, repeat. What works for one prohibition will work for another. All the Tobacco Control tactics can be reused — and are — for campaigns against alcohol, fat, sugar, salt and more.
– Using Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, summarised here in a short post. Hold to the following in particular:
RULE 1: ‘Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have’. Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. ‘Have-Nots’ must build power from flesh and blood.
RULE 4: ‘Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.’ If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
RULE 5: ‘Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.’ There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
RULE 6: ‘A good tactic is one your people enjoy.’ They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing and will even suggest better ones.
RULE 10: ‘If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.’ Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalise it, and polarise it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Whilst the normal, law-abiding citizen might not be able to fight these bans and additional laws (e.g. cycling helmets, seat belts), he can at least understand the rhetoric and tactics behind them. This helps to educate him enough to vote against these moves in referenda, raise awareness and petition his lawmakers accordingly.
28 comments
July 10, 2012 at 8:34 am
magnetic01
Good job.
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 8:35 am
churchmouse
Thanks, Magnetic!
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 8:35 am
kin_free
What you have missed is that much of this can be utilised by us to fight these contemptible people. The qualifier is that we keep to the TRUTH and do not attempt to deceive in any way. The lies they constantly propagate is their weakest link.
This ‘rule’ is important to them as those who fully support the anti-smoker agenda are really just in a small minority;
“RULE 1: ‘Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have’”
Tobacco control have been very successful in promoting that deception but I would add to this that they need also to deceive the public into believing that their measures are popular WITH the public. ie that they have more power in numbers than in reality.
Last year I did an ‘off the cuff’ test of the hypothesis that the overwhelming majority of comments supportive of tobacco control initiatives were almost exclusively from those paid by the tobacco control industry. The results were fairly conclusive (but would not be classed as such by the scientific community)
Surprisingly, the comments are still there;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/01/green-smoking-australia-cigarettes?
This is also relevant to your post;
http://cagecanada.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/inside-tobacco-control-industry-and.html
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 8:41 am
churchmouse
Most of the reason for posting it was a dog whistle to those of us banding together. 😉 The other was to provide information for those drawn in by Tobacco / Alcohol / Food Control groups.
Yes, we must avoid lying (the way our opponents do) and come forth with the truth.
I shall look forward to checking our your links — many thanks!
LATER EDIT: The CAGE post was great. Yes, the late Gian Turci was correct. We can now see that we are in a war of rhetoric and laws here, designed to take down liberties one by one. When it’s too late, people will find out that the anti-smoking template was used in every case.
I bookmarked the ‘advocacy’ document a few weeks ago. Will post on it when I have more time. Have skimmed it, though — v. depressing indeed.
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 10:42 am
Alan Williams
The psychologically based mass media campaigns to force politicians to ban unhealthy practices like smoking, can also be used to ban criticism of special interest groups like Islamists and sexual anarchists who want to gain special political privileges for themselves.
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 12:53 pm
churchmouse
Excellent observation, Alan — so true.
When one thinks of all the energy these people spend on their authoritarian healthist agenda, yet nary a word about sexual health, a good family life, enemies within, etc. They could, if they had the right heart, really do some good if they shifted focus. However, it seems that that’s not how they roll.
Agree that the same tactics are used to shut down socio-political debate. Another reason to think that they are authoritarian leftists, something I’ll continue to explore in the coming months. We don’t really know who these people are outside of their name and current cause. We know nothing about where they attended university, political alliances, other influences and earlier employment.
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 12:58 pm
lleweton
I live in Waitrose-land. Strangers smile at each other, and give way, and have time and space in their lives to be civil. People who visit from London remark on the open-hearted courtesy of the townsfolk, for we are dwellers in an ancient English market town, surrounded by farming land and green hills.
And here at our town’s Waitrose supermarket, once the site of a chicken farm, among all the civilised, open-minded and comfortably-off shoppers: the women in jodhpurs parking genuinely muddied Range Rovers, the retired professors, trim office workers and young mothers with golden-haired toddlers, the people who drive in from old rectories in outlying villages, there will be few, if any people who smoke.
And few therefore, who are aware of the libertarian issues at the core of the war against smokers: not out of callousness but simply because they don’t impinge on their lives. A majority may by now find tobacco smoke vaguely distasteful but probably, if the matter were put to them directly, they would, I think, say: ‘live and let live’.
And here, in our town, we have an MP, a Conservative and a good one, who is totally suited to his constituency. He is very attentive to it, is available and replies to letters.
He replied to me a year ago and expressed his support for the smoking ban.
And he replied to me today, expressing his support for the motion to limit debate on the line-by-line study (Committee Stage) of the Bill to re-form (note my hyphen) the House of Lords.
Yes, there is a connection between the two things. The smoking ban legislation became a steamroller, obliterating all dissent. The Commons ‘programme motion’ for the Lords re-form measure will have the same stifling impact on opponents or would-be modifiers of the Bill. The former Commons Speaker, Baroness Boothroyd described it in a radio interview as an ‘abuse of Parliament’.
But in Waitrose-land, life goes on. We give way to each other and smile and we enjoy the countryside. A few of us see storm clouds looming. But for most of us, life – for the moment – goes benignly on. We, in Waitrose-land, are like high-bred, pedigree, free range cattle. We graze in lush meadows. There are no fences because we see no need to stray. But while we comfortably browse, the world outside is changing. For how long will we be content and unaware, as the safeguards of our freedom are gradually dismantled?
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm
churchmouse
Great post, Llew — ‘in Waitrose-land, life goes on’. Thanks!
Only a ‘few of us see storm clouds looming’. Just so. Tobacco behind shutters does not affect 90%+ of Waitrose shoppers. If minimum pricing comes in, it will not affect that many Waitrose shoppers. Lords reform will not tinkle any bells: ‘It was bound to happen. Started under Blair, didn’t it?’
This is IMHO a systematic and subtle Fabian dismantling of Western society. Not sure if you’ve visited Orphans of Liberty today, but a young buck from Australia wants tobacco restricted by birthdate:
http://4liberty.org.uk/2012/07/10/the-bansturbators-latest-attack-on-liberty/
Interesting to note that his article, excerpted on OoL, ‘won the Australian Fabians Young Writers Competition for 2012′.
We must oppose these types at every turn. It is about property rights, including who owns our bodies. Do we? Or does the state?
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 5:15 pm
magnetic01
The idea has been floated by Singapore and picked up by the anti-tobacco fanatics’ network:
http://www.tobaccofreesingapore.info/2012/03/tobacco-free-generation-proposal-receives-praise/
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm
churchmouse
Thanks for that link, magnetic01! Interesting connection there between Richard Daynard and John Banzhaf … which I found through a quick search:
Food is next on the horizon, including lawsuits for doctors who cannot slim patients down and pitting fat people against thin. Another post to come next week.
Stay tuned.
LikeLike
July 11, 2012 at 9:58 am
lleweton
PS July 11: This moment should not go unrecorded. The Government dropped its move to timetable (guillotine) detailed debate on the Bill to re-form the House of Lords. It did so in response to resistance to the motion from backbench Conservative MPs. This is a rare victory for Parliament over the Executive.
LikeLike
July 11, 2012 at 10:09 am
churchmouse
Thank goodness. Thanks, Llew, for the information!
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Linda Kimball
“A number of us are still trying to figure out how prohibitionists work their evil magic..The ban was about a seizure of property by the state.”
If we are to understand how self-worshipping control-freaks of every stripe work their black magic we must think spiritually.
To begin, Churchmouse pointed to the “spiritual” property being seized, “all business owners have been deprived of making their own choice. ”
“Choice” is a spiritual property. Spiritual property precedes and gives rise to material property, meaning that in order for the seizure and control of the material the spiritual must first be seized and controlled.
The living Triune God created man in His spiritual image, hence man is a three-part being consisting of mind (spirit), body and soul. The noblest part of the soul is spirit—cognition, will (choice), conscience.
Black magic works by inverting the order of creation over the order of being. Evil over good, dark over light, lie over truth, unnatural over natural, disorder over order, bugs and dung over man, and grey matter (brain) over spirit. This is the magic formula worked by scientific materialism over its’ slaves.
For other magicians, a similar effect can be caused by seductive persuasion and unrelenting psychological bullying, the aim of which is control and/or manipulation of will—choice.
Behind black magic is the spirit of a darkened soul attacking, oppressing and even trying to take possession of another spirit, thus Athanasius said the truth about evil,
“….is that it originates, and resides, in the perverted choice of the darkened soul…” (Against the Heathen, New Advent)
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 8:55 pm
churchmouse
Wow, Linda, that never occurred to me. It probably should have after my series from last summer on Marxism and Communism.
Your whole post stands out, especially these passages:
I shall go off and think about that further.
Thank you, Linda — another prescient observation.
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 6:16 pm
kin_free
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage”. Lord Woodhouse lee
Not long now, the cycle is nearly complete!
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 8:56 pm
churchmouse
Do I remember that from 2008 — true then, truer now.
kin_free, our last chance is … now!
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 7:16 pm
lleweton
My instincts chime with yours about the Fabian thread. I can’t see what fun there is in it for them, unless the only enjoyment in life they can experience is control and domination of others. I don’t feel any inclination to place bets in a betting shop (one of the few temptations to which I am immune) but I would get no fun at all from passing a law stopping other people from placing a bet. So it is about power, and I venture, with some trepidation, to say that we are in the area of spiritual warfare.
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 8:50 pm
churchmouse
Llew, Linda (above) and you might have an inkling re the darker arts and these bans. Much to ponder there.
Agree with you on the betting shops. I walk by ours at least once a week and, although I do not enter, would never dream of banning it.
LikeLike
July 11, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Patriots and Liberty » Blog Archive » Goetia: The Dark Art of Uncreating Creation
[…] https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/bans-strategy-arguments-psychology/#comments […]
LikeLike
July 12, 2012 at 9:53 am
churchmouse
Thank you, Linda, for another great post — and for the kind mention, which is much apprciated!
I learn something new from you all the time. Had not run across the term ‘goetia’ before and may quote from your post in the not too distant future. It has begun to put things in a new light. I was peeking in through the window. You opened the door to another facet of what is really going on with civil liberties and freedom of choice.
LikeLike
July 12, 2012 at 11:02 am
james higham
The problem with “think of the children” is that the argument is valid and there’s not nearly enough of it going on, hence children debauched young these days and so on.
Problem is the banners have hijacked this and robbed it of seeming veracity.
LikeLike
July 12, 2012 at 12:49 pm
churchmouse
Yes, where we should be thinking of the children, we aren’t (e.g. premature sex education, child sexualisation).
Our concerned secularlist campaigners have ‘robbed it of seeming veracity’ by applying it to all their social engineering schemes.
LikeLike
July 16, 2012 at 4:14 am
Michael J. McFadden
Churchmouse, WONDERFULLY done! 🙂
Kin, your point about the usefulness of the tactics from our side as well is quite accurate. I came into this fight after many years of social/peace/environmental activism. When I saw the early ASH pamphlets of the 70s and 80s here in the US I realized how they were using the same propaganda techniques we were battling against when the government used them to promote acceptance of wars. Saul Alinsky and other activists in that area have provided the background for today’s Tobacco Control Industry. While some of their tricks and techniques are a bit too questionable morally for us to emulate, some of the thinking behind them is certainly worthwhile and we should all be familiar with it. Alinsky et al formulated those ideas to be useful to small groups of fairly powerless citizen activists against a large, well-funded, and powerful enemy … and that’s exactly the situation that Free Choice activists today are facing.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
LikeLike
July 16, 2012 at 7:05 am
churchmouse
Thanks, Michael — greatly appreciated!
What you say is insightful about the same techiques used by activists and lifestyle control groups.
When I was preparing the post on smoking bans in Indiana it became clear that the Democrats were mostly in favour whereas the Republicans were split.
Here are reactions from the state’s Democratic senators:
‘Rep. Charlie Brown, the Gary Democrat … has championed a smoking ban for nearly a decade …
‘“He who has the gold rules, and hopefully we can do something to get some of those onerous amendments out of the bill,” Brown said. “It would be difficult for me to swallow talking about leaving bars in there.” …
‘“It is a health care issue,” said Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville. “A lot of people out there in the real world — they don’t get to make those choices. They have to work.”
‘Sen. Tim Skinner, D-Terre Haute, called it hypocritical to complain that a smoking ban constitutes too much government intrusion in private life, but not lodge similar complaints about other measures lawmakers have approved.
‘“Do you not remember voting for the right to work bill? Do you not remember taking away the rights of collective bargaining for teachers last year?” he said. “I thought that was a huge step of government intrusion into our personal lives.”’
Thank you for your critique of Alinsky tactics as being ‘too questionable morally for us to emulate’ whilst acknowledging that it is necessary to know what they are.
Would be interesting to know if you are familiar with the more obscure names in this battle coming up this week (e.g. Richard Daynard).
Do you notice how a lot of these people are names and that we never really know who’s behind them or what their motivation was to get involved in lifestyle control? They’re blank slates as far as the public is concerned.
LikeLike
July 16, 2012 at 10:00 am
All your kids are belong to us | Orphans of Liberty
[…] All your kids are belong to us July 16, 2012 No CommentsBy James HighamChurchmouse has a nice piece up on the bansturbators. […]
LikeLike
July 16, 2012 at 10:18 am
churchmouse
James — I certainly think you have misunderstood what I was getting at. As I responded at OoL on your post, there is a beneficial ‘think of the children’ and an abusive one which social engineers use.
LikeLike
July 16, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Linda Kimball
“As I responded at OoL on your post, there is a beneficial ‘think of the children’ and an abusive one which social engineers use.”
Underlying banning of any sort is guilt used as a weapon to coerce and if neccessary, spiritually batter (i.e. demonize) the wills of other people. Thus Churchmouse has rightly discerned the difference between good or beneficial guilt and false guilt used by darkened souls who crave power over other souls.
While all of Alinsky’s Rules apply here, Rule 12—-“Pick the target, freeze it, personalise it, and polarise it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions”—is the methodology of all human predators, whether serial killers, sex-psychopaths, and mass-murderers such as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc.
Just as with animal predators, the most vulnerable are targeted and separated from the safety of the herd (or family, social network) in order that the kill can be made. The conscienceless human predator however, is not looking for a meal but rather a human tool to be shaped and molded to his evil purposes. With predators like Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and their Western financiers, the purpose was destruction of Christian-based Western society.
The creation of human tools follows a predictable path beginning with targetting and then isolation.
Having successfuly isolated the target, the predator seduces (polarizes/ takes control of) the will of the target with flattery, understanding (I feel your pain), sympathy—-i.e.,if they had really loved you they would understand your needs, but since they don’t they don’t love you. Conversely, I (the predator) understand you, your pain, your needs.
The next order of business requires the demoralization of the target. By degrees, the target is gradually desensitized to the thinking and doing of abominations. A perfect example of this process in action are Western youth who on a daily basis in so-called “sex education” classes are being desensitized to the doing of everything obscene, filthy, and abnormal. Their parents have been neutralized either by seductive flattery (only the most enlightened can understand the benefits of sex-education) or polarized by relentless ridicule, contempt, and labeling (demonization).
When finally the conscience of the target has been thoroughly polluted the predator is able to lead him into becoming a participant of the predators dark fantasies, hating and even murdering whoever the predator bids him hate and murder or perhaps submitting to and performing whatever sado-masochistic perversity the predator bids him submit to. Here the utterly repulsive Jerry Springer show comes to mind as an example of media used for the purposes just discussed.
Like Karl Marx, Bakunin, et al, Alinsky acknowledged the devil. And no wonder, for the devil is not only the father of lies but of predation and its’ methodology.
LikeLike
July 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm
churchmouse
Many thanks, Linda, for your fulsome support on using children in a propagandistic way.
It’s as old as time, yet can be refashioned in so many ways as to meet the prevailing era and ethos.
What better way for a demonic spirit than to use children in this way? I’m thinking of another 20th century graphic depicting a ‘perfect’ mother with a ‘perfect’ child and a prohibitionistic slogan — I’ll bring it out in a future post.
A photograph of Carry Nation with an axe would have been more honest.
Yes, I was thinking about Marx, Bakunin and the rest earlier today, along with some other devilish minds. They would have found kindred spirits today.
Many thanks for the mention — a wonderful post you have there! Much on which to ponder.
Later edit: Readers, Linda brings out the home truths to us (from Linda’s post, highlights mine) —
‘This requires that Americans “wake up” and “discern” that evil human predators have been using and manipulating vast numbers of human tools with one hand while with the other projecting their own badness onto scapegoats. They have elevated lies to the level of truth and made it a sin to worship and pray to God the Father, to be a straight white male or female and to refuse to be touched by abomination. It is now a sin to defend your own home and to want to keep your own earnings. It is a sin to defend standards of decency, the life of the unborn, one-man/one-woman marriage, America’s borders, and the right to self-defense.
‘No matter how difficult and painful we find the task, we must nevertheless develop the searing spiritual vision that will allow us to throw off the heavy burden of false-guilt laid upon us by predatorial scapegoaters. The evil must be made to bear personal responsibility for their own sins…including the sins of scapegoating and using other people as tools.’
LikeLike