Before I start this ramble, let me state I am prochoice. This comes from a place of freedom and liberty, from that place comes my outrage at the following. I've been smacked in the face by prolife placards while the Gardaí (Irish police) do nothing but I'll still defend their right to carry those placards.
At the weekend we saw triumphantalism from progressives over prolife campaigners having their posters confiscated by the Gardaí. These were the usual fare of images of a healthy child, blastocysts, fetuses and the after results of an abortion. This was done on the basis of obscenity laws, in the name of protecting children, ironic, no? This was supported by a few political parties. Whilst they were allowed to continue canvassing they couldn't display images of a medical procedure. When I confronted people on this I got a fairly harsh "learn the law" reply. Another irony people campaigning against an injust law, encouraging people to break the law by going abroad to have an abortion insisting laws should be followed without question. Further irony that the prochoice campaign needed the right to free expression in its early days. Other arguments included "they did it first", "wait until you have kids then you'll see my point of view" and "free expression doesn't extend to imagery".
Now I'll break those down a bit.
They did it first:
Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have a valid point you don't need to lower yourself to your opponents dirty tactics to defend yourself. Perpetuating those tactics damages society as a whole, you can't progress doing the same things over and over again. Gaining one advancement to lose another gains nothing, in this case gaining bodily integrity to lose free expression is not worth it because bodily integrity will be the last thing that will be won.
Logical fallacy:
If you ever need to resort to "when you have kids", "your to young to know", "if you had my experience" and similar to end a debate, you've failed to win a debate. When you make a statement the burden of proof is on you, if someone needs a qualifier to see your point of view you haven't explained it properly. Avoiding logical fallacies will help you debate better or help you change your mind, if your argument requires prerequisites that are limited to a subset of people then it's invalid and needs to be redeveloped until you're capable of expressing it.
The law:
"The law is an ass" Charles Dickens. As I said there's a laughable irony in people campaigning against a law, complaining when they perceive a breach of the law. Obscenity laws should only prevent perverts flashing people on the street. Not campaigners using medical imagery or pictures of children crawling around fully clothed. When obscenity laws extend to the removal of medical imagery things are going wrong. Other than the implication of the happy baby crawling is the result of every birth the imagery removed was fact based or the idea that all abortions can lead to infertility, what they use is reasonably science based. Let's play this out, in this brave new world of identity politics we're expected to be sensitive of everyone's God damn foibles all fact based reasoning could be offencive to someone. We've seen this starting in the states with things like "prove gender without using science". If Trump politics will lead the world to Idiocracy, progressivism will lead somewhere much worse.
Offence: (this will be short)
Offence, the inability to control emotional response to a situation. The simple version of offence, "fuck you" can be responded to two ways, "whaa I offended" or "welp that guys a jerk". The more complicated version of offence isn't offence, it's cognitive dissonance, the uneasy feeling someone gets when presented with evidence challenging their views.
Won't somebody please think of the children!:
Don't expect the world to look after your children they're your responsibility. You can't expect the world to stifle itself to make your life easier. Yes raising children is difficult but you can't do it by lying to them pretending the world is wonderful, otherwise your child will grow up to be emotionally stunted and incapable of dealing with the world as an adult. There's nasty things out there and you need to teach them how to deal with them.
Free expression is only speech:
No, then it would be free speech. Our thoughts do not only take place as only words therefore the way we convey information from one to another cannot either. If we allow progressivism to flail wildly down this path we'll end up pre-renaissance, in other words the dark ages. Not just called that due to a lack of adequate lighting but due to the lack of enlightened thought. Quite the dichotomy if progressive thinking leads to a lack of enlightenment. Imagery is an essential part of communication, can you explain a complex hydrocarbon without imagery? Can you express the loneliness of Picassos blue nude in words alone? Can you play a video game without pictures? How many people even use MUDs anymore? All these expressions need more than mere words but if progressivism runs rampant nothing will be safe.
Party support:
Given politicians and aspiring politicians seemed ok using an obscenity law to stop their opponents what will they use in a position of power? How can they represent all people when they find the views of some of them obscene? These lead me to the point that the less power a government has the safer people are.
Ultimately freedom of expression is key to a free society. The ability to freely debate produces new ideas. When subjects become taboo we block an avenue of learning. In this case not knowing the potential dangers of abortion could lead people to believe it is completely safe rather than having inherent risks that come with any medical procedure, unlike what prolife campaigners claim that it's always dangerous, between the 2 sides lies the truth. It reaches further than that the more taboo subjects, the more approved speech, the less we can watch and the less we can read, the less we can think, it doesn't matter if we're thinking progressive or conservative as long as we are all thinking the same, the easier we are to manipulate and control. How can you know you're thinking for yourself if you're not allowed to view all sides of a debate? Question everything, believe nothing without investigating it yourself and don't back down until you are satisfied.
Showing posts with label Social. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social. Show all posts
20170704
Progressivism versus Liberalism
If you're a regular reader you know I've posted a few pieces on co-opted movements and methods of control. If not, go back and read them you fuck! Honestly it's been a struggle not come across as a nut trying to convince people the illuminati are controlling us with gay frogs. I think I'm going to fail today.
I used to consider myself a liberal until liberals started going in a very crazy direction, now we're seeing more and more liberals speaking up, but what are they speaking up against aaaand here's where I'll sound crazy. Liberalism is being co-opted by a controlled body of progressives.
First let me give you my own definition of liberals and progressives.
Liberal:
Person who strongly believes in individual rights but still wants a gummerment to look after and blame when shit goes wrong. Willing and able to debate. Truly open minded i.e. able to change their opinion based on new evidence. Understands that change comes slowly in increments (this point is essential).
Progressive:
Believes that change must happen drastically and immediately. Dogmatic in their beliefs. Believes beliefs are open minded rather than being ready and able to change them. Incapable of "giving a platform" to those who disagree, creating an echo chamber and lack of debate.
Let's look at the causes or should that be triggers? Progressives tend to be people wanting to be angry be it through their own lives not being fulfilling, personal trauma or just never learning to lose, a valuable lesson because sometimes life sucks. They're seeing little trinkets of windmills and tilting their jousts hard. Be it microaggressions, mansplanations or a perceived lack of diversity too name a few, they're ready to use these to attack people and gain a moral high ground. You're probably wanting a bit of an explanation on those and why they're little windmill trinkets, so I'll try.
Microaggressions:
These are subtle mannerisms that people have that perceived as aggressive. This could be holding a door open for a woman "because they're too weak to do it themselves" which isn't the case, holding the door open for the person behind you is just good courtesy. If someone didn't hold the door as I was following and let it swing in my male face I'd give them an earful. Young/old or male/female hold the door for the person behind until they've got a hand on it, it's just decency dammit! The other common microaggression is gesticulating with your hands when talking, most linguists including the great Naom Chomski will agree up to 60% of communication is in body language. Ponder that for a moment, progressives want your communication to be limited by more than half. Liberals won't get angry at good maners, usually accepting they're an integral social glue that keeps us together.
Mansplanation:
This seems to be anytime a man patiently explains something with lots of detail, leaving the recipient feeling condescended in receiving the information. Now imagine the word mumsplanation, that definition would fit that word very well. That approach to explanation isn't gender specific and usually come from a place where an individual has attempted to explain something without success, usually through a lack of clarity without understanding where that lack of clarity comes from. In that case covering everything seems like the best place to work from. This is mere communication issues not male oppression. Though a liberal (or pretty much anyone who isn't a progressive) will accept that communication can fail.
Lack of diversity:
This is a tricky one because it does exist. The question is how to address it. The important thing to point out against positive discrimination is the observation of Thomas Sowell, (paraphrasing here) when an individual is singled out to "benefit" from positive discrimination they often end up in a position they can't handle. Forcing people into positions they're not capable for will also lower standards in any organisation that falls victim to it, in other words do you want the doctor best suited to giving you a colonosocopy or someone who failed their exams? With that what seems to be best for an individual of a minority to succeed is to get the same opportunity to learn and apply for college or work as any other individual. Otherwise we end up a in a situation similar to what we've seen in New York, where teachers no longer have to pass a literacy test, because the test was seen as stopping members of minorities weren't getting teaching jobs. That is a sign of multiple failures within the education system leading up to someone becoming a teacher. That is a can 'o' worms of failings both societal and systematic. Now here's the less comfortable facts to consider, let's look at the observations from the unpopular book 'The Bell Curve' by Charles A. Murray & Richard Herrnstein. This controversial piece on the statistical links between genetics and IQ has caused a lot of irrational explosions from the progressive community, a lot of curious questioning from liberals and outright misinterpretations from the right. Most of the questioning raised will range from does this mean IQ testing is flawed, what are the methods used to generate the averages and most importantly what needs to change in education to ensure everyone has an opportunity to learn in a manner best suited to them? I just need to drop in a brief interjection here, the authors always wanted it noted the outliers on either end of the averages are so far outside that generalising by race for educational methods will be just as damaging as the current educational models. This isn't an exhaustive study but does highlight the need to study it more, which we can see here, demonstrating its not exactly race based but strongly linked to genetics. Now if progressives or the far right get what they want in "protecting cultures" through segregated "safe spaces" (seriously how do they not realise what they're doing?!?) or straight up racial segregation, we won't get the essential mix of genetics that could level the leading field (Dammit people, when will you learn, people is people!). Further to this what if some groups are better in certain situations than others. Steve Bannon pointed out that a disproportionate number of Asians work in board positions in tech, about 16%, a group who make up a little under 7% of the American populace. Should these people lose their jobs in the name of social justice or should they be encouraged to get the best out of life? There is no clear answer to this like the other points I raised but I hope I've highlighted the madness prevalent in progressive ideals.
This causes ever growing divisions within the left and liberal populace, a very obvious divide and conquer move from somewhere. Leaving liberals lost and confused why the only people left to debate when are who they view in their opposition on the right, it's easy to say this is Trumps doing but it's not the left he needs to distract, it's the right and centrists he's let down that have been let down, meanwhile they're distracted by the crazy left. This trend has been happening since before his emergence. Who gains? The obvious enemy is the right, either attempting to get the next generation of voter or discredit their opponent, but most on the right seem more open to debate than ever before. There's not enough gain for them. This is divide and conquer, a group who have more to gain if people are not cohesive and able to recognise a greater threat to them as individuals. All I can do is speculate, shadow governments, globalists, international bankers or the egg Council?
As read back over this I do realise this is a meandering rant, I hope you enjoyed.
I used to consider myself a liberal until liberals started going in a very crazy direction, now we're seeing more and more liberals speaking up, but what are they speaking up against aaaand here's where I'll sound crazy. Liberalism is being co-opted by a controlled body of progressives.
First let me give you my own definition of liberals and progressives.
Liberal:
Person who strongly believes in individual rights but still wants a gummerment to look after and blame when shit goes wrong. Willing and able to debate. Truly open minded i.e. able to change their opinion based on new evidence. Understands that change comes slowly in increments (this point is essential).
Progressive:
Believes that change must happen drastically and immediately. Dogmatic in their beliefs. Believes beliefs are open minded rather than being ready and able to change them. Incapable of "giving a platform" to those who disagree, creating an echo chamber and lack of debate.
Let's look at the causes or should that be triggers? Progressives tend to be people wanting to be angry be it through their own lives not being fulfilling, personal trauma or just never learning to lose, a valuable lesson because sometimes life sucks. They're seeing little trinkets of windmills and tilting their jousts hard. Be it microaggressions, mansplanations or a perceived lack of diversity too name a few, they're ready to use these to attack people and gain a moral high ground. You're probably wanting a bit of an explanation on those and why they're little windmill trinkets, so I'll try.
Microaggressions:
These are subtle mannerisms that people have that perceived as aggressive. This could be holding a door open for a woman "because they're too weak to do it themselves" which isn't the case, holding the door open for the person behind you is just good courtesy. If someone didn't hold the door as I was following and let it swing in my male face I'd give them an earful. Young/old or male/female hold the door for the person behind until they've got a hand on it, it's just decency dammit! The other common microaggression is gesticulating with your hands when talking, most linguists including the great Naom Chomski will agree up to 60% of communication is in body language. Ponder that for a moment, progressives want your communication to be limited by more than half. Liberals won't get angry at good maners, usually accepting they're an integral social glue that keeps us together.
Mansplanation:
This seems to be anytime a man patiently explains something with lots of detail, leaving the recipient feeling condescended in receiving the information. Now imagine the word mumsplanation, that definition would fit that word very well. That approach to explanation isn't gender specific and usually come from a place where an individual has attempted to explain something without success, usually through a lack of clarity without understanding where that lack of clarity comes from. In that case covering everything seems like the best place to work from. This is mere communication issues not male oppression. Though a liberal (or pretty much anyone who isn't a progressive) will accept that communication can fail.
Lack of diversity:
This is a tricky one because it does exist. The question is how to address it. The important thing to point out against positive discrimination is the observation of Thomas Sowell, (paraphrasing here) when an individual is singled out to "benefit" from positive discrimination they often end up in a position they can't handle. Forcing people into positions they're not capable for will also lower standards in any organisation that falls victim to it, in other words do you want the doctor best suited to giving you a colonosocopy or someone who failed their exams? With that what seems to be best for an individual of a minority to succeed is to get the same opportunity to learn and apply for college or work as any other individual. Otherwise we end up a in a situation similar to what we've seen in New York, where teachers no longer have to pass a literacy test, because the test was seen as stopping members of minorities weren't getting teaching jobs. That is a sign of multiple failures within the education system leading up to someone becoming a teacher. That is a can 'o' worms of failings both societal and systematic. Now here's the less comfortable facts to consider, let's look at the observations from the unpopular book 'The Bell Curve' by Charles A. Murray & Richard Herrnstein. This controversial piece on the statistical links between genetics and IQ has caused a lot of irrational explosions from the progressive community, a lot of curious questioning from liberals and outright misinterpretations from the right. Most of the questioning raised will range from does this mean IQ testing is flawed, what are the methods used to generate the averages and most importantly what needs to change in education to ensure everyone has an opportunity to learn in a manner best suited to them? I just need to drop in a brief interjection here, the authors always wanted it noted the outliers on either end of the averages are so far outside that generalising by race for educational methods will be just as damaging as the current educational models. This isn't an exhaustive study but does highlight the need to study it more, which we can see here, demonstrating its not exactly race based but strongly linked to genetics. Now if progressives or the far right get what they want in "protecting cultures" through segregated "safe spaces" (seriously how do they not realise what they're doing?!?) or straight up racial segregation, we won't get the essential mix of genetics that could level the leading field (Dammit people, when will you learn, people is people!). Further to this what if some groups are better in certain situations than others. Steve Bannon pointed out that a disproportionate number of Asians work in board positions in tech, about 16%, a group who make up a little under 7% of the American populace. Should these people lose their jobs in the name of social justice or should they be encouraged to get the best out of life? There is no clear answer to this like the other points I raised but I hope I've highlighted the madness prevalent in progressive ideals.
This causes ever growing divisions within the left and liberal populace, a very obvious divide and conquer move from somewhere. Leaving liberals lost and confused why the only people left to debate when are who they view in their opposition on the right, it's easy to say this is Trumps doing but it's not the left he needs to distract, it's the right and centrists he's let down that have been let down, meanwhile they're distracted by the crazy left. This trend has been happening since before his emergence. Who gains? The obvious enemy is the right, either attempting to get the next generation of voter or discredit their opponent, but most on the right seem more open to debate than ever before. There's not enough gain for them. This is divide and conquer, a group who have more to gain if people are not cohesive and able to recognise a greater threat to them as individuals. All I can do is speculate, shadow governments, globalists, international bankers or the egg Council?
As read back over this I do realise this is a meandering rant, I hope you enjoyed.
20170503
Methods of Control: Co-opted movements
So what do I mean by a co-opted movement? A group that claims to have an end goal but it's means are achieving something else. Why care? People are wasting their energy on being detrimental to there own society and community.
Violence:
The biggest sign of a co-opted movement is one that resorts to violence as its first step, there is nothing that can't be achieved without some rational thought out debate and real open mindedness, beliefs aren't open minded, being able to change you beliefs based on new evidence is.
Self destruction:
As we see with social justice warriors they'll quickly turn on themselves for pointless things and innocent mistakes. Similarly like we've seen with modern feminism attacking Germaine Greer or Christina Sommers. By attacking the established and intellectual proponents of a movement the whole movement is weakened. This way the movement can't organise efficiently.
Private funding:
Never trust altruistic business people, they exist for profit the only time they give money is when they get something in return. Any movement should only accept funding from its own members or small donations from the public, not large grants from investment bankers.
Contradiction in the name of the cause:
A co-opted group will often flip-flop its position to suit its ulterior purpose, arguing against a tactic of its enemy to later adopt that tactic for its own means.
Inability to debate:
A co-opted movement will have limited debating ability and will often veer away from talking about their subject, often falling back to baseless insults, accusations and claims "you shouldn't have to ask" against the person who questions then. When they have to talk about it they'll revert to a person who is trained with a script.
What can be done?
What an opposition should do with a co-opted is:
Violence:
The biggest sign of a co-opted movement is one that resorts to violence as its first step, there is nothing that can't be achieved without some rational thought out debate and real open mindedness, beliefs aren't open minded, being able to change you beliefs based on new evidence is.
Self destruction:
As we see with social justice warriors they'll quickly turn on themselves for pointless things and innocent mistakes. Similarly like we've seen with modern feminism attacking Germaine Greer or Christina Sommers. By attacking the established and intellectual proponents of a movement the whole movement is weakened. This way the movement can't organise efficiently.
Private funding:
Never trust altruistic business people, they exist for profit the only time they give money is when they get something in return. Any movement should only accept funding from its own members or small donations from the public, not large grants from investment bankers.
Contradiction in the name of the cause:
A co-opted group will often flip-flop its position to suit its ulterior purpose, arguing against a tactic of its enemy to later adopt that tactic for its own means.
Inability to debate:
A co-opted movement will have limited debating ability and will often veer away from talking about their subject, often falling back to baseless insults, accusations and claims "you shouldn't have to ask" against the person who questions then. When they have to talk about it they'll revert to a person who is trained with a script.
What can be done?
What an opposition should do with a co-opted is:
- Remain calm
- Stay on topic
- Don't resort to violence whilst being prepared to defend themselves and challenge all bullshit
- It is essential to question everything
- Encourage debate
- Discourage violence
- Try to keep cohesion in the group
- One reason to co-opt a movement is to break it up but there will come a point where someone will have to leave and start there own group.
20170501
Cannabis is not a gateway drug
One of the biggest arguments against cannabis is "it's a gateway drug". I'm going to propose a few reasons this is wrong.
Mis-education: People are often taught the dangers of cannabis in a greatly exaggerated manner, this will cause people to think the dangers of other drugs are exaggerated too.
Criminals or pushers: Criminals sell drugs, to get cannabis someone is most likely going to be dealing with a serious criminal. Cannabis has the lowest mark-up of any drug, so it's in a criminals interest to sell something more profitable.
Substance abuse: Through escapism people will want to get out of there heads, cannabis isn't all that great at this but is the light start, people who want to escape will start light and work up. Very few start with heroin.
So what can be done?
Education: dis-spell the myths about cannabis, ensure people know the difference between cannabis and hard drugs.
Decriminalise: moving cannabis sale from criminals to legitimate taxed businesses changes the dynamic, a legitimate cannabis seller will be pushing nothing worse than smoking accessories and munchies.
Psychiatric care: the substance abuser will always exist, it could be alcohol, cannabis, paint or anything. There issue lies in the psychological no matter how much prohibition is introduced they'll find something, it can only be resolved with adequate psychiatric help.
Mis-education: People are often taught the dangers of cannabis in a greatly exaggerated manner, this will cause people to think the dangers of other drugs are exaggerated too.
Criminals or pushers: Criminals sell drugs, to get cannabis someone is most likely going to be dealing with a serious criminal. Cannabis has the lowest mark-up of any drug, so it's in a criminals interest to sell something more profitable.
Substance abuse: Through escapism people will want to get out of there heads, cannabis isn't all that great at this but is the light start, people who want to escape will start light and work up. Very few start with heroin.
So what can be done?
Education: dis-spell the myths about cannabis, ensure people know the difference between cannabis and hard drugs.
Decriminalise: moving cannabis sale from criminals to legitimate taxed businesses changes the dynamic, a legitimate cannabis seller will be pushing nothing worse than smoking accessories and munchies.
Psychiatric care: the substance abuser will always exist, it could be alcohol, cannabis, paint or anything. There issue lies in the psychological no matter how much prohibition is introduced they'll find something, it can only be resolved with adequate psychiatric help.
20170429
Methods of Control: Criticism of Rules For Radicals
Rules for Radicals is a book by Saul Alinsky, a guide for people trying to institute change, this is part of my pieces on methods of control. Essentially this book aims to help "the revolution" through cheap tricks. It's like The Art of War but for political upheaval. To use the same Einstein quote again "in a debate there is a thesis and antithesis, when successful the outcome is a synthesis", this book discourages that. The name using "radicals" makes the indoctrinated feel special, part of a group that are the only ones who understand them.
"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.
It's innocent enough and good advice on the front but it instills the us and them mindset encouraging aggressive behaviour with "build power from flesh and blood", there is no us and them just individuals. Some who think a like but none think the same.
"Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
This is essentially, 'pick your battles' but going outside your expertise is how you learn. It also stops the "radical" from seeing things from the opponents point of view and potentially stops them understanding why they're wrong. This seems cultish disconnecting the indoctrinated from anything that will veer them away from being controlled.
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
A fairly simple attack method, similar to what I mentioned talking about cults but this stops the opposing sides from reaching a common ground managing the us and them mentality. This stops the synthesis of ideas forming.
"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.
This is a diversion tactic, wasting resources is as greedy as hoarding them. It does nothing but divert the opponent and hinders development.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defence. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Childishness, to get Machiavellian the sooner one has to resort to insults and shouting the less validity their argument has. It also diverts from actually discussing the issues or topics, distracting the "radical" from opposing views and makes them afraid of being ridiculed, keeping the indoctrinated on side and not questioning what they're doing.
"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.
Back to my cult piece, this is a method of indoctrination and control to stop people questioning what they're doing, no one wants to be the one ruining the fun and be ostracised from the group.
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
No one wants old news, seems fair enough but this stops people being able to formulate reasonable arguments against you and stops the indoctrinated from realising what they're doing might be wrong.
"Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
Another one to inhibit discourse and to stop people from coming to an agreement, there will be no peace with tactics like this.
"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
If people are afraid of you they won't question you, then you can get away with anything.
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
Keep them under pressure and they'll fuck up. Giving the "radical" the opportunity to cease control.
"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 sympathises with the underdog.
Play the victim and you'll get bwahs, this isn't development or bettering society it's simple manipulation. No good will come if it and when people realise what you're doing, it'll lose you more than it gained.
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem.
More blocking of development and a synthesis of ideas.
"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.
This is just dirty tricks, classic Ad Hominem and alienates those in opposition. This is best highlighted in the modern left calling ask those that oppose them fascist or Nazis regardless of their actual politics.
This all seems to be a way to create Lenins 'useful idiots', destabilising one authoritarian system to replace it with another. It also seems to be more about keeping the indoctrinated on your side. A truly developed society cannot be forced by the will of a few but one that facilitates the freedom and liberty of all individuals. Rules for radicals encourages an aggressive take over without regard to the wants and needs of all people, with its cultish methodology those involved will not realise what they've done or who they've done it for until it's too late.
Like with all my methods of control I write this to highlight how we are manipulated and controlled, the more aware of these you are the more in control of your own life you are.
Full disclosure I have used these in a business environment, often with those unwilling to improve but as a last resort to drive Kaizen when speaking to them reasonably has failed. It's a real, "I can wash but never be clean" situation for me. I have great concern for those who use these methods without remorse.
"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.
It's innocent enough and good advice on the front but it instills the us and them mindset encouraging aggressive behaviour with "build power from flesh and blood", there is no us and them just individuals. Some who think a like but none think the same.
"Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
This is essentially, 'pick your battles' but going outside your expertise is how you learn. It also stops the "radical" from seeing things from the opponents point of view and potentially stops them understanding why they're wrong. This seems cultish disconnecting the indoctrinated from anything that will veer them away from being controlled.
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
A fairly simple attack method, similar to what I mentioned talking about cults but this stops the opposing sides from reaching a common ground managing the us and them mentality. This stops the synthesis of ideas forming.
"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.
This is a diversion tactic, wasting resources is as greedy as hoarding them. It does nothing but divert the opponent and hinders development.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defence. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Childishness, to get Machiavellian the sooner one has to resort to insults and shouting the less validity their argument has. It also diverts from actually discussing the issues or topics, distracting the "radical" from opposing views and makes them afraid of being ridiculed, keeping the indoctrinated on side and not questioning what they're doing.
"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.
Back to my cult piece, this is a method of indoctrination and control to stop people questioning what they're doing, no one wants to be the one ruining the fun and be ostracised from the group.
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
No one wants old news, seems fair enough but this stops people being able to formulate reasonable arguments against you and stops the indoctrinated from realising what they're doing might be wrong.
"Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
Another one to inhibit discourse and to stop people from coming to an agreement, there will be no peace with tactics like this.
"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
If people are afraid of you they won't question you, then you can get away with anything.
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
Keep them under pressure and they'll fuck up. Giving the "radical" the opportunity to cease control.
"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 sympathises with the underdog.
Play the victim and you'll get bwahs, this isn't development or bettering society it's simple manipulation. No good will come if it and when people realise what you're doing, it'll lose you more than it gained.
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem.
More blocking of development and a synthesis of ideas.
"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.
This is just dirty tricks, classic Ad Hominem and alienates those in opposition. This is best highlighted in the modern left calling ask those that oppose them fascist or Nazis regardless of their actual politics.
This all seems to be a way to create Lenins 'useful idiots', destabilising one authoritarian system to replace it with another. It also seems to be more about keeping the indoctrinated on your side. A truly developed society cannot be forced by the will of a few but one that facilitates the freedom and liberty of all individuals. Rules for radicals encourages an aggressive take over without regard to the wants and needs of all people, with its cultish methodology those involved will not realise what they've done or who they've done it for until it's too late.
Like with all my methods of control I write this to highlight how we are manipulated and controlled, the more aware of these you are the more in control of your own life you are.
Full disclosure I have used these in a business environment, often with those unwilling to improve but as a last resort to drive Kaizen when speaking to them reasonably has failed. It's a real, "I can wash but never be clean" situation for me. I have great concern for those who use these methods without remorse.
20170427
The Myth of Altruism
Altruism:
Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
I postulate that altruism is a myth. That we all do things for a reason, these reasons are a product of our minds and fulfill a goal we are praxeological beings. Some of this is based on my own experience and feelings.
Take an example of a way someone might help a person, like giving up a seat for an elderly person,
Societal:
It's what's expected of someone.
It's to help encourage the society around them to do the same should they be in need.
On most public transport it's the rules.
Id massage:
By experiencing a selfless act this satisfies someones Id, this creates a flow of endorphins and then satisfies the ego.
Virtue signalling:
To show the world how good a person you are, this raises the individuals sense of worth within there community and gives others the impression they're a good person.
Fishing for compliments:
Just doing it for the thanks.
Proving me wrong:
After reading this article you'll never know if you're doing it just to prove me wrong or if you're being altruistic.
None of these are reasons to not help others but it's important to be aware of what you do and understand your motives. Only if you're true to yourself can you develop as a person, know yourself and know those around you.
Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
I postulate that altruism is a myth. That we all do things for a reason, these reasons are a product of our minds and fulfill a goal we are praxeological beings. Some of this is based on my own experience and feelings.
Take an example of a way someone might help a person, like giving up a seat for an elderly person,
Societal:
It's what's expected of someone.
It's to help encourage the society around them to do the same should they be in need.
On most public transport it's the rules.
Id massage:
By experiencing a selfless act this satisfies someones Id, this creates a flow of endorphins and then satisfies the ego.
Virtue signalling:
To show the world how good a person you are, this raises the individuals sense of worth within there community and gives others the impression they're a good person.
Fishing for compliments:
Just doing it for the thanks.
Proving me wrong:
After reading this article you'll never know if you're doing it just to prove me wrong or if you're being altruistic.
None of these are reasons to not help others but it's important to be aware of what you do and understand your motives. Only if you're true to yourself can you develop as a person, know yourself and know those around you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)