On the path to enlightenment there are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, want to keep you from the truth and they have a few ingenious techniques for doing so. One of these goes like this:
Present a little bit of truth along with a lot of falsehood and the truth will easily be ignored.
Present a little bit of falsehood along with a lot of truth and the falsehood will easily be accepted.
A spoonful of sugar…
An example of something like this would be to combine the true history of an elite banker class with the absurd notion that the world’s political leaders are not really human beings, but are a species of reptilian alien. See how beautifully that works? If a single person is spouting both of those ideas, you will likely imagine that you can safely ignore both. This device relegates all discussion regarding the elites and their plans for a New World Order to the New Age section in the bookstore, where everything is assumed to be pseudoscience and no self-respecting college graduate would be caught dead.
A very similar method is used in the development of political parties. It goes like this:
Package a position on issues of emotional importance to the common man, but of little political importance, with the politically important, but likely to be ignored, doctrine that you wish to bring to pass.
Package the opposite position on those emotional issues of importance to the common man, but of little political importance, with the VERY SAME politically important, but likely to be ignored, doctrine that you wish to bring to pass.
Pit these two against one another and you will pass the doctrine you wish to pass with the blessings of the masses.
Examples of this would be the abortion issue, the gay marriage issue and of course the ever-present “science” of global warming, which, fraught as it is with so much nonsense, is easily swallowed by those who attach to it all the truths that science has ever uncovered.
Together the principles are part of a kind of dialectic which is really just a fuzzy equivocal term (another important technique for confusing people) for the fallacy of false alternative. These are, among others, some of the tools used by the “sagacious lawgiver” to ensure his particular rules will be followed. Speaking of equivocation, which I discussed in a previous post, if you are going to use the above techniques, make sure that whatever doctrine you wish to pass is named using words that evoke positive emotions, but mean precisely the opposite of whatever you are doing. This gets people used to using these words in conjunction with your ideas and prevents anyone from using them with their true meanings. You know, freedom is slavery, war is peace, and liberals are people who want more government (and hence less freedom).
With these techniques in mind, you’re well on your way to despotism.
Dan18 Oct 2009 - 10:15 am
Excellent! How could anyone be against Health Care? Don’t we all want to be healthy? A vote against Health Care is a vote to let all the sick people die!
Rick Hoegberg19 Oct 2009 - 12:31 pm
Good thoughts Lisa. They fit nicely with my long held belief that what look like 2 opposing view points are actually a coordinated effort to create a vector towards the real goal.
Lisa19 Oct 2009 - 1:09 pm
Hi Dan, oh yes… that’s a good one. It works on many levels… false alternative and of course, the real agenda being precisely that – to let all sick people die. How about this one:
“You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.”
What’s great about it this is that it’s more than just a false alternative… in fact, it isn’t an alternative at all! :-D