Posted by: Cannoneer No. 4 | Saturday, 15 December 2007

Fear, Terror, and Other Emotions Somebody Wants You to Feel

There are people and organizations out there conveying selected information that influences your emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately your  behavior.   They want you to behave in ways that further their agenda.  Some of these people and organizations seek to persuade you that all is lost, your leaders are idiots,  we’re to blame and deserve to be hated,  Iraq was better off under Saddam,  we can learn to live with an Iranian bomb,  one of the two major political parties in America likes war, sharia won’t be so bad, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum.  They want regime change in America and an end to resistance.  They want you to agree with them, and recruit your friends to their way of thinking.   They need you to vote appropriately.

There are people and organizations with different agendas in opposition to the above who seek to bolster your morale, explain to you how others are attempting to undermine it,  demonstrate  by example enthusiastic cheer-leading and expressions of gratitude and support for the minuscule proportion of the population actually engaged in this war, and persuade you not to quit sacrificing what little has been asked of you.  They too, want regime change in America,  but no earlier than January 20, 2009,  and continued escalation of resistance. They too, want you to agree with them, and recruit your friends to their way of thinking. They too need you to vote appropriately.

Both sides want you to fear what they fear , and see reality as they see it.

 Ron Silver has an excellent blog entry on Fear, all of which you should read, but the best of which I’ll tease you with:

 Indeed we now all have reason to be afraid. But apparently we’re afraid of different things. Some factions are less concerned with the folks who have declared war on us and who are determined to kill us, our children and our civilization. These factions have chosen our elected government, chosen by us to secure and defend us, to be their adversary.

The critics of our national security policies know we have the means to sort things out in finding the proper balance between civil liberties and security. What they haven’t figured out is how to deal with the real enemy so they avoid talking about it. They don’t like what we’re doing but they offer nothing else. I believe they’re afraid to take on our real adversaries.

In fact we are not afraid enough. Perhaps after losing Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago or Atlanta a great many of our citizens will realize that George Bush was not the person to be afraid of.

Be reasonably afraid. Be very reasonably afraid. And act accordingly.

Some excellent comments over on that thread.

H/T: Generalissimo Francisco Reynolds

Posted in Idea War, Morale Operations, Old Media, PSYOP, PSYOP Auxiliaries

« All you Regulars better check your shoulders for genitalia
Accident, Coincidence, or Enemy Action? »

Responses

Be reasonably afraid. Be very reasonably afraid. And act accordingly.

Or you can simply learn to resist propaganda, psychological warfare, and panic.

By: ymarsakar on Saturday, 15 December 2007
at 11:14 pm

Found this today. On topic, although not on topic…!
I’m not really familiar with Alinsky…guess I need to learn more. This concept is confusing, though - we need to radicalize them because they’re in the majority, and radicalizing the poor won’t be effective because there are so few? So…what’s wrong with the system that has the produced this imbalance? isn’t that where they should want to be? The goal should be to simply continuing to decrease the poor, increase the middle class and eventually, everybody is middle class. Not the goal? What _is_ then?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillarys-radical-middle-class-express

By: suek on Sunday, 16 December 2007
at 11:40 am

This concept is confusing, though - we need to radicalize them because they’re in the majority, and radicalizing the poor won’t be effective because there are so few?

A simple explanation is why did the Soviet Union cultivate useful idiots amongst American academia and media stars?

Wasn’t the Socialist paradise strong enough to gain revolution through proletariat support?

No, it wasn’t. Because regardless of what propaganda the Soviets or the Democratic Socialists put out about “grassroots”, they know exactly where the power is. So they don’t seek to “radicalize” the majority of middle Americans, they seek to use them. As the Soviets used the useful idiots of America’s Hollywood and academia. They were always planning on executing such tools once they were of no use.

Intellectuals and academics supported Castro and the Ayatollah of Iran. Guess what happened to them when Castro’s Revolution and the Islamic Revolution came to power.

If you ever read about coups or intrigue as conducted by Byzantines or feudalists, you will know that the success of a coup depends upon how competent the intriguers are and how powerful their allies/resources are. If you have control of the military, then your chances of a coup will succede, provided that you are not incompetent and do something stupid like leak your intentions to your enemies.

Revolutionary movements such as Alinksky’s need to conform to the reality of power, regardless of their lies in propaganda. The reality of power is that you need the people with power to support you. America does this through convincing people that it is in their interest to work together. Revolutionaries lie and manipulate, then purge the tools once they are no longer of use.

The Soviets understood such realities quite well. That is why the top party members had few if any true believers in the common man’s cause. They were running on the fumes that arose from burning the bodies of those that actually believed in communism. Those were the ones that fought, died, and sacrificed so that the system could enrich the Communist party elite. Those were the ones that kept the non-believers in check.

The goal should be to simply continuing to decrease the poor, increase the middle class and eventually, everybody is middle class.

Both communists and socialists hate the middle class. For what are aristocrats to do with people that resist being manpulated and owned by those born to rule, suek?

Democratic socialists, communists, and national socialists need the poor to maintain power. But the poor are never enough if they desire more power and status. They need money and power for that, which doesn’t come from the poor and downtrodden, it comes from the elites. That is why such “revolutions” are almost always successful because it is run by elites for elites. The propaganda is only thing that says the revolution is for the “people”.

This concept is confusing, though - we need to radicalize them because they’re in the majority, and radicalizing the poor won’t be effective because there are so few?

I hope I unconfused some bits of it. Hitler’s rise is also a good example of what it means to get the support of the middle class majority. Power comes from the people. The enemies of humanity recognize this as they attempt to destroy it.

By: ymarsakar on Sunday, 16 December 2007
at 2:24 pm

As a qualifier, power only “comes from’ the elites because the elites stole it from the people or were given power/wealth by the people.

So when socialists say they believe in the power of the people, what they really mean is that they believe in the right of the powerful to steal and extort the power of the people for the interests of the powerful.

Compare this with the US military, which believes that the power given to them by the people through the US Constitution should be used to protect and preserve the origin of their power, the people themselves. They took an oath to protect the US Constitution from all enemies. The US Constitution exists to protect the life and liberty of the people that are part of the United States. The military should not swear loyalty to the people, as socialists do, because the Constitution prevents the people from harming themselves or voting dictators into power just cause people feel like it. Which is why socialists prefer the “people” over the US Constitution, and use the power of the people to erode and destroy the US Constitution, so that socialist elites can do what they wish. Or fascist elites or communist elites or Islamic elites, it really matters not. They are all born of the same soul.

Here are some of the oaths the US military swore to

By: ymarsakar on Sunday, 16 December 2007
at 2:33 pm

Many of these scenarios of loyalty conflicts and social revolutions/reforms were dealt with by David Weber in his Honor Harrington series. That is why I like to read his fictional novels. They offer a better lesson on real life than the talking heads speaking about real events ever could.

Also books by SM Stirling, Eric Flint, and other military science fiction/alternate history authors had to postulate what if situations based upon their own personal philosophy.

Thus the ultimate goal of philosophy was reached. In which you saw the world as it should be, rather than what it is. For seeing the world as it is provides you no solutions on what it should be, while seeing what the world should be allows you also to see what you can do to change what it currently is.

By: ymarsakar on Sunday, 16 December 2007
at 2:37 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories