Tagged: doublespeak redirection Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Tina (GeneticPsychosMom) 10:05 on February 9, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , doublespeak redirection, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Propaganda: Psycho-Linguistics and Political Psychopathy 

    {A very thorough examination of the different methods employed in propaganda}

    Propaganda is generally to be defined as a calculated, coordinated campaign carried out through media that are capable of reaching a large amount of people, to further a primarily political agenda, (although principles of propaganda can be applied equally to further a religious or commercial agenda also).

    A number of techniques founded on social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.

    A basic assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic proposition presented as a statement of fact, although of course it is not necessarily true. Assertions often imply that the statement requires no explanation or evidence, but that it should merely be accepted without question.

    Examples of assertions can be found often in advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence, they are using an assertion. The subjects are supposed to simply agree with the assertion without searching for additional information, or applying any reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include damaging falsehoods or lies.

    “Glittering generalities” is one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. It also arises very often in politics and political propaganda. Glittering generalities are words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts. For example, when a person is asked to do something in “defence of democracy” or “freedom” they are more likely to agree. The concepts of democracy and freedom have positive connotations to them because they are regarded as highly valued principles by the majority of people.

    The “lesser of two evils” technique is an attempt to convince us of an idea or proposal by presenting it as the least offensive option. This technique is often implemented during wartime or economic recession to convince people of the need for sacrifices. This technique is often accompanied by adding blame on an enemy country or political group.

    In the UK, we currently have a Government that exercises an unhealthy and considerable control of the media. It’s often possible to predict when the next round of cuts and austerity measures are going to be inflicted on us because the announcement of policy is typically preceded by media justification prior to the event, usually involving the demarcation and scapegoating of the social group to be affected by the policy.

    We usually have a few weeks of the press stereotyping immigrants as a “free-loading drain on the taxpayer”, or poor sick and disabled people as “fraudsters” and “con artists”. Or unemployed people are portrayed as feckless, idle “spongers”, or lone parents as immoral and irresponsible “burdens”. But how else could a corrupt and authoritarian Government attempt to justify taking so much money from the poorest and most vulnerable citizens, whilst rewarding the wealthy with enormous tax cuts?

    The current Government are most certainly outrageous propagandists, on par with the Nazi Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, controlling the news media in particular, with the aim of shaping and controlling public opinion. They create and justify neo-feudal subordination, oppressive hierarchical social structures, and the end of our humanist ideal and practice of shared citizenship.

    I almost forgot to mention Cameron’s one remarkable but accidental, blurted out truth: We are raising more money for the richThat is verifiable fact.

    We must challenge this and we must fight it.

    Habitually search for the evidence that refutes what you are being told by any of the Coalition.

    It’s worth bearing in mind that when someone speaks or writes, they are trying to convince you of somethingAsk yourself what it is that they want you to believe, then analyse their basic proposition carefully. Examine what they are saying, look for consistency, coherence, reasoning and logic, and look for the evidence to support the proposition, of course.

    Critical thinking is essential to spark cogent, rational, open debate and provide a framework to support and guide the public to participate in well-informed discussions on current issues responsibly. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis in the US arose “to teach people how to think rather than what to think.”

    Ad hominem – A Latin phrase which has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments. David Cameron employs this strategy with considerable psychopathic expertise in Parliamentary debate. (See Prime Ministers Questions).

    Ad nauseam – This approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator. Joseph Goebbels, not known to be driven by the passionate inspiration of the moment, but by the result of sober psychological calculation, was particularly talented in utilising this approach. Iain Duncan Smith has a similar penchant for repeated mendacity. A serial offender.

    To justify his cruel and unwarranted welfare “reforms”, Iain Duncan Smith says that he has taken money that is essential for meeting the basic survival needs from the poorest people because “It’s fair to taxpayers.” Repeatedly.

    Appeals to authority – this technique involves citing prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action. The Tories, however, believe there are none who know better, or have more authority than the Tories. According to the Tories. See also Authoritarianism.

    The Tories tend to “unload” or “neutralise” some of their language too, especially in discussion and debate about their policies. For example, using the word “reforms” rather than a more neutral word like changesor a negative (and accurate) one like cuts. This is used to conceal the true aims and consequences of policies, and draws on Orwellian Doublespeak:  language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or even reverses the normative meaning of words.

    Ad Horribilis – Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population. For example Goebbels exploited Theodore N. Kaufman’s Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.

    This strategy is often employed to justify racism.

    Bandwagon – Bandwagon and “inevitable-victory” attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that “everyone else is taking.”

    • Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already, or at least partially on the bandwagon, are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.
    • Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people’s natural desire to be on the winning side. See also Behaviourism.

    Black and White fallacy – Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice (e.g. “You are either with us, or you are with the enemy”). So this involves reducing complex issues to overly simplified and contrived oppositional dichotomies, and uncritically favouring one of the two schemata.

    Big Lie – See also Disinformation. The repeated articulation of a complex of series of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the “big lie” generalisations merge and eventually supplant the public’s accurate perception of the underlying events.

    Common man – The ordinary folks or Common man approach is an attempt to convince the audience that the propagandist’s positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the target audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person.

    A common example of this type of propaganda is a political figure portrayed in a humble backyard, doing daily routine things. This image appeals to the “common person”. The Tories frequently try this one to attempt to shake off the solid, privileged, aristocratic and insular anti-social situation they inhabit, in vain attempts to appear “ordinary”.

    Demonising the enemy – Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman. The systematic media demonisation of the recipients of any social support and welfare is an example. This is done to erode public sympathy and support for the poor, so that the Government can then remove such “costly” support and hand out taxpayer’s money to the wealthy and private companies instead.

    Direct order – This technique is an attempt to simplify the decision-making process by using images and words to tell the audience exactly what actions to take, eliminating any other possible choices. Authority figures can be used to give the order, overlapping it with the Appeal to authority technique, but not necessarily.

    Disinformation – The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organisation, including outright forgery of photographs, motion pictures, broadcasts, and sound recordings as well as printed documents. And in the case of the Tories, statistics (Iain Duncan Smith). See David “paying down the debt” Cameron also.

    An example is Iain Duncan Smith’s lie about his education and qualifications, as stated in his biography on the Conservative Party website, his entry in Who’s Who, and various other places, which make the claim that he went to the Universita di Perugia in Italy. Mr Duncan Smith’s office has been forced to admit to Newsnight researchers investigating his academic background that he didn’t get any qualifications in Perugia, or even finish his exams. It’s easy to see why Mr Duncan Smith has made it his very own personal campaign to “monitor” the BBC for “left-wing bias.”

    Euphoria – The use of an event that generates euphoria or “feel good”, happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale, such as the Olympic games. Euphoria can also be created by declaring a holiday, or mounting a military parade with marching bands and patriotic messages. Royal weddings and births are elevated and spotlighted by the media for this purpose.

    Flag-waving – An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. The feeling of patriotism which this technique attempts to inspire may not necessarily diminish or entirely omit one’s capability for rational examination of the matter in question.

    In the most recent budget announcement by the Chancellor George Osborne, a measure was declared that proposes people who have “unfavourable English language skills should have their benefits cut”. A shallow, populist appeal to the shallow “common man” Daily Mail readers. Those who frequent the far-right saw this as a moment of national pride: “keeping Britain for the British”.

    Intentional vagueness – Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analysing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to “figure out” the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgement of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and application may still be considered.

    Not to be confused with “completely ignoring questions”. This is something of a speciality technique of David Cameron. He also mastered the technique of “getting away with it”, but that tends to come with experienced, psychopathic, aristocratic authoritarians.

    Labeling – A Euphemism is used when the propagandist attempts to increase the perceived quality, credibility, or credence of a particular ideal. A Dysphemism is used when the intent of the propagandist is to discredit, diminish the perceived quality

    Name-calling – Propagandists use this technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers with the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of facts. Name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against the an idea or belief on its own merits.

    Obtain disapproval or Reductio ad Hitlerum – This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated or feared by the target audience.

    Red herring – Presenting data or issues that, while compelling, are irrelevant to the argument at hand, and then claiming that it validates the argument. Or if you are Iain Duncan Smith, invention of statistics is the preferred sub-set technique here.

    Repetition – This type of propaganda deals with a jingle or word that is repeated over and over again, thus getting it stuck in someone’s head, so they can buy the product. The “Repetition” method has been described previously. A good example is “making work pay”, which has also become something of a Tory slogan, (see below). The phrase has come to mean stripping social security, and welfare provision, whilst driving down wages at the same time. Another example is Cameron’s unconvincing “Big Society”. There is definitely Orwellian Doublespeak going on there.

    Slogans – A slogan is a brief, striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. Although slogans may be enlisted to support reasoned ideas, in practice they tend to act only as emotional appeals. Opponents of the US’s invasion and occupation of Iraq use the slogan “blood for oil” to suggest that the invasion and its human losses was done to access Iraq’s oil riches. On the other hand, “hawks” who argued that the US should continue to fight in Iraq use the slogan “cut and run” to suggest that it would be cowardly or weak to withdraw from Iraq. Similarly, the names of the military campaigns, such as “enduring freedom” or “just cause”, may also be regarded as slogans, devised to influence people.

    A Tory slogan of epic farce value is: “we are all in it together”. We know that whilst the majority endure austerity, and life changing cuts to our basic income, the minority of very wealthy individuals are enjoying an increase in their already considerable standard of living, at our expense.

    Stereotyping (Name-Calling or Labeling) – This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. For instance, reporting on a foreign country or social group may focus on the stereotypical traits that the reader expects, even though they are far from being representative of the whole country or group; such reporting often focuses on the constructed and amplified negative traits.

    Testimonial – Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority in a propaganda message.

    Transfer – Also known as Association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organisation, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response.

    Unstated assumption – This technique is used when the propaganda concept that the propagandist intends to transmit would seem less credible if explicitly stated. The concept is instead repeatedly assumed or implied.

    An example of this is the current Tory notion of the “trickle down” effect. This is to justify tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by Government to businesses and the wealthy, on the basis that this will benefit poorer members of society eventually by improving the economy as a whole.

    The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said, during the Great Depression, that “money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy.” Worth remembering that the term was originally mostly used ironically or as pejorative. So to clarify the implicit Tory policy directive, money is taken from the poorest, and handed to the wealthiest, with the hope of it being “trickled” back down to the poorest at some point in the future.

    Virtue words – These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, “The Truth”, striver etc. are virtue words. In countries such as the U.S. religiosity is seen as a virtue, making associations to this quality effectively beneficial.

    Straw man – This type of argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

    Excerpted from: From Psycho-Linguistics to the Politics of Psychopathy. Part 1: Propaganda.  by Kitty S. Jones, July 2013

     

    Psychopath Test Politicians

    .

     
  • James 10:53 on January 14, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , doublespeak redirection, , just for fun, , , M.E. Thomas, , Parlez-vous bullshit?, , , , social mores are so moreish, , , When this baby hits 88mph..., Ziggy played guitar :(   

    The Psychopath Translator 

    Decoding the bullshit

    It’s true. Psychopaths (and sociopaths, if you like) aren’t the most straight-talking people in the world. Almost everything we say has some subtext or hidden layer to it, in which we say one thing but mean another. There I go doing it again. What I meant to say is we lie a lot.

    This can render effective communication with a psychopath very difficult, but no longer! Now you too can access your very own Psychopath – English dictionary, fully tailored for all your present and future dealings with God’s chosen people.

    We’ll start with a smirkingly good contribution, courtesy of M.E. Thomas over at Sociopath World:

    The Empath’s Cheat-Sheet for What a Sociopath Really Means

    1. I love you: I am fond of your companionship and put you above most, but never above me. Consider it an honor.

    2. I’m sorry, forgive me: I really do not enjoy the fact that your mood has altered. Please revert back to normal.

    3. I’d do anything for you: I’d do plenty to keep you right where I want you to be

    4. My condolences for your loss: *crickets* … It’s just a body. See you later when you aren’t being an emotional train-wreck.

    5. S/he fills my heart with joy: I haven’t had this much fun playing in a long time, and the sex is more than acceptable.

    6. I love my family: They’re mine.

    7. That’s simply shocking: You’ve touched my morbid bone. No need to stop now…

    8. Deep down, I feel I’m a good person: I’m not in prison and I stopped abusing animals, mostly. What more can you possibly demand of me?

    9. I’m not a monster, I’m a human too: I’m trying to seem human, give me a break. It’s not like this is particularly natural for me.

    Thanks, M.E.!

    I’ll continue the list myself:

    • 10. “How are you?” – Reply with something interesting or don’t bother.
    • 11. “Please could you…? / Would you mind…? / If it isn’t too much trouble…” – DO IT NOW!
    • 12. “Thank you” – Ha, sucker.
    • 13. “Thank you very much!” – You may be useful later.
    • 14. “Thanks ever so much, mate / buddy / love / dear / baby / hun etc…” – You will be useful later.
    • 15. “I hate you” – Your reaction to hurtful things amuses me.
    • 16. “Yeah, that’s really interesting!” – I stopped listening a while back and am now planning what I’m going to say to you when you finally stop.
    • 17. “It sure was nice meeting you” – I have plans for you.
    • 18. “The pleasure was all mine” – One day that will be true.
    • 19. “Yes, Sir / Madam / Mr X / Mrs Y” – You like getting your arse licked, don’t you? That slight tickle, deep in your anus? That’s the tip of my tongue.
    • 20. “Wow, you’re really [e.g. funny]” – I have recognised that you think you are [e.g. funny] so I will validate that belief and pretend to like it too in order to get you to like me.
    • 21. “Were you close to [deceased relative / pet]?” – All this crying is tedious. How long until you become fun again?
    • 22. “Allow me / Let me help you” – I haven’t got all day, so stand aside, human scum.
    • 23. “Have you thought about…? / Why don’t you try…?” – Are you really this stupid?
    • 24. “I’m really passionate about x” – I don’t give a shit about x, but for some reason you do, so…
    • 25. “Oh no! That’s terrible news!” – Ha! Tell me more! Wait, let me just grab some popcorn and a beer, then I’m all ears.
    • 26. “I’ll be in touch” – I may be in touch, if I can be bothered, or I need something.
    • 27. “I promise” – For as long as you continue to please me, you have nothing to worry about.
    • 28. “It’s my fault” – It’s your fault.
    • 29. “Sorry to change the subject, but…” – You’re boring, shut the fuck up.
    • 30. “I’m bored” – I am really, really, really fucking bored. Rustle me up some entertainment, quick!
    • BONUS! *Winks or pulls stupid face while looking into your eyes* – Either I don’t know what emotion to do, or I’m worried you caught me staring.

    Like that

    If you have anything to add to the list, or if there other phrases you’d like the Translator to decode, put them in the comments down below.

     

     
    • Rita 07:48 on January 15, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Hey, did you have to buy a new tire?

      How much of my money have you spent?

      You are more interested in someone who loves you than material things?

      I hear wedding bells.

      Translation from the other side:
      I’m sorry you’re feeling bad.
      Ha ha ha — well, see, you can too feel pain.

      Like

  • Tina (GeneticPsychosMom) 17:08 on December 29, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , divorce, doublespeak redirection, , , , , , infidelity, , , , , , , secrets,   

    What Would a Psychopath Do? A Victim Tells 

    rage

    In response to Daca’s letter, “Dear Chump Lady, He apologized to the OW for not leaving me”:

    Someone who wants to keep things secret – and who has successfully done so for so long – doesn’t just accidentally leave his email open one day when he goes out of town, leaving you unfettered access.

    Until I went No Contact, I didn’t realize that many of my discoveries were orchestrated. He would “accidentally” leave his Facebook account open, his phone unlocked, etc. It was part of the mindfuck – always just enough information to make me feel crazy while allowing him to rage about my “trust issues” when confronted. He got to feel important in a very sick way for a very long time.

    Your husband set this one up, Daca. That’s my theory.

    I’m really sorry you’re going through this. I don’t have any advice to give you, since it took me a really long time to leave and it’s too fresh for me to make sense of yet. But I remember those days/nights of feeling sick to my stomach, so anxious I’d be shaking, knowing a huge blowout was coming if I confronted him on what new information I’d found. But I could never stay silent and he would be steadfast in his lies; I once had an email from one of many OW admitting to sex and he still called me crazy and denied it all. On top of it, he’d turn it all around, literally screaming about how awful I was and how much he hated me until I would relent to salvage my own shards of sanity for just that day. Then he’d punish me with distance I could never breach, no matter how much I begged. Your letter takes me back to those sad days and I’m really sorry that you had such a terrible Christmas, knowing what you faced. Just know you’re not alone.

    I also 100% understand your paralysis. Leaving three years after Discovery Day was like chewing off my own arm – I didn’t want to do it (still don’t) and was desperate to find signs of change in his every action, even to the bitter end. It’s so counterintuitive to suddenly grow boundaries and standards after years of neglecting them, especially when we’ve been so isolated. I don’t know about you, but I spent a lot of time lying to other people about the marriage, since I knew I’d come off as unstable if they knew what I had put up with for so long. It’s too “heavy” for the good, normal people to see the inside of such a sick relationship so their typical reaction is to run. The average person doesn’t get the whole sociopath, narcissist thing – they dismiss cheating and the associated gaslighting as you being bitter, at fault, etc. You learn to stay silent and keep your distance.

    So then you’re left with having to muster incredible, super-human strength at your lowest point with nowhere to turn anymore. You have to dust off the boundaries and self-worth you perhaps never even had in the first place in a really isolated place, giving up everything you know to leave someone you still love. You have to call lawyers, fight over assets, move, sell the house, explain to children and loved ones, all while struggling to keep a job and not simply roll over and die. Then you have to weather life alone and suddenly have to do everything you’d previously shared responsibility for, even it if was with a total asshole, alone – from carrying groceries and sharing bills to decorating the Christmas tree and planning for retirement. It’s fucking brutal and breathtaking in its pain. And as the final act of cruelty, you get to watch your former spouse, the person who had promised to love you forever, skip into the sunset with their true love while you contemplate spending life alone. You realize you probably never really meant anything to your X anyway and all your suffering was for nothing – they just picked up and soldiered on to their next target(s) with their laserbeam of sparkles in tow, like the past decade or two meant nothing.

    I don’t have any answers for you but there are many people on Chumplady.com who have been through all of that and have come out the other side.Their mightiness and clarity is what keeps me coming back to Chump Nation. Today is six weeks of No Contact for me. It’s sick and counterproductive, but, I still check out his social media and am heartbroken with every stupid Instagram picture of him having fun in his new fabulous life, each eliciting dozens of “likes” from his followers. Yup, I’ll just eat my oatmeal alone this morning in my tiny apartment with nowhere to be and no one to see.

    All that being said, one thing I think about on my better days, and it may help you, is that staying meant I would never have been OK – ever. As Chump Lady says, this pain is finite. I’d still be waking up at 3 a.m. in a panic, knowing I had to get out. The devil I knew was still the devil. I’d still be engaged in the battle for remorse and change, trying to extract love from someone who had none for me. I’d still be begging for affection (literally), trying to convince him I was worth loving through years of fruitless efforts – I think we saw four therapists in the past decade, maybe more.

    Stone cold - uncaringNothing worked – not therapy, or vacations, or new lingerie. I couldn’t love him out of it, I couldn’t hate him out of it, I couldn’t cry him out of it, or beg enough, or try hard enough, or pull another 360, or dye my hair a different colour, or lose weight, or get a better job, or find more friends, or wear better clothes, feign indifference, pretend it never happened, pretend to be cool with it, and on and on. I kept getting angrier and older, farther down the rabbit hole. And he was OK with it all. He was, frankly, very Meh about me, as long as I didn’t encroach too much on his space with my expectations. He was OK watching me slowly wither and die.

    Eventually, I faced a decision. It was like that movie, 127 Hours: cut off my own arm [my husband] to save my life or die stuck. I definitely wish I didn’t have to make it. But I have my dignity and a second chance now. It’s up to me to make something of it.

    Excerpt from a comment by Sad in Seattle on Chumplady.com “Dear Chump Lady, He apologized to the OW for not leaving me”

    Photos courtesy The Atlantic, and  Shop Equipment

     

    Psychopath TEST Politicians

    .

     

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: