Categorized | Commentary/Editorial

The Value of a "Black Mark"





I was fascinated, if not slightly nauseated, by a piece written today by Kenneth Vogel of Politico.

The article focused on Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, and how he and a group of associates are working to ensure defeat for Chuck Hagel, Obama’s choice to be the next Secretary of Defense.

It is a fairly even piece on Kristol, who I seek neither to attack nor defend with this OpEd.  However, there is an almost hidden thought virus inserted into the very first page of the article.

And what is a thought virus, you might ask?  Various definitions abound depending on where you look but I first saw the term a few years ago in the comment section on another conservative website. It basically refers to a lie about someone or something that’s forwarded and then randomly referred to offhandedly in order to cement the general public’s thoughts on a topic.  When repeated, it’s accepted as a given, as entirely factual and thus irrefutable; and anyone who attempts to push back on such narratives are blind followers and cultists who refuse to accept the truth.  Their truth.

As supporters of Governor Palin, there have been several virulent thought viruses that to this day still infect the people and color their views about her based on nothing but propaganda.  Case in point…she’s a quitter (in other words, weak-willed).  She thinks she can see Russia from her house (in other words, not smart).  She caused fill-in-the-blank’s defeat (in other words, she’s toxic).

The only thing ultimately that will help quash these thought viruses is a continuous and vigilant campaign waged by committed warriors who fight back each and every time one of these things pop up.  It will take patience, resolve and a steel spine.  Of course, if and when the Governor seeks public office in the future, the reality of who she is will become clearer to those who only know her as a result of Tina Fey or The Daily Show and the lies will have a harder time surviving a prolonged exposure to truth, kind of like roaches that scatter when the lights are turned on in a dark room.

Returning to Vogel’s article, as stated above, there is well planted thought virus injected in this section here:

There are plenty of reasons to question Kristol’s bona fides for leading a Republican revival. He’s indelibly linked to a couple of the most damaging recent black marks on the GOP brand —Sarah Palin’s selection as the 2008 vice presidential nominee and the push for war in Iraq.

Did you catch it?

Governor Palin’s selection in the 2008 election cycle was a "black mark on the GOP brand" and is just as egregious in Vogel’s eyes as the push for war in Iraq.  Furthermore, the statement above has been presented in such an off-handed manner that the delivery suggests everyone knows it’s true.  The opinions of those who don’t think it’s true are entirely irrelevant.

And so, in this article which is supposedly a straight news piece cataloguing Bill Kristol’s record with an eye toward his agenda for the future, Vogel has inserted his opinion of Governor Palin as though it were fact, more than likely because everyone in his sphere of influence shares his position and so it must be true.

Or rather because he and those within his sphere of influence need people to unquestioningly believe that it is the truth.

Upon reading the article and the section specifically quoted above, a few thoughts occurred to me.

First of all, what does race have to do with anything?  By using the phrase "black mark", Vogel is unnecessarily adding a racial element to his article, exposing a deep seeded hatred for black people; a seething racism just dying to break free.  Or at least that’s the case when such a phrase is used by a conservative.

Oh wait.  Vogel writes for Politico?  Ah. Well never mind then.

My next thought was how long has Vogel been a misogynist?  After all, of all the "black marks" Vogel could have picked, he chose to mention the first female GOP Vice Presidential nominee.  Clearly, Vogel is engaged in this evil war on women and clearly he is on the side of no free birth control and binders.

Oh…hold on.  Politico.  Dang, I did it again!   My bad.

Finally, as I stopped with my tongue-in-cheek mental castigation of the left for the endless, pointless diversionary tactic that is identity politics, I considered the source of this particular "attack".

Who believes that the choosing of Governor Palin was a "black mark" on the GOP brand?  Further, what is the GOP brand and by whose definition?

Let’s start with the most obvious point, and that is determining what Governor Palin’s true worth is.

I need not repeat Governor Palin’s record of accomplishments here.  Simply click on the link on the menu at the top of the screen to view the extensive list.

I also need not point out how Palin saved McCain from experiencing a blistering defeat in 2008, which is what he was headed for; nor do I need to highlight how 2010 would not nearly have been what it was without her direct influence.  Furthermore, there’s no reason to list Governor Palin’s stellar record with regard to endorsements.  All of that information has been documented thoroughly here and on Breitbart.com and several other websites.

Her value as a leader and as a reform-minded, principled, small government commonsense constitutional conservative is self evident. Not because I say so, but because the facts make it abundantly clear for anyone who bothers to look and can think for themselves.

Whose brand would be tarnished by that?  If in fact the GOPs "brand" would be, then one must wonder at the value of such a brand or rather, whose definition of that brand would categorize Governor Palin as a "black mark."

Would it be similar to GOP establishment-minded Ohio Republican Steve LaTourrette’s perspective, who attacked Tea Party members in Congress as "knuckle-draggers" and "chuckleheads":

I don’t know what the number is but say the number is 40 out of 240 – that’s not a repudiation of his [John Boehner's] leadership. That’s the same 40, 50 chuckleheads that all year … have screwed this place up.

Or what about Nancy Pelosi’s idea of the Grand Ol’ Party?

I keep saying to my Republican friends, take back your party. This isn’t the Grand Old Party that did so many things for America, that commanded so much respect. We need a strong Republican Party. This is really the over-the-edge crowd. That’s the way i see it.

Of course, one has to understand what Pelosi considers as accomplishments by the GOP such as TARP and some stimulus packages.  Not exactly Conservatism 101.  Beyond that, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out today on his show, the Democrat Party is entirely uninterested in the GOP becoming strong.

In fact, what they desire is a GOP that doesn’t fight them on anything whatsoever.  They want an entirely passive GOP that smiles benignly and stands for nothing at all…a GOP that will let them continue to ram their policies through in a friction free environment so they can "get things done."

And she talks of respect?  Please.  Weakness is never respected; rather it is most certainly greatly appreciated by those who don’t have to worry about facing any obstacles.

Notice how the press and the left (BIRM) always conduct massive campaigns to tell the GOP and the people who they believe are appropriate adversaries in a political contest.  "Who will win the independents?", they bemoan.  "Certainly only a moderate can get those votes!"  And the same group of folks fall for the same spiel every time.

You’d think at some point these people would have that "aha!" moment and realize the press does not have their best interest at heart; that ultimately it only wants GOP candidates and nominees who are valueless, power hungry panderers who if elected won’t upset the apple cart, or those who campaign inoffensively, stand for nothing and inspire no one but will, in the end, give fantastically gracious concession speeches.  In other words, all losers.

Are either of these the template Vogel is using to determine the base value for the "GOP brand"?  The Republican establishment that seeks power for power’s sake and abandons the small government principles they espouse when campaigning for their jobs or the far left who hopes the GOP stays out of its way while it expands the scope and reach of government into every facet of our lives?

If either of these are the case, then reformers such as Governor Palin and we who support her should wear that "black mark" as a badge of honor.

I proudly support those who are "black marks" on a brand that’s long since lost its luster.  I’m not interested in backing people who promise reform then sell out when they make it to the Washington jacuzzi.

There is no value in promoting doormats who stand for nothing but their own self-advancement and aggrandizement.

So when liberals and those within the GOP establishment refer to you or those you support as a "black mark" on the "GOP brand", you now know what the proper response should be:

"Why, thank you!"

 

 



Tags: , , ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • blueniner

    Nice piece Mary Beth,I like the phrase "Thought Virus".The left exposes itself for being misogynists.

  • friskyness

    The GOPe  have damaged the GOP brand!  If Palin is the problem, why didn’t Romney win the election, since he was the "perfect" GOPe candidate and he won the independents?…..all idiots………….

  • Argus_C4P

    Very clear and concise analysis. IMHO the GOP has become the Democrat Lites. At this point in time they are almost left of center which I suppose is why they are so hell bent on the Vogel type of sniping. As you say, they certainly don’t want anyone upsetting their private gravy train and information for the American electorate is for the most part almost devoid of fact, thanks to the MSM’s unwillingness to call out anyone on political deceptions.
    I’d say it was time for a new party but until we can get the media to stop their onesided support of everything socialist, it will be a difficult fight. For certain the GOP will fight a third/new party, even if they won’t really fight the democrats.

  • RedDaveR

      If the GOP brand can be defined as crony capitalism, going-along-to-get-along, caving in to Democrat demands, and being in general the Democrat-lite party, then yes, Gov. Palin has damaged that brand.  And I hope she and the Tea Party keep damaging the brand.  The GOP needs a  completely new brand, or else a whole new party with a new brand.

  • Mr.L

    Proud black mark here. 

  • indemind

    “Why, thank you!”….Mary Beth, for another excellent report….

    SarahAmerica- Don’t be afraid to be "out there"… "Don’t retreat, reload with inspiration."

  • Freempg

    Losts of thought viruses swimming around in the DC jacuzzi.

  • TENCOLE

    If Sarah Palin is a "Black Mark" on the GOP…then I say Hear, Hear!…..and we all should wear matching t-shirts.

    "…In fact, what they desire is a GOP that doesn’t fight them on anything
    whatsoever.  They want an entirely passive GOP that smiles benignly and
    stands for nothing at all…a GOP that will let them continue to ram their
    policies through in a friction free environment so they can “get things
    done.”

    …..well Mary Beth, it looks like they got what they wanted then, didn’t they?

  • TeaPartyBarbie

    Excellent article. I guess I have a black mark too…

  • c4pfan

    That’s why I am starting to think the GOP is no different than a Rat!

  • ZH100

    Great read. Thanks  Mary Beth.

    • ZH100

      Whom Do You Believe? HBO or Gallup?

      From the article:

      "Despite the premise of "Game Change" – that Sarah Palin cost John McCain the 2008 presidential election – Gallup polls prove HBO’s assertion categorically false. Palin wasn’t the reason the Republicans lost the election.

      She’s the only reason they had a fighting chance up until the time McCain suspended his presidential campaign in late September.

      In the two weeks before Palin joined the McCain ticket, the Arizona senator drifted in the low 40 percentile range, mostly around 41, 42 and 43 percent, while Obama held as much as an 8 point lead at about 49 and 50 percent. Four days after Palin joined the ticket, however, McCain’s numbers climbed to 45 percent and Obama’s sank to 47 percent, narrowing the gap significantly from eight points to two.

      Between Sept. 4-6, McCain and Palin actually overshot the Obama ticket by 3 percent with the Republicans in the lead at 48 percent and the Democrats at only 45. McCain consistently held that lead until Sept. 15, and then the candidates balanced out with Obama enjoying a mere three-point lead, and no lead at all from Sept. 22-24, when the numbers were tied at 46 percent.

      So what happened?

      On Sept. 24, however, McCain shocked the country by saying that he was suspending his presidential campaign to help President George W. Bush and Congress solve the financial crisis. Although the former war hero turned senator did it for the good of the country, it was perceived as a brash, erratic act, and that’s exactly how Obama portrayed it.

      Some were intrigued as to how McCain’s decision would play out in the polls, but once he suspended his campaign in late September he never recaptured the lead he enjoyed with the breaking news of recruiting Palin. It was downhill from there.

      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/03/game-change-wrong-gallup-polls-prove-palin-reenergized-2008-campaign

  • Laddie_Blah_Blah

    Thoughtful and spot on, Mary Beth.

  • BrianusBerkleianus

    Thank you, Mary Beth!!

    If SARAH of Alaska is a "black mark" … 

    Then, Dear Lord, raise up a hundred, a thousand, a million, tens of millions of other such "black marks" for America!!

    In the Kirk Douglas movie "Spartacus": "I’M SPARTACUS," from myriads of loyal lips and hearts.

    So each of us can proclaim today: "I’M SARAH PALIN; I’M A ‘BLACK MARK’ "!!!

  • Guest

    Excellent! Thank YOU!

  • generictrainee

    For anyone who wants to read up on propaganda , here’s a primer:

    http://www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html

    It’s by Edward Bernays, subtly called "Propaganda" written in 1928.

    • generictrainee

      "THE media by which special pleaders transmit their messages to the public through propaganda include all the means by which people to-day transmit their ideas to one another. There is no means of human communication which may not also be a means of deliberate propaganda, because propaganda is simply the establishing of reciprocal understanding between an individual and a group. "

      "The important point to the propagandist is that the relative value of the various instruments of propaganda, and their relation to the masses, are constantly changing. If he is to get full reach for his message he must take advantage of these shifts of value the instant they occur. Fifty years ago, the public meeting was a propaganda instrument par excellence. To-day it is difficult to get more than a handful of people to attend a public meeting unless extraordinary attractions are part of the program."

      "The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world to-day.
      It is a great distributor for ideas and opinions."

  • generictrainee

    http://www.alt-market.com/articles/964-disinformation-how-it-works

    Disinformation: How It Works

    Thursday, 09 August 2012 03:15

    Brandon Smith

    There was a time, not too long ago (relatively speaking), that
    governments and the groups of elites that controlled them did not find
    it necessary to conscript themselves into wars of disinformation.

    Propaganda
    was relatively straightforward. The lies were much simpler. The control
    of information flow was easily directed. Rules were enforced with the
    threat of property confiscation and execution for anyone who strayed
    from the rigid socio-political structure. Those who had theological,
    metaphysical or scientific information outside of the conventional and
    scripted collective world view were tortured and slaughtered. The elites
    kept the information to themselves, and removed its remnants from
    mainstream recognition, sometimes for centuries before it was
    rediscovered.

    With the advent of anti-feudalism, and most
    importantly the success of the American Revolution, elitists were no
    longer able to dominate information with the edge of a blade or the
    barrel of a gun. The establishment of Republics, with their philosophy
    of open government and rule by the people, compelled Aristocratic
    minorities to plot more subtle ways of obstructing the truth and thus
    maintaining their hold over the world without exposing themselves to
    retribution from the masses. Thus, the complex art of disinformation was
    born.

    The technique, the “magic” of the lie, was refined and
    perfected. The mechanics of the human mind and the human soul became an
    endless obsession for the establishment.

    The goal was malicious,
    but socially radical; instead of expending the impossible energy needed
    to dictate the very form and existence of the truth, they would allow it
    to drift, obscured in a fog of contrived data. They would wrap the
    truth in a Gordian Knot of misdirection and fabrication so elaborate
    that they felt certain the majority of people would surrender, giving up
    long before they ever finished unraveling the deceit. The goal was not
    to destroy the truth, but to hide it in plain sight.

    In modern
    times, and with carefully engineered methods, this goal has for the most
    part been accomplished. However, these methods also have inherent
    weaknesses. Lies are fragile. They require constant attentiveness to
    keep them alive. The exposure of a single truth can rip through an ocean
    of lies, evaporating it instantly.

    In this article, we will
    examine the methods used to fertilize and promote the growth of
    disinformation, as well as how to identify the roots of disinformation
    and effectively cut them, starving out the entire system of fallacies
    once and for all.
    Media Disinformation Methods

    The mainstream
    media, once tasked with the job of investigating government corruption
    and keeping elitists in line, has now become nothing more than a public
    relations firm for corrupt officials and their Globalist handlers. The
    days of the legitimate “investigative reporter” are long gone (if they
    ever existed at all), and journalism itself has deteriorated into a
    rancid pool of so called “TV Editorialists” who treat their own baseless
    opinions as supported fact.

    The elitist co-opting of news has
    been going on in one form or another since the invention of the printing
    press. However, the first methods of media disinformation truly came to
    fruition under the supervision of newspaper magnate William Randolph
    Hearst, who believed the truth was “subjective” and open to his personal
    interpretation.

    Some of the main tactics used by the mainstream media to mislead the masses are as follows:

    Lie Big, Retract Quietly:
    Mainstream media sources (especially newspapers) are notorious for
    reporting flagrantly dishonest and unsupported news stories on the front
    page, then quietly retracting those stories on the very back page when
    they are caught. In this case, the point is to railroad the lie into the
    collective consciousness. Once the lie is finally exposed, it is
    already too late, and a large portion of the population will not notice
    or care when the truth comes out.

    Unconfirmed Or Controlled Sources As Fact:
    Cable news venues often cite information from “unnamed” sources,
    government sources that have an obvious bias or agenda, or “expert”
    sources without providing an alternative “expert” view. The information
    provided by these sources is usually backed by nothing more than blind
    faith.

    Calculated Omission: Otherwise known as
    “cherry picking” data. One simple piece of information or root item of
    truth can derail an entire disinfo news story, so instead of trying to
    gloss over it, they simply pretend as if it doesn’t exist. When the fact
    is omitted, the lie can appear entirely rational. This tactic is also
    used extensively when disinformation agents and crooked journalists
    engage in open debate.

    Distraction, And The Manufacture Of Relevance:
    Sometimes the truth wells up into the public awareness regardless of
    what the media does to bury it. When this occurs their only recourse is
    to attempt to change the public’s focus and thereby distract them from
    the truth they were so close to grasping. The media accomplishes this by
    “over-reporting” on a subject that has nothing to do with the more
    important issues at hand. Ironically, the media can take an unimportant
    story, and by reporting on it ad nauseum, cause many Americans to assume
    that because the media won’t shut-up about it, it must be important!

    Dishonest Debate Tactics:
    Sometimes, men who actually are concerned with the average American’s
    pursuit of honesty and legitimate fact-driven information break through
    and appear on T.V. However, rarely are they allowed to share their views
    or insights without having to fight through a wall of carefully crafted
    deceit and propaganda. Because the media know they will lose
    credibility if they do not allow guests with opposing viewpoints every
    once in a while, they set up and choreograph specialized T.V. debates in
    highly restrictive environments which put the guest on the defensive,
    and make it difficult for them to clearly convey their ideas or facts.

    TV
    pundits are often trained in what are commonly called “Alinsky
    Tactics.” Saul Alinsky was a moral relativist, and champion of the lie
    as a tool for the “greater good”; essentially, a modern day Machiavelli.
    His “Rules for Radicals” were supposedly meant for grassroots activists
    who opposed the establishment and emphasized the use of any means
    necessary to defeat one’s political opposition. But is it truly possible
    to defeat an establishment built on lies, by use of even more elaborate
    lies, and by sacrificing one’s ethics? In reality, his strategies are
    the perfect format for corrupt institutions and governments to dissuade
    dissent from the masses. Today, Alinsky’s rules are used more often by
    the establishment than by its opposition.
    Alinsky’s Strategy: Win At Any Cost, Even If You Have To Lie

    Alinsky’s
    tactics have been adopted by governments and disinformation specialists
    across the world, but they are most visible in TV debate. While Alinsky
    sermonized about the need for confrontation in society, his debate
    tactics are actually designed to circumvent real and honest
    confrontation of opposing ideas with slippery tricks and diversions.
    Alinsky’s tactics, and their modern usage, can be summarized as follows:

    1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
    We
    see this tactic in many forms. For example, projecting your own
    movement as mainstream, and your opponent’s as fringe. Convincing your
    opponent that his fight is a futile one. Your opposition may act
    differently, or even hesitate to act at all, based on their perception
    of your power. How often have we heard this line: “The government has
    predator drones. There is nothing the people can do now…” This is a
    projection of exaggerated invincibility designed to elicit apathy from
    the masses.

    2) Never go outside the experience of your people, and whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
    Don’t
    get drawn into a debate about a subject you do not know as well as or
    better than your opposition. If possible, draw them into such a
    situation instead. Go off on tangents. Look for ways to increase
    insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty in your opposition. This is commonly
    used against unwitting interviewees on cable news shows whose positions
    are set up to be skewered. The target is blind-sided by seemingly
    irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. In television
    and radio, this also serves to waste broadcast time to prevent the
    target from expressing his own position.

    3) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
    The
    objective is to target the opponent’s credibility and reputation by
    accusations of hypocrisy. If the tactician can catch his opponent in
    even the smallest misstep, it creates an opening for further attacks,
    and distracts away from the broader moral question.

    4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
    “Ron
    Paul is a crackpot.” “Gold bugs are crazy.” “Constitutionalists are
    fringe extremists.” Baseless ridicule is almost impossible to counter
    because it is meant to be irrational. It infuriates the opposition,
    which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point
    to force the enemy into concessions.

    5) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
    The
    popularization of the term “Teabaggers” is a classic example; it caught
    on by itself because people seem to think it’s clever, and enjoy saying
    it. Keeping your talking points simple and fun helps your side stay
    motivated, and helps your tactics spread autonomously, without
    instruction or encouragement.

    6) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
    See
    rule No. 5. Don’t become old news. If you keep your tactics fresh, it’s
    easier to keep your people active. Not all disinformation agents are
    paid. The “useful idiots” have to be motivated by other means.
    Mainstream disinformation often changes gear from one method to the next
    and then back again.

    7) Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
    Keep
    trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition
    masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Never
    give the target a chance to rest, regroup, recover or re-strategize.
    Take advantage of current events and twist their implications to support
    your position. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

    8) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

    This
    goes hand in hand with Rule No. 1. Perception is reality. Allow your
    opposition to expend all of its energy in expectation of an
    insurmountable scenario. The dire possibilities can easily poison the
    mind and result in demoralization.

    9) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
    The
    objective of this pressure is to force the opposition to react and make
    the mistakes that are necessary for the ultimate success of the
    campaign.

    10) If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
    As
    grassroots activism tools, Alinsky tactics have historically been used
    (for example, by labor movements or covert operations specialists) to
    force the opposition to react with violence against activists, which
    leads to popular sympathy for the activists’ cause. Today, false (or
    co-opted) grassroots movements and revolutions use this technique in
    debate as well as in planned street actions and rebellions (look at
    Syria for a recent example).

    11) 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. Today, this is often used offensively against legitimate
    activists, such as the opponents of the Federal Reserve. Complain that
    your opponent is merely “pointing out the problems.” Demand that they
    offer not just “a solution”, but THE solution. Obviously, no one person
    has “the” solution. When he fails to produce the miracle you requested,
    dismiss his entire argument and all the facts he has presented as
    pointless.

    12) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
    Cut
    off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. The
    target’s supporters will expose themselves. Go after individual people,
    not organizations or institutions. People hurt faster than institutions.

    The
    next time you view an MSM debate, watch the pundits carefully, you will
    likely see many if not all of the strategies above used on some
    unsuspecting individual attempting to tell the truth.
    Internet Disinformation Methods

    Internet
    trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are
    increasingly and openly being employed by private corporations as well
    governments, often for marketing purposes and for “public relations”
    (Obama is notorious for this practice). Internet “trolling” is indeed a
    fast growing industry.

    Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:

    1.
    Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky
    tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of
    the impersonal nature of the Web.

    2. Pose as a
    supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement:
    We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of
    the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to
    appear either racist or insane. The key to this tactic is to make
    references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time
    babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem
    ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls”
    have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique
    obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the think tank
    propagandists like the SPLC, which purports that Constitutionalists
    should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.

    3.
    Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive
    Web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the
    people involved.

    4. Prewritten Responses: Many
    trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking
    points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest
    arguments. When they post, their words feel strangely plastic and well
    rehearsed.

    5. False Association: This works
    hand in hand with item No. 2, by invoking the stereotypes established by
    the “Trojan Horse Troll.” For example: calling those against the
    Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics”; deliberately
    associating anti-globalist movements with racists and homegrown
    terrorists, because of the inherent negative connotations; and using
    false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining
    the evidence objectively.

    6. False Moderation:
    Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and
    defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly
    true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.”

    7.
    Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his
    opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does
    not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words
    in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words.

    Sometimes,
    these strategies are used by average people with serious personality
    issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using
    many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet
    troll.
    Stopping Disinformation

    The best way to disarm
    disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. This
    gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail
    the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation
    tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person utilizing
    it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest and weak for even making the
    attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their
    methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes and usually
    fold and run from debate when it occurs.

    The truth is precious.
    It is sad that there are so many in our society who have lost respect
    for it; people who have traded in their conscience and their soul for
    temporary financial comfort while sacrificing the stability and balance
    of the rest of the country in the process.

    The human psyche
    breathes on the air of truth. Without it, humanity cannot survive.
    Without it, the species will collapse, starving from lack of
    intellectual and emotional sustenance.

    Disinformation does not
    only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; it makes us
    vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding, and doubt: all things that lead to
    destruction. It can drive good people to commit terrible atrocities
    against others, or even against themselves. Without a concerted and
    organized effort to defuse mass-produced lies, the future will look
    bleak indeed.
     

    • Reynolds88

      Nice summary of how they do it.
      We need people of courage to countertact this.  Sarah Palin is not enough.  Our General needs an army; the Admiral needs an ARMADA.

    • blueniner

      Where can that post above be found to be bookmarked for future refrence?

  • Reynolds88

    On the brighter side, its like talking with my brother.  Sometimes we only have to mention the punchline of a joke, "like the man said to the wife, (after he killed the horse) "Thats, one"  I forget the commedian who coined this idea, to just mention the joke number, (like #22 or something) and everyone would remember and laugh. This is basically how liberal journolisters write.  They assume all the "black lies" that are part of their propaganda package and then just refer to the stereotyped assumptions that they have drilled into their own heads and the reader’s.  No thinking, ane don’t try to criticize the dogma, you will be shouted down.

    This is why I like Sarah Palin and her commentaries on FB and other other forums.  She is still thinking!  and people always listen, especially the left since their dogman is always broken down with simple common sense and regular logic, the kind Sarah Palin has the perspicacity to to put out her thoughts when needed or before.

    Again thanks Mary Beth House for laying out the truth on one of my favorite sites.  We need to  remind over and over that the black lie is just cousin to the big lie and we cannot accept that.

  • section9

    Well written exposition of the dilemma of the conservative movement and the crying need for a purge from below.
     
    Unless we take the Party from below and make it a vehicle of conservative, not Establishment, concerns and ambitions, the GOP will continue to wander in the wilderness and act as second fiddle and stepinfetchit for the Democrats.

    I think Palin knows this. And I think she will follow Reagan’s path, because there’s a leadership vacuum in the Party, and only Palin can fill it.

  • generictrainee

    “In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All
    issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies,
    evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. The very concept of objective
    truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” – George Orwell 1946

  • cbenoistd

    Politico had to retract its report that Rep. Giffords’ picture, not her district, was targeted on the map. J. Kerry voted for the Iraq war. Is that mark black enough for ya?

    • hrandym

      Did he vote for it after he voted against it, or did he vote for it before he voted against it?  I can’t seem to recall.

      • cbenoistd

         Voted for the invasion, against the surge. The Slate article above notes this pattern among the Democratic leadership.

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets