sue.g Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 Well, i just got across this in Last Week Tonight with John Olivier. Is not surprising at all, but still is funny how you can spend almost 4 minutes talking BS. Of course, when someone says "dont", curiosity wins. Nevermind, some videos can only be called propaganda, i almost can see the bag of money from the gov in the hands of HBO.
sue.g Posted October 10, 2014 Author Posted October 10, 2014 The rules •RULE 1: “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. •RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. •RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. •RULE 4: “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. •RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. •RULE 6: “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. •RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. •RULE 8: “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. •RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. •RULE 10: “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 sympathizes with the underdog. •RULE 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. •RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions True! The video actually has some of the recipe!!! Just now i know about the existence of that book, thank you mike!
Spleanicus Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 J.O seemed to be leaning away from The Daily Show to begin with but it's starting to seem like he's got Stewart's hand up his back.
fractional slacker Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 4 minutes? No biggie. Liberal arts degree, by design, is about taking on $50,000 in debt and spending thousands of hours to hear that sort of anti academic bigotry. Talk to a barista for first hand proof. 1
LovePrevails Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 I was in the library yesterday and picked up the book Philosophy for Dummies and checked the index for Rand, flicked to the appropriate page to find the author stridently proclaim "they say she was a philosopher but she was obviously not one" WFT? apparently, objectivists made assertions not arguments - said he, referring to her novels. Clearly he had never actually bothered to check out her nonfiction. He sounded resentful because she went to be a screen writer rather than university. This is not the first time I had heard someone claim that Ayn Rand was not really a philosopher... why? because potatoes. because I don't like her. And Marx is considered a philosopher? 1
fractional slacker Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 She didn't have one of them fancy pieces of paper declaring her a philosopher, therefore she was not a philosopher. Duh. 3
shirgall Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 She didn't have one of them fancy pieces of paper declaring her a philosopher, therefore she was not a philosopher. Duh. It's an amusing thought that such a title of nobility would carry any weight with a critical thinker. The line that matters is drawn between valid and invalid arguments.
Recommended Posts