Blatantly lying about blatant lies
[Hat tip: Drew M. at Ace’s.]
Jonathan Chait offers a couple of howlers in his piece at NY Magazine, beginning with the beginning:
Mitt Romney’s plan of blatantly lying about President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech is clearly drawing blood.
A blatant lie on Chait’s part about the topic of blatant lies.
To review once again: the meaning of “that” in Obama’s phrase “you didn’t build that” was ambiguous. Romney’s original take—that Obama meant “your successful business”—is the obvious one, not a lie. It’s the Democrat defense that requires the listener to struggle to give it the preferred meaning of “roads and bridges” (including the fact that the word “that” is singular and would not ordinarily be applied to the “roads and bridges” the Democrats claim it does). And of course, as so many (including Romney) have correctly said, whether the quote meant businesses or whether it meant roads and bridges, the context is mostly a repetition of the idea that successful business owners are not primarily responsible for their own success.
Chait and Obama and others on the left know how damaging that fact is. But they are hoping that their own lies will convince the people who are too lazy to look up the full context that it is Romney who’s lying.
But Chait doesn’t stop there. He says the reason the charge against Obama is working is that he was speaking in black dialect at the time, and of course his opponents are capitalizing on racism.
No, that’s not a joke. Here it is:
The key thing is that Obama is angry, and he’s talking not in his normal voice but in a “black dialect.” This strikes at the core of Obama’s entire political identity: a soft-spoken, reasonable African-American with a Kansas accent. From the moment he stepped onto the national stage, Obama’s deepest political fear was being seen as a “traditional” black politician, one who was demanding redistribution from white America on behalf of his fellow African-Americans.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
By the way—not that it matters—I don’t think Chait is using the word “dialect” correctly (even if his premise were correct, which it is not). He is speaking of affect, not dialect. Be that as it may, the only possible racism I see here is Chait’s own.
Three gods A, B, and C are called, in no particular order, True, False, and Random. True always speaks truly, False always speaks falsely, but whether Random speaks truly or falsely is a completely random manner. Your task is to determine the identities of A, B, and C by asking three yes-no questions; each question must be put to exactly one god. The gods understand English, but will answer all questions in their own language, in which the words for yes and no are da and ja, in some order. You do not know which word means which.
Whatever gets eyeballs and ad revenue. But there is a governing dynamics problem as this stuff eventually eats away at the longterm legitimacy of the media.
I call it the Sean Beilat effect, which is the hysteria and panic any solid well-qualified conservative candidate brings to the enemy. Sean is surely a giant fighter, fighting the corrupt and culpable Barney Frank and now the shallow but recognized Joe Kennedy. In his bid to unseat BF, Sean stated the truths about BF’s policies and corruption: “The rules never apply to Barney – even Barney’s own rules,” said Bielat, whose surging campaign prompted Frank to pump $200,000 of his own cash into his run. The Herald reported yesterday that Frank accepted $40,000 from bank executives and other special interests that cashed in on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
Bielat lost receiving 43.4% of the votes to Frank’s 53.9% but the panic and hysteria he caused and his good showing against a blue area long dominated, gerrymandered, and controlled by Frank showed what any solid conservative candidate can do anywhere.
It will be very interesting to see what Bielat’s result against Kennedy is in 2012.
How long ago did i say that they hide and attack from the place of ambiguity? conspiracy (collective collusion) is ambiguous… outcomes responsibilities are ambiguous… nerolinguistic speech is ambiguous… the whole of sociopathic behavior is ambiguous, or else you would at minimum cast them out.
Milton H. Erickson was an American psychiatrist specializing in medical hypnosis and family therapy. He was founding president of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis and a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychopathological Association.
Confusion technique
Among Erickson’s best-known innovations is the hypnotic handshake induction, which is a type of confusion technique. The induction is done by the hypnotist going to shake hands with the subject, then interrupting the flow of the handshake in some way, such as by grabbing the subject’s wrist instead. If the handshake continues to develop in a way which is out-of-keeping with expectations, a simple, non-verbal trance is created, which may then be reinforced or utilized by the hypnotist. All these responses happen naturally and automatically without telling the subject to consciously focus on an idea.
of course WE dont bother with such stuff.
but the people who play games do
after all, why would the subjects want to know how to break spells?
now for a bit of a punchline..
Although it is believed this technique originated from Erickson, it actually did not. Richard Bandler told people Milton taught him this technique.
The initial three individuals modeled were Fritz Perls (Gestalt Therapy), Virginia Satir (Family therapy) and Milton H. Erickson (Ericksonian Hypnosis). These individuals were considered highly competent in their fields, and the consistent patterns and approaches they appeared to be using, became the basis of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NPL)..
just imagine what we would think if most of us knew this stuff!
there is a whole area of NLP analysis and the speech of these people, including obama
The critical factor is the part of the mind that logically analyzes and scrutinizes all information like a filter,
and decides what information is allowed to pass into your subconscious mind and become part of what your
mind accepts as unquestionably true, like your deepest and most powerful emotions, drives, and instincts.21
so the idea is to confuse the gatekeeper.
when you do that, he leaves the gate open, and other things enter!
a very small percentage of the population actually study subconscious manipulation of not only
how people feel about them, but how to manipulate and alter the beliefs we usually come to by our rational
judgment, reason, and experience. These people study specifically how to sideline this rational judgment,
reason, and experience, and natural feelings, and bend people’s feelings and will through the application of
this branch of psychiatry to their interactions.
if your into this kind of stuff to read, then you will see what obama does…
as far as this article that your referencing, your seeing someone who has been played, trying to argue they have not been played.
they may not be writing a lie about a lie, they may believe that its not a lie, because of how they have had this ‘fact’ delevered to them and incorporated.
this is why they wont check or revision. their gatekeeper is suspicious of your honest ways and your engageing the gatekeeper respectfully
but they dont know where they got hteir fats, as the facts they have are not from knowing, but inserting using these games.
now wouldnt it be a hoot if more knew the game and instead of being the subject, stopped the game?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/07/obama-and-warren-cribbed-build-it-narrative-from-progressive-berkeley-professor/
It’s open and shut: it, THAT speech was not taken out of context.
>>>>>But they are hoping that their own lies will convince the people who are too lazy to look up the full context that it is Romney who’s lying.
In the days before the internet, the media could get away with this crap (see GHW Bush Supermarket Scanner).
Now, with the internet around to call them on their lies, not so much of a much. The main ones to believe it will be the ones already dumbass enough to vote for the incompetent SOB for a second time.
>>>> they may not be writing a lie about a lie, they may believe that its not a lie, because of how they have had this ‘fact’ delivered to them and incorporated.
You mean because they’re liberal idiot sheep.
I long ago learned how to catch people trying to manipulate me. You get one brief shot. After that, I’ll quickly realize what you’ve attempted, and from that point on you’ll generally fail, because now my guard is up.
YOU WROTE:
“… the preferred meaning of “roads and bridges…” …
YES. TRUE. BUT IT MATTERS NOT IF WE ADOPT THEIR “PREFERRED” INTERPRETATION BECAUSE EVEN IF OBAMA WAS REFERRING TO INFRASTRUCTURE HIS ARGUMENT IS WRONG – AND FALLACIOUS:
NOBODY ON THE RIGHT IS SAYING WE DON’T WANT ANY INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE OPPOSE SOCIAL ENGINEERING, NOT CIVIL ENGINEERING!
AND ANOTHER THING:
READ THIS FROM JAWA:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/213057.php
Obama: Thanks to Roads, Not Hard Work and Second Mortgage on My House, My Wife’s Business Is Succeeding.
My wife is about to move her business out of the house and into a stand alone property that we’re buying. While I appreciate all of you for paying your taxes so that we can share the road with you, we also paid those same taxes. It wasn’t the road that built my wife’s business. It was her hard work.
And the second mortgage we took out on our house in order to make the dream come true. Whether her business fails or succeeds the roads will still be there. If it fails, we lose our house. That’s called risk. We’re the ones taking it. But if it succeeds? Then we profit from it. That’s called reward.
We’re the ones taking the risk. We’re the ones that will reap the reward.
It’s a fundamental American value and something the current occupant of the White House doesn’t understand.
Oh, and she’s already hired one employee and is about to hire two more. She’s a job creator.
But guess what? She’s not hiring the employees because she wants to create jobs. She’s hiring people because we want to make more money, and the employees are a means to that ends.
Businesses don’t get started or expand to create jobs. If you think that, you’re an idiot.
Businesses get started to make money. If that makes you unhappy, grow up.
What got me thinking about this are the fact that I just signed the refinance papers and these two excellent Romney videos I’ve posted up at Blogs4Mitt. If you haven’t seen them, take the two minutes and watch them both. If you have, be sure to send them to any and all of your Obama supporting friends or any independents or undecideds.
Go on. Do it now!
This election is critical.
And if your Obama friends reply with, “But Mitt Romney outsourced jobs to China!”. Tell them to grow up. On net, it’s not true. But even if it was so what? Bain Capital was started to make money, not to create jobs. That’s the way things work in the real world.
By Rusty Shackleford,
Regarding Ericksonian hypnosis, the implementation for training manipulators is well under way:
http://www.altfeld.com/mastery/seminars/desc-belcraft.html
Why is it that the Left always brings race into the discussion? Would any conservative or Republican ever describe Obama’s overly folksy delivery in his Roanoke speech in racial terms? Many politicians do this – drop their g’s, use a sing-songy delivery – when trying to communicate that their just one of the folks. Heck, they mocked Palin for her dropped gs and mid-western terminology, and she’s not black.
It’s not us who see Obama as a black man first, it’s people like Chait. And blaming US for misunderstanding him because of his “black dialect” is as insulting to Obama as it is to those of us who he claims were too stupid to understand what Obama really meant.
If you want an explanation of why so many people just don’t get what Obama is, then try the word “beliefcraft” which kind of sounds like witchcraft, hunh. They are so confident, they could care less about how apparent their coding is. In fact, they revel in it.
Sounds silly. Well, you don’t have to believe in witches and brooms, just science. And have a healthy does of incredulity regarding Obama’s pervasive continuance.
Uh …so are we going to see a video (soon!) with Obama chidingly telling us “I’m not a beliefich”?
/ducks
I get it. Reference to Christine O’Donnell’s “I’m not a witch,” gaffe.
Actually, ties into the “Sean Bielat effect.” Coming from the same cycle of elections, there’s the “O’Donnell effect,” which is that the candidate has to be solid. Christine wasn’t that solid.
Ted Cruz!
Critical Theory has prepared many a mind for beliefcraft. Kind of interesting how the blue collar working male is Obama’s biggest opponent.
Also over at http://www.legalinsurrection.com
Prof. Jacobsen reduces Obama’s context to its essence. To paraphrase:
Since our parents used govt roads to drive to the hospital for our births (and to bring us home) we are born with an inherent debt to the govt which we should be only happy to repay.
This, as Jacobsen points out, distills the fundamental change in the ideology of the Obama administration; that we are born as wards of the state.
It’s well worth reading.
Using a black accent/dialect/whatever? Really? Blew right past me; I didn’t notice. What kind of raaaaacist am I to miss that? Obviously, a damn lousy one. So, listening again, I have to believe Chait’s the big raaaaacist, as he noticed it.
WSJ’s Kimberly Strassel explains why they’re working overtime to convince us Obama didn’t really say what we heard:
“In addition to “you didn’t build that,” the president also put down those who think they are “smarter” or “work harder” than others. Witness the first president to demean the bedrock American beliefs in industriousness and exceptionalism.”
Black dialect, my a$$!
I long ago learned how to catch people trying to manipulate me. You get one brief shot. After that, I’ll quickly realize what you’ve attempted, and from that point on you’ll generally fail, because now my guard is up.
A useful technique is (mentally) to prepend to every statement, “He wants me to believe that …” followed by the statement. It helps to maintain the requisite distance to evaluate statements dispassionately and analytically, yet without presupposing that the other person is dissembling.
In addition to “you didn’t build that,” the president also put down those who think they are “smarter” or “work harder” than others.
Does that include Obama himself? Or is he implicitly admitting that he rose to his present position through the efforts of Party apparatchiks?
Wake me when it’s over.
There are plenty of stronger, tighter arguments to demonstrate Barry’s collectivist mindset.
The one the righties have seized upon here is weak, not because they can’t hear black dialect. It’s weak because Obama is a lousy extemperaneous speaker. He stumbles and stutters. The more I hear it repeated, the stupider the complaints sound.
It would have been a much better case to attack the part where being smart and working hard were demeaned and diminished.
Ask why do some smart, hard-working people fail? Talk of the American spirit, where failure is merely motivation to try again. Be uplifting.
Making fun of Obama’s disability just makes the righties seem cruel.
Republicans, they thirst for death.
“Black dialect”? I am a sixth generation Texan, living in places which formerly had a high population of slaves. I am familiar with at lest two Black dialects from my own home county. I can tell the story of “Br’er Rabbit and the Fox” in Gullah. “You didn’t build that.” is not Black dialect, nor even recognizable as a Black oratorical construction. This constant accusation of racism against any and all non-socialist opponents of the O’ Guy has set race relations back fifty years, if not much, much more. It may be the very most evil thing O’ Bama has done.
While the term “black dialect” may not be accurate linguistically as it pertains to Obama’s affectation, Chait acknowledges that he employs it. I’m aware of several other styles of his. That of the caring, thoughtful thinker in which the delivery is slowed down to about half-speed to emphasize the idea that he is thinking it through as he goes along (although it is all prepared) and to show his deep empathy with his listeners. Also, the stentorian – remember the Greek columns and the sound system set to reverb – to him and his admirers the idea of the presidential and heroic. And Chait’s subject, the “Down With the Struggle” style he somehow acquired although he was raised in Hawaii by white folks from Kansas. All this if done by a twenty or thirty year- old would be seen as the pretensions of a phony and insecure guy. Obama is now 50 + years old and I believe the pathology of it all is very unhealthy. That is to say nothing of Mr. Chait and much of the general public for whom this is considered a sign of intellect and sincerity.
The problem, at its heart, is a confusion the Left has towards the issue of commitment vs. involvement.
Sure, Obama and the Left are correct — if you were a success, other factors were involved which were completely external to you. The key word is right there — they were involved. No argument.
YOU, on the other hand, were committed to the creation of that success.
Committed.
What’s the difference? I’ll use an old analogy:
===================
Consider the ham and egg breakfast. The chicken was involved. The pig was committed.
===================
And THAT is the difference between commitment and involvement. The one that was committed to the success should receive the lion’s share of the benefits.
But this is what The Great Big 0 and his ilk are out to take away.
>>> It may be the very most evil thing O’ Bama has done.
He lies at the heart of it… in every sense of that word… but he’s hardly alone.
Many others — Michelle, Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, even Hillary and many others of the hard core Left power elite have heavily contributed, often even more, just less visibly.
This racist cancer lies at the heart of the whole Cloward-Piven-Marxist strategy, attempting to foment a mindless hatred of the very things that make them the most wealthy society in the history of mankind.
… And yes, they ARE, even though there’s been an effort to make them imagine otherwise. Their life-expectancy is greater than that of the richest classes of any social group in history, and their infant mortality is the lowest. They are surrounded by magical items that make their comfort so easy and readily available that they don’t even have an idea any more about Real Life in the Real World, and how absolutely they’d miss all those things if they were taken away.
The Marxists have realized that the revolution of the proletariat won’t come on its own, and are determined to foment it by screwing up peoples’ perceptions of the society they live in and what it provides them.
And let’s take it on ourselves — WE have allowed them to gain control of the narrative. WE have failed to educate them in the wonders they have at their fingertips, and to appreciate them for what they are. WE have allowed the Marxists to spread the envy and jealousy which lies at the heart of all this, unimpeded.
Maybe it’s too late to change that. But we do have to do it. WE.
Artfldgr Says:
July 27th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Hmm. Sort of reminds me of Obama’s “Some say”, “Others say”, “I say” pattern where he sets up the strawmen only to knock them down.
Rickl,
its that an a lot more… and also that’s why when he drops it or skips, people shake there head and go what, hunh?
but note that all politicians do some of it and i believe that many dont know what they are doing but it comes natural to them.
the most common form of it would be the not answering the question that is asked. it causes split thinking in that you keep repeating the question and comparing it to whats being said, waiting for them to correlate and have some resolution. meanwhile, your listening and half paying attention to the stuff that’s being said that isn’t the focus.
and as the perception studies show, there are different mixes of different effects that work or don’t work on different people. (and those with better imaginations and smarter tend to be easier to do this with, but also tend to think that they would be harder).
so one should think of these things (and other things the left does) as fishing nets. each constructed or discovered actually and taken over that allow for the manipulation of large swaths of people they refer to as classes and masses.
feminism gives them half the electorates power regardless of whether a woman says she is or isnt, because without any alternative, there is nothing else she can be (other than a non person or not a woman as you also hear them say)
what i have been doing over the years is cluing common people into the special interests and readings and basis of thought of the leaders through 150 years of this. that their actions, choices, methods, and so forth dong come out of some lucky bunch of loonies, they come from a system. a collective system that works by process in which, like past religions, you only had to practices the process not know why or understand outside the recipes for the cake to turn out.
regular people have mostly other interests. they would not slog through progressive political papers and old histories that are not easy to get as others, to learn stuff that if they used people wont listen or not many… (and fewer would know the same info)
they don’t have leisure time, and both parents work, and so there is no time to come home, have dinner, and read a few white papers of the politics, or the 900 executive statements and so on.
what they have been doing is shoving 1000 gallons of information and such down a 100 gallon pipe, and everything that doesn’t go down it cant be perceived as it overflows. different people get different 100 gallon slices of the 1000 gallons. (entertainment uses up most of our time).
this isn’t about meritocratic means to honest ends, this to them, is about raw power. you thing greed is bad? greed is not necessarily connected to power, you can be very wealthy and not be powerful, you can be very powerful and not be very wealthy. It goes back to my posting the long telegram which informs the US that that is what its about, and that they are so focused on the acquisition of power that they have no idea as to governance, let alone good governance.
the people following are not convinced of the following because they reasoned to it by the best answer. your not going to get them out of it that way. they believe because power accentuates what it wants and plays down what it doesn’t, and so gives them beliefs through their senses of “what most do must be right”. (how can the schools, the teachers, the press, the history books be wrong? etc.)
as Feynman said, “not knowing the answers doesn’t scare him”, but it does scare most people. and most people believe facts the same way they believe religions. when the state accentuates the volk and they seem more successful in the real world, our gears click and clack and most of us follow to be more successful, never looking at weather we are leveling to the actual common ground, or the tilted table top.
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful.” – Kissinger during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting
in case anyone missed the news that barely gets reported, there are Russian troops on what is UN exercises in Colorado.
“The Russian soldiers are here as invited guests of the U.S. government; this is part of a formal bilateral exchange program between the U.S. and Russia that seeks to develop transparency and promote defense reform,” Cmdr. Wendy L. Snyder, U.S. Defense Press Officer
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/17/us-russian-soldiers-train-together-in-colorado/
in case most people are tactically and strategically ignorant, this is insane, and amounts to learning about blitzkrieg before blitzkrieg because troops co train. it exposes process, and process is structure, and structure is what you affect in battle. (which is why arguing with people who are not choosing their facts by merit makes no dents, they didn’t think their way there, they aint thinking their way out – ergo the primary point of controlling schools and how they instantly take political lines)
At my house we can hardly stand to listen to the man. We turn off the radio. I don’t understand how anyone in this country could not have realized that he is just a big fat lying liar who lies. That’s what we call him; The Big Fat Lying Liar Who Lies, and he is nauseating and shameless and thin-skinned and attacks his own country and its citizens. The fact that he still has control of the giant megaphone that is mainstream media is, I fear, going to carry him into a second term.
“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Bill Clinton
‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’