A Peek at the Hidden Underbelly of Election Propaganda

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A Peek at the Hidden Underbelly of Election Propaganda

People are still dissecting how and why Romney lost the election, but I have been convinced for some time that covert persuasion techniques with Obama's campaigns have played a far more important role than credited. I have been studying this stuff for a few years now and I see what I see.

People on our side find it hard to believe, though. Oh... they believe folks try to use hidden persuasion, they just don't believe it is effective. There's a cognitive bias involved. If people admit that a candidate uses this stuff and it helps him win an election, they are indirectly admitting that this stuff works on them. And nobody likes to admit this.

We have a thread on OL where some of this stuff was discussed: O'bama's Oratorical Style Employs Hypnotic Induction From NLP. There are a few other places, too.

Now, how about an article in NYT giving some actual names of people who were hired by Obama to engineer consent this time around?

Academic ‘Dream Team’ Helped Obama’s Effort

By Benedict Carey

November 12, 2012

New York Times

From the article:

Late last year Matthew Barzun, an official with the Obama campaign, called Craig Fox, a psychologist in Los Angeles, and invited him to a political planning meeting in Chicago, according to two people who attended the session.

“He said, ‘Bring the whole group; let’s hear what you have to say,’ ” recalled Dr. Fox, a behavioral economist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

So began an effort by a team of social scientists to help their favored candidate in the 2012 presidential election.

. . .

... the Obama campaign also had a panel of unpaid academic advisers. The group — which calls itself the “consortium of behavioral scientists,” or COBS — provided ideas on how to counter false rumors, like one that President Obama is a Muslim. It suggested how to characterize the Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, in advertisements. It also delivered research-based advice on how to mobilize voters.

“In the way it used research, this was a campaign like no other,” said Todd Rogers, a psychologist at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a former director of the Analyst Institute. “It’s a big change for a culture that historically has relied on consultants, experts and gurulike intuition.”

. . .

In addition to Dr. Fox, the consortium included Susan T. Fiske of Princeton University; Samuel L. Popkin of the University of California, San Diego; Robert Cialdini, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University; Richard H. Thaler, a professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago’s business school; and Michael Morris, a psychologist at Columbia.

“A kind of dream team, in my opinion,” Dr. Fox said.

Amen to that. This is a dream team of gods for marketers--starting with Cialdini.

If you are interested in specific tactics the Obama campaign used, I suggest reading the article. It touches on some light-weight stuff like answering an accusation with an affirmation instead of a denial. For instance, instead of denying that Obama is a Muslim when the accusation is levied, they merely affirm that Obama is a Christian. If you deny it, you actually anchor the relationship "Obama Muslim" in people's minds--and they will remember that long after they forget the denial or even the accusation.

This stuff works, too.

I realize that I have included NLP in my previous discussions, but I don't go deep because I get tired of hearing people say it doesn't work. You won't find it mentioned in this article, nor will you find these particular academics involved in it, but I doubt you will find any of them denying that covert hypnosis (the pertinent area of NLP for this discussion) does not exist, especially in nudge-sized doses.

My point is that if you see a person involved with putting into practice the research of this particular set of academics--for money, power, or seduction--you can bet the farm and win that this person is also plugging NLP techniques into it.

During the debates, I almost felt relief when Romney spoke since he refused to use this stuff. It felt "clean" to me when he spoke--but I realize not to everyone. You see, I can now see it. To give a good metaphor for contrast for those who have not studied persuasion, it was like watching a debate between a used car salesman and a Sunday School teacher. Except this impression was only for those who know what to look for.

And how about that goofball Republican persuasion crew? Jeeeezus... Seeing the Republican's outdated crowd control approach added to sheer ineptness in handling the Orca voter-control program, it's a miracle that as many voters turned out as they did. (I'm not talking mainstream media here, merely the propaganda aspect.)

I believe the anti-Obama feeling and the ideas of Ayn Rand and libertarianism informed a great deal of this turnout. That's a bigger win than appears right now. A far, far bigger win.

Why? Because it shows how deeply these ideas are now embedded in the culture. Besides, the ideas are better and more reality-grounded than those of the other side--starting with the idea that wealth is created by producers, not obtained by merely grabbing it from rich folks.

But I believe this will never become a full-fledged win until our side starts taking covert manipulation techniques for engineering consent seriously. I don't care how unethical people feel it is. This stuff is like nuclear energy. You can light a city with it or blow one up. The ethics comes from the people who use it, not from the resource itself.

A good start for our side would be to look at the data and admit it exists in the first place.

The other side did during an election that was practically lost--and they won. Not to mention that almost all the current business marketing of major players runs on this stuff.

Hellooooo...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

How tall is that peak?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How tall is that peak?

Graaaaaaaaaackkk...

(Thanks for the correction...)

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

A Peek at the Hidden Underbelly of Election Propaganda

People are still dissecting how and why Romney lost the election, but I have been convinced for some time that covert persuasion techniques with Obama's campaigns have played a far more important role than credited. I have been studying this stuff for a few years now and I see what I see.

People on our side find it hard to believe, though. Oh... they believe folks try to use hidden persuasion, they just don't believe it is effective. There's a cognitive bias involved. If people admit that a candidate uses this stuff and it helps him win an election, they are indirectly admitting that this stuff works on them. And nobody likes to admit this.

We have a thread on OL where some of this stuff was discussed: O'bama's Oratorical Style Employs Hypnotic Induction From NLP. There are a few other places, too.

Now, how about an article in NYT giving some actual names of people who were hired by Obama to engineer consent this time around?

Academic ‘Dream Team’ Helped Obama’s Effort

By Benedict Carey

November 12, 2012

New York Times

From the article:

Late last year Matthew Barzun, an official with the Obama campaign, called Craig Fox, a psychologist in Los Angeles, and invited him to a political planning meeting in Chicago, according to two people who attended the session.

“He said, ‘Bring the whole group; let’s hear what you have to say,’ ” recalled Dr. Fox, a behavioral economist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

So began an effort by a team of social scientists to help their favored candidate in the 2012 presidential election.

. . .

... the Obama campaign also had a panel of unpaid academic advisers. The group — which calls itself the “consortium of behavioral scientists,” or COBS — provided ideas on how to counter false rumors, like one that President Obama is a Muslim. It suggested how to characterize the Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, in advertisements. It also delivered research-based advice on how to mobilize voters.

“In the way it used research, this was a campaign like no other,” said Todd Rogers, a psychologist at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a former director of the Analyst Institute. “It’s a big change for a culture that historically has relied on consultants, experts and gurulike intuition.”

. . .

In addition to Dr. Fox, the consortium included Susan T. Fiske of Princeton University; Samuel L. Popkin of the University of California, San Diego; Robert Cialdini, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University; Richard H. Thaler, a professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago’s business school; and Michael Morris, a psychologist at Columbia.

“A kind of dream team, in my opinion,” Dr. Fox said.

Amen to that. This is a dream team of gods for marketers--starting with Cialdini.

If you are interested in specific tactics the Obama campaign used, I suggest reading the article. It touches on some light-weight stuff like answering an accusation with an affirmation instead of a denial. For instance, instead of denying that Obama is a Muslim when the accusation is levied, they merely affirm that Obama is a Christian. If you deny it, you actually anchor the relationship "Obama Muslim" in people's minds--and they will remember that long after they forget the denial or even the accusation.

This stuff works, too.

I realize that I have included NLP in my previous discussions, but I don't go deep because I get tired of hearing people say it doesn't work. You won't find it mentioned in this article, nor will you find these particular academics involved in it, but I doubt you will find any of them denying that covert hypnosis (the pertinent area of NLP for this discussion) does not exist, especially in nudge-sized doses.

My point is that if you see a person involved with putting into practice the research of this particular set of academics--for money, power, or seduction--you can bet the farm and win that this person is also plugging NLP techniques into it.

During the debates, I almost felt relief when Romney spoke since he refused to use this stuff. It felt "clean" to me when he spoke--but I realize not to everyone. You see, I can now see it. To give a good metaphor for contrast for those who have not studied persuasion, it was like watching a debate between a used car salesman and a Sunday School teacher. Except this impression was only for those who know what to look for.

And how about that goofball Republican persuasion crew? Jeeeezus... Seeing the Republican's outdated crowd control approach added to sheer ineptness in handling the Orca voter-control program, it's a miracle that as many voters turned out as they did. (I'm not talking mainstream media here, merely the propaganda aspect.)

I believe the anti-Obama feeling and the ideas of Ayn Rand and libertarianism informed a great deal of this turnout. That's a bigger win than appears right now. A far, far bigger win.

Why? Because it shows how deeply these ideas are now embedded in the culture. Besides, the ideas are better and more reality-grounded than those of the other side--starting with the idea that wealth is created by producers, not obtained by merely grabbing it from rich folks.

But I believe this will never become a full-fledged win until our side starts taking covert manipulation techniques for engineering consent seriously. I don't care how unethical people feel it is. This stuff is like nuclear energy. You can light a city with it or blow one up. The ethics comes from the people who use it, not from the resource itself.

A good start for our side would be to look at the data and admit it exists in the first place.

The other side did during an election that was practically lost--and they won. Not to mention that almost all the current business marketing of major players runs on this stuff.

Hellooooo...

Michael

Michael, I am not going to get back into the argument about NLP for several reasons but primarily because you stated most of the pros and cons about NLP in in your posts in that thread. Secondly, proving that NLP doesn't work, is theoretically unsound, and/or has little, if any, empirically sound academic studies to support it (partially, because it is considered to be outside the mainstream of academic psychology; i.e., it is a pariah, just like Objectivism has been to academic philosophy).will go nowhere. For the same reason that psychoanalysis has not disappeared. Umm, that gets off into another subject.

Back to the subject of your post #1, in this thread. In addition to the efforts made by Obamaite propagandists, as outlined in the New York Times article that you link to, other forces were also in play, see this article on the failure of the evangelical right to draw enough people to vote for Romney. This NYT article is basically saying that tying the G.O.P. to evangelical christianity has been a loser for the Republicans, and is likely to get much worse. http://www.nytimes.c...oters.html?_r=0

In stark contrast, the religious conservatives have been claiming that Romney and the other Republicans lost because they were not religious enough! That argument has a problem with the results of the Missouri senatorial election.

Rush Limbaugh claimed before the election, that the pollsters had it all wrong because they did not include the "vast" voting block of the religious conservatives, who he was sure would rise up and decisively win the election for Romney. He was dead wrong, but that has not stopped him from advocating an even closer alignment of the GOP with the Christian Right.. He is, not surprisingly, wrong again.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

I agree religion had a role in the election--a weird one at that since it worked both for and against Romney at the same time because of the Mormon-Christian thing, but I was discussing the effects of election propaganda. I mean the covert persuasion part.

This is a powerful force that is dismissed as unimportant way too much on our side of the divide.

Michael

[Selene]

Excellent find Michael.

In Divorce complaints, there are typical boiler plate accusations and a client screams that we have to answer that because it is not true!

It takes a calm voice to explain that by denying the false accusation you will empower it. That is the same linkage that the article points out.

Very similar structurally on what it creates in the mind of the audience.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's another indication that Romney just didn't--and doesn't--grok covert persuasion (see WaPo article here--sorry, don't feel like dressing it up with headline and all).

He thinks bribing the poor with gifts helped Obama win. That's typical thinking on our side of the divide. Pure economics and nothing more.

Obama told the poor on a story of hope for better times, sold it hard with persuasion tactics, and represented it with gifts to make it concrete. In that context, the gifts were token symbols of the good things to come and even tribal membership, not quid pro quo bribes.

The fact that the story is not reality-based does not matter. He made the perception of it appear reality-based.

People don't act on facts. They act on what they perceive to be facts and what they feel about how these "facts" fit in their world.

This is what rational-oriented people find hard to understand.

Michael

[william.scherk]

I bet in retrospect most OLers could have written this thread back in June. In the thick of the punishing GOP primaries we got a look at a raft of persuasion techniques (as Michael notes, there is a timeless human ability to be hypnotized, or at least rendered more suggestible.) and we got a look at the offerings in terms of policy.

The weakest parts of the Romney strategy could have been the strongest, in retrospect, so I am going to ask you to imagine Romney won, as his most favourable internal hypnopolls suggested ...

Romney won by assembling a coalition. He appealed overtly or subliminally to a class of voters who could call themselves conservative. He topped the white vote out at 60%, beating McCain. He kept McCain's percentage of Latino votes, and took two percentages back from women voters.

He took a vast majority (though not all) of Evangelicals. He also captured so-called Tea Party voters, fiscally conservative.

He got 0.5 percent increase in the youth vote.

He increased the Republican share of the seniors vote.

He tacked on a small majority of Catholics.

He attracted almost two more percent of Jewish votes.

He increased his share of Independents by one percent.

When you add together all these little bits of nibbles here and there from the numbers expected by the self-deluded Obama campaign, and the marginal appeal he had as the guy you'd rather sit and bullshit with, is it any wonder Romney won?

Edited November 15, 2012 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Michael, I hope you have added to your suggestion bookcase some of the tonic works of the 'memory wars' years, chief among them Elizabeth Loftus and Richard Ofshe. With your love of narrative, you will appreciate real stories of those caught in society-wide moral panics, the incubation facilities (MPD clinics), the literature of suggestion (The Courage to Heal), and the hunt for truth and accountability where suggestion meets coercion.

My studies during those years led to taking action as part of a 'rational community' -- the literature on suggestion, suggestibility, coercion, and those most vulnerable to suggestion and why, all this deepened my personal value of rational inquiry. Reason is what we depend on when things go wrong, when coercive or other more or less menacing 'communities of belief and practice' emerge.

Here's a blurb on Loftus from Wikipedia, followed by a couple of specific recommendations.

Loftus is best known for her ground-breaking work on the

misinformation effect

and

eyewitness memory

,

[3]

and the creation and nature of

false memories

,

[4]

including

recovered memories

of childhood sexual abuse.

[5]

As well as her prolific work inside the laboratory, Loftus has been heavily involved in applying her research to legal settings; she has consulted or provided expert witness testimony for hundreds of cases

The Myth of Repressed Memory; Witness for the Defense

Richard Ofshe is another great. His bailiwick was the intersection of cults, suggestion, interrogation, and persuasion, "coercive social control." Check his Wikipedia page for some available articles (you will love a couple of the titles!), and see if you can find one of these. They are classics, so they all should be in your closest big library:

Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, And Sexual Hysteria; Therapy's Delusions: The Myth of the Unconscious and the Exploitation of Today's Walking Worried

Edited November 15, 2012 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

 

Thanks for the Loftus and Ofshe references. I was not here in the USA during the 90's, so I missed all the fuss. Also, I have only been studying persuasion for a recent scant few years, so I have no familiarity at all with this false memory literature. I will be looking into it.

 

At first blush, I don't know how this can be used in propaganda. But they do it all the time in magic and cinema, so I'm sure I will have meat to chew on. I once read Roman Polanski say that one of his proudest achievements was with Rosmary's Baby--when people (many people, in fact) who saw the film in a theater remembered seeing the Devil even though he was never presented in the film. The footage just didn't exist. This was beyond illusion. It was an actual memory.

 

On another note, here is Frank Luntz talking to shocked Romney supporters in Virginia. He talks about the political message thing I am interested in. His approach is closer to Lakoff, but it's still another piece of the same pie. He mentioned, for instance, if you want to combat class warfare, you can't be talking about a "middle class." He suggested "hard-working taxpayer" instead. He has a point.

 

 

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Yep. The message was "miss-formed" from the beginning. Additionally, no specifics.

However, I still thought that this was a referendum on O'biwan and apparently it was and the American voting citizenry wants more of the same.

So be it. I am still stunned at how ignorant and blind the voters are.

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael:

Yep. The message was "miss-formed" from the beginning. Additionally, no specifics.

However, I still thought that this was a referendum on O'biwan and apparently it was and the American voting citizenry wants more of the same.

So be it. I am still stunned at how ignorant and blind the voters are.

A...

I am not the least bit stunned or surprised. Back in the 30's H.L. Mencken had some tart things to say about the American voter.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public," said H.L. Mencken in the era of Babbitt and the Scopes "monkey" trial. Several generations later, one might speculate that no publisher has ever lost money with a book accusing Americans — particularly young ones — of being stupid."

Ba'al Chataf

[Selene]

Bob:

Excellent quote. However, the "prime voter" in America has always had a great sense of a failed Presidency, e.g., Carter; Ford; Johnson; Papa Bush.

Significantly, this bumbling incompetent failure was able to get over on the majority. Unfortunately, it leads me to believe that the long effort to completely dumb down the electorate has finally tipped into the truly ignorant this election.

I do not see it turning around.

The unemployment numbers released today are abysmal. Specifically, in Ohio and Pennsylvania. What a coincidence.

Employers are beginning to raise the prices on their products directly due to the Affordable Care Act. They are beginning to lay off people and convert people to part time.

How soon will it be before an executive order will be issued that freezes employer's work forces during the National Health Care Emergency.

Well at least the Middle East has settled down since President Incompetano was re-elected!

The Palestinians and the Jews are hugging at the borders...hmm well maybe it is more hand to hand combat.

Oh, well....FORWARD INTO THE ABYSS !!

[Xray]

This NYT article is basically saying that tying the G.O.P. to evangelical christianity has been a loser for the Republicans, and is likely to get much worse. http://www.nytimes.c...oters.html?_r=0

From the article:

http://www.nytimes.c...oters.html?_r=0

“Millions of American evangelicals are absolutely shocked by not just the presidential election, but by the entire avalanche of results that came in,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out.

“It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed,” he said. “An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”

Imo "an increasingly secularized America" no longer accepting the Bible as an authority on moral issues is an indicator that the realm of ethics is in the process of being set free from the shackles of religious dogma.

[william.scherk]

William,

Thanks for the Loftus and Ofshe references. I was not here in the USA during the 90's, so I missed all the fuss. Also, I have only been studying persuasion for a recent scant few years, so I have no familiarity at all with this false memory literature. I will be looking into it.

At first blush, I don't know how this can be used in propaganda. But they do it all the time in magic and cinema, so I'm sure I will have meat to chew on.

What makes the memory and suggestion research of Ofshe and Loftus so compelling is that they scope out suggestion fully, show how many kinds or levels of suggestion and suggestibility exist.

So, attending to the science investigating suggestion of all types (hypnotically-retrieved 'memories' to eye-witness errors) can only add a systematic oomph of reality-testing to your very own interests in cult-ish persuasion, coercion, 'thought control,' mass effects of propaganda, and so on. For your further interests on hypnosis, I can also recommend anything by Steven Jay Lynn, another stalwart of the memory wars.

Along with Scott Lilienfeld, he cuts through the cant and claims of fringe-ish psychology. Across the landscape of 'We can help you' products, therapeutic or commercial, are those who claim efficacy (make women fall into bed!) or accuracy (know what others are thinking) or potency (control yourself and others) or any other success (walk on hot coals). The literature and authors I recommend help pull all the shambling outliers and core procedures into a coherent field.

Here's a little something newer and more on-topic, a book from the Chris Mooney, godless liberal and author of The Republican War on Science: The Republican Brain

I include a song of praise from a customer review.

When Chris Mooney wrote "The Republican War on Science", his outstanding report on science denial and suppression in the modern conservative movement, many hoped that the problems therein would fade away along with George W. Bush. But as they intervening years have shown, the discourse around the politics of science has only grown more heated and partisan. Why isn't careful scientific experimentation, peer review and huge consensus on the science behind issues like climate change or stem cell research enough to persuade opponents of science? Why can't we just "out-fact" the deniers?

Enter "The Republican Brain". Decades of psychological and neuroscience research are beginning to paint a clearer picture of how and why we believe what we do. Our biology seems to be at the root of our ideology. Mooney lays out a convincing case that when our ideas are intertwined so deeply with our values, it can be almost impossible to view an issue through a lens of objectivity or be open to challenging one's beliefs. The conservative brain seems to be especially predisposed to what he calls "motivated reasoning", using inherently false information to support a strong ideological belief. In a sense, the book describes how values and political ideologies can overpower logic and reasoning. Democrats and liberals are not without fault, as Mooney's discussion of fracking and nuclear energy show, but research shows that the conservative brain is by far the most egregiously guilty. Instead of ripping off a painful band-aid and allowing their ideology to be challenged, the conservative brain seems more apt to pretend that the band-aid doesn't exist.

There's a great irony in the book itself. It's that those who most need to hear, embrace and respond to the message (modern conservatives), will likely disregard the scientific rigor held in its pages as yet another casualty of motivated reasoning. Because this book delivers such a painful message to the Republican brain, many will deny it outright and declare partisan warfare. Do not let them fool you. This is a discussion our society needs to have, and both sides have much to learn from the science of how we believe.

[Xray]

From a customer review:

http://www.amazon.co...g=vglnkc4830-20 Decades ago, social scientists started tearing down the Enlightenment view that human beings rationally and methodically process information. In the old view, our brains were like filing cabinets into which we inserted new information to synthesize. In reality, we are motivated reasoners: we use facts and information to justify what we want to believe.

If it is true that 'what we want to believe' trumps our objectivity, does this mean that the 'man as a rational being' premise would have to be corrected?

[Selene]

Ah, so Mooney was influenced by Festinger, who developed cognitive dissonance.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a little something newer and more on-topic, a book from the Chris Mooney, godless liberal and author of The Republican War on Science: The Republican Brain

William,

My God.

Lakoff's progeny.

Science whored out to politics, and not even good politics at that. Traditional partisan politics.

Keeeriiiiist...

One Lakoff is enough for me. I'm getting old. I don't have the stamina for too many prostitutes in my life.

What a hell of a frame, "Republican" brain.

I wonder if he can come up with a "Libertarian" brain. After all, the party exists.

At least we can now look forward to using the same science for other niches by going horizontal. I look forward to sequels like The Islamic Brain, The Ghetto Brain, The Government Handout Freeloader Brain, and so on. I'm certain his science can be used to demonstrate... ahm... how does the Amazon blurb put it? Ah yes... let me do 'em in order of the three sequels I mentioned:

Bestselling author Chris Mooney uses cutting-edge research to explain the psychology behind why today’s Muslims reject reality—it's just part of who they are.

Bestselling author Chris Mooney uses cutting-edge research to explain the psychology behind why today’s ghetto dwellers reject reality—it's just part of who they are.

Bestselling author Chris Mooney uses cutting-edge research to explain the psychology behind why today’s government handout freeloaders reject reality—it's just part of who they are.



Need I do more?

I sure am glad I don't fall for the Democrat vs. Republican metaphysics crap.

Uh oh...

(singing): Everybody loves a pooper, that's why we invited you... Party Pooper... Party Pooper...

But, hell. I don't want to spoil no stinkin' party. Let's play science, shall we? I think science is so fun, don't you?

We're not Democrat or Republican--or progressive or conservative--because we choose to be. We are pre-ordained by our genes and, by God, science proves it. Choice has little to say about it.

Here's a very interesting and pertinent TED Talk by David Pizarro entitled "The Strange Politics of Disgust."

As it turns out, progressives tolerate disgusting things a lot more than conservatives. Don't forget, this is fact. This is science--and I can even back Pizarro's science up with anecdotal evidence.

Look at the condition of the public meeting places after a Tea Party rally as opposed to an Occupy Wall Street demonstration. Over and over and over. The conservatives are clean and the progressives are pigs.

So I think it's safe to say that science proves that progressives stink and conservatives don't. That progressives are fine with one of their finest shitting on a police car in public and conservatives hose it off. Do you agree?

Or do you have any bones to pick with Pizarro's science? It looks pretty solid to me.

Science is so fun...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hmmm...

I started thinking maybe I was hasty in my response of going tit-for-tat on how science proves political leanings.

On William's side, Republicans are screwed because they are inherently inferior reasoning beings. And on my side, progressives stink to high heaven, but, poor things, they can't help themselves. And it's all proven by science.

Anyhoo... I thought I'd take a stroll on the dark side.

p...

p... p... p...

PRAVDA!!!

Here is an article I just read over there:

Obama's Soviet Mistake

November 19, 2012

By Xavier Lerma

Pravda

I had to look at the URL several times to make sure I was in the right place. From the article:

Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

Woah theah...

Say what?!!

That sounds like Ron Paul or sumpin'...

And there's more:

He [Obama] is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama's fools and Stalin's fools share the same drink of illusion.

Dayaamm!

That sounded like Hannity. But on Pravda of all the friggen' places!

And here's the kicker--some choice quotes from Vladimir Putin's January 2009 speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland:

"...we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.

The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.

There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.

Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt - are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.

During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself."

As Lerma insinuated, this sounds like Putin incorporating Ronald Reagan's ghost. And he continues:

President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don't they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents. Obama has bailed out those businesses that voted for him and increased the debt to over 16 trillion with an ever increasing unemployment rate especially among blacks and other minorities. All the while promoting his agenda.

"We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success."- Vladimir Putin.

Double dog dayaamm!

Since when did Glenn Beck start writing for Pravda?

And here I was trying to be fair and take a walk on the wild side to see what was there.

Well at least he recommended a book. He hyperlinked to another article with the words "liberalism is a psychosis." I kid you not. And the book was one of those "science mucking into the political mind" thingies. Here's the article:

Liberalism: Psychosis, evil or ignorance?

November 29, 2010

By Xavier Lerma

Pravda

Here is how he starts the article:

Are liberals mentally ill, spiritually depraved or just ignorant good-hearted people trying to improve society?

The article then deals with the book I said Lerma recommended: The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. M.D (published in 2006). I didn't get to look at this book very much, but here is a quote from the book's description on Amazon, which is attributed to Rossiter:

Radical liberalism ... assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains.

From looking at the Table of Contents, this doesn't look like it is based in neuroscience so much as developmental psychology. Lerma thinks it is spot on. He even quotes Rossiter. The excerpt below is from the same article and the quoted words are from Rossiter's book.

"The adult drive toward omnipotent control of others, in any arena whatever, is rooted in fears of separation, abandonment loss or abuse--the residual effects of early attachment gone wrong. The need to dominate others arises from the tyrant's need for absolute assurance that the catastrophic loss of dependency or the pain of abuse so devastating to him in his earliest years will not be repeated."

"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

Dr. Lyle Rossiter has 37 years experience with more than 1,500 patients as a board certified clinical psychiatrist. He is also a board certified forensic psychiatrist who has examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases. He was educated at the University of Chicago.

No wonder he had a lot of patients! Obama and his crew came from Chicago.

LOL...

All right, all right.

I made my point...

I think it's time to wind this one up...

Michael

[Selene]

Excellent find Michael...a home run in any language...