POLITICAL SEDATIVES

BY

 

IAIN CRAWFORD

 

Why the world is sleepwalking to disaster because of the

 tricks and blunders committed by politicians,

and believed by voters and taxpayers.
 

  POLITICIANS AS HIGH PRIESTS 

 

    Modern revolutionaries require their followers to have ‘faith’ in Utopian ideas that have nothing to do with scientific methods. In that respect, revolution is very much a continuation of religion. For example;

Nazism              -            faith in the ‘master race’

Communism     -            faith in the ‘proletariat’

   Both these projects failed, producing disastrous results that were the exact opposite of the intended utopianism. But that has not stopped new, similarly faith-based movements;

Neo-conservatism;   faith in global ‘freedom and democracy’

Monetarism;    faith in ‘global free markets’

Islamism;     faith in a new Caliphate

Zionism;   faith in biblical prophecy

   The bible speaks of an ‘end time’ when a ‘new earth’, cleansed of famine, war and all injustice, will replace the existing earth in a process called ‘apocalypse’, a final battle between good and evil. Revolutions are similarly transformative and far-fetched, and many seek violence as part of their agenda. How this plays out in reality can be seen at; www.terror-rhythm.blogspot.com

    Since revolution is a continuation of religion, politicians are obliged to pose as secular priests. They say things which are hocus-pocus, bogus, or in plain words, not true. But, like the soothing, hypnotic rituals of religion, they reassure us, to provide a false sense of security. Their words are ‘political sedatives’.

    How do they get away with this? What techniques are they using to deceive us all?

   

 

 POLITICAL TRICKS

  1)  EITHER/OR, aka The 'False Dilemma'

 
 

When Bush went to war in Iraq, he told the world that no-one could be neutral; 'you're either for us or against us'. When Cameron took the UK to war in Syria, he said anyone who failed to support him was a 'terrorist-sympathiser'. The essence of the false dilemma is to pretend there are no 'grey areas' of doubt, no 'third way' to consider.

   It's rather like the game in which children compete to dream up the worst-ever dilemma; 'would you rather eat a bucket of slugs, or dance on hot coals?' 'would you rather hop 500 miles through a desert, or fight a gang of dragons?'

 

 

2) DAWSNAWD (Do  as we say, not as we do)

Your parents may have said or implied this to you as a kid, so the habit of blind obedience may persist in adulthood; we defer to politicians because they look and act like authority-figures.

    Ever wonder why one killing is murder, but a million killings is ‘OK’, ‘because it’s war’? Law is strongly enforced by governments within nations, but when nations interact with each other, they do as they please; international law is voluntary, unpoliced, unclear, decentralised, and therefore unenforceable.

    So Russia can annex Ukraine; Israel can build illegal settlements; Nazis could discriminate against Jews; and no one knows whose task it is to stop them.

 
  
3) RED HERRING

Hunt saboteurs drag a red herring, a strong-smelling fish, across the path to put foxhounds off the scent. In politics, a red herring evades the answer by changing the subject;

Q; what are you going to do about X?

A; never mind about X, Y is more urgent. And look how cleverly we fixed Z! 

 

4) TU QUOQUE

A ‘tu quoque’ argument ( Latin for ‘you too’) is a type of red herring which attacks the questioner or other opponent directly;

Q; what are you going to do about X?

A; never mind about X, look at the mess you made of Y

5) AD HOMINEM/MUDSLINGING

An ‘ad hominem’ or mudslinging argument (Latin for ‘to the man’) is a red herring which attacks the opponent’s personal qualities;

Q; what are you going to do about X

A; do I have to explain myself to an idiot like you?

 

 6) SHOOTING THE MESSENGER
Is the extreme form of red herring. The attack on the opponent takes the form of criminal charges, exile, or assassination; as with Julian Assange, Bradley Manning or Ed Snowden.

7) DENIABILITY

8) EUPHEMISMS OR 'WEASEL WORDS'
For example; saying 'special rendition' for torture; 'collateral damage' for the killing of civilians in wartime;

9) SLIPPERY SLOPE or 'TROJAN HORSE' argument

For example; saying that restrictions on handguns represent 'excessive government control leading to fascism'; or that Moslem migrants into Europe are 'an invasion of terrorists'.

  ..7) Deniability

 

    9) Confirmation bias/cherry-picking the evidence

11) Divide and conquer
 12) groupthink/herd instinct/social bonding
13) parochialism/insularity

14) passing the buck

 





  
      


 

 

  

9) Confirmation bias/cherry-picking the evidence
10) Slippery slope/Trojan Horse ban guns leads to fascism. refuges are an 'invasion of terrorists'
11) Divide and conquer
 12) groupthink/herd instinct/social bonding
13) parochialism/insularity

14) passing the buck

15) Presumption of guilt
    Witch hunts, pre-emptive strikes, suicide bombings, 'all men are rapists' saves collecting evidence

Burying bad news
   

 Gesture politics
 

Tokenism
 

Overkill

Cover story/pretext 

Kicking the can down the road 


Kneejerk reaction

Appeal to the past

Appeal to emotion

Romanticising war 

Divide and conquer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

slogans and soundbites 

 generalisation/stereotyping

Kettle logic 

breaking election promises

Nirvana fallacy

 Lip service

Posing as a prophet

Circular argument/leap of faith

Dehumanisation

Apocalypticism

Loaded Question

false flag operations

 race to the bottom

Pretext/cover story

Sacred cow

Celebrity endorsement

Escalation

Undeserving poor

Dumbing down/media trivia

Gambler's fallacy

Post hoc

Moral hazard

Scaremongering

My enemy's enemy is my friend

Nepotism

Divine Right

fallacy of the 'moderate middle'

Non sequitur argument

generalisation

Panglossism

Twisted meanings

Jingoism

Chauvinism

Intellectual property theft

Sunk-costs fallacy

Peer Pressure

Straw man argument

Anecdotal evidence

Technospeak

Bunker mentality

False assumptions

Linear prediction

Double standards

Subjective bias

Ignoring contrary evidence

'Guilt by association' argument

'Authority by association' argument
 
Symbolic events

Prestige projects

Smear campaign

Dutch auction

Show trial/political trial

Appeal to consensus 'we all decided that long ago' 'lets move on'

Tyranny of the majority

Chinese whispers



 

POLITICAL BLUNDERS

Megalomania

 

Technocracy

 

Plutocracy

theocracy 

 

Kleptocracy

 

Corporate capture

 

Lobby Group capture

 

EDUCATION IS THE KEY