Sunday, August 16, 2009

Heroes or Suckers?

Would you rather be a hero to your family, friends and country or a sucker?
Well, it is certainty that our social engineers still treat us as suckers.

What got me fired up this morning was when I read this story suggesting that the WH will drop the option. That's the "government option" many fear is the Trojan Horse designed to lead to a single payer (taxpayers) by killing off private health plans. That's the health plans that polls say 85% of Americans are satisfied with.

The bottom line of the story: the White House is about to offer us all a compromise.

Red Alert. Red Alert!

Many years ago I wrote of how social engineering works: Here is an summary of a key point made there that is germane to this discussion:

Why use extremes of differences rather than less extreme ones? Because, as we know from other forms of engineering, the greater the polarity the easier to overcome resistance.

They who wish to drive social change to their advantage see well the potential in entertaining extreme differences so that they may achieve smaller ones (theirs) along the way.

  1. How this game works is that the players have placed what they want in the path of the extremists.
  2. Extremists are counted on to make demands on the rest of society that certainly will be met with resistance.
  3. The game player's front men then step forward to offer "a compromise" to the wishes of the extremists that the resisters will accept.

This is why the idea of backing extremists is such a delightfully subtle tool of social engineers. If an extremist does not already exist where needed, they will manufacture a crisis to make sure one will materialize.

And now we have a health care crisis smack-dab in the middle of an economic meltdown primarily held together by the spit of the termites who hollowed out our institutions. Our economic system is in danger of collapsing at any moment, and the chief agents who aided that looting (government led or government regulated institutions) are the same whom we are being threatened with to take over that which we seek when our very lives are threatened by health issues.

"Nuh-uh!" we cry. And right on cue we are offered a "compromise."

Do you now understand how social engineers manipulate factions and fears? This health care "crisis" bears all the earmarks for political paybacks of social engineers.

We are suckers to accept ANY compromise at this time. The fight must continue even as the RINOs whom we would be foolish to believe are our watchdogs on this are preparing to accept any offer made by the WH.

Again, do not waste what ground you have gained by letting up now: Don't buy any of the "snake oil" being peddled from D.C.


  1. Hey Pascal, are you suggesting armed revolt as the solution?

  2. You're a bit too quick on the draw for slow-witted me and my readers Ray.

    I am sure we will all benefit when you reveal how you inferred that suggestion from my polemic.

  3. Sorry Pasc, It was just inference on my part stemming from the crowd you hang with (The Crummy guy). Maybe you should mention to the Crum, that talk is cheap, but action will land his butt in the pokey, where it will get poked :-)

  4. The Crummy guy? LOL. There are an awful lot of people on the scene who deserve that title.

    The majority of Americans may soon realize, even the most strident of the Leftists, that there is nobody in DC that can be trusted.

    You might want to glance at what prospects face Democratic voters in this one
    in order to garner an understanding, and reevaluate your own position, of why a glorious insurrection needs little by the way of arms.

    Nobody wants to be left out -- not even a Praetorian Guard -- in their hour of need.

    As the DCs aren't too particular who they bump off just so long as the number of humans declines radically, they may easily find that nobody trusts them -- deservedly.

  5. Pasc, do you consider yourself Republican, Libertarian, or ? I know the ex cons are fleeing the Republican namesake in droves, but there still seems to be support for Palin.

  6. I find labels woefully inaccurate, in large part because of so many phonies who carry the banners, as this short piece suggests.

    I had to get really annoyed with the label that has most frequently been hung on me in order to write this:

    And as for Palin, her popularity could have been tarnished by the man who made her prominent, but not enough to stem the gallantry induced in conservatives due to the huge pummeling she has suffered from MSM, the Left, and some on the Right. I wrote of it here

    As you may infer, it neither makes me a fan nor foe of hers; it leaves wondering what will unfold in the next act.

    It's not really statism until it creates its own opposition. ;)

  7. Regarding the need for statism. ie the bailout. Did you vote for W once or twice?

  8. Statism preceded W's administration; it only became more obvious then.

    As for voting, when one is given a Hobson's choice, it hardly can be called a vote. Like I suggested before, statism implies the choices are not made by you.

    Speaking of which Ray: I'm pretty much an open book. I'd love to see your blog or other formal efforts. Your interview skills aren't bad; but can you think for yourself? I'm always looking for people who do.

  9. Nothing yet Pascal, but I may create a site discussing the problems created by man's belief in imaginary beings. Seems that's been the source of a lot of problems, especially recently.

    I bookmarked your site.

  10. Pascal-

    Remember the art of aggressive compromise:
    - demand an amount that is beyond what is reasonably achievable,
    - when opposition builds, make offer of compromise, and get a portion of what you wanted.

    In other words, make demands for the whole loaf.
    When necessary, compromise on half a loaf.
    You've now gotten half of what you wanted and
    can come back later for the other half and more.

    This strategy is going on all over the place.
    Take tax hikes, price hikes, intrusive laws (can you say gun control?),
    health care, control of the Press and Free Speech, etc.

    Actually, price haggling, or negotiation makes use of this tactic.
    Also kids negotiating with parents over curfew, allowance, clothing, etc.

    A related application of this principle is the "slippery slope".

    And another related technique is the "trial balloon" wherein a potentially
    unpopular action is suggested and phased in gradually after people get
    used to the idea. Kind of like getting an inoculation so they can
    tolerate the full dose later.

    And another- in criminal justice, the Plea Bargain.

    This all falls in the category of getting one's way. I.e. Machiavellian-ism.
    It's the practice of Acquiring, Maintaining, and Applying Power.

    --- All rather basic.


  11. "imaginary beings"

    would that include "sane people who want socialism in America"? perhaps "normal humans who want the government to run healthcare"?


View My Stats