The other day I looked down to glance at a news paragraph on my phone. It said something like, “there are increasing ethical and criminal breaches at the hands of the government. It’s harming all of us.” I immediately gave a nod. I scrolled down. Maybe next it would say “Scott Pruitt is fired” or “45’s family’s business interests initiating China and environmental policy that hurts all of us,” or maybe just “45 impeached.” So, I read eagerly…
The next line revealed the statements were from Giuliani, followed by his final statement, “So the Muller probe must end.”
What?!
Then I realized, again, the republicans are wildly wielding the tool of the triple-step truth nod, which always concludes with their call to action. The truth they say is nearly always about their own actions, but the final sentence blames another. Behold the simple, powerful propaganda tool that works.
It goes like this:
1. say hard or ugly truth about what you are doing
2. say another hard or ugly truth about yourself
3. blame another for it, or ask for someone’s head.
There is a meme around that quotes Joseph Goebbels of saying “Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.” While I don’t know if this is an accurate quote, there is power in this, because most people will not speak an ugly truth unless it is about another. So… saying in effect, ‘this awful thing is happening,’ when it is happening, RINGS true, to the deepest core of our being.
Unfortunately, many people who are shockingly refreshed by this loud clang of true, buy the entire message cluster because their unconscious mind is still nodding after numbers 1 & 2. Also, people don’t always react rationally to problems, and many more hunger for guidance. This is the method of an authoritarian directive.
Here is what the average listener does in response to the 1, 2, 3 proffered above.
1. nod in agreement
2. nod in agreement
3. nod in agreement
I say the average listener, because unless one is consciously listening for this pattern, anyone may believe the false number 3 claim too —or find themselves deeply confused. (As an aside, there is no end of conspiracy theories born when people’s instincts tell them about a “big truth” but the final “blame-based directive” is a misdirect, but that’s another essay).
The important question when you hear hard truth ringing, is to ask yourself “what is the agenda of the speaker?” and then pay close attention to the nature of Statement Number 3. It goes without saying that examining blame-based directive No3 on it’s own merits is critical. It often falls apart during a closer look.
In the example of the Giuliani rant, the third statement “so the Muller probe must end” makes no sense in the context of stopping government corruption. Muller’s reputation is sterling as a fair and just man. We actually need someone like him to clean up the issues posed in statements 1 & 2… but isn’t that exactly what 45 seeks to avoid? Um, why?
In the case of 45 it could easily be argued that nearly every insult or accusation he has said about his enemies (‘crooked Hilary’ and the like) ring true, because they are about him. But don’t take my word on it, take a closer look, and feel free to pull apart any trumpian claim chain, complete with the “blame/directive” afterward, and see it as it is.
Then make your decisions about what you want to do.
I won’t be telling you…