I found this part especially germane given recent developments: That said, it's unfortunate that the technique seems to work so well (eg, the Obama "birtherist" conspiracy theory, Brexiters's £350...
I found this part especially germane given recent developments:
Stone’s Rule #47 “The Big Lie Technique”
'Erroneously attributed to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, the “big lie” manipulation technique was actually first described in detail by Adolf Hitler himself. […] Nonetheless, the tactic of creating a lie so bold, massive, and even so monstrous that it takes on a life of its own, is alive and well all through American politics and news media. Make it big, keep it simple, repeat it enough times, and people will believe it.'
[...]
[A]lthough the Big Lie strategy may work quite well in the political arena, at least in the short-term, it has the potential to come back to haunt you in the law courts. For instance, some reports suggest that Stone is likely facing indictment as part of the Russia investigation. What would happen if the prosecution chose to read certain passages from this book aloud before a judge and jury? Once you admit to using deceit on a massive scale to deflect criticism, and never admitting to wrongdoing as a matter of principle, how can anyone ever again trust anything you try to say in your own defense? What goes around comes around.
That said, it's unfortunate that the technique seems to work so well (eg, the Obama "birtherist" conspiracy theory, Brexiters's £350 million/week claim). Stone may receive his just deserts for bamboozling a nation, but it hardly seems like a decent trade.
Socrates claimed that ultimately the just ruler prevails; let's hope so.
It is extraordinary how consistently Donald Trump and the people surrounding him tell lies - whether they're instrumental, strategic, or just magical-thinking "emotionally true" statements....
It is extraordinary how consistently Donald Trump and the people surrounding him tell lies - whether they're instrumental, strategic, or just magical-thinking "emotionally true" statements. Regardless of these peoples' recantations, if any, they'd never be credible witnesses against each other in court.
Lying to deceive the public and lying against a judge are two very different things, Roger Stone's ass is on the line not just for his involvement with the Russia collusion, but because he...
Regardless of these peoples' recantations, if any, they'd never be credible witnesses against each other in court.
Lying to deceive the public and lying against a judge are two very different things, Roger Stone's ass is on the line not just for his involvement with the Russia collusion, but because he knowingly lied in congress and tampered with a witness.
These people are not this braindead, they know that in some cases telling an incriminating truth and hoping for plea bargain is better then lying again and risking an even heavier sentence.
I don't know - Stone is consummately self-serving, but his brand depends on professions of ideological commitment, and he's thoroughly hitched himself to Trump. He claims he won't testify against...
I don't know - Stone is consummately self-serving, but his brand depends on professions of ideological commitment, and he's thoroughly hitched himself to Trump. He claims he won't testify against Trump, but the seizure of his electronic devices and prior failures of opsec might mean he doesn't have to say anything, just provide passwords.
I'll confess that I stumbled on this out of guilt at my own schadenfreude over the arrival of belated justice for one of the darkest political figures of our times. Apologies to those...
I'll confess that I stumbled on this out of guilt at my own schadenfreude over the arrival of belated justice for one of the darkest political figures of our times.
Apologies to those disinterested in U.S. politics, but it's arguable that Roger Stone is among the people most responsible, not only for Donald Trump's election, but for normalizing new avenues of corruption and hate mongering globally.
Stone exerts a reptilian fascination for observers of politics and history. Though he's got a long record in the U.S., Stone has also been deeply embedded in the rise of corruption and authoritarian politics everywhere, from African dictatorships, to Ukraine and Hungary, to the U.K., and Israel. The political consulting firm he and his cronies created, Black, Manafort, Stone and Atwater, is described in many places, but these should give you a general idea of the scope of the firm and its principals' activity:
The documentary, Get Me Roger Stone, is shallow, but provides a broad view of Stone's techniques and philosophy. Stone has extensive ties and is a strategic nexus of coordinated disinformation for Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, conspiracy theory networks like Infowars, Breitbart, Daily Caller, and others. Most importantly, Stone has no compunctions about threatening or inciting violence to support his goals.
It's hard to say how much of Stone's persona and power is self-aggrandizement, but he's cultivated a "Father of Lies"/Trickster aura, as someone who will do or say anything which might be effective, however evil. His justification is an incredibly dark view of human nature - mutually predatory, lazy, hateful, and venal. His contempt for altruism and American left-liberalism, as appeals to reason, are apparent:
Do-gooders and disingenuous leftists who decry the politics of fear and negativism are simply denying the reality of human nature, and only fooling themselves. Emotions cannot simply be erased or ignored, and to believe they can is a suicidally-naive approach to political competition.
Back to the parent article, Donald Robertson examines Socrates and the Stoics, versus Robert Stone's nominal philosophy of life. Robertson's key argument is that Stone's tactics will ultimately backfire. Socrates opined that the certain way to ensure the full political engagement of the good and wise populace is to threaten them with the rise of tyranny.
Which would be something to pay attention to if not for the fact tyranny has arisen unopposed by the 'good and wise populace', or where that populace has fought back has slapped it down in a...
Socrates opined that the certain way to ensure the full political engagement of the good and wise populace is to threaten them with the rise of tyranny
Which would be something to pay attention to if not for the fact tyranny has arisen unopposed by the 'good and wise populace', or where that populace has fought back has slapped it down in a rather unconcerned fashion - in many, MANY instances. Everyone's favourite example Nazi Germany, Stalin's takeover of the Soviet revolution, pretty much one in every other African/SEA/South American regime over the last century.
Machiavelli had a far better grasp on politics than Socrates could ever hope for.
I don't think it's fair to compare modern politics to the kind of politics that Socrates was exposed to during his life. It was an entirely different theater. In fact, I think it would be pretty...
I don't think it's fair to compare modern politics to the kind of politics that Socrates was exposed to during his life. It was an entirely different theater. In fact, I think it would be pretty easy to argue that Socrates foresaw these kinds of tactics potentially being used for unjust reasons, but they had not been used to the same extent yet and if anything he was harkening for that which was to come and simply unable to imagine the atrocities that would be devised of more than a millennia after his death.
No ubiquitous surveillance, rapid mass communications, or weapons of mass destruction, for certain. But the Greeks certainly weren't strangers to rhetorical tactics. Socrates' observations about...
No ubiquitous surveillance, rapid mass communications, or weapons of mass destruction, for certain.
But the Greeks certainly weren't strangers to rhetorical tactics. Socrates' observations about the long-term outcomes of pure self-interest, promoting tyranny, appeals to emotion, dishonesty, vengefulness, and so on, are not bad as a revision of Stone's "wisdom".
Not only that but the level of deception going on today is not something I think he could have possibly foresaw. The way information is presented and consumed by society is massively different...
Not only that but the level of deception going on today is not something I think he could have possibly foresaw. The way information is presented and consumed by society is massively different than it was during Socrates's time.
I think it's unfair to say that Machiavelli was better at politics than Socrates and I also think it's unfair to compare modern rises of tyranny to Socrates' thinking as the examples only exist because of how society and technology have evolved since his time.
In Ancient Greece, if you were seriously dishonest, you could be damaged in ways directly detrimental to your survival. Greeks had capital punishment or banishment as punishments for most...
In Ancient Greece, if you were seriously dishonest, you could be damaged in ways directly detrimental to your survival. Greeks had capital punishment or banishment as punishments for most infractions, including calumny, slander, or other moral conduct unbefitting a person of honor and integrity.
So, yes, Socrates was operating in a completely different milieu - he got executed for "corrupting the youth" and impiety. Neither was he a fan of democracy, at least as practiced by the Athenians; he had a friendly relationship with Critias, the leader of the Thirty Tyrants, as a former pupil.
It's not a perfect article, but it reflects on neo-Stoicism more than politics, I think.
It's not a dig at Socrates, except at the idea that his beliefs are relevant today. Fairness doesn't enter the discussion at all, reality isn't fair (which of course was one of Machiavelli's main...
It's not a dig at Socrates, except at the idea that his beliefs are relevant today. Fairness doesn't enter the discussion at all, reality isn't fair (which of course was one of Machiavelli's main points).
I found this part especially germane given recent developments:
That said, it's unfortunate that the technique seems to work so well (eg, the Obama "birtherist" conspiracy theory, Brexiters's £350 million/week claim). Stone may receive his just deserts for bamboozling a nation, but it hardly seems like a decent trade.
Socrates claimed that ultimately the just ruler prevails; let's hope so.
It is extraordinary how consistently Donald Trump and the people surrounding him tell lies - whether they're instrumental, strategic, or just magical-thinking "emotionally true" statements. Regardless of these peoples' recantations, if any, they'd never be credible witnesses against each other in court.
Lying to deceive the public and lying against a judge are two very different things, Roger Stone's ass is on the line not just for his involvement with the Russia collusion, but because he knowingly lied in congress and tampered with a witness.
These people are not this braindead, they know that in some cases telling an incriminating truth and hoping for plea bargain is better then lying again and risking an even heavier sentence.
I don't know - Stone is consummately self-serving, but his brand depends on professions of ideological commitment, and he's thoroughly hitched himself to Trump. He claims he won't testify against Trump, but the seizure of his electronic devices and prior failures of opsec might mean he doesn't have to say anything, just provide passwords.
I'll confess that I stumbled on this out of guilt at my own schadenfreude over the arrival of belated justice for one of the darkest political figures of our times.
Apologies to those disinterested in U.S. politics, but it's arguable that Roger Stone is among the people most responsible, not only for Donald Trump's election, but for normalizing new avenues of corruption and hate mongering globally.
Stone exerts a reptilian fascination for observers of politics and history. Though he's got a long record in the U.S., Stone has also been deeply embedded in the rise of corruption and authoritarian politics everywhere, from African dictatorships, to Ukraine and Hungary, to the U.K., and Israel. The political consulting firm he and his cronies created, Black, Manafort, Stone and Atwater, is described in many places, but these should give you a general idea of the scope of the firm and its principals' activity:
PDF warning, long The Torturer's Lobby
The Swamp Builders
Paul Manafort, American Hustler
The documentary, Get Me Roger Stone, is shallow, but provides a broad view of Stone's techniques and philosophy. Stone has extensive ties and is a strategic nexus of coordinated disinformation for Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, conspiracy theory networks like Infowars, Breitbart, Daily Caller, and others. Most importantly, Stone has no compunctions about threatening or inciting violence to support his goals.
It's hard to say how much of Stone's persona and power is self-aggrandizement, but he's cultivated a "Father of Lies"/Trickster aura, as someone who will do or say anything which might be effective, however evil. His justification is an incredibly dark view of human nature - mutually predatory, lazy, hateful, and venal. His contempt for altruism and American left-liberalism, as appeals to reason, are apparent:
Back to the parent article, Donald Robertson examines Socrates and the Stoics, versus Robert Stone's nominal philosophy of life. Robertson's key argument is that Stone's tactics will ultimately backfire. Socrates opined that the certain way to ensure the full political engagement of the good and wise populace is to threaten them with the rise of tyranny.
Which would be something to pay attention to if not for the fact tyranny has arisen unopposed by the 'good and wise populace', or where that populace has fought back has slapped it down in a rather unconcerned fashion - in many, MANY instances. Everyone's favourite example Nazi Germany, Stalin's takeover of the Soviet revolution, pretty much one in every other African/SEA/South American regime over the last century.
Machiavelli had a far better grasp on politics than Socrates could ever hope for.
Yeah, it does kind of depend on recognizing and stopping the threat before it has an iron grip on your throat.
I don't think it's fair to compare modern politics to the kind of politics that Socrates was exposed to during his life. It was an entirely different theater. In fact, I think it would be pretty easy to argue that Socrates foresaw these kinds of tactics potentially being used for unjust reasons, but they had not been used to the same extent yet and if anything he was harkening for that which was to come and simply unable to imagine the atrocities that would be devised of more than a millennia after his death.
No ubiquitous surveillance, rapid mass communications, or weapons of mass destruction, for certain.
But the Greeks certainly weren't strangers to rhetorical tactics. Socrates' observations about the long-term outcomes of pure self-interest, promoting tyranny, appeals to emotion, dishonesty, vengefulness, and so on, are not bad as a revision of Stone's "wisdom".
Not only that but the level of deception going on today is not something I think he could have possibly foresaw. The way information is presented and consumed by society is massively different than it was during Socrates's time.
I think it's unfair to say that Machiavelli was better at politics than Socrates and I also think it's unfair to compare modern rises of tyranny to Socrates' thinking as the examples only exist because of how society and technology have evolved since his time.
In Ancient Greece, if you were seriously dishonest, you could be damaged in ways directly detrimental to your survival. Greeks had capital punishment or banishment as punishments for most infractions, including calumny, slander, or other moral conduct unbefitting a person of honor and integrity.
So, yes, Socrates was operating in a completely different milieu - he got executed for "corrupting the youth" and impiety. Neither was he a fan of democracy, at least as practiced by the Athenians; he had a friendly relationship with Critias, the leader of the Thirty Tyrants, as a former pupil.
It's not a perfect article, but it reflects on neo-Stoicism more than politics, I think.
Absolutely, I've had no issue with your statements either, I was mainly replying to what vakieh stated.
It's not a dig at Socrates, except at the idea that his beliefs are relevant today. Fairness doesn't enter the discussion at all, reality isn't fair (which of course was one of Machiavelli's main points).