Quote:... Capitol Police Officers fired on unsuspecting Trump supporters without warning and killed three Trump supporters through violence. A fourth Trump supporter died that day from a heart attack. ...
That sort of feeds right into a psychological operation I've been working up for use over the coming year of elections.
The basic premise is to use a tactic I used successfully over several years at ATS. it's real simple. Just hold their feet to the fire and make them prove their allegations and assertions. To do it successfully, a couple of things MUST be observed. 1) Don't get combative. Combativeness puts your opponent on the alert and increases their own combative response. That's not productive, as it will solidify them in their error as they start thinking they must have hit a nerve in order to make you so combative. That just gives them a positive feedback loop for their erroneous beliefs. 2) Know your stuff. Be ready yourself to prove any and all assertions you make. If you can't support what you are saying, no one is going to believe you... and that makes the whole movement look bad, like a bunch of loons.
You have to be able to support your own contentions because you are going to maneuver your opponents into a space where they are unable to support theirs. If you can't prove your own, then no one wins, and everyone looks like they don't know what they are talking about. Observers will just turn both of you off, and go turn their TV on.
This is where the above quote comes in: the assertion is made that 3 protestors were killed by Capitol Police that day. I only know of ONE, Ashley Babbit. Who were the other two? To make the article effective, the writer of it would had to have specified just who all 3 of them were and the circumstances of their death, rather than just make a nebulous claim that "3 were killed".
Conversely, the opposition is constantly making the claim that Sicknick was killed on Jan 6 by the "protestors", or what they call "insurrectionists". Folks on Team Freedom MUST be ready with facts when that assertion comes up, to counter it. They must be aware that Sicknick did not die that day, but later, and the Coroner's report specified that he died from stroke rather than any violence of that day.
That's how you win - by being sure and specific of YOUR facts while maneuvering your opponent into a position where they have to defend their claims with specifics. Works like a charm, every time. Remember, you are not looking to change their mind - although that may happen - you are looking to influence the thoughts of any observers of the debate. THEY are really your target audience.
So here's the general plan of the psychological operation, for anyone else that may want to participate. It's not a secret, hidden, or exclusive thing - anyone can join in!
First, you have to pick your target. People who are excitable and can be led into not thinking things through, are the best choice. They are the easiest to wrap up into a ball of unthinking nerves. Fortunately, almost ALL of the people on the Left, who will be your pool of opponents to choose from, fit that description. On the other side of the coin, YOU have to avoid being led into not thinking, or else YOU get rolled up into a ball of unthinking nerves. This is why remaining calm whatever they say is so imperative. You have to at least appear to be unshakeable, unflappable. Observers will notice who is getting agitated, and will credit that to uncertainty, being wrong.
Next, you assess their most likely avenue of attack, which claims they are going to try to hammer home without having to provide any evidence. For this example, I'll use the often made assertion that "Trump is an Authoritarian". You just maneuver them into making that claim, then FORCE THEM TO PROVE IT WITH SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. I'm not going to tell you how to nudge them into making that claim. They are already predisposed to make it, so it should not be difficult. Be creative. if I told you exactly how to do it, after two or three times the rest would be on the alert, and whatever I said would no longer work.
So, be creative.
Then you lull them by saying something like "I don't much care for Trump, either. He was making all those mean tweets when he should have been using that time to do the People's Business." Now in my case, that comes easily, because I happen to believe that statement is true. Then you follow up with something like "However, I'm not so sure he's smart enough to be very Authoritarian. What makes you say that, that he's authoritarian? What specifically has he done to lead you to that conclusion?" They will likely have some response to that, which you will have to be ready to counter, but counter nicely... NOT combatively. If they see you getting combative, they'll think they have you on the ropes and move in for the kill. Not to mention that any observers (your real audience), will lose interest because they will see a combative reaction as an admission of failure on a subconscious level, too.
So, be ready to counter those claims - nicely! - to get them out of the way to move on with your own attack.
Once you have disposed of those claims, start asking specifics that are generally agreed to be totalitarian or authoritarian dick moves. Questions like "But who among his political opponents did Trump try to jail?" Hold their feet to the fire. MAKE them come up with an answer, even if it's just an admission of "well... I don't know any specifically..." Do not move on from one question to the next, no matter how hard they try to move on or change the subject, until you have forced them to make an answer. Pin them down to that question until they have answered it or admitted that they can't.
Other good questions are things like "Well, who did Trump have jailed without due process?" They won't be able to answer that, either, but the connection to the J6 protestors will immediately be apparent to most people... and it was not the Trump administration that had those folks jailed. Another might be "Who did Trump try to force into involuntary medical experimentation?" What you are doing is pointing out Authoritarian things the BidenHarris regime has done, pointing to their authoritarianism, while appearing to ask for specifics on Trumps alleged Authoritarianism.
The farther you get into this line or reasoning, the less and less your opponent will actually be able to think. There will come a point when everyone watching, including themselves, realize just who the actual authoritarian is, whether they will admit it or not.
This is just one example. This operation can be conducted against just about every claim the authoritarian Left is making against the allegedly "extremist" Right. Your goal is to take whatever they say and point out that it's really the Left doing it, while trying to project it upon the Right and smear them with it.
Try it, you'll like it! It's fun!
AND you'll be doing a service to your country, assisting in extracting it from the talons of the Marxist leftists!
.