Psychological Warfare

[IM2L844]

I think one of the things that most Paul supporters have in common is their propensity to do their own research and fact checking. We, generally, don't automatically accept any of the talking heads points of view as defacto positions. Through our research we have found, sometimes to our amazement, that while Dr. Paul's common sense approach to problem solving may seem, on the surface, to be overly simplistic, the solutions to complex problems do not always have to be as complex as the problems themselves to be effective. There's the rub.

The general public has been conditioned to believe that the issues are far too complex for the average person to comprehend and it would all be best left to those people who make themselves sound smart by using the language of esoteric concepts.

Consequently, many people who hear Dr. Paul's ideas, that I get feedback from, are initially enthusiastic, but can't shake the feeling that things couldn't possibly be that simple even though they are.

Our biggest obstacle to overcome is getting those people who are not like us, with regard to enjoying research and fact checking, to understand that they are intentionally being misled without opening ourselves up to all the venomous rhetoric that usually accompanies going against the grain and exposing the liars and their pundits.

How can we get away from the "lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist" stigma that is always attached to truth tellers by the exponentially growing propagandist machinery? Follow Dr. Paul's lead and apply the K.I.S.S. principle.

In 2007-2008 I was never a big fan of the infomercial concept, but the more I have thought about it, the more I've come to believe it might be a useful "weapon of mass instruction" if properly executed. I'm thinking a slick and professional production of a Charlie Rose or Face the Nation style round table discussion with well know public figures infused with documentary style clips to more fully flesh out the details of Dr. Paul's Ideas and destroy the main talking points of his critics.

Does anyone else think this might be an avenue worth pursuing for the Super Pac or one of the talented individuals in this revolution?

Thoughts?

 

[Travlyr]

I think one of the things that most Paul supporters have in common is their propensity to do their own research and fact checking. We, generally, don't automatically accept any of the talking heads points of view as defacto positions. Through our research we have found, sometimes to our amazement, that while Dr. Paul's common sense approach to problem solving may seem, on the surface, to be overly simplistic, the solutions to complex problems do not always have to be as complex as the problems themselves to be effective. There's the rub.

The general public has been conditioned to believe that the issues are far too complex for the average person to comprehend and it would all be best left to those people who make themselves sound smart by using the language of esoteric concepts.

Consequently, many people who hear Dr. Paul's ideas, that I get feedback from, are initially enthusiastic, but can't shake the feeling that things couldn't possibly be that simple even though they are.

Our biggest obstacle to overcome is getting those people who are not like us, with regard to enjoying research and fact checking, to understand that they are intentionally being misled without opening ourselves up to all the venomous rhetoric that usually accompanies going against the grain and exposing the liars and their pundits.

How can we get away from the "lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist" stigma that is always attached to truth tellers by the exponentially growing propagandist machinery? Follow Dr. Paul's lead and apply the K.I.S.S. principle.

In 2007-2008 I was never a big fan of the infomercial concept, but the more I have thought about it, the more I've come to believe it might be a useful "weapon of mass instruction" if properly executed. I'm thinking a slick and professional production of a Charlie Rose or Face the Nation style round table discussion with well know public figures infused with documentary style clips to more fully flesh out the details of Dr. Paul's Ideas and destroy the main talking points of his critics.

Does anyone else think this might be an avenue worth pursuing for the Super Pac or one of the talented individuals in this revolution?

Thoughts?

I think you might be on to something here. Matt Damon actually used the words "far too complex" recently when referring to modern day problems in education.

There is nothing wrong with honesty, truth, integrity, real or freedom. It is time for dishonesty, lies, immorality, fiat and tyranny to die.

 

[IM2L844]

Thanks Travlyr, but I see this idea still isn't getting much traction.

Ron Paul faces 3 main problems. I don't really see them as problems, but he is constantly misrepresented in these areas.

1.) He is painted as not being a true Republican and it is constantly said that he should run on the Libertarian ticket. He is not a doctrinaire Libertarian. He needs to clarify his position as a modern paleoconservative who is sympathetic to the libertarian position. The term "Libertarian" over the years has been used as a derogatory epithet by the mainstream media and carries negative connotations for the average american. Regardless of the truth, the work of setting the record straight on libertarianism should not be allowed to bog down the campaign by constantly keeping it in a defensive mode. It may have been unrealized but, that was a huge identity problem last time around. The general public simply will not jump on the libertarian train. Period! If we want Ron Paul elected we are going to have to stop constantly pumping the libertarian moniker.

2.) It is constantly inferred that Ron Paul is an isolationist with an antiquated foreign policy agenda and silly economic ideas that simply are not workable in today's modern global economy. These topics will require a deeper explanation than can fit on a billboard, in a newspaper ad or a pamphlet or put in a 60 second commercial. The general public is not going to go out and buy his books to learn the truth (they don't like to read) and word of mouth isn't going to be received as authoritative. That's a fact.

3.) We can fully expect that as soon as Ron Paul starts getting some serious attention, the racist card is going to be pulled out again and it will flood the media and the internet.

If the right group of people are allowed to sit around a table and discuss these issues for a few hours I'm sure it could be edited down to a fantastic 1 hour or even a 30 minute format that would keep people's attention long enough to dispel the all the derogatory rhetoric and present the facts in a comprehensive and understandable way. Here's who I would like to see at the table:

Nobel Prize winner, political expert journalist / commentator: George Will as interviewer/moderator (tough questions welcome)

Of course Ron Paul

Panel of experts:

Former Comptroller General, Former Secretary of Commerce and Former head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO): David Walker

Black Economist and an expert on social ethnic issues: Thomas Sowell

Black Economist and an expert on social ethnic issues: Walter Williams

Economic Historian: Thomas Woods Jr.

Investment broker/CEO, author and financial commentator: Peter Schiff

Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and adjunct professor at Seton Hall University School of Law for 11 years: Andrew Paolo Napolitano

Christian Pastor and former presidential candidate for the Constitution Party: Chuck Baldwin

 

[DamianTV]

Thanks Travlyr, but I see this idea still isn't getting much traction.

Ron Paul faces 3 main problems. I don't really see them as problems, but he is constantly misrepresented in these areas.

1.) He is painted as not being a true Republican and it is constantly said that he should run on the Libertarian ticket. He is not a doctrinaire Libertarian. He needs to clarify his position as a modern paleoconservative who is sympathetic to the libertarian position. The term "Libertarian" over the years has been used as a derogatory epithet by the mainstream media and carries negative connotations for the average american. Regardless of the truth, the work of setting the record straight on libertarianism should not be allowed to bog down the campaign by constantly keeping it in a defensive mode. It may have been unrealized but, that was a huge identity problem last time around. The general public simply will not jump on the libertarian train. Period! If we want Ron Paul elected we are going to have to stop constantly pumping the libertarian moniker.

2.) It is constantly inferred that Ron Paul is an isolationist with an antiquated foreign policy agenda and silly economic ideas that simply are not workable in today's modern global economy. These topics will require a deeper explanation than can fit on a billboard, in a newspaper ad or a pamphlet or put in a 60 second commercial. The general public is not going to go out and buy his books to learn the truth (they don't like to read) and word of mouth isn't going to be received as authoritative. That's a fact.

3.) We can fully expect that as soon as Ron Paul starts getting some serious attention, the racist card is going to be pulled out again and it will flood the media and the internet.

If the right group of people are allowed to sit around a table and discuss these issues for a few hours I'm sure it could be edited down to a fantastic 1 hour or even a 30 minute format that would keep people's attention long enough to dispel the all the derogatory rhetoric and present the facts in a comprehensive and understandable way. Here's who I would like to see at the table:

Nobel Prize winner, political expert journalist / commentator: George Will as interviewer/moderator (tough questions welcome)

Of course Ron Paul

Panel of experts:

Former Comptroller General, Former Secretary of Commerce and Former head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO): David Walker

Black Economist and an expert on social ethnic issues: Thomas Sowell

Black Economist and an expert on social ethnic issues: Walter Williams

Economic Historian: Thomas Woods Jr.

Investment broker/CEO, author and financial commentator: Peter Schiff

Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and adjunct professor at Seton Hall University School of Law for 11 years: Andrew Paolo Napolitano

Christian Pastor and former presidential candidate for the Constitution Party: Chuck Baldwin

Ron Paul is probably the only True Republican that the Republican Party has had in the last 30 years.

Ron Paul is not an Isolationist. He is a Non Interventionist. As in, dont stick your nose where it doesnt belong. (Global Policy, not a personal attack on your statements)

Ron Paul is not a Racist.

Sure, that card might be played, but their biggest problem with him is that he doesnt have any dirt to be dug up. Thus, they have to essencially LIE and make stuff up. For example, pick a group of people. Any Group. Lets try the dorky D&D Players. Find some that support Ron Paul, and hit the air with a news story: "D&D Players for Ron Paul". Now what is said and what people percieve is totally different. Most people that hear that story will hear "Ron Paul supports D&D Dorks". Now, if instead of D&D Dorks, we replace it with a Racist Group that supports our favorite candidate, that will be the way that they mislabel Ron Paul as discriminating against those that are born different from the guy, and will be interpreted by a lot of people that way.

Truly, the biggest problem that we face isnt on any of these topics. It is the fact that the MSM refuses to acknowledge his existence at all. No News is worse than Bad News. Well, that is also my opinion.

 

[IM2L844]

I think you're exactly right, Damian. That is why I believe it is important to get these well respected, extraordinarily credentialed intellectuals making an incontrovertible and succinct case to the masses of people who feel disenfranchised as soon and as often as possible.