I can now dissect RW Speeches

[ck4829]

I downloaded a manual today which says how to make certain parts in your speeches so you can blame your enemies on something, rev up the crowd or convert people.

I thought to myself, maybe if I use this as a guide, maybe I can find out what people are really saying in speeches.

So I decided to try it out with a story by the leader of WorldNutDaily, Joe Farah.

Now if you know about Joe, what I say will not surprise you. If you don't know about him, prepare to have your socks blown off.

---------------

I seldom respond in this column to what other commentators write. In fact, truth be told, I seldom read other columnists. But, occasionally, I see something that cries out for response.

Such is the case of a New York Times column called "The real war," by Thomas L. Friedman.

It's worth a response for several reasons: Like it or not, the New York Times still has influence – at least in Washington, where, like it or not, public policy decisions for this great country are still made. What Friedman writes is so dangerous and so wrong-headed that someone with common sense needs to take it on. And, lastly, the New York Times will never allow anyone equal space to answer Friedman.

Friedman begins his column by explaining that the war we are fighting is not really against "terrorism" but an ideology – a point I have made repeatedly here since Sept. 11. But just as quickly as he states the obvious, he goes astray – wildly astray.

The ideology we are fighting, according to Friedman, is not Islamism; instead it is "religious totalitarianism."

(COMMUNICATION)What is "religious totalitarianism"?

It is, Friedman writes, "a view of the world that my faith must reign supreme and can be affirmed and held passionately only if all others are negated."(/COMMUNICATION)

He continues by explaining that the opposite of religious totalitarianism is pluralism. America, he and those he quotes, say America is the Mecca of that ideology – and that is why Osama bin Laden hates us so.

Of course, Friedman is dead wrong.

The ideology Friedman calls "pluralism" is actually a religious view more accurately called "secular humanism." (Prolepsis)It doesn't, as he suggests, "embrace religious diversity," but instead attempts to impose its own religious ideology on the world in the name of "pluralism." (/Prolepsis)

It is every bit as intolerant as bin Ladenism. Humanism does tend to embrace religious diversity unless it comes in the form of biblical Christianity or biblical Judaism. This "pluralism" Friedman and the New York Times worship is one of the reasons America was blindsided Sept. 11. It couldn't see the threat coming despite repeated warnings, despite declarations of holy war by bin Laden and others. This "pluralism," of which Friedman writes, will be the death of America – faster, swifter and more sure than anything bin Laden could ever deliver.

That's not to say it isn't great that America protects the right of every citizen to worship as he or she sees fit. That is true pluralism, not the official religion Friedman would impose on Americans. The true pluralism is a hand-me-down from American history. We are a nation founded by people seeking freedom of worship. They were fleeing state churches in Europe. They were true Christians following the Bible, not the "religious totalitarianism" of the state churches. That legacy provided the freedoms we have enjoyed for more than 200 years in this country.

*(1)Whether he realizes it or not, what Friedman actually did in his essay is declare war on Christianity – including the very biblical Christianity responsible for the true pluralistic society America established under the authorship of the founders. More specifically, he declared his own (antithesis)humanistic jihad(/antithesis) on Jesus Christ Himself.*(1)

By Friedman's definition, Christ would have to be characterized as a "religious totalitarian," because it was Christ who said in John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Jesus didn't say there were other ways to heaven – just one.

Friedman is also indicting Orthodox Judaism – and, this time, he does know it. He refers condescendingly to "fundamentalist Jews" who use their schools "to preach exclusivist religious visions." How dreadful! You see, for Friedman, the war we are fighting is not against terrorism, nor is it against Islamism. It is, rather, against all religious dogma that preaches an "exclusivist vision" – which is, of course, all of the major monotheistic faiths and a few others for good measure.

*(2)What he doesn't see so clearly, of course, is that his own phony pluralism is, in effect, as totalitarian, as exclusivist and as dangerous as bin Ladenism.*(2)

It (Pluralism) is, after all, the same humanist ideology responsible for the biggest holocausts of the 20th century – those brought on by the atheistic totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union, China and Nazi Germany.

(Concession)I know that's not what Friedman has in mind when he talks about his phony "pluralism" based on nothing but good vibes. But that's where it leads – inevitably, inexorably, inescapably.(/Concession)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25532

Notes
*(1)Joe Farah's intended audience is Christians

With the exception of the 'definition' of Jesus, Farah does not go into detail about 'Religious Totalitarianism' or even try to defend it

*(2)Farah says Pluralism is as big of a threat as Al Qaeda

Concession, which is a skillful way to concede something to the
adversary in order to better emphasize the inappropriate aspects of something

Communication is a way to ask and give the answer to the same
question.

Prolepsis is an anticipated refutation

-----

I believe Farah has a real Hatred towards Atheists, Muslims, and ideas of Interfaith groups, which has proven my suspicion all along. These people who lead the RW aren't just doing a show for the Public, they have real hatred in their hearts toward those who are different.

[calimary]

1. What's the title of the manual you downloaded?

Is it available? I'd love to see it. We need all the deconstruction tutorials we can get to start debunking the language of the wrongwing take-over of this country.

[ck4829]

2. It is the "PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS IN GUERRILLA WARFARE"

I love reading these manuals, I believe a way to fight the RW exists somewhere in them. I think I may have just found it.

Here is the part that is important

Devices-

Anaphora, or repetition of a word at the beginning of each sentence,
e.g., "Freedom for the poor, freedom for the rich, freedom for all." In the
reiteration, repetition is of a complete sentence (slogan) insistently
through the speech, e.g., "With God and patriotism we will overcome
Communism because...:

Conversion is the repetition at the end of every phrase, e.g.:
"Sandinismo tries to be about everyone, dominate everyone, command
everyone, and as an absolute tyranny, do away with everyone."

In the emphasis, repetition is used at the beginning and at the end of
the clause, e.g., "Who brought the Russian-Cuban intervention? The
Sandinistas. And who is engaged in arms trafficking with the neighboring
countries? The Sandinistas. And who is proclaiming to be in favor of
nonintervention? The Sandinistas."

Reduplication, when the phrase begins with the same word that ends the
previous one. For example: "We struggle for democracy, democracy and social
justice." The concatenation is a chain made up of duplications. For
example: "Communism transmits the deception of the child to the young man,
of the young man to the adult, and of the adult to the old man."

In the antithesis or word play, the same words are used with a
different meaning to give an ingenious effect: e.g., "The greatest wealth
of every human being is his own freedom, because slaves will always be poor
but we poor can have the wealth of our freedom."

Similar cadences, through the use of verbs of the same tense and
person, or nouns of the same number and case. For example: "Those of us who
are struggling we will be marching because he who perseveres achieves, and
he who gives up remains."

Use of synonyms, repetition of words with a similar meaning. For
example: "We demand a Nicaragua for all, without exceptions, without
omissions."

Among the figures of speech most used in oratory are:

Comparison or simile, which sets the relationship of similarity
between two or more beings or things. For example: "Because we love Christ,
we love his bishops and pastors," and "Free as a bird."

Antithesis, or the counterposition of words, ideas, or phrases of an
opposite meaning. For example: "They promised freedom and gave slavery;
that they would distribute the wealth and they have distributed poverty;
that they would bring peace, and they have brought about war."

Among the logic figures are the following:

Concession, which is a skillful way to concede something to the
adversary in order to better emphasize the inappropriate aspects, through
the use of expressions such as: but, however, although, nevertheless, in
spite of the fact that, etc. For example: "The mayor here has been honest,
but he is not the one controlling all the money of the nation." It is an
effective form of rebuttal when the opinion of the audience is not entirely
ours.

Permission, in which one apparently accedes to something, when in
reality it is rejected. For example: "Do not protest, but sabotage them."
"Talk quietly, but tell it to everyone."

Prolepsis is an anticipated refutation. For example: "Some will think
that they are only promises; they will say, others said the same thing, but
no. We are different, we are Christians, we consider God a witness to our
words."

Preterition is an artifice, pretending discretion when something is
said with total clarity and indiscretion. For example: "If I were not
obligated to keep military secrets, I would tell all of you of the large
amount of armaments that we have so that you would feel even more
confidence that our victory is assured."

Communication is a way to ask and give the answer to the same
question. For example: "If they show disrespect for the ministers of God,
will they respect us, simple citizens? Never."

Rhetorical questions are a way in which one shows perplexity or
inability to say something, only as an oratorical recourse. For example: "I
am only a peasant and can tell you little. I know little and I will not be
able to explain to you the complicated things of politics. Therefore, I
talk to you with my heart, with my simple peasant's heart, as we all are."

Litotes is a form of meaning a lot by saying little. For example: "The
nine commanders have stolen little, just the whole country."

Irony consists of getting across exactly the opposite of what one is
saying. For example: "The divine mobs that threaten and kill, they are
indeed Christians."

Amplification is presenting an idea from several angles. For example:
"Political votes are the power of the people in a democracy. And economic
votes are their power in the economy. Buying or not buying something, the
majorities decide what should be produced. For something to be produced or
to disappear. That is part of economic democracy."

The most usual plaintive figures of speech are:

Deprecation or entreaty to obtain something. For example: "Lord, free
us from the yoke. Give us freedom."

Imprecation or threat, expressing a sentiment in view of the unjust or
hopeless. For example: "Let there be a Homeland for all or let there be a
Homeland for no one."

Conmination, similar to the previous one, presents a bad wish for the
rest. For example, "Let them drown in the abyss of their own corruption."

The apostrophe consists of addressing oneself towards something
supernatural or inanimate as if it were a living being. For example:
"Mountains of Nicaragua, make the seed of freedom grow."

Interrogation consists of asking a question of oneself, to give
greater emphasis to what is expressed. It is different from communication,
since it gives the answer and is of a logical and not a plaintive nature.
For example: "If they have already injured the members of my family, my
friends, my peasant brothers, do I have any path other than brandishing a
weapon?"

Reticence consists of leaving a thought incomplete, intentionally, so
that mentally the audience completes it. For example, "They promised
political pluralism and gave totalitarianism. They promised political
pluralism and gave totalitarianism. They promised social justice, and they
have increased poverty. They offered freedom of thought, and they have
given censorship. Now, what they promise the world are free elections..."

[renegade000]

3. reminds me of my Latin poetry classes

;)

[Eloriel]

4. You keeping the link a secret for some reason?

You should have included it in your initial post. Why you haven't YET is beyond me. Of course, anyone sufficiently interested could at least google it from the title you (finally, by request) provided, I suppose. But they shouldn't have to.

[ck4829]

5. There is no link. I downloaded it from a P2P network

[ck4829]

6. If you want to have it. I suggest you do this

Download Shareaza, Kazaa, or any file sharing program.

This is a CIA Manual so I suggest you search for "CIA Manual"

You should find it

They are all declassified and you won't get any CIA agents knocking on your door for having them.