(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/16/2007)
I think the writers for the St. Petersburg Times (in Florida) have
been reading my "Tyrant" book. I can't resist using a recent
article on Ron Paul as a prime example of how tyrants use
propaganda to control what people think, and what people do. First,
here is the link for the article:http://tinyurl.com/3yrjuy
Let's consider some of the tyrant tricks used in that "story." I'll
simply include a few clips from the story, along with excerpts from
my book, "How To Be a Successful Tyrant." (Remember, the book is
written from the point of view of telling people how to be tyrants.)
1) First, the pieces is disguised as a "news story," written by an
>From my book: "Almost as important as getting your message out is
getting it out in such a way as to give the impression that the
message is not coming from you. ... In this way, your message,
delivered to the masses via someone perceived as an independent
thinker, can get mass support for your agenda, without it looking
as if you were the one pushing for more power. ... [O]ne of the
best ways to ensure that your subjects are getting a daily dose of
your indoctrination is to control the 'news' they are exposed to.
Of course, just reporting significant facts and occurrences
provides no opportunity for thought control, but deciding which
facts to mention, which facts to ignore, which 'facts' to make up,
and how to spin the facts, while throwing in opinion-shaping
messages disguised as 'reporting,' can give enormous control. The
skillful tyrant controls the message, not by blatant censorship and
state-owned media, but by more subtle means of 'influence.' ...
[I]f the media appears to [the public] to be a neutral and
objective 'free press,' your ability to control their thoughts and
beliefs will be enormous. ... Like any other business, 'the press'
can be controlled and manipulated without the use of open force.
If you can get people of like mind (i.e., elitists who think they
have every right to rule the 'unwashed masses') to hold the highest
positions at the newspapers, TV stations, etc., they will push your
agenda for you, without the need of a conscious conspiracy. ... In
any hierarchical organization, all you need to do is have an ally
at the top, and the underlings will naturally 'evolve' to match
your agenda. Think of it as 'trickle-down tyranny,' where those who
see eye to eye with the top dog will get promoted, will have job
security, etc., while those who see things differently will
naturally want to leave, or will get fired, or will at least get
2) The first time the article mentions Ron Paul, it describes him
as "a gaunt, grumpy, 10-term congressman." Later it mentions that
Dr. Paul has "personal wealth" of between 1.5 and 4 million dollars.
>From my book: "In addition to belittling the opinions of your
opponents, be sure also to frequently demonize those who hold those
opinions. The moment you question people's motives, they will
almost always shift to defending themselves instead of arguing
their original point."
3) The article says Ron Paul's speeches "resemble an economics
lecture, not graceful oratory."
>From my book: "If the average peasant has to choose between 'free
goodies for all!' (your message) and an academic explanation of the
long-term benefits of free market economics, he will almost always
choose free stuff. When the peasants view you as an all-powerful
Santa Claus, they will hate anyone who attempts to rid them of
their childish delusion. ... Your average public 'debate' (on any
subject) usually consists of a battle of personalities, with the
most arrogant, assertive, and condescending winning out, and the
timid and unsure (or even just polite) caving in. Actual substance,
proof and logic usually have very little to do with who 'wins.' It
is far easier to browbeat the peasants into agreeing with your
tyrannical plans (or at least refraining from speaking out against
them) than it is to present a rational argument for why they would
be better off enslaved by you than free (because no rational
argument supports such a claim)."
4) The article quotes one Republican (who ran against Ron Paul) as
saying that people are seeing Dr. Paul "for what he is now, and
they are alarmed," and quotes another saying that Dr. Paul is a
>From my book: "As mentioned before, you must demean and vilify
[your opponents] so that the rest of the peasants won't want to be
associated with them or even listen to their 'fringe extremist'
(anti-you) beliefs. Constantly characterize their ideas as absurd,
ridiculous, and even dangerous. ... Use whatever nasty stereotypes
and demonization tactics you must to make the group look
distasteful to the other peasants. Paint them as dangerous,
mentally unstable, paranoid and delusional."
5) The article then lists Ron Paul's supporters as "people who want
prostitution legalized, taxpayers who oppose paying taxes, a white
supremacist running for the Florida state House, and those who
think the Sept. 11 attacks were a government conspiracy." The
article also says that Ron Paul's "rugged honesty" is "endearing
him to a menagerie of political misfits and castoffs."
>From my book: "You can paint a detailed (though inaccurate) picture
of your opponents in such a way that no one wants to be associated
with them, and therefore no one wants to oppose you for fear of
being associated with the unpleasant stereotype that you
fabricated. ... The message should always be clear: 'You either
support my plans or you're a despicable low-life.'"
6) The article says that Ron Paul's views "have earned him a
cultlike following, particularly online."
>From my book: "Because people can express opinions anonymously [on
the internet], they can say what they really think without fear of
ostracism, and can see other, like-minded people saying the same
things. About all you can do is vilify the lot of them, and even
impugn the internet itself as the place where the wacko crazies
talk, as opposed to the sources of information you control, which
are where the informed, civilized people talk."
7) The article repeatedly pushes the idea that Ron Paul cannot
possibly win because he has no mainstream support, saying that he
is "what pundits always thought he would be--an also-ran," adding
that "History says he has no shot," and saying that Ron Paul should
be "a presidential afterthought by now."
>From my book: "If you can't dupe a majority of the people into
actually supporting your agenda, just lie about it: tell your
peasants that most people support your agenda. Make up or badly
distort 'poll' results. ... Unless they bother to do a poll of
their own, they will never know that you lied. ... People,
particularly the weak-minded, want to 'fit in' more than they want
to know the truth. If 100 peasants believe 'A,' but you can
convince each one of them that the other 99 believe 'B' instead,
very few will still publicly state A. And if only 10 dare to speak
out in favor of A, the other 90 will each assume that only ten
other people believe in A. Each will believe himself to be in the
minority, and will therefore censor himself, rather than risking
saying something he thinks is unpopular."
So, in summary, like a good tyrant mouthpiece, the "journalist"
pushed the points that Ron Paul is an unpleasant, fringe nutcase
whom only unsavory people would support, and that he has no real
support from "normal" people and so has no chance of winning.
Therefore, resistance is futile, so you should give up now. (That's
also what the leftist media said about the conservatives, just
before the 1994 "Republican Revolution," and then they feigned
surprise when it happened anyway.)
Now for the worst news: Most Americans fall for such idiotic
propaganda--hook, line, and sinker. They will follow what they
think is popular. "Popular opinion" is simply MANUFACTURED, and
then the braindead sheep follow along, proud to be "in the know,"
and in the mainstream. They eagerly "fit in," while advocating
their own enslavement. It's pathetic how well the same old tyrant
tricks still work on the unthinking public.
(P.S. No, I still don't advocate voting for anyone, including Ron
Paul. I still think it does more damage to legitimize "democracy"
by participating in it, than providing any possible benefit. The
term "wasted vote" is redundant.)
(P.P.S. In case you doubt the top-down, pro-tyranny agenda of
mainstream papers, the above article was in the same St. Petersburg
Times which was all set to run my "Please Prosecute Me" thing, as a
paid ad--for a lot of money--when the higher-ups intervened and
said it couldn't run. That even surprised the advertising guy at