GG> MS>         (Funny how the worm turns. I got booted from PRN without
  > MS> explanation or warning for holding such views a couple of years ago.
  > MS> Now it appears that about half the folks there have
  > MS> discovered what I knew
  > MS> then,......................)
GG>Yeah, but it's what we learn after we know-it-all that counts.
        Exactly so.
GG>Just as an aside it's interesting to see all the Hollyweird types rushing
  >to the defence of Barbara Streisand over Charlton Heston. Barbara Walters
  >and that "The View" bunch were fit to be tied. So was Rosie O'Donnell...I
  >couldn't help overhearing it, my ears perked up when I heard NRA and my
GG>wife tapes the darned things every day and watches them at night.
        Those folks aren't going to be swayed by the facts and in fact
are going to be absolutely threatened by them. They're arguing from
aesethetic considerations, which brings up a point.
        One of the reasons that we're losing is that we're sticking to
the facts and as such are coming off like Jack Webb's Joe Friday. The
people that we're fighting against aren't.
        Hollywood's Fascisti, are in the business of getting people to
temporarily suspend their skepticism and passively sitting while having
their emotions manipulated while absorbing a prepackaged vicarious
experience. To people like Barbara Streisand, facts are an irrelevancy,
and unfortunately, to a large percentage of the undecided on this issue,
this attitude is shared.
        When Streisand declined to debate with Heston, this is the
reason for this. Her position is an asethetic one and facts such as what
we deal in don't have anything to do with the emotional "truth" that she
is trying hard to purvey. They play a game with emotions and aesethetics
and we try to respond with logic, closely reasoned legal arguement and
hard data. Neither has anything to do with each other.
        It's long been my contention that instead of sticking to the
facts, we should have had guys like John Milius making movies that are
intended to pull the same emotional strings and use the same
psychological mechanisms that our opponents are using. We should be
making movies about cute girls who got raped because some utterly odious
politician in a cop suit declined to approve a permit because he doesn't
trust law abiding citizens. The public should be made to see her,
before, during and after the incident and feel every bit of the pain
that such a person would feel. A vicarious experience is a substitute
for direct experience and all experiences have emotional impacts, and
that is something that we need to learn to exploit as our enemies have
done for over 30 years. We'd get much farther with this than with the
usual dry recitation of fact.
        Streisand and her fellow collectivists understand something that
we seem to be having a hard time with, and that is that most people,
particularly the undecided, make their decisions based on emotional
attitudes and not a review of logic and fact. We should be learning to
pull that particular chain ourselves instead of largely preaching to the
choir.
        The bottom line here is that we've been involved in an intense
media war for 30 years and in media wars, psyops predominates and in
that entire time we've failed to learn what the propagandists on the
other side know as first principles.
___
 X SLMR 2.1a X THE INVISIBLE WAR COLLEGE
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------