One of the favorite persuading devices these people use to manipulate
the credulous is to accuse X of Y. If X ignores the accusation, they
then claim that this means that X is guilty and is hoping the whole thing
will go away if (s)he ignores it, and then appoint themselves as the
white knights wielding the blazing sword of interminably repeated
Goebbels-istic 'truth' amd pledge to make SURE it never goes away. If,
on the other hand, a denial is issued, they equally claim that this means
that X is guilty, for only those guilty of committing the crime would
bother to deny its accusation lodged against them. By such a means
they endeavor to morph an accusation into a connection, whether or not
one does indeed exist, and regardless of the existence or non- of a
denial from the accused party. It reminds me of a suggestion that LBJ
had, early in his political carreer, for his campaign director when he
found himself embroiled in a tight race for state senator. He suggested
that the rumor be surreptitiously disseminated that his opponent, who
owned a large pig farm, was fond of occasional sexual congress with
his charges. "But Lyndon", the campaign director objected, "we can't
just go out there and accuse him of being a pig-fucker!" "No", came the
answer, "let's just get the sonofabitch to DENY it!"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:21 MDT