Why is standing firm on what we know to be true so important? For the answer, I’d like to segue from our discussion of 2,000 MULES to this magnificent article by Michael Anton –- author and research fellow at Hillsdale College –- about the psychological techniques being used by the left to shut us down. If you’ve ever looked at a training manual for Critical Race Theory (or related course –- I have) and wondered how they get away with spreading such garbage, Anton’s piece provides an analysis.
Since we’re on the subject of 2,000 MULES, I thought it would be a good idea to take the points in Anton’s “Quick and Dirty Guide to Regime Propaganda” and explain, one by one, how these techniques are used to silence mention of election fraud. (You won’t be tested on the names of these techniques.)
1. THE LAW OF MERITED IMPOSSIBILITY. This is when leftists tell you, “Oh, what you’re worried about will NEVER happen,” and then when it does, tell you, “it will be for the best and you deserve it, anyway.” One example of this, to counter the right’s “slippery slope” concerns, might be, “Oh, just because men are able to self-identify as women, that doesn’t mean they’ll be exposing themselves in locker rooms! Goodness, that will NEVER happen.” And then, when it does, they say, “Now it’s the way it should be, and if you have a problem, deal with it because you’re homophobic.”
As I apply this to election fraud, it might start out with them saying, “Mail-in balloting will NEVER lead to fraud big enough to change elections!” Then, when you suspect it has, they say, “Hey, the important thing is to make every vote count and not disenfranchise any racial group, you racist.”
2. THE CELEBRATION PARALLAX. This is when the left cares only about the assumed intent of the speaker in deciding whether words are acceptable or not. For example, if you celebrate a particular point of view --- and you do have to celebrate it, loudly and proudly, not just tolerate it --- you can say, “Illegal immigration is transforming America demographically,” and that’s just fine, because you’re thrilled about it. But if you’re not thrilled, even just neutral, you’ll be called a racist for even bringing it up.
As I apply this to election fraud, your statement might be, “Those drop boxes are placed in Democrat strongholds in battleground states.” If you actively cheer the idea of mobilizing particular demographic groups, the left will say, “Right, because the people who live there have been historically marginalized and we have to do whatever we can to help their votes make a difference!” But if you don’t cheer this, or (worse) think it smacks of manipulation or even cheating, the same statement will be greeted by the left with some version of, “Not true; this is only to help marginalized people vote, and you’re a racist for suggesting it’s partisan.” I can hear Mark Elias saying that, can’t you?
Another example: Someone says, “It’s wrong to question the outcome of an election.” To a leftist, if this is said in reference to the 2020 election, it’s true, because Trump lost. But if it’s about 2016, it’s false, because Trump won. It’s all in the intent. Zero points for consistency.
3. THE LAW OF SALUTORY CONTRADICTION. (Like #1, but about the present instead of the future.) This is when the left essentially says, “That’s not happening and it’s good that it is.” Anton’s example: “Is the Biden administration putting illegal immigrants on planes and shipping them to the heartland? Absolutely not...and those future Nobel Prize winners deserve their shot at the American Dream!”
As I apply this to election fraud, it might go, “Did the left harvest votes in places that might swing the election away from Trump? Absolutely not...and our nation couldn’t have stood another four years of Trump!”
4. THE SMAILS EXHORTATION. That means any “democratic” outcome that conservatives want is automatically illegitimate, racist and fascist. Border wall? Racist and fascist! Law and order? Racist and fascist! Girls-only bathrooms? Transphobic! You’re just bad and don’t deserve to have it the way you want. As Anton puts it, “No matter is too small, too local, too private, or too inconsequential to escape their gaze and slip their punishment. Bake the cake, bigot.”
As I apply this to election fraud, this might go, “Too bad, red states. By whatever means necessary, we’re going to control enough states so that you will be powerless. You’re a bunch of racist ultra-MAGA people and don’t deserve power.”
5. THE LIE-BACK IMPERATIVE. This is a refinement of #4, to keep from unduly alarming and rousing conservatives and keep the frog in the pot of water as it comes to a boil. When they punch us, we grow conditioned to think of it –- and even acknowledge it –- as a massage. I see this as Advanced Brainwashing 201.
Example: When the left says, “You’re in this class because all white people have inherent racism, including you,” there’s pressure for you to reflexively respond, “Thank you for helping me see my inherent bias.” You become “the housebroken Right.” The goal: your self-censorship.
As I apply this to election fraud: They say, “You can’t discuss 2,000 MULES on your show because we don’t know if it’s true and, besides, we might get sued.” You feel the pressure and say, “Thanks for clarifying…...whatever you say, FOX News.”
6. THE ENMITY COUNTERACCUSATION. If you don’t respond as compliantly to their rhetoric as in #5, the left will have to “circle back” and smack you again. As in, “You don’t appreciate it when we call you evil because of your race? You are so divisive!”
Related point: if you warn that the left’s strategies will result in something bad, such as civil war, they’ll say, “Oh, so you want civil war! You domestic terrorist!”
I didn’t say this was logical.
As I apply this to election fraud: You say, “These changes to the election system will destroy faith in our democracy!” They say, “You can’t say that! You’re trying to destroy faith in our democracy! You insurrectionist!”
All of this is designed to twist your thinking and get you to say 2+2=5. Anton warns that the left hates conservatives and wants us canceled and ostracized, or at least obedient. The techniques he describes remind me of Stalinist Russia and also of Orwell’s 1984, which was, of course, inspired by Stalinist Russia.. Anton advises that to deal with the gaslighting, we must be able to think clearly, and that’s why he wrote this breakdown of their strategies as he sees them. I hope my specific application of them to the issue of election fraud is helpful, too.
Postscript: Victor Davis Hanson has some excellent columns warning of the societal changes the left is working tirelessly to bring about. Here’s a menu of recent selections, all highly recommended…