How to Talk Right - Lesson #1 The Right Vocabulary

[Joel W.]

After dealing with some people here recently in OT, I started to notice some trends happening that I could not explain.. I had to search a bit for answers and I believe I hit the "booty jackpot"....It explains everything that I have been dealing with, from a few people here (you know who you are). :3d_frown:

These are directions from Newt Gingrich’s famous memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.” It teaches us the best ways to talk like a right wing conservitive republican and "how to" manipulate politics and people you know to get what you want, even if your wrong!.

This is truely some of the most evil shit I have ever read.:icon_evil

I know your secrets now guys......:evil2:

How to Talk Right - Lesson #1


The Rhetoric of the Right – Lessons in Rhetorical Hocus Pocus
Lesson #1: The Right Vocabulary

To talk right, you will need to reshape your vocabulary. Don’t worry, you won’t be required to learn any multisyllabic like multisyllabic. Talking right involves a simple, straight-forward vocabulary.

The first rule of the right vocabulary is to reduce everything to two sides: us and them, right and wrong, good and bad. We begin to learn the right way of talking by looking at one of the most important documents in the history of right America: Newt Gingrich’s famous memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.”

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media.

The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.While the list could be the size of the latest "College Edition" dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Positive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.

Please let us know if you have any other suggestions or additions. We would also like to know how you use the list. Call us at GOPAC or write with your suggestions and comments. We may include them in the next tape mailing so that others can benefit from your knowledge and experience.
http://gopac.org/index.php

Optimistic Positive Governing Words: (for replublicans)

Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!

active(ly) / activist / building / candid(ly) / care(ing) / challenge / change / children / choice / choose / citizen / commitment / common / sense / compete / confident / conflict / control / courage / crusade / debate / dream / duty / eliminate good-time in prison /empower(ment) / fair / family / freedom / hard work / help / humane / incentive / initiative / lead / learn / legacy / liberty / light / listen / mobilize / moral / movement / opportunity / passionate / peace / pioneer / precious / premise / preserve / principle(d) / pristine / pro- (issue): flag, children, environment, reform / prosperity / protect / proud / pride / provide / reform / rights / share / strength / success / tough / truth / unique / vision / we/usour


Contrasting Words (for anyone who disagrees with you)


Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.


abuse of power / anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs / betray / bizarre / bosses / bureaucracy / cheat / coercion / "compassion" is not enough / collapse(ing) / consequences / corrupt / corruption / criminal rights / crisis / cynicism / decay / deeper / destroy / destructive / devour / disgrace / endanger / elite / excuses / failure (fail) / greed / hypocrisy / ideological / impose / incompetent / insecure / insensitive / intolerant / liberal / lie / limit(s) / machine / mandate(s) / obsolete / pathetic / patronage / permissive attitude / pessimistic / punish (poor ...) / radical / red tape / self-serving / selfish / sensationalists / shallow / shame / sick / spend(ing) / stagnation / status quo / steal / taxes / they/them / threaten / traitors / unionized / urgent (cy) / waste / welfare...

The beauty of Gingrich’s memo is it reduces vocabulary down to us and them (note, for example, that one of Gingrich’s words for the opposition is “they&#8221. We are helpful, committed and confident, proudly protecting the prosperity of the family. Everyone else is intolerant, cynical hypocrites, making excuses for the waste and corruption they threaten to impose on us.

See how easy it is? No need to waste time examining the complexity of an issue. No reason to waste energy negotiating or evaluating the intricacies of numerous options. Use the right vocabulary and American life instantly becomes a matter of the right way and everyone else’s way. What could be simpler?


IMPORTANT POINT 1: Reduce Everything to Us or Them

Say everything as if there are only two sides to the issue. Never acknowledge a third possibility. That will only confuse people and make it more difficult for you to reap the rewards of your new life on the right.

Consider the following examples:

The Other Side The Right Side

Theory of Evolution Intelligent Design
Women’s Rights The Family
Environmental Protection Free Enterprise
Terrorism Democracy
Baby Killers Pro Life
Atheist Christian
Evil Doers Americans
Science Truth
Liberal Conservative

Keep in mind that right-talking people do not have to justify their positions, so it does not matter how many positions there actually are or if the right side is even in the same category as the other side. State everything as either/or eliminates the need for proof.

Consider our first example above. In a non-right-talking world, people might point out that Intelligent Design has no scientific research associated with it, has no published scholarly papers, and has no relationship to the scientific method. Likewise, Darwin and his Theory of Evolution, which have hundreds of published, refereed research papers appearing in the top scientific journals has nothing to do with whether there is or is not a God. None of this matters when you talk right.

By talking about them as if they oppose one another, you automatically create that opposition. Thus, to believe in evolution is to deny God, and to believe in God, one must reject evolution. The way you phrase your language makes the notion that someone could believe in God and evolution at the same time or to believe that evolution may have been God’s way of creating the universe impossible for most people to conceive.

By the same standard, you can’t be for women’s rights and for the family or for the truth and pro-science. When you master right-talking, you will be able to get people to accept everything from the right column by accepting one item on the right column. Thus, to be “liberal” is to be an un-American, pro-terrorist, baby-killing atheist who evolved from a monkey. To be a “conservative” is to be a pro-democracy, American, who promotes life and free enterprise in the pursuit of truth.

Neat, huh?

 

[Joel W.]

The most powerful element of this type of binary language is that you can add anything to the right column once you have people on your side. Want assault-weapons in the hands of minors? Tax breaks for industries that pollute the environment? More mercury in the water supply? Want to revoke civil rights? Side-step the Bill of Rights? Just add them to the right column and everyone will automatically step up in your defense. After all, that’s what you would expect from a Christian-American who cares about his or her family to do in a democracy.

The Most Powerful Words in the Right Vocabulary

As you first begin to reshape your vocabulary, you must be careful. Talking right is deceptively easy, but it is also possible to make errors. For example, to say someone is “committed” is not the same as saying they are “committable.” So, be careful.
Fortunately there are a number of key words that you begin using right away.

Un-American

If you are an American, then “un-American” means anything that or anyone who is not us. Any idea that you do not agree with can automatically be called “un-American” without danger of being challenged, because anyone challenging you would automatically risk being considered un-American. This is a very useful word that can be used to counter any attack on your position, no matter how well-reasoned that attack may be. Our right-talking president and his right-talking administration have been extremely effective in employing this term. In the past few years all of the following strategies have been successfully deployed:

To disagree with the president is un-American.
To oppose the president’s decision to invade Iraq is un-American.
To point out flaws in the administration’s intelligence reports is un-American.
To ask the president or his administration to provide evidence for their claims is un-American.
To question the president’s war record is un-American.
To insist on a separation of church and state is un-American.
To advocate gun control is un-American.
To ask where the money went is un-American
To question why the president has spent 20 percent of his term in office on vacation is un-American.
To show photographs of coffins containing soldiers who died removing weapons of mass destruction from a country that had no weapons of mass destruction is un-American.
To go back and quote what the administration said before is un-American.
To call for the firing of a right-talking senior advisor just because he revealed the name of a CIA operative in a right-talking effort to squash opposition to the right wing is un-American (even if the president once said he would fire anyone caught compromising the integrity of the United States).
To point of pork in bills is un-American.
To refuse to vote for bills the administration wants is un-American.
To use political ploys to undermine what the administration wants is un-American.
To claim that causing the death of tens-of-thousands of people in order to remove weapons of mass destruction from a country that had no weapons of mass destruction is possibly a misguided enterprise is un-American.

Note that “un-American” automatically sets up the us/them binary that is so crucial to talking right, making the term doubly effective. No self-respecting American can side with an idea that is “un-American.” Furthermore, that which is “un-American” would not be subject to any American protections, so you don’t have to worry about civil rights or protections granted under the constitution or any of those messy notions about fair treatment under the law.

Clever, huh?

 

[Joel W.]

Terrorist

“Terrorist” is another powerful us/them word that reduces all issues down to two sides. Originally, it was coined to refer to the Jacobins during the French Revolution (so you have something to thank the French for, but don’t ever admit that publicly, as other right-talking people have already established that the French are un-American.). The Jacobins (in case you skipped your history classes), were responsible for the “Reign of Terror.” The earliest reference dates to 1795 when the Jacobins were called “terrorists” for the “cruel and impolitic maxim of keeping the people in implicit subjection by a merciless severity” (OED). The term also referred to “any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation” (OED).

At this point, you may be asking yourself, but isn’t coercive intimidation one of the primary strategies of right-talking? Isn’t the whole point of using the rhetoric of the right to force others to agree with you on all points by aligning unrelated issues to their self-definition as loyal Americans or good Christians? Isn’t that why part of the right rhetoric is to make claims such as showing pictures of flag-covered coffins of dead soldiers will weaken the moral of our soldiers, when we all know that if our soldiers’ moral is going to be weakened, it will probably be weakened by actually seeing their fellow soldiers blown to bits?
This is true, but be careful. Pointing this out is un-American and could mark you as a pro-terrorist liberal. As a right-talker, you need to remember the following:

IMPORTANT POINT 2: Ignore Irony

Say everything as if there is no such thing as irony. Remember, most people can’t define “irony” anyway, so when you talk right, you can ignore inconvenient ironies, and are free to talk about western history’s greatest pacifist and champion of the poor (I’m referring here to Jesus of Nazareth, in case you haven’t gotten around to reading your Bible yet) as a pro-war advocate of big business.

Nowadays, you are free to call anyone or anything a terrorist. If Education Secretary Rod Paige can call the National Education Association a “terrorist organization,” you can call anyone who disagrees with you (or bothers you with troublesome facts) a terrorist and you can label any organization that promotes anything you don’t agree with (or calls for open debate of troublesome facts) a “terrorist organization.”
Sometimes you will want to soften the term. For example, you may be talking about a war hero, a member of Congress, or the grieving mother of a marine killed in action. In these cases, it might work against you to directly call them terrorists. But fret not, you are still free to say that their actions or comments “give comfort to the terrorists.” This is a clever way of associating them with “terrorists” without having to directly call them terrorists.


Liberal

Other right-talkers have already paved the way for you to use the term “liberal” as a pejorative. The Oxford English Dictionary defines liberal in the following ways:

Liberal, a and n. Originally a distinctive epithet of those ‘arts’ or ‘sciences’ that were considered ‘worthy of a free man.’

Pertaining to or suitable to persons of superior social station.

Free in bestowing; bountiful, generous, open-hearted.

Abundant, ample.

Free in speech or action. Free of restraint.

Free from narrow prejudice; open-minded, candid.

Free from bigotry or unreasonable prejudice in favour of traditional opinions or established institutions; open to the reception of new ideas or proposals of reform.

Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy.

None of these definitions serve the right agenda. The only definition we can be concerned with as right-talkers is “opposed to Conservative” (OED).

 

[Joel W.]

IMPORTANT POINT 3: Right-Talking is a Team Sport

Talk about everything as if you are discussing a team sport with only two teams. A person is either for or against your team. If they are against your team, they must be for the other team. If you are able to slander the other team, then your team is automatically elevated to the winning position. This, it is important to remember, is the basis of the two party system. This is why Ralph Nader was not included in the presidential debates. If voters have three (or more) voices to contend with, then they will actually have to consider the issues. Much better to simply have people root for your team than to actually weigh options or shift loyalties from game to game depending on how well your team plays.

For right-talkers, the term “liberal” needs to be a condemnation of character. To be “liberal” is to be morally-decrepit, atheistic, evil, pro-terrorist, sissy. Now, you may be asking yourself, But how can I use the term “liberal” as a slur if it’s definition is clearly positive?
Again, this is the beauty of right talking. Almost no one bothers to open dictionaries to find out what words actually mean, and even if they did, you could simply claim that the Oxford English Dictionary is propaganda designed to promote the pro-terrorist agenda of liberals.

IMPORTANT POINT 4: Don’t let facts get in your way. Most people don’t know the facts anyway, and very few people will actually take the time to look the facts up. Those that do can be dismissed as Godless liberals.

For example:

Fact: Bush and his administration inherited a 900 billion dollar surplus when they took office in 2000. As of February 2005, there was a 427 billion dollar deficit.

Right-talking: The administration’s hard work is helping to reduce the deficit.

Note: The fact that the deficit was created while the Bush administration was in power can be safely ignored.

Fact: The national debt when Bush and his administration took office in 2000 was $5,674,178,209,886 and declining. As of March 13, 2005 it was $7,758,005,018,719 (a 36.7% increase) and increasing.

Right-talking: The administration’s hard work is helping to curtail the rising debt.

Note: The fact that the debt is a direct byproduct of the Administration’s policies can be safely ignored. When in doubt, you can also blame the terrorists, and whenever possible, mention 9/11 (hardly anyone remembers that it was primarily Saudis that attacked us anyway).

Other Facts You Can Safely Ignore:

Fact: The poverty rate in America was 11.8% in 2000 and increased every year that the Bush administration has been in office, rising to 12.5% in 2003.

Fact: Unemployment rose from 4% when the Bush administration took office to 5.4% by February 2005.

Fact: The price of oil was $35 when the Bush administration took office, by August 2005 it had risen to $66 dollars a barrel.

Fact: The trade deficit when the Bush administration took office in 2000 was $370 billion; by 2004 the deficit was over $672 billion and rising.

Fact: Prior to the Bush administration’s plan to invade Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Iraq had been directly responsible for the deaths of no Americans, no Iraqis were involved in 9/11 (or any other attack on America) and Iraq had no strategic relationship with al Quaeda.

Fact: Since the Bush administration started putting an end to terrorism, terrorist attacks in the world have increased from 175 in 2003 to 655 in 2004 (and rising).

All of these facts can (and should) be avoided if you are to begin talking right. If someone brings them up, call them un-American, claim they are ignoring all the positive accomplishments of the Bush administration (don’t worry, you won’t be asked for any facts), claim they are pandering to the liberal agenda and/or giving comfort to the terrorists.

Remember, right-talking is a team sport. You’re team can be #1 even if they lose every game. What is important is that you fill the stadium with screaming fans.


Any of this sound familiar yet guys??

You are exposed now..

 

[kwnate]

I'm not reading all that, sorry.

 

[Troyota]

Yeah...I'll have to tackle that one when I'm far more bored.

 

[Nick M]

That has to be one of the more slanted threads I have read in a long time. It is what it preposes to beat.

So Al-Queda stepped up attacks because we responded to them? Then again, violent criminals in the US do the same thing.

And don't worry, I will gladly debunk all those not so facts posted. The rest is pointless.

How about we were in "Clintons economy" until 2003. Ouch.

 

[chopstickz]

BOOM CLAPS! It's our culture

 

[Joel W.]

That has to be one of the slanted threads I have read in a long time. It is what it preposes to beat.

So Al-Queda stepped up attacks because we responded to them? Then again, violent criminals in the US do the same thing.

And don't worry, I will gladly debunk all those not so facts posted. The rest is pointless.

How about we were in "Clintons economy" until 2003. Ouch.

Here is the link, It is all cut and paist..(from a republicans site)
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:VMdB10kGnMIJ:www.docboon.blogspot.com/+%22Talking+right%22+%22list+of+words%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=18

Try to discredit it all you want.. The words used in here prove it to be true.

 

[JustAnotherVictim]

Wat iz dis shiznit??


:icon_razz

 

[Joel W.]

Wat iz dis shiznit??


:icon_razz

Read it ... It is (was) a secret...

 

[Nick M]

Here is the link. The US census is not complete for 04, but up through 03 it is. Poverty has been on the rise in the US since 1998. Deal with it.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

Page 17 of 177.

 

[Joel W.]

They are examples of "how to" manipulate the facts by republicans... Nick...:icon_razz


The LEE's are on to ya... (well, I am anyways)

IMPORTANT POINT 4: Don’t let facts get in your way. Most people don’t know the facts anyway, and very few people will actually take the time to look the facts up. Those that do can be dismissed as Godless liberals.

<--- Godless Liberal

 

[Joel W.]

ROTFLMAO at anyone who belives anything spouted by the LEE's. (They have agendas about curbing your personal freedom that goes way beyond MMGW, and they are just using this hype to scare you into "thinking green" so you can worship mother nature, become godless, and vote for them in the next election.) Now there's a prediction that I'll stand by. It's not working. The liberals want to ignore terrorism, stick our heads in the sand about real evils, and concentrate on vapor and smoke (litteraly) while the rest of the world builds up for the next global war that will make WWII look like a peace convention.

If your not proud to be on the side of freedom, your a fucking pussy, and you don't deserve to live in in this great country in my book. Your as worthless as militant Islam. (I don't know of any Islam that is not militant, so pretty much I think anyone who is muslem and supports terrorism, or Anti American ideas is the enemy. Plain and simple.)

This is the kind crap I am referring to...

 

[JustAnotherVictim]

Who is this LEE?

 

[Joel W.]

Who is this LEE?

Lee means Liberal Elite Enviromentalist (Adjusters word)

 

[Facime]

The LEE's are on to ya... (well, I am anyways)

IMPORTANT POINT 4: Don’t let facts get in your way. Most people don’t know the facts anyway, and very few people will actually take the time to look the facts up. Those that do can be dismissed as Godless liberals.

<--- Godless Liberal

:withstupi ::salute::

 

[Nick M]

Where are you coming up with your posts lately? Moveon.org? I watch the nightly news. I already know what the left thinks.

And liberal and conservative in the political sense have nothing to do with dictionary or other terms. And the author knows it.

If liberal wasn't a bad word, Democrats would hide from it and call themselves enlightened, progressive, reformed or any other term they use to hide what they are. Left wing idealogs want control of the economy, instead of the control being by the person who owns his business.


Take the presidents tax cuts. They are a good thing. His spending is not. The left complains of deficits, and in the same breath complain that he did not offer enough social aid to every derelict with out a job, or no job skills.

Back to the tax cuts. The US economy has been for the most part on the up and up since 1983, from Reagans tax cuts. The current round of cuts was to lower the top thresholds the Clinton administration put into effect. They were phased in starting in 2003. A stalled economy starting in 2000 was the reason for the loss of the surplus.

Lie: Bush and his administration inherited a 900 billion dollar surplus when they took office in 2000. As of February 2005, there was a 427 billion dollar deficit.

Real fact, the Bush administration took office in 2001. And the tax cuts were phased in during 2003, after being passed in 2002. The suprlus came from Newt Gingrich not engaging in deficit spending, as he said in his Contract with America.

spin: The national debt when Bush and his administration took office in 2000 was $5,674,178,209,886 and declining. As of March 13, 2005 it was $7,758,005,018,719 (a 36.7% increase) and increasing.

War or no war, he spends to much, and the Congress that lets him should go. But the stalled economy is just as much to blame.

spin: The poverty rate in America was 11.8% in 2000 and increased every year that the Bush administration has been in office, rising to 12.5% in 2003.

Once again, the Bush administration took office in 2001. Poverty has been on the rise in the US since 1998. Besides, the government is not your mommy and daddy. Go to Cuba or China if that is what you want.

spin: Unemployment rose from 4% when the Bush administration took office to 5.4% by February 2005.

Unemployment rose to 6.5% under Clintons economy.

Fact: The price of oil was $35 when the Bush administration took office, by August 2005 it had risen to $66 dollars a barrel.

Bomb China and India? Oil in 1980 dollars was as high as $44 a barrell, or $80 in todays dollars. We are getting close to what it should be by simple inflation. And it sucks.

spin; The trade deficit when the Bush administration took office in 2000 was $370 billion; by 2004 the deficit was over $672 billion and rising.

How can we be buy so much if the economy is so poor as the author implies? I don't give a damn how many imports American cosumers buy.

Lie: Prior to the Bush administration’s plan to invade Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Iraq had been directly responsible for the deaths of no Americans, no Iraqis were involved in 9/11 (or any other attack on America) and Iraq had no strategic relationship with al Quaeda.

While it is true that Hussein had no plan on 9-11, the administration never said it did. And the idea that he never put an attack on the US is comic releif at best. Bubba should have nuked his ass the first time he shot at our planes in the neutral zone. But he was busy with important things like getting RU for 86'ing people pill passed.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests.

And the administrations policy on the evenst,

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

Fact: Since the Bush administration started putting an end to terrorism, terrorist attacks in the world have increased from 175 in 2003 to 655 in 2004 (and rising).

Since the Bush administration put an end to terrorist attacks, NONE HAVE OCCURED IN THE US SINCE 9-11, DESPITE THE MASSIVE INCREASE IN ATTACKS EVERYWHERE ELSE.

I appreciate the big fat softball.

 

[Joel W.]

:withstupi::salute::

LMAO...:evil2:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to theWeezL again.

 

[JustAnotherVictim]

Lee means Liberal Elite Enviromentalist (Adjusters word)

Ahhh