By David Masters
May 19, 2023
Consider a hypothetical scenario where the Devil is running for political office, in this context, it’s reasonable to assume that the Devil would employ manipulative tactics to appeal to people’s vulnerabilities and desires. However, the specific strategies or messages the Devil might use would depend on the political climate, cultural context, and the audience being targeted especially those that have been “Primed” over several generations to be susceptible to suggestion…
To be “primed” can have different meanings depending on the context. Here are a few common interpretations:
- Psychological Priming: In psychology, priming refers to the unconscious influence that a stimulus has on subsequent thoughts or behavior. When someone is primed, it means that they have been exposed to certain stimuli or cues that influence their perceptions, attitudes, or responses to subsequent stimuli. For example, if someone is primed with positive words before being shown a neutral image, they might perceive the image more positively compared to someone who was not primed.
- Marketing and Sales Priming: In marketing and sales, priming refers to the deliberate process of influencing a consumer’s perception or behavior before they encounter a product or service. This can involve creating positive associations, setting expectations, or providing subtle cues that predispose the consumer to respond in a particular way when they encounter the actual product or service.
- Cognitive Priming: In cognitive science, priming refers to the activation of specific concepts or ideas in memory, which can influence subsequent cognitive processes or judgments. This can occur through exposure to related words, images, or ideas that activate associated concepts, making them more accessible and likely to influence subsequent thoughts or decisions.
Overall, being “primed” typically implies the activation or preparation of certain mental or cognitive processes, either consciously or unconsciously, to influence subsequent behavior, perception, or performance.
Keeping Priming in mind, here are a few hypothetical approaches the Devil might take to win over supporters:
- Promising Immediate Satisfaction: The Devil might appeal to people’s desires for instant gratification, promising immediate solutions to complex problems. This could involve making grandiose promises, offering shortcuts to success, or advocating for policies that prioritize short-term gains over long-term consequences.
- Exploiting Fear and Division: The Devil might play on people’s fears and insecurities, emphasizing a narrative of “us versus them.” By scapegoating specific groups or promoting a sense of impending doom, the Devil could attempt to stoke divisions and rally support through fearmongering.
- Manipulating Emotions: The Devil might employ emotional manipulation to tap into people’s deepest desires and frustrations. By appealing to emotions such as anger, resentment, or vengeance, the Devil could try to mobilize support and create a sense of solidarity among like-minded individuals.
- Distorting Facts and Spreading Disinformation: The Devil might engage in misinformation campaigns, spreading false narratives or distorting facts to confuse and mislead the public. This could involve exploiting existing biases or exploiting the media to disseminate misleading information.
- Promoting Self-Interest: The Devil might encourage a self-centered mentality, appealing to individual interests over collective well-being. This could involve promoting policies that prioritize personal wealth and power, disregarding the needs of marginalized communities or the greater good.
Without question, It is true that individuals can be influenced or manipulated in various ways that may lead them to make choices that could have negative consequences. Factors such as misinformation, propaganda, emotional appeals, and cognitive biases can all play a role in shaping people’s decision-making processes.
It’s essential to recognize that the responsibility for creating a hellscape or negative outcomes does not solely rest on the shoulders of individual voters. Societal and systemic factors, as well as the actions and decisions of elected officials and other influential actors, also contribute significantly to the state of affairs in any given region.
Moreover, people’s choices are very often made without full awareness of the potential consequences or access to accurate information. There can be complex social, economic, and historical factors that shape the choices available to individuals and influence their decision-making processes.
Historical figures like Adolf Hitler and other similar leaders have been known to employ emotional manipulation as a tool to influence and control people. These leaders often used powerful rhetoric, propaganda, and appeals to emotions to gain support and sway public opinion.
Hitler, in particular, was a skilled orator who was able to captivate audiences with his speeches and harness their emotions for his political agenda. He used fear, anger, and nationalism to mobilize support and rally people around his ideologies. By exploiting societal grievances, scapegoating specific groups, and appealing to a sense of national pride, Hitler was able to manipulate emotions and gain a significant following.
Other authoritarian leaders throughout history have also employed similar tactics, recognizing the power of emotion in shaping public opinion and controlling the narrative. They often use emotionally charged language, symbols, and imagery to cultivate a sense of unity, loyalty, and obedience among their supporters.
It is crucial to be aware of and guard against emotional manipulation in political discourse. Developing critical thinking skills, seeking diverse sources of information, and being mindful of the tactics employed by leaders can help individuals make more informed and rational decisions. Awareness of manipulation can serve as a counterbalance to the divisive and manipulative strategies used by such leaders.
The question of why people elect individuals who may have the power to negatively impact their lives, finances, or the future is a complex one with no single answer that applies universally. However, here are a few factors that can contribute to such choices:
- Diverse Perspectives: People have different perspectives and priorities when it comes to politics. What one person considers detrimental, another may view as beneficial. Individuals often make electoral choices based on a range of issues, including their personal beliefs, values, party affiliation, or policy positions.
- Limited Options: In some cases, people might feel that they have limited choices when it comes to electing leaders. They may perceive that all candidates are flawed, or they might have concerns about the alternatives. This can lead them to select a candidate who they believe aligns more closely with their interests, despite potential drawbacks.
- Campaign Messaging and Promises: Political candidates often make promises or present persuasive messaging during their campaigns that resonate with voters. People may vote based on these promises, hoping for positive change or improvements, even if the actual outcomes may not align with expectations.
- Lack of Information or Awareness: Some individuals may not be fully informed about the potential consequences or impact of their electoral choices. Limited knowledge, misinformation, or a lack of understanding about the complexities of governance and policy can influence voting decisions.
- Party Affiliation and Loyalty: Party affiliation can play a significant role in voting patterns. People often align with a particular political party and support its candidates regardless of specific policies or individual qualities. Loyalty to a party or the desire to maintain party dominance can outweigh other concerns for many voters.
It’s important to remember that political dynamics and the consequences of governance are multifaceted, and individual experiences may vary. The idea that an entire population, such as the 40 million people living in California, are collectively experiencing a “hellscape” as a result of their electoral choices is a clear example of a mass formation of psychotics equally manipulated and herded like so many cattle to the slaughterhouse.
© 2023 David Masters – All Rights Reserved
E-Mail David Masters: snowman4848@gmail.com
Website Interview Contact: 541-660-0116
