In Volume I, Part 4, I have a section titled Tactics Used to Manipulate the Public. I lay out many of the common ways in which we, the people, are frequently bamboozled by the “elite” of this world — especially by politicians.
Shame / Embarrass the Questioner
Used as a method of deflecting and discouraging probing questions, and to instill a sense of impropriety for anyone to do so – a subtle communication of “How dare you ask something like that!”
As reported in the New York Magazine on February 23rd, 2011:
“If Newt Gingrich is going to run for president, as it appears he will, he better gird himself for questions like the one he received last night during a forum with University of Pennsylvania students… Isabel Friedman, president of the Penn Democrats, [asked] Gingrich:
“You… [have] been married three times and admitted to having an affair with your current wife while you were still married to your second… As a successful politician who’s considering running for president, who would set the bar for moral conduct and be the voice of the American people, how do you reconcile this hypocritical interpretation of the religious values that you so vigorously defend?”
“After trying to shame the questioner — “I hope you feel better about yourself,” he told her — Gingrich basically answered that he can’t reconcile it, and he hopes the voters don’t mind.”
This is merely one modern example of the shame the questioner tactic. Whether or not it has a desired affect on the questioner, this tactic is especially useful in planting in the minds of anyone who listens that those who ask probing questions are either self-righteous hypocrites or have overstepped a line of decency.
Answering a Question with a Question
While this can be used legitimately to assist the questioner to answer his/her own question (Jesus sometimes did this with those that posed questions to Him), it is also a common deflection tactic used to take attention off of the subject and put the questioner in the spotlight – usually with the intention of discrediting or shaming the questioner. Some typical examples of deflecting question-answers:
- Why would you ask something like that?
- What gives you the right to question me about that?
- What makes you think that…?
- What? Don’t you trust me?
A prime example of this tactic was presented in 2012 by Newt Gingrich during his bid for Republican presidential candidate, when confronted by, conspiracy-exposing activists WeAreChange.org. (Not trying to single out Newt Gingrich, but unfortunately he has provided some excellent examples of deflection tactics as a politician.) The video of this encounter is provided in the supporting material. The transcript of their exchange is as follows (emphasis added):
QUESTIONER: You consider yourself a Catholic. What happens when you worship Molech at the Bohemian Grove?
NEWT GINGRICH: (doesn’t respond – looks incredulous)
QUESTIONER: The New York Post says that male prostitutes are shipped in to the Bohemian Grove. Can you tell us what happens there?
GINGRICH: You actually believe all this junk?
QUESTIONER: Bill Clinton said that Republicans run around naked in the woods there. And you don’t want to know what Richard Nixon said about the place. That’s the place you attended. It’s a secret society. Can you tell us at least who invited you?
GINGRICH: (chuckles) You know, it’s nice to know that there’s some people who have fantasy lives. [Ed. note: yet again, shame / embarrass the questioner]
Gingrich had the right to simply refuse to say anything to the activist at all. However, instead of answering the questions, or attempting to correct the activist’s allegations of Bohemian Grove, Gingrich diverts and places attention back on the questioner by retorting with another question.
Download this video here.
Lo and behold, on March 2nd, live on Fox News no less, Gingrich admits straight up that the only politicians that the establishment Republican party trusts are those who belong to secret societies.
The report on the incident by Infowars firmly nails the remaining jello into place:
Discussing Mitt Romney’s anti-Trump speech yesterday, Gingrich said it represented “the panic of the establishment wing of the (Republican) Party,” and that the prospect of Trump becoming the nominee “absolutely drives them crazy”.
When asked why, Gingrich responded, “Well because he’s an outsider, he’s not them, he’s not part of the club, he’s uncontrollable, he hasn’t been through the initiation rites, he didn’t belong to the secret society.”
Gingrich is in a perfect position to know about “secret societies” given his affiliation with Bohemian Grove, an annual encampment that takes place every year in Monte Rio, California and is attended by some of the most powerful people in the world.
Gingrich’s photograph is featured in the Annals of the Bohemian Club, Volume 7, 1987-1996 alongside George W. Bush and his father.
The former Speaker of the House could also be referring to Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale which counts amongst its members both George W. and John Kerry, who ran against each other in the 2004 presidential election.
Skull and Bones is notorious for its initiation rituals, which according to some include masturbating in a coffin. In 2001, journalist Ron Rosenbaum became the first outsider to witness some of the rituals. Video footage of the ceremony shows ‘Bonesmen’ screaming while they kiss a skull and perform a mock murder.
Trump’s definitely not a Bonesman, as only Yale grads can qualify. Sounds to me that Gingrich is referring to Bohemian Club/Grove, as such is more of an all-inclusive of several different secret society groups, with thousands of attendees to the Grove every July. Additionally, Gingrich specifically says “the club” — as in the Bohemian Club?
That Trump is not a member of Bohemian Club/Grove is news to me. That he’s not a member of any secret society would seem to be an extreme impossibility.