I do a quick work it out here, I am not interested in Trump nor his kind nor those who adopt his methods per se, but I was curious about the following excerpt from Scott Dilbert as it relates to this post:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128776840091/trump-engineers-an-[Enemy Image]-Linguistic-Kill-Shot-for-fiorina

Re: “Bonus Thought: Trump seems to be about systems that improve his odds in a variety of ways, as opposed to moonshot-like goals. My book [Scott Adams] explains how to improve your odds the same way”.

I am reviewing an article about Scott’s work. I don’t observe Scott using Trump’s means (system/strategy) nor goals (ends) to achieve his values. I notice Scott using Voluntarist and peaceful individualist respectful systems AND goals, so far as I have looked into this…

A brief excerpt [with my guesses as to what Scott is referring]:

“But it was only having a[n] [immediate feedback] system [means/strategies to connect and express his core needs/values], rather than having [too distant, contradictory and out of control ends] goals, that enabled him to ultimately be successful.”

When I look at Dilbert Creator Scott Adams On Why Big Goals Are For Losers | Fast Company | Business + Innovation–I do NOT observe controlling others (via the tyranny of the obligation and elephant with the gun in the room) as Scott’s system/strategy, but I do observe that as being Trumps.

Ref: http://m.fastcompany.com/3030518/bottom-line/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-on-why-Big-[all or nothing] Goals-are-for-Losers

Re: “…Trump seems to be about systems that improve his odds in a variety of ways,”

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operatives knew they could turn their skills to political purposes. They had just succeeded in making Americans believe that all Japanese and German people were horribly evil. They had been able to manipulate Enemy Imagery successfully in that area. Why couldn’t they shape America’s view of a whole planet that lay beyond personal experience?

See “Foundation of Mass Mind Control”
And
“Ebola: why hasn’t a pandemic ever started in Brooklyn?”
Both articles by Jon Rappoport

In The Second Sin Thomas Szasz wrote, “Man is the animal that speaks. Understanding language is the key to understanding man; and the control of language, to the control of man.” Alfred Korzybski, founder of General Semantics indicated that, “Those who control symbols control humanity.”
Slavespeak [what I will call Violent Communication] is ALL language [***most especially INTERNAL***] that [IS DESIGNED] to put an individual at a disadvantage in relation to [***HIMSELF, his creativity***] others and to the world in general. Slavespeak would seem to occur in too many domains of human endeavor such as referred to here and in my Improv writings with Relief and Solutions Here and Here and perhaps [assuredly so] as it relates to Trump’s Enemy Image Language Skills etc..

Re: What is alive in me and makes my life better, and is doable by me is this regarding:
http://m.fastcompany.com/3030518/bottom-line/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-on-why-big-goals-are-for-losers

As Adams sees it: “Goal-oriented people exist in a state of continuous Pre-Success Failure at best [Unmet needs/values and unsuccessful or contradictory ends and means strategies], and permanent failure at worst if things never work out.

Systems people [people who build to build, not people who build systems[1]] succeed every time they apply their systems [strategies to support needs/values means and means and ends*], in the sense that they did what they intended to do.”

Scott Adams then reveals his personal system [Strategies] he used to achieve success [and I speculate to fuel his Optimism by *Mourning mini unmet needs by perhaps Progressing via Incremental Improvement and Prototyping and thus freeing him to back off and make it possible to have fun reinvest his energy and inspiration to be able to learn, plan, practice and Celebrate his met mini needs continously…which compound]

“My system of creating something the public [many other individuals may want without initiating coercion i.e. peacefully in harmony] wants and reproducing it in large quantities nearly guaranteed a string of failures. By design, all of my efforts [energy focused on my strategies] were long shots [so distant I could not get goal].

Had I been goal-oriented [distant ends fixated] instead of system-oriented [enjoying and learning via my needs/values, means and strategies], I imagine I would have given up after the first several failures. It would have felt like banging my head against a brick wall.

Adams doesn’t hold back in detailing these failures [what’s behind the feedback and since the Progress is Incremental he could recover from an Improvement set back]. He’s very forthright about the mistakes [Sweet Learning Pain instead of deadening debilitating pain] he made and the lessons he learned (the “be a [mini] failure” credo may now make more sense). [Making it possible to be response able and or Boundless makes more sense to me].

I realize it relates and is personally relevant to first standing in a position of freedom. Dreaming about what I want. And then comparing that to my life. Then getting rid of what does not fit my first position. This changes the dynamic so I am not giving up things, I am clearing myself to live my strategy and goals. This is a paraphrased Starting from Zero technique from Harry Browne’s How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.

I have added elements of  Darrell Beckers Trivium Method Voluntary Communication; and Dennis Lee Wilson’s PIIP.

And I realize the above relates to:

Harry Browne: How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World

http://tinyurl.com/Browne-Freedom

2015-09-10-00-09-10

What **IS* the ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM that Voluntary Groups of any size–two people or more–need to agree upon, in order to live together peacefully and productively?* by Dennis Lee Wilson

http://tinyurl.com/The-Bare-Minimum

[1]Is there a difference between those who seek to build a system, and those who only seek to build?

“Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it.”~ Mikhail Bakunin

Freedom Has No “System”–Challenge the premise. THERE IS NO “WE”!
http://tinyurl.com/There-is-NO-We-W

Need I convert others? If you are petitioning (the following speaks to what that looks like so you will recognize it) then you have fallen for one and usually multiple Traps pointed out by Harry Browne…it is how many individuals sacrifice and loose their own freedom when it is not neccessary.


Transition down the rabbit hole.

Finally, I have come back here having heard a schoolsucks podcast by Darrell Becker on Voluntarist Communication. And have since transcribed and re arranged portions of it that pertain.

Darrell Becker runs the blog Voluntary Visions which puts focus on the intellectual lenses of the Trivium method of critical thinking, Voluntary Communication, the Non-Aggression Principle, as well as other lenses, so as to create internal and interpersonal emotional and intellectual equilibrium. He’ll discuss the skills of the Trivium Method of critical thinking in conjunction with the skills of using Voluntary Communication (NVC), in order to produce greater inner and interpersonal, intellectual and empathetic equilibrium. Darrell has written an essay on the topic, which we’ll go over including, the the “4D’s” of disconnected communication, using logic and grammar scans, removing personal cognitive dissonance, building bridges of empathy and understanding “emotional and mental splinters.” Hasty generalizations, psychological intrusion, demands and deserve oriented language are examples of diagnoses that are unrequested and will not help you build bridges with others. But we also connect this practice and apply it to understand the best pathway to take when communicating with “authority,” or the ill-mannered. Later, we’ll discuss questions one can ask and answer in order to properly care for their intellectual and emotional lenses. The hour ends on how to view problems or obstacles when looking through a healthy lens.

Voluntary Communication and Critical Thinking and Motivating Factor Lens

https://redice.tv/radio-3fourteen/voluntary-and-non-violent-communication

Paraphrased: I saw Voluntarist and Trivium critical thinking — (in addition see Covenant of Unanimous Consent and How I Found Freedom and Unfree World Direct Alternatives and Starting From Zero Technique, Casey’s Fresh Starts, Phyla, Tucker’s Steps to a better life and Mcelroy’s The Art of Being Free ) –as tools.

I was hoping other people would see these things as tools. Meaning there’s an individual and very specific application whenever you’re dealing with a tool.

A tool is something that’s designed by the person who’s using it and then it’s applied **and then things happen….** [ and boy did things happen] [Here we go this is the transition segway between the Covenant and Communication Nuances]:

.

compassionateinteractions.com › resources

Faux feelings imply that someone is doing something to one and often connote wrongness or blame or secondhanded focus instead of being a first hander, primary self responsible innovator not relying on others to get one’s vaiues met.

I translate something called Obligation Language (Punishment/Disconnected Communication) into likely values and desires, which are the motivating factors behind the utilization of any of the following Four D’s so that I can take the tension/trauma down a notch, so that I am in Equilibrium, so that I’m not feeling the UNneccesary tension that happens or I would say the tension that happens automatically when I’m getting an UnRequested Demand [instead of a Request], when I’m getting an UnRequested Diagnosis [of an evaluation] of myself and or when I’m receiving Deserve [Carrot or Stick Manipulated vs Live and let Live] oriented language and or when I’m hearing a Denial of Self Responsibility. That could be a lot of tension. I translate that. I translate those things into SILENTLY saying “oh I see that Demand is a poor method of delivering a specific Request”.

Recognizing suicidal or self defeating expressions of unmet needs and strategies…

The Request shows me and points me to what someone is after. That UnRequested Diagnosis is them attempting to understand me by putting a label on me. That’s the thing. So I see their QUEST for understanding.

Without a potentially useful treatment or strategy work-it-out plan it’s not useful for me to provide an UNRequested Diagnosis.

And I do not use the following NVC. Observation Feeling Need Request Script. I’m never going to be saying traditional NVC, when you do this, I Feel this, because my Need for this is not being met,  would you be willing to do this so my need for this can be met?  That can be very easily interpreted both as a Demand and Diagnosis because the other person can interpret this: when you do this I feel this, now you’re responsible for my feelings and that is one of the subject to touch on [and consider]. See needs confused with strategies.  See Abundance And/Also Strategies Direct Alternatives and Innovating Opportunities instead of Either/Or Scarcity Language Indirect Alternatives.  (Talking points in person and or point to A Map of Definitions spoken to via the podcasts)].

https://connect.liberty.me/how-i-freed-myself/

[You can be stimulated by another but ultimately it’s how you translate it and what you do with it.]

I’m starting with the Trivium [Input (Grammar Definition), Process [Logic], Output (Rhetoric)] Intellectual Critical Thinking Lens method. I’m always taking in the grammar Input and doing my definition work and always subjecting it to some degree of a logical analysis process and I’m always looking through the lens of the *rhetorical triangle that’s going to be a departure from your traditional NVC teaching…

EXCERPTS: Grammar: A substantial answering of the questions “Who, What, Where, and When”, this corresponds roughly to knowledge, data, evidence that a video camera would take in. This is analogous to the computing concept of “Input”. It corresponds to Observations and “Requests” (Actions) which are tangible and measurable.

Grammar-Scan: An internal method of “flagging” specific words, due to concerns or observations. For example, first-person plural pronouns could trigger concerns as to perspectives that might be at odds with the respect of individual preference. (For example, “We are over there in Iraq, with our troops, fighting for our freedom, fighting them to keep our way of life.” The use of “we, our, them” possibly being defined differently by each communicating individual. Abstract concepts (the State, the Common Good, “the people”) might also be flagged for gaining clarity as to the objective of using each abstraction. Etymology is used to help know and understand the history of various words, to see word usages through various temporal and spacial perspectives. See: http://www.etymonline.com .

Logic: Answering the question of “Why?”, this is also known as “non-contradictory identification” (removal or isolation of contradictory definitions or identifications), and this is known as understanding. This is analogous to the computing concept of “Processing”. Logic includes (but is not limited to) the explicit use of the 42 – 200 separate informal logical fallacies (see Fallacies).
(see: http://aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42-fallacies.pdf , http://quizlet.com/20141549/comm-200-fallacies-flash-cards/ )

Logic-scan: An internal method of “flagging” statements that are potentially inconsistent with evidence, statements that seem to be embodiments of any of the informal logical fallacies, as well as noting any concerns or observations upon the evaluation methods of decision-making processes of each communicating individual. Using Logic-scan on one’s self, motives are laid bare and methods of grammar, logic and rhetoric become explicit. Using Logic-scan to view other individuals who are communicating with us, we can see possibilities of their choice of logical decision-making process, for the purpose of communicating clearly with respect toward each individual’s choice of logical process.

Rhetoric: Answers “How?”, this is analogous to “Processing” in computer terms, and this includes the “active literacies” of writing and speaking. Rhetoric refers to the practical applications of Grammar and Logic, and this includes (but is not limited to) the use of the Rhetorical Triangle. This is also known as “Wisdom”, as long as the applications (of the rhetoric) are practical and achieve a desired (and/or predicted) result.

Definition: *Rhetorical Triangle: This is an explicit use of the knowledge and understanding of all the relevant factors (including internal and external applications of the OFNR and the 4D’s) impacting the Author of a Message and the Audience who receives the Message. Surrounding the Rhetorical Triangle is the circle called Context (see Contextual Circle).

20 minutes into this is what I transcribed, excerpted and paraphrased except for a very interesting intro

See the below to get introduction and full meaning please

http://voluntaryvisions.com/2015/07/18/school-sucks-podcast-363-the-trivium-non-violent-communication-and-mind-control-a-response-to-gnostic-media-part-1-of-5/

Darrell Becker: okay to summarize: it would be an emphasis upon internal application i.e. silent. It would be an emphasis on my Own Equilibrium. To try to speak in I statements when I’m using these tools. I’m using it just to gain a good stance emotionally. I’m using them to potentially enhance my own Trivium ( input or grammar, logic process and rhetoric or application) which is the other part. The objective.

Cue to 12 minutes and 7 minutes respectively…The intros do not do service to

 Back to Here