Jump to content

"Gaslighting"


Doobie
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

"Gaslighting”

 

I’m a fan of old-time movies.  One of my favorites is called Gaslight”. It’s a 1944 film about a man (Charles Boyer) who harbors a deep secret.  A secret that he’s willing to protect at all costs, even to the point of trying to drive his wife (Ingrid Bergman) crazy.

 

What springs from that movie title, “Gaslight,” is a psychological concept, the term “gaslighting”.  “Gaslighting” can also have political overtones and ramifications.  For example, when a political figure claims that something has (or hasn’t) happened, and refuses, despite volumes of contradictory evidence, to acknowledge otherwise, then we have a case of “gaslighting,” i.e., Russian meddling in U.S. elections.

 

Furthermore, when a person lies, for their own gain, to another person or to a group of people, so repeatedly, and with so much assuredness, that the people with whom he/she is in contact begin to doubt their own individual reasoning skills, they could be said to have been “gaslighted”.  It’s a cunning approach that leaves no physical marks on its victim(s).

 

“Gaslighting,” in the end, leaves its victims so confused that they begin to question their own sanity and judgment.  They question their own sense of reality. Their own reasoning power. 

 

Further, one might call it: mind-control.  People can, over time,  become quite dependent on “The Gaslighter” (one might call it a form of “brainwashing”).   He/she (The “Gaslighter”) is looked upon as “the source of all truth”.  He/she is perceived as all-knowing.  The “Omnipotent One”.  This is one of the principal goals of this insidious approach: to create both unwavering loyalty and unquestioning obedience. 

 

 Moreover, in the movie, the use of gaslights – slowly dimming and brightening – is one of the techniques that is used to cause “the victim” (Ingrid Bergman) to question her own mental stability.

 

“Gaslighting” is, by definition, often so subtle that victims often blame themselves for their abuser’s handiwork. They say, “It’s my fault!”

Furthermore, “gaslighting” can be used not just on an individual, but on individuals, and even on entire societies. The individuals who are subjected to “gaslighting” become confused. Bewildered. They don’t know what to think. They begin doubting themselves. They become like “puppets on a string”.  You might say that they have become mesmerized.

When it comes to societies, doubts are created about mainstream institutions, i.e., the media. This is right out of the Nazi playbook: “Lugenpresse” (‘lying press’).  Only in America the administration calls it: “Fake News”.  An obvious attempt to discredit the media.  The free press, the media, is constantly being denigrated. They are, indeed, our first line of defense. Their rights and our rights are intertwined. Freedom of speech and the press, our First Amendment rights, must be protected.  There are, currently, in our country, attempts to destabilize. To delegitimize the press.  If this happens, all information will eventually come, not from independent sources, but instead, directly from “the top”. 

 

According to plan, all that emanates from top is to be believed. Attempts to do otherwise are squelched.  Those who do challenge are demeaned and denigrated.  They are referred to as “Low IQ,” “Lying.” “Low-lifes”.  Differing opinions and viewpoints are discouraged, if not totally banned.  This process is like the drip…drip…drip of a saline solution in an ICU hospital room.

 

Furthermore, this approach is part and parcel of the Russian KGB operative -- once a KGB, always a KGB – Vladimir Putin (Maybe that’s what POTUS and Putin were talking about in that secret, behind-closed-doors meeting in Helsinki).  The KGB motto is: “Destroy from Within!”  “Gaslighting” is right out of that Russian playbook. 

 

Further, “smoke screens” are thrown up.  Inconsequential issues are created, and then amplified; these serve as diversions. They are distractions from the bigger picture.  Politically, any investigations looking into alleged abuses by “The Gaslighter-in-Chief” and his cronies are dismissed as “out of hand”.  Those inquiries, i.e., the Mueller Investigation, are labelled: “Witch hunts."  

 

 

Even apparent missteps are no accidents. Everything is rehearsed. Stage-managed. Choreographed. Slowly but surely this political jigsaw-puzzle begins taking shape. The noose tightens.  The seeds are sown.  As you have likely surmised, “gaslighting” techniques can most definitely be used to create political control.  I might add that this approach was part of the propaganda playbook of the totalitarian regimes In Europe during the 1920’s and 1930’s.

 

Moreover, “gaslighting” engenders fear and mistrust. As cited, people don’t know what to believe, anymore.  People don’t know whom to trust (Your neighbor could turn you in as a dissident “non-believer”).  

 

At this time, I should mention that researchers have found that narcissistic individuals frequently use “gaslighting” as an approach to achieve their goals. One way to deal with “gaslighting” is to remain strong.  Use logic, not emotion.

 

Oh, at the end of the movie, “Gaslight,” Charles Boyer is discovered for what he is, an egocentric “trickster”.  A fraud.  He’s led away by the police to face the justice of our legal system for his nefarious acts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kking said:

We all agree that the free press doesn't include the corporate media, right?

No we do not. The “corporate media” moniker becomes a form of gaslighting when it is used to discredit the source of any information that contradicts one’s narrative.
 

Shoes made by corporations are still shoes. Music produced by corporations is still music. News reported by corporations is still news. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Olivaw said:

No we do not. The “corporate media” moniker becomes a form of gaslighting when it is used to discredit the source of any information that contradicts one’s narrative.
 

Shoes made by corporations are still shoes. Music produced by corporations is still music. News reported by corporations is still news. 

 

Yes, and publications and documents made by the government are still publications and documents. The point is that, since corporate interests are inextricably tangled up in the newsmedia, you must regard them with as much skepticism as you would a government publication. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kking said:

 

Yes, and publications and documents made by the government are still publications and documents. The point is that, since corporate interests are inextricably tangled up in the newsmedia, you must regard them with as much skepticism as you would a government publication. 


Every individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, department and corporation has interests. Skepticism is healthy but it must not be used to disregard the largest source of news in the world. Journalistic enterprises are the free press, regardless of the ownership structure.

 

Where most people go wrong is in failing to recognize the difference between journalists and opinion writers. Wolf Blitzer and Chris Wallace report the news. Lawrence O’Donnell and Sean Hannity express opinions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Olivaw said:


Every individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, department and corporation has interests. Skepticism is healthy but it must not be used to disregard the largest source of news in the world. Journalistic enterprises are the free press, regardless of the ownership structure.

 

Where most people go wrong is in failing to recognize the difference between journalists and opinion writers. Wolf Blitzer and Chris Wallace report the news. Lawrence O’Donnell and Sean Hannity express opinions. 

 

It's not about disregarding, but it's about differentiating "free" or "independent" press from corporate or governmental press, and treating their narratives with due skepticism. The details of what we call it aren't that important. 

 

"Blitzer/Wallace vs O'Donnell/Hannity"

That's an important distinction, however, rest assured that Blitzer and Wallace get memos and directives of what NOT to cover, and the people who write their prompters and segments are under similar instructions from management and ownership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, kking said:

 

It's not about disregarding, but it's about differentiating "free" or "independent" press from corporate or governmental press, and treating their narratives with due skepticism. The details of what we call it aren't that important. 


"


One needs to apply the exact same skepticism, regardless of ownership structure. BBC, NYTimes, Der Spiegel are credible journalistic sources. They are the free press, no matter how much those who dislike them declare them to be otherwise, 


It is important to avoid confusing independent with objective. Bloggers are independent but they are not objective professional journalists with a commitment to journalistic integrity. 
 

 

Quote

 

Blitzer/Wallace vs O'Donnell/Hannity"

That's an important distinction, however, rest assured that Blitzer and Wallace get memos and directives of what NOT to cover, and the people who write their prompters and segments are under similar instructions from management and ownership. 

 


Despite all efforts by their opponents to research it, there appears to be a dearth of evidence for  memos instructing journalists what NOT to cover. The closest we have seen is a FOX News Entertainment Channel directive to Shep Smith telling him not to criticize Tucker Carlson’s entertainment show. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Olivaw said:

One needs to apply the exact same skepticism, regardless of ownership structure. BBC, NYTimes, Der Spiegel are credible journalistic sources. They are the free press, no matter how much those who dislike them declare them to be otherwise, 


It is important to avoid confusing independent with objective. Bloggers are independent but they are not objective professional journalists with a commitment to journalistic integrity. 

 

Point taken. But to suggest that Trump calling the MSM liars and crooks shouldn't be elevated to, say, imprisoning war correspondents or banning papers. For raw journalism, I'll stick with the AP. Everything else seems to be commentary and narrative framing. 

 

1 hour ago, Olivaw said:

Despite all efforts by their opponents to research it, there appears to be a dearth of evidence for  memos instructing journalists what NOT to cover. The closest we have seen is a FOX News Entertainment Channel directive to Shep Smith telling him not to criticize Tucker Carlson’s entertainment show. 

 

The three or four books by Chomsky that I've read give me a very different impression. There may not be a papertrail with explicit instructions, but the framing and what's left out over the years speaks for itself. 

 

42 minutes ago, king of the county said:

Yes it was white lash lol cnn haha 

 

lol I remember. My favourite, though, was Cenk Uygur: "Oh boy, alright, brace for impact."

 

29 minutes ago, Olivaw said:

Hang on to that video. It may sustain you through the shellacking that Republicans will take in 2020. Haha

 

We would be very disappointed if a Democrat won and you DIDN'T make a humiliating montage for our arrogant predictions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP... I assume because he is new... Must Believe that like himself we are also new and ignorant and presumes to lecture us on the term gaslighting. Let me disabuse you of the notion that you are revealing some obscure fact for our edification. Most anyone here with half a brain understands the term gaslighting and how it's applied in the political realm, so there's no need for your lecture... as a matter of fact we know it all too well as a favorite tactic of the desperate leftist hair on fire Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Giujo said:

The OP... I assume because he is new... Must Believe that like himself we are also new and ignorant and presumes to lecture us on the term gaslighting. Let me disabuse you of the notion that you are revealing some obscure fact for our edification. Most anyone here with half a brain understands the term gaslighting and how it's applied in the political realm, so there's no need for your lecture... as a matter of fact we know it all too well as a favorite tactic of the desperate leftist hair on fire Democrat.

 

I give the OP props if he wrote it himself. Nice to see some original content on the forum. He also made a thread about Warren G. Harding which had a decent OP, though I completely disagree with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

liberals try to pretend that trump was the first person to bring up the concept of "fake news". but the truth is? we all know there's

been a problem with this for decades. trump's not even the first president to articulate the notion. but....the difference is? all trump does

is talk $hit about it. it was obama and the democrats that actually tried to enact legislation DESTROYING a section of the press who held

bias against their agenda with the so-called "fairness act". which didn't have anything to do with "fairness" at all. you can always bet that when

the idiot libs use words like "fairness" or "equality" in any piece of legislation they wish hold people hostage with? it means the exact opposite

of fairness and equality. the idiot libs are actually the KINGS of gaslighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...