"ДОСЬЕ КРЫЖАНОВСКОГО" : АГЕНТ КГБ ДОНАЛЬД ТРАМП (англ). 8. Михаил Крыжановский. Читать онлайн


wrong in 1960 trying to debate on substance, while his opponent, John F. Kennedy, concentrated on style and on presenting the correct presidential image).
While preparing for the winning debates you must:
– have a detailed file on your opponent and study all his speeches and statements; ask yourself: “What does he have that
that I don’t have? ”
– train to answer all possible questions
– be ready to demonstrate deep knowledge of issues and your presidential bearing to a nationwide audience
– repeat your message but keep in mind that image is more important than ideas while you debate — people want to see your good looks, good clothes and nice smile.
And here are the debating “Don’ts”:
Don’t attack first — that’s a sign of weakness.
Don’t be over-polite — a little showmanship appeals to voters.
Don’t be too aggressive — it will ruin your image as a future President.
Don’t answer the questions too fast — that implies you are not thinking.
Don’t rush, no negative emotions, no sudden gestures (extra gestures mean that you are not sure what you are saying is correct).
Don’t disappoint people — speak in a clear and simple way.
And you restrict your influence if you sit.
Follow the rules :
No anxiety reactions – speech errors, moistening of lips, perspiring, shifting eye movements, body jerks. Gesturing with fingers apart communicates weakness, while gesturing with fingers tightly together communicates power.
Look at your opponent with intense concentration – it gives the attitude of command and comfort of the situation.
Answer a question you want to answer, no matter what question was asked.
If you give better answers, you are the better candidate.
Immediately after the debates your press officer has to give the media his biased impression and explain why you won the debates. Your pollster has to watch the polls results.
Tricks
1. Intruding into an opponent’s physical space.
Attempted by: Al Gore, 2000
Result: Failure
When Al Gore tried it in a rehearsal debate, his advisors cautioned against it. It looked awkward. It could come off as too aggressive. The risk was simply too great.
Al Gore decided to do it anyway: The vice president, all stocky 6’3” of him, was going to attempt to physically intimidate George W. Bush.
It was the last in a series of unforced errors Gore made in the debates of 2000 (the audible sighs, the pronounced eye-rolling while Bush spoke). Roughly ten minutes into the third and final debate, a townhall-style affair, Gore sloughed off his stool, a scornful look on his face as he saddled up to Bush’s side while the Texas governor spoke.
Bush responded not with surprise or fright, but with a quizzical look and an offhand nod of acknowledgment, turning back to the audience as the crowd laughed and he continued on with his spiel. Gore’s would-be power move had exactly the opposite effect: instead of looking dominant and in-charge, he seemed awkward and inauthentic.
2: Keeping your opponent in the shot, unaware
Attempted by: Bill Clinton, 1992
Result: Success
We take it for granted now, but the townhall debate is a relatively recent addition to the menu of presidential debate formats. It made its debut in 1992, its structure reflecting the style of the daytime talkshows that dominated the era’s airwaves: Donahue, Sally and Oprah.
Bill Clinton’s campaign lobbied to get the townhall format included in the 1992 fall debate lineup. Looking back, it’s easy to see why: the format plays well to his strengths, providing an opportunity to underline his natural charisma and easy folksiness.
It also created an opportunity for a very media-savvy campaign. Ahead of the debate, Clinton and his team carefully choreographed the candidate’s movement around the stage, working with producers to understand the camera placement. Clinton campaign wanted to “keep one or the other of his competitors in the camera shot at all times, a maneuver that circumvented the prohibition on cutaway [shots] of one candidate while another was speaking. ”
The result was that whenever Clinton was in shot while Bush or Perot spoke, he made sure to look stoic and thoughtful. Perot and Bush, on the other hand, were often caught unawares in the background of Clinton shots, including this oddly checked-out moment from the incumbent—underscoring the difference with the more telegenic Clinton.
3: Swapping out the debate’s stools.
Attempted by: Bill Clinton, 1992
Result: Success
In that same debate, one reason Clinton looked so at-home on stage is because the candidates were actually using the exact same stools that Clinton had rehearsed on. Reportedly, the Clinton campaign switched them onto the set without the permission of the debate’s hosts—and without anyone noticing. Paul Begala, a senior advisor to the campaign, later explained their rationale: “We wanted Gov. Bill Clinton to be completely at ease in his surroundings, right down to his butt. ”
It worked. The stools were far too tall for diminutive billionaire Ross Perot, who uncomfortably leaned against his chair for much of the debate. And while the chairs were the right height for Bush, the president often looked unsure of how to perch on a bar chair while looking confident and presidential.
4. Holding on to a handshake for too long
Attempted by: George H. W. Bush, 1988
Result: Success
In 1988, at his debates with Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, George H. W. Bush shook the governor’s hand for an unusually long time. Ever since, it’s been the source of speculation: was the long handshake an intentional move by Bush, meant to emphasize how taller he was than Dukakis, or was it just a handshake that we’re reading too much into?
Regardless of whether it was intentional, it certainly showed viewers that there was a substantial height difference between the two men (Dukakis is 5’8” and Bush is 6’2”, a full six inches taller). On “Saturday Night Live, ” Dana Carvey’s Bush was shown shaking the hand of Jon Lovitz’s Dukakis, patting him on the head like a child before Dukakis headed to his lectern, where a mechanical lift hoisted him to a respectable stature. Without the awkwardly long handshake in the real debate, it’s quite possible that their height difference never would have been noticed.
5. The ambush handshake
Attempted by: Ronald Reagan, 1980
Result: Success
For the first 20 years of televised debates, it was not commonplace for the candidates to shake hands with each other—the debates started after the candidates were already onstage at their lecterns.
That changed in 1980—unilaterally. In their lone debate that fall, right before the cameras started broadcasting, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan entered the stage from opposite wings and headed straight to their respective microphones, as was tradition. But while Carter stopped at his lectern, Reagan continued to stride across the stage, surprising Jimmy Carter by shaking his hand. Reagan seemed in command from that moment forward.
“Carter’s look of surprise suggested that he thought he was about to be knifed, ” wrote Kathleen Hall Jamieson. “The handshake was as lethal. How could Carter then cast a smiling hand-shaker as a mad bomber who would destroy Social Security, the environment, and perhaps the world? ”
Reagan repeated the gesture at the end of the debate, surprising Carter yet again—this time, televised. It made Reagan look amiable and in charge; Carter looked weak by comparison.
6. The unexpected audience member
Attempted by: John Edwards, 2004
Result: Unclear
In a famous incident on the floor of the U. S. Senate in June 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney told Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, “go f—k yourself, ” after the senator had accused Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton, of war profiteering.
So when it came time for the vice presidential debates that October, Senator John Edwards (D-NC) had a plan to get inside Cheney’s head during the debate: He reserved a seat for Leahy in the second row of the debate’s audience, where Cheney would almost certainly see him.
Cheney’s debate performance was characteristically reticent, though it’s unclear what, if any, role Leahy’s seat played in rattling him up. Reportedly, after the debate finished, the Bush-Cheney campaign called the Kerry-Edwards team to complain about the move.
7. The derisive prop
Attempted by: Negotiators for both Dan Quayle & Al Gore, 1992
Result: Détente
Every presidential debate is the topic of high-stakes negotiations by the campaigns involved, which will push for any number of advantages and concessions—from podium height to a chillier on-stage temperature.
In the run-up to the 1992 VP debate, though, Dan Quayle’s staff lobbied for the ability to let each candidate take a single prop on stage. Their plan was to have Quayle bring out Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance, and read a passage or two from it during the actual debate to embarrass Gore.
Gore’s strategists agreed to let each candidate have a prop, telling the Quayle team Gore planned to bring a single item on stage: a potato—an unsubtle reminder of a humiliating June 1992 gaffe where Quayle infamously misspelled the word “potato” while attending an elementary-school spelling bee, instructing a 12-year-old who had spelled the word correctly to add an “e” to the end. Quayle’s campaign speedily dropped their request for props.
1. 11 Speaking in Public
"Golden" rules
1. Your aides have to determine the “theme of the day” and brief you about the day’s events and issues. To get elected you must promise economic growth with low inflation and balanced budget no matter how grave the economic situation is.
2. Don’t be too specific on issues and tell people they elect their way, not a candidate.
3. Cite the Bible.
4. Don’t look too intellectual.
5. State repeatedly that you’re not going to divide the nation into supporters and enemies, Democrats and Republicans, “my voters and other voters” — be a leader to all. (But first, to win the nomination you must appeal to the more liberal sections of your party if you are Democrat, and to more conservative sections if you belong to Republicans).
6. Don’t talk much; transform your thoughts into examples and slogans.
7. Never say you want power, even if you want to save the nation in crisis.
8. Never talk down on big business. Promise federal financing, especially in economic downturns.
9. Remember: voters are extremely sensitive to tax-cut proposals and which social segment would benefit from them. The middle class brings you victory, so promise tax cuts for these people, with tax increases for the wealthy and high unemployment rates.
10. Even if the economy is OK, point out the signs of coming crisis and promise to change the situation fast. Keep talking about problems, though it’s hard to win if the incumbent President runs for re-election with balanced budget and economic growth.
11. You can be liberal on domestic issues, but you have to be conservative on national security (defense and foreign affairs).
12. Remember the “women factor”: there are more women than men in our country, women are more likely to be registered to vote, and among registered voters women are more likely to vote.
Use these tactics:
1. “Join the crowd” — this reinforces people’s natural desire to be on the winning side and it is used to convince the audience that your program is an expression of the nation’s desire for change, and it is in their best interest to join;
2. “Provoked disapproval” – persuade a target audience to disapprove your opponent’s message by suggesting that the message is popular with groups hated, feared or held in contempt by the target audience;
3. “Iinevitable victory” – you invite those who did not join majority;
4. “Neuro-linguistic programming” — you will be elected if you can do this better than your opponent and program the whole nation for a positive reaction. People always try to avoid anything and anybody unpleasant; and people are always looking for pleasant things and other pleasant people, somebody they want to meet again and again or at least see on TV. Everybody wants to be a winner; and to be a winner brings pleasure and self respect. Just convey this sense to the nation: “Vote for me and win! ” or “Vote for me or lose! ”, “The choice is yours! ”
HOW PUTIN RULES THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE U. S. CONGRESS
I wrote these instructions for KGB in 1987, updated for CIA in 1996.
Putin and Trump use them to rule USA.

HOW TO MANAGE THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE U. S. CONGRESS
by Mikhail Kryzhanovsky
Come in!
Be strong. Be attractive. Be logical.
All you have to do during your first term is to take care of the second one.
The 2nd term’s agenda is to set your place in the world’s history.
1st year. You have enough public support to start big initiatives.
2nd year. Develop your initiatives.
3rd year. Go, go public preparing your re-election. Presidents often lose voters during this period.
4th year. All-politics year. Try to achieve important international agreement (a treaty) for the historic record. Win re-election.
Divide your day into hours and minutes : 30% of your weekly hours go to senior White House staff, 10% – to Cabinet, 5% – to Congress members, 5% – to foreign leaders.
No matter what, even if it’s a war time, sleep one hour during the day to give your brain a break, and finish your day at 6 P. M. After 6 P. M. do not read any documents, do not take any phone calls, do not talk to anybody but family members and close friends.
Eat whatever you want, but remember, the more calories you have to digest, the slower you think.
REMEMBER:
1. You are a national image (a national ideal based on pseudo-facts), a symbol of national unity, national continuity and the symbol of federal government. Leadership is the first quality Americans look for in you – they want a President who is steadfast in his convictions.
2. The power to control the federal budget is your top prerogative.
3. Define for yourself whom are you going to be:
– utopist (ideas manipulator)
– manager (Government and Congress manipulator)
– challenger (reformer)
4. Any problem turns into a political one if it threatens your power.
5. Use your legal right to press the nation and illegal ones to press the world to eliminate problems.
4. Once you’re in politics, you are a hostage of your status and you must sacrifice privacy in return for power.
6. Never play alone.
7. All your decisions are risk taking ones (any decision brings a problem). You may ask advice before you make a decision, but don’t listen to anybody afterwards. You are not paid for the quantity of your work but for leadership and ultimate decision making.
8. Correct political mistakes fast, before they become political scandals.
10. Never blame previous presidents for the problems they left for you – that’s a sign of political weakness.
11. Get rid of a White House tradition to deal with problems if they “knock at the door” only.
The White House Staff
Chief of Staff
The Chief of Staff reviews most of the documents that go to you, gives his/her advice after intense information processing and consultations with other agencies and then – he’s/she’s telling others what President wants.
A lot of people, including Congressmen and Senators, will try to reach you through him/her.
He/she has to give exact instructions to the Press Secretary on the White House message about current headlines and the President’s plans and actions (the Press Secretary works the same way with VP and First Lady/First Gentleman press teams).
He/she is responsible for your time and has to plan at least two months ahead your effective activity together with Communications, Scheduling and other policy offices’ Directors plus VP and First Lady/First Gentleman Chiefs of Staff. Besides, he/she has to do “dirty jobs” for the President like firing people or act as a “lighting rod” to draw criticism away from the President.
National Security Adviser
The National Security Adviser controls all the documents concerning national security coming from Defense, Homeland Security, State Departments, and national security agencies, and coordinates these offices.
His/her position is not subject to Senate confirmation, which, according to a long-standing Washington tradition, means that he/she can’t be compelled to testify before the Congress. He/she decides what papers the President should see and, what’s more, he gives his comments on any document.
ATTENTION :National security is 100% the President’s business, so keep this figure at some distance and don’t let him think of himself as your Number Two – foreign leaders will try to work through him to get to you or to influence you.
He/she has to oversee the functioning of the National Security Council (NSC), which is your foreign policy making tool and a “government inside government. ” This is something very special and convenient about the NSC – it’s responsible only to you and there’s not much Congress control over its budget. Plus, National Security Adviser is involved in every meeting between you and any foreign leader and is responsible for the schedule.
The most powerful of executive offices after the National Security Council is the Office of Management and Budget (it’s authorized to make cuts in federal agencies’ budgets, to advise you on national fiscal and economic policies, supervise execution of the government budget, evaluate the performance of federal programs).
Who they really are
Staffers (and Secretaries) prefer stability and don’t like if you’re “rocking the boat” – that’s why they often play reform-stoppers.
They don’t like to work hard and prefer to send you on “very important visits” abroad as often as possible.
They try to load you up with an extremely busy schedule and “feed” you witnh hundreds of useless documents, create artificial problems and conflicts to show off their hyper-activity.
They try to be your decision makers and they do influence you because, unlike Secretaries, they have daily contact with you; that’s why you don’t see Cabinet members as your principal aides.
They try to set you up by interpreting your decisions and orders in their own way, as every adviser is the “American President himself. ”
They know you won’t accept “complicated, ” “expensive, ” “risky” projects and they’ll try to sell you “simple, ” “cheap” and “popular” ones only.
Watch your senior staff and how they present ideas. If somebody wants to push his idea or a project, he will give you three options, making two of them unattractive. Naturally you pick the one he presented as least harmful.
Their dirty tricks
1. Fight for access (influence) to President or to people with direct access (aiming to get a better position if President is re-elected).
2. Isolate government from the President.
3. Influence = relationship with the President.
4. Get a table in the West Wing. You are nobody if you are stuck in the White House basement and see the President by appointment only.
5. Before you send a document to the President, have to look at it and ask yourself if it’s too immoral or too radical.
6. Never say “no” aloud to anybody.
7. Remain anonymous with conflicts.
8. Never bring bad news to the President – let it be some idiot, not you.
9. Never say “That’s impossible, ” no matter what the President is asking you to do.
10. Disappear (and find an excuse later) if the President is in a bad mood.
11. Never ague with the President if there’s somebody else present.
12. Learn how the President likes to do business (talking, giving orders, writing the documents and taking notes, managing official and non-official meetings) and his habits (food, drinks, cigarettes, favorite sport, movies, show business stars, writers, politicians; attitude to women) and try to copy him — the President has to feel comfortable with you.
13. Fight anybody who’s trying to do your job to be closer to the President.
14. Avoid taking on risky tasks controlled by the President in person (if necessary, try to “delegate” it to somebody else).
15. Avoid being associated with any failures.
16. Don’t say anything President doesn’t want to hear.
17. Use “Smith’s Principle”: if it can be understood by Congress, it’s not finished yet.
18. Write memorandums not to inform the reader, but to protect the writer.
19. No matter what subject is under discussion, employ the language of sports and war: say “breakthrough” instead of “progress”, never speak of compromise, consider “adopting a fallback position. ”
20. Every public appearance in with the President is an investment in your career after the White House.
21. Minimize the number of rivals.
22. Gain independence according to how much the President needs you.
23. Before asking the President for some personal favor, make him believe he’s going to get some (political) profit out of it.
24. Tell the President what he can do and help him try to do it, and never tell him what he shouldn’t do.
25. Avoid giving any personal gifts to the President if you are not Chief of Staff.
Every public appearance in with the President is an investment in your career after the White House.
There is an open power struggle between national security staff members and domestic policy staff and between those who develop new policies and initiatives versus budget staff.
How to Manage the Staff
Adopt a dominant management style:
1. Pyramidal, structured as hierarchy with you at the top, followed by the Chief of Staff and other key assistants. I strongly recommend this one – it insures a clear chain of command and provides precise channels of information going up and directives going down.
2. Circular, when you are surrounded by advisers, all of whom have equal access to the Oval Office. That means chaos (JFK style).
All your assistants are political assistants and everyone will try to play a policy-maker. But a good thing is that all of them were not elected and are responsible to you only.
Thus you can:
– reform your staff freely as there’s not even a word about it in the US Constitution
– interchange key figures if domestic crisis is approaching
– if you don’t agree with the staff on important issues, go to polls for back-up. (The best employee is the one you can blackmail. Besides, a very good “pusher” for your people is their deep understanding that they have to work together to help the President stay in office next term because if the President leaves, everybody leaves)
– use “the carrot and the stick” tactics
– use “pulling by pushing” – give an important job without publicity to those who become too popular
– do as little reading as you can – you have staff for that
– do as little writing as you can – same reason
– involve yourself personally in your staff and Cabinet jobs as little as you can – same reason
– make no minor decisions – same reason
– send back any intelligence or other report if it’s more than one sheet of paper
The Pocket Cabinet
If the bureaucrats are wearing you down, you have the right to fire any Secretary. However, Cabinet members must be approved by Senate, therefore, you have to negotiate with the Senate leaders and party leaders throughout the country. As a result, some positions may go to people you don’t know well and can’t trust. Then if you want to re-organize the Cabinet you have to confront the Congress, because Congress tries to protect the interests of its constituents, who are often the clients of the existing bureaucratic agencies. So, if you plan changes you have to appoint people who share your strategy.
You may also need to offer a position to a group that you need to support in the coming election, or whose help you need; or to help pass legislation (these people will be more loyal to their political benefactors than to you).
Secretaries have disadvantages compared to the staffers as they don’t have easy access to the Oval Office (again, that depends on you). Some of them had little or no contact with you before being appointed. Actually, their task is to win the backing of key interest groups and that’s why you, practically speaking, don’t need Cabinet meetings (if there’s no crisis). If a Cabinet member feels independent (usually, that’s the Secretary of State), don’t fire him/her – substitute him/her by the national security adviser or send him abroad on a regular basis.
The Cabinet members work hard during a crisis only. They prefer to save their plans and suggestions for private conversations with you, because that is what you need them for and they are competing with other Secretaries for your time, support and for funds.
It’s not easy for the President to make government agencies work effectively : first, you have no time, second – they have no competition. Anyway, you must have insiders in all departments, especially in the Justice Department (FBI), CIA and Secret Service firing anybody who’s trying to dig up dirt on you.
Secretary of Defense.
The Secretary of Defense is a very special and unique position for many reasons. This department is regarded a non-political one, defending the United States no matter what (never let him decide, though, what and where US interests are). Military leaders have a lot of friends in Congress who press the administration to accept military demands. Besides, it’s not easy to manage the Pentagon, as you depend on the military for evaluations of the national military capacities; they decide also what kinds of weapons to buy and build. Half of the federal budget goes to Pentagon, making it a major department and that’s the most frustrating aspect of your management.
You have to find compromise between you, Congress, public opinion, interest groups and defense contractors’ lobbyists.
The defense budget affects diplomacy and international relations, because governments worldwide scrutinize it for clues about US global intentions. For example, increases in defense spending, particularly for items such as naval vessels and aircraft, may signal your intention to pursue more aggressive foreign policies, and cuts in defense spending may indicate an effort to scale back on defense commitments.
Hidden Structure
The Cabinet is divided into the inner circle (State, Defense, Treasury, Justice) and outer, less important one (Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security). While inner Cabinet members are selected more on the basis of personal friendship and loyalty, outer Cabinet members are selected more on the basis of geographical, ethnic or political representation and adopt an advocacy position for their Departments.
The inner Cabinet is divided into two groups:
а) national security group (State and Defense Departments).
b) legal-economic group (Justice and Treasury Departments). The Attorney General usually serves as the president’s attorney and this special responsibility leads to close personal contact with the President. The Secretary of Treasury is very important in domestic monetary and fiscal policies and international trade and currency.
The outer Cabinet is a “domestic” group. Don’t waste your time meeting them – you have enough staffers for that. Sometimes “outer” Secretaries try to build their political base of support within their own bureaucracies. Don’t hesitate to fire and replace any of them if they start to criticize you and behave politically independent, counting on bureaucratic and interest groups’ support.
There’s one (negative for you) thing in common between all Secretaries – self-interest pushes them to protect and expand their departments and then they act more like representatives of their departments to the President then the presidential envoys they were appointed to be (“divided loyalty”).
ATTENTION : Secretaries of State and Defense usually form a coalition against your National Security Adviser. You must be a smart mediator as Commander-in-Chief. These two have weekly meetings, and each of them has a weekly meeting with the DNI (Director of National Intelligence), so you must know from independent sources what they are talking about in case they “forget” to tell you the details. The Defense Secretary meets weekly with the Joint Chiefs, too.
Mind Control
Every day in 2004 we watched the Homeland Security Department "terror alert colors" and very often the threat was "high" or "very high. " With all my 30 years espionage experience I couldn’t understand why they were telling the nation about the threat and producing the multicolor picture on TV. Why? What can ordinary Americans do about that? What happened next made the situation absolutely clear for me and posed one more question for the nation: right after President Bush was re-elected the colors disappeared – why? Again, what happened? Is there no more "terror threat" to America? There is. But there’s mind control, too.
Mind control, which I call mind manipulation or MM, is used to program the "right political behavior" of the nation or "indifferent behavior" (if necessary) without people’s knowing or understanding the procedure.
We are talking here about total illegal social control.
Principles of Mind Manipulation
1) It’s not enough if every single citizen, and the nation as a whole, thinks and behaves your way – it’s much better if they want to behave your way and feel comfortable, and are absolutely sure it’s their own choice and, finally, they become your active supporters.
2) If you want to control the nation and program peoples’ thoughts, you have to control knowledge (information, culture and communication).
3) The political imagination (belief) of the nation has to move in the right direction and has to be accepted as the most comfortable and most acceptable way of political activity: nobody is thinking, nobody is criticizing the President, nobody is making comparisons and drawing conclusions. Everybody believes the American President and hates his enemies.
4) Don’t waste time fighting foreign ideology, take care of ordinary Americans.
5) There is no difference between commercial and political advertising, and MM.
American Propaganda Technology
You need 24/7 effective propaganda to get non-stop public support of your policy — your war for public support does not stop the day you enter the White House — it may stop the day you leave the White House. If your polls go below 40%, the United States effectively has no President.
Use propaganda tricks:
– general (abstract) information on big problem
– information dosage (the less people know — the easier you convince them)
– misinformation (full or partial) presented as news, sensations, rumors
– disorientation – one bit of information contradicts another one
– provocation – information "pushes" people (before you start war)
– information over-dosage – too much information (and people lose interest)
– exaggeration of enemy’s negative sides and promotion of scary data
– distraction of nation’s attention from news that is bad (for you) by publishing sensations and (political) scandals
– stereotype manipulation ("nuclear threat, " "international terror, " etc.
– "shuffle" – all news and facts match President’s political course
– "cocktail" – mix of true and false information
–"facts transportation" from abroad (you buy a foreign reporter and he’s publishing positive information on your politics; then you spread the information through American media)
Remember the principles of mass psychology: people don’t believe the government – they believe the market and the stock exchange; people need statements, not analysis.
MM Technology
1) Create a steadfast American collective will-power: “We want to live forever in the America we live in now” – through the media.
2) Don’t ask people to change their views and beliefs – they have only to change the object of their aggression – “Now we understand who are America′s enemies! (the previous President, Republicans).
3) Get people accustomed to accept facts but believe only in the “right” comments – any common sense has to be “switched off. ” This way you create “mass artificial schizophrenia” — people lose the ability to connect statements and facts (notions) and just believe.
Besides, by extreme exaggeration of the enemy’s negative qualities you can install the national schizophrenic fear (of "international terrorism") and people have to accept you, the US President, as a savior. Plus, no matter what, repeat your major statements until people start accepting them without thinking.
4) Divide the nation into “good Americans”(patriots) and “bad Americans”(the “minority).
Make it clear : it’s much better and more comfortable to be “good” than “bad. ” “We aren’t watching good Americans who support the President. The surveillance is for bad Americans and we make their lives and careers uncomfortable. We have to do that because enemies of America may be using them. ” This method is called artificial social selection and its ultimate goal is a total regulation and standardization of the nation.
5) For successful MM, use the combined efforts of popular Democratic American writers, TV and radio anchors, talented publicists and columnists, business and show business celebrities, politicians. Thus, step by step you create the “industry of correct political behavior and correct American thinking. ”
6) Use a combination: statement + image. It reduces the effort needed to understand your message and makes people comfortable with you.
7) Shift all popular TV shows to prime time – Americans don’t have to think about politics after they come home.
Psycho-epidemic
During his first presidential campaign Obama used my strategy of psycho-epidemic.
It′s simple – you hypnotize people by permanent repetition of a certain word, like "Change! ", a phrase, a slogan. A crowd, and even a nation,, often behaves like a dog, it′s very submissive if there′s a strong personality, a strong leader in front of it. Then, the reflex appears – once you see a strong leader, you must listen to him and follow his orders.
Strategic planning
That’s the biggest problem for all administrations.
Strategic planning is the process of making present decisions based on well-calculated future consequences. The basic strategic objective is a decision as to where to concentrate the government efforts this is the essence of strategic planning. The worst example of strategic planning is the war in Iraq.
It is crucial to choose a professional crew and place people in positions where their brains will work effectively and produce quality.
Planning formula:
– design strategy
– amplify and clarify strategy into policy
– organize a team
– guide execution
– make final strategic decision
A. Regular Planning Model:
subject, concept, idea definition of objectives
design of innovative options and debate
exploration of concepts, claims and possibilities





Рейтинг работы: 0
Количество рецензий: 0
Количество сообщений: 0
Количество просмотров: 16
© 12.06.2018 Михаил Крыжановский
Свидетельство о публикации: izba-2018-2294835

Рубрика произведения: Разное -> Политика












1