The first comment on my article “Torture” said no one can stand up under interrogation. I can’t comment on that. I was just called in when I could be use, and I never cracked anybody. In fact, the person I was talking to was never aware he had given me ANY information.
Every American who was in World War II says he really knows what Combat is. So since I did some questioning, people assume that I claim to know a lot about interrogations in general. They are not open to the public, or to me, so you can find out more about them on Google than from me.
But thinking about it, I think my usefulness there relates to what we are doing here. The person I LISTENED to, and that is all I did, was not aware I got information out of him. Ninety percent of the people who are influenced by the Mantra will not remember where or when they saw it and we will not know about them.
In fact, ninety percent of THOSE people will never have heard of the Mantra itself. They will hear from those who do and get the point. We MAY find out about one percent of the people we influence, but I doubt it will be that many.
Everything here relates to everything, and even I am just finding out things like the link between my interrogation methods and the stuff I just mentioned.
Also this all relates to the question one needs always to ask oneself: “Why was this information PRODUCED?” People who run organizations or raise money or want to be Leaders have to limit themselves to results they can SEE. That is the only way to get what they are, in most cases legitimately, really after.
That leaves a huge opening for people like us, who are only interested in results for their own sake. We will always be flying blind to a certain extent, but that is because we are filling a gap only we can fill. Where there are measurable results, there are others who have the incentive to get them.
Just as I have never “cracked” anybody, at least ninety-nine percent of the people we influence will not be aware we influenced them.
And we want it that way. Some day a historian may write a book that includes us, but not for decades yet. In his time, Monet was a very déclassé painter. Nobody who WAS anybody liked him.
No one in BUGS, least of all me, has any interest in making “Whitakerites” out of anybody. If I were trying to be a LEADER or we were raising money, that would change our approach completely. This may answer some of Gator’s questions.
The best definition I ever heard of the difference between Nixon and Reagan was: “Nixon ran for president to BE something. Reagan ran for president to DO something.”
BUGS is here to DO something.
#1 by Gator61 on 03/01/2010 - 10:30 am
Bob,
I just want to do something effectively. I’ve got my ideas about what would make it more effective, but you have forgotten more than I’ll ever know about this sort of thing.
I just keep on doing what I can. Let me know when I’m on the right track.
#2 by shari on 03/01/2010 - 10:43 am
To DO something is the only honest motive there is. Having other motives will come back and bite you. LIBERALS AND RESPECTABLE CONSERVATIVES,have OTHER motives. It’s their achilles heal.
#3 by Dave on 03/01/2010 - 3:19 pm
Most of what occupies our attention has nothing to do with the real future and hardly anybody sees that conflicts are often determined before they occur.
There isn’t going to be “Whitakerism” because that would imply “Whitakerism” is going to be in controversy.
Somebody has to stitch it together so that victory is coherent. This is the reason Robert Whitaker’s writings are critical.
But also you have to be smart enough to know that very few people are capable of doing this.
And nobody will notice because that is what real success looks like.