Quantcast

DAESH Linguistic Kill Shot

    In a culture that allows powerful men to have multiple wives, the leaders have to reduce the number of male competitors so the math works. The best way to do that is to convince young men to go kill themselves in the name of some greater good. As an added incentive to die, the young men are promised a worthy cause, respect, sex slaves, and 72 virgins in heaven.

    The reality is that most of the DAESH fighters are working hard to spread the genetic material of the more successful men leading them. They just don’t know it.

    If you want to change someone’s mind, you have to go deep. You have to bypass rational thought entirely. You need to find the ego. 

    Here are some arguments that would be a total waste of time.

    1. We think you misinterpreted your religious books.

    2. Evil is bad. You really should do less of it.

    3. We can help you get a job if you stop killing us.

    4. We will kill you if you keep trying to kill us first.

    I could go on. The point is that reason isn’t in play. So let’s ignore it.

    When you are a young man – and here I speak from experience – you are naturally distrustful of authority. And your sex drive is – by far – your dominant impulse. Combining those two elements, one effective form of persuasion might go like this:  

    Linguistic Kill Shot: DAESH fighters are genetic dead-enders fighting to spread the genes of their leaders. And they are succeeding.

    Why it should work:

    – It plays on the natural distrust young people have for the old(er).

    – Sex and reproduction are such strong impulses that they overwhelm any other sense of reason. You can’t fight promises of sex unless you offer other promises of sex. There is no substitute in the world of persuasion.

    – The statement is unambiguously true. Dead fighters do not spread their genes. Leaders with multiple wives do. There is nothing to argue.

    Speaking of Trump, he’s the only one in the game who could pull this off. I know you think I’ve gone too far in my Trump-loving, but this topic is still in the wheelhouse of persuasion, not politics. (I don’t agree with a number of Trump’s policies.)

    I remind you that I am not smart enough to know which candidate would be the best president. All the candidates look qualified to me. But objectively speaking, if you want to fix a leak, hire a plumber. And if your biggest problems can only be solved by changing people’s minds, you want to hire a persuader. That much is certain. But we don’t know what the future holds or what skill set would matter most several years from now.

    Update: I should have mentioned that the best way to approach this is to test different linguistic kill shots on captive jihadists. Hook a brain scanner to their noggins and see which ideas light up the right areas of the brain.

    We only need to reprogram a few captives to know whether a particular method works. Once the best linguistic kill shot is identified from the candidates, you release it to the wild like an idea virus.

    Chances this would work: 100%

    It won’t reprogram most jihadist, but if you influence 20%, that’s enough to break their momentum and permanently infect them with the idea virus.

    To learn more about the advantage of systems versus goals in a moist robot world, see my book that is critically acclaimed by anonymous strangers on Amazon.com. Anonymous strangers are very wise.

Global Gender War

    Note: My Clown Genius Post (about Trump) is nominated for a Best Writing of 2015 award called the Golden Giraffes. You can vote for it here. (Do a page search to find my name.) 

    I don’t care about awards of this type, but this is an opportunity to shine some light on the Moist Robot hypothesis and the Master Persuader concepts if you think the ideas are worthy.

    Now back to business…

    I wonder if the discussion of so-called radical Islam is disguising the fact that male-dominated societies are at war with female-dominated countries. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Islam doesn’t look so dangerous in countries where women can vote. 

    Consider the United States.

    When I go to dinner, I expect the server to take my date’s order first. I expect the server to deliver her meal first. I expect to pay the check. I expect to be the designated driver, or at least manage the transportation for the evening. And on the way out, I will hold the door for her, then open the door to the car.

    When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman. If the woman has additional preferences in terms of temperature, beverages, and whatnot, the man generally complies. If I fall in love and want to propose, I am expected to do so on my knees, to set the tone for the rest of the marriage.

    Personally, I don’t go on dates. So the story above is just an example. But if I go to dinner with a female business associate, the story usually plays out the same way. The difference is that she might pick up the check if we are talking business, and the night ends earlier.

    I won’t reopen the discussion of gender pay imbalance in this post. I’ll just summarize by saying that well-informed feminists don’t see much gender discrimination in the data. So if you think women in the United States are paid less for the same work, please take it up with well-informed feminists. I’m just reporting what they say.

    Women have made an issue of the fact that men talk over women in meetings. In my experience, that’s true. But for full context, I interrupt anyone who talks too long without adding enough value. If most of my victims turn out to be women, I am still assumed to be the problem in this situation, not the talkers. The alternative interpretation of the situation – that women are more verbal than men – is never discussed as a contributing factor to interruptions. Can you imagine a situation where – on average – the people who talk the most do NOT get interrupted the most? I don’t know if the amount of talking each person does is related to the amount of interrupting they experience, or if there is a gender difference to it, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis. My point is that men are assumed guilty in this country. We don’t even explore their alibis. (And watch the reaction to even bringing up the topic.)

    Now compare our matriarchy (that we pretend is a patriarchy) with the situation in DAESH-held territory. That’s what a male-dominated society looks like. It isn’t pretty. The top-ranked men have multiple wives and the low-ranked men either have no access to women, or they have sex with captured slaves.

    While I’m being politically incorrect, let me describe to you the mind of a teenage boy. Our frontal lobes aren’t complete. We don’t imagine the future. Our bodies want sex more than we want to stay alive. Literally. Lonely boys tend to be suicidal when the odds of future female companionship are low. 

    So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn’t religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I’m not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I’m designed that way. I’m a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.

    Now consider the controversy over the Syrian immigrants. The photos show mostly men of fighting age. No one cares about adult men, so a 1% chance of a hidden terrorist in the group – who might someday kill women and children – is unacceptable. I have twice blogged on the idea of siphoning out the women and small kids from the Caliphate and leaving millions of innocent adult men to suffer and die. I don’t recall anyone complaining about leaving millions of innocent adult males to horrible suffering. In this country, any solution to a problem that involves killing millions of adult men is automatically on the table.

    You want a linguistic kill shot to end DAESH recruiting? I don’t have the details worked out, but perhaps something along the lines of…

    If you kill infidels, you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. But if you kill your own leaders today – the ones holding the leash on your balls – you can have access to women tomorrow. And tomorrow is sooner.

    Teens aren’t good at planning ahead. 

    Note to Gawker Readers: I don’t say mutual consent is necessary because that should be obvious. If you’re hung up on that, you’re missing the point.

    If you think this blog is bad, you should see my book.

France

    France, I hope you know we have your backs. Always will.

    It’s time to put a wall around the Caliphate and remove all the heathen-built technology inside, including all forms of digital communication. We can add back food, medical supplies, and primitive farm tools. Let’s do some A-B testing and let God decide which system works best.

    Sometimes the best way to change a person’s mind is by agreeing with them. That’s a trick I learned in hypnosis class. The method works so well (on the right personality types) that it looks like magic. 

    So let’s actively and obviously help the bad guys achieve their Caliphate. That will rewire their brains overnight.

    If you want to kill people, you need a military leader. But if you’re trying to win a global mind game, call Tony Robbins, or someone with similar skills. We need to go at the idea directly.

    We have a collective illusion – because we hear it so often in the media – that you can’t kill an idea. But the truth is that you absolutely can kill an idea. You just need the right kind of killers. So far we haven’t tried. 

    Update: Let me better explain what I mean by “agreeing with them.” I explained that poorly to the point of misleading.

    I don’t mean literally agreeing. In this context, we would be agreeing with a modified version of their truth, in order to change it. That’s the technique.

    So we would not be agreeing with the world conquest part of the ideology. We would be silent on that. We would be agreeing that their view of how to run the world (Sharia law and the rest) is worth testing, to show the world that God is on their side. So we give them space to run their test, whether they want that or not. 

    The “truth” we would be agreeing with is that their version of how to live is worthy of some space to test it. But to keep the test pure, we would want to remove all the heathen influences, such as technology.

    It doesn’t matter if they like any of that. We’d be agreeing with them as hard as we can, even while they argue that our agreement is not agreement at all, which will confuse their clean recruiting message and make them nuts.

    ISIS needs enemies in order to grow. If we stop acting like enemies (bombing) and start acting like allies (airdropping food, supplies, farming tools, even Korans) it makes things confusing over there. We want ISIS to be telling villagers that we are the enemy at the same time we are giving them free supplies and ISIS is beheading them.

    We could also create multiple escape paths for the innocents, but only for the women, girls, and boys under 6 (for example). ISIS can’t block every escape path. Over time, we drain out the women and put them in a defended area in the region. Eventually the younger men will turn on the older men over the issue of access to women. 

    Once the “califake” is formed, and all travel and communication is shut off, we can take our time. I think science has reached the point where we can drug the water supply with chemicals to reprogram the population to whatever personality types we prefer. Do we want them docile? Can do!

    I also think we should be testing some brainwashing techniques to see what it would take to reprogram young jihadists away from that way of life. We have plenty of captured folks to practice on, or we could capture enough of them if we aimed to do so. All we need to do is hook them up to brain scanners and A-B test a bunch of images and arguments until we find out what works best. Then we package it as the best propaganda of all time.

    My (highly informed) opinion is that we could engineer a linguistic kill shot to discredit the violent jihadists and end their recruitment. Are we already doing it?

    I saw today that France has decided to stop using the terms ISIS and ISIL because those acronyms confer too much respect on them as a “state.” Instead the French now prefer the more insulting term DAESH that has an insult built into it. 

    But that’s a rookie move, and far from a linguistic kill shot. There is no stickiness to it. It has no Trumplike magic.

    We can fix that. 

    I would make some linguistic kill shot suggestions here but I don’t think I can engineer one that survives translation. And I don’t understand the culture enough to be confident in how to manipulate it. But people with my skill set and better vision on the language and culture certainly could.

    If anyone in the CIA is reading this, and you don’t think this idea is feasible, you really need to talk to me. Or look who is leading the Republican nomination race and ask yourself why.

    Influence is a real skill set. 

    Update 2: See this story about how the science of influence was used to reduce smoking rates in teens. What could be harder than that? And it worked.

    Update 3: The uber-hacker group Anonymous just declared war on DAESH. If world governments won’t put DAESH in “digital jail,” perhaps the vigilantes will. Is this the first time a civilian organization ever declared war and had the means to pursue it?