What 'Agenda' are you against? If you are pro-life, then you are anti-abortion. How about Big Government? Then you are anti-decentralization. Save the Whales? You are anti-whaling. Dolphin-safe Tuna? Anti-drift nets. But how to get that message across in a not-so-negative manner. We certainly don't want to be labeled as 'antis'! What are the techniques used by the antis in modern democracies? How does the minority put forth their anti-agenda until it is embraced and adopted by the majority? Hitler knew...

By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell ¨C and hell heaven. Then greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed. - Adolf Hitler

The first basic technique is the Big Lie. It is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective. It consists of claiming that the Agenda causes harm; cancer, heart disease, poverty and other serious ailments that people fear. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter. The trick is to keep repeating the lie ¨C because if something is said often enough, people; tend to think there must be some truth to it.

A variation of the Big Lie is the Laundry List. List enough ¡°evils,¡± and even if proponents can reply to some of them, they will never be able to cover the entire list. The Laundry List is always impressive, since it lends the appearance of tremendous evidence. This technique is most effective in debates, letters to the editor, and television news reports.

A key factor in any anti campaign is the use of printed materials and documents. Scientific or academic journals will rarely publish them, but your target audience does not read those anyway, do they? Most local newspapers are more than willing to express minority viewpoints regardless of whether facts support them. A few editors even welcome the controversy the antis generate ¨C expecting that it will increase readership. The aim is to create the illusion of scientific controversy. The documents can quote statements that are out of date or out of context. Quotes from obscure or hard-to-locate journals can often be used. And Half-truths always work well. Another favored tactic is to Misquote a pro-Agenda scientist or official, knowing that even if the scientist protests, the reply will not reach all those who read the original misquote.

The conspiracy Gambit is particularly effective when government agencies are providing support for the Agenda. The beauty of the conspiracy charge is that it can be leveled at anyone and here is absolutely no way to disprove it. After all, how does one prove that something is not taking place secretly? Favorite ¡°conspirators¡± are the U.S. Public Heath Service, the American Medical Association, and almost any government subsidized industry. It is easy to convince the public that these groups could all be working together to ¡°destroy¡± and ¡°deceive¡± the American people! Years ago, conspiracy claims would work primarily with the very paranoid. However, modern-day government scandals may make them seem realistic to a wider audience.

The Slippery Slope claim is a related gambit, and should always be used on the heels of the Conspiracy Gambit. ¡°This is only the beginning!¡± you should wail. ¡°First they will [Your-Warning-Here], then they will [Oh-My-Goodness], and the next thing you know they will be [Completely-Unacceptable-Goes-Here]!¡± Who ¡°they¡± are need not be specified. We know, and so will those you are trying to convince.

Finally, ¡°Let the people decide!¡± This sounds as if you wish to use the democratic process to make the decision. Nevertheless, experience in many cities has shown otherwise. Curiously, studies have shown that referendums can lose even in communities where public opinion favors the Agenda. People will usually go to the polls to vote against what they don't like. Therefore, the crucial factor in many referendums is your ability to mobilize the supporters.



*source unknown.