From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

Gaslighting is a form of psychological cruelty where one seeds the sows of doubt by manipulating them into questioning their own memory, perception, and sanity. It comes from a 1940's play (Gaslight) and later movie (Angel Street) where a husband tries to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating things in her environment (like dimming the gaslights in the house), then insisting that she is delusional when she points it out. The term has been popular since the 1960's, and the practice by the left in politics goes back much further to ideas like the Nazi's "the big lie" techniques, propaganda and the ministry of truth: not only lying about an issue, but trying to convince the other side that they're insane for even thinking it.

Issue Lie Truth
Gaslighting Gaslighting is evil. Not only is it a double standard, but it's trying to convince the other side that they're mentally unstable for even thinking it. Republicans did it first under Newt Gingrich, or Donald Trump. Trump isn't gaslighting, he's bloviating -- and the Clinton's are infamous for this technique. But it goes back way further, in politics and history. But the left is blind to their use of the technique far more often than the other side would try. See Alternate History or Alternate Reality for a few examples.


The Democrats and their media loves to portray the right as instigators of it -- which is evidence of them doing it. Either they are completely ignorant about their own history and use of the technique (which I doubt), or they know of it and are suppressing it. Maurine Dowd used it against those complaining about Clinton (like Newt Gingrich), and trying to get hm to say hysterical things, or Donald Trump's obnoxious style of overstating everything. But they ignore that the complains against Bill and Hillary Clinton were valid, and that Hillary Clinton alone has many examples of gaslighting... not to mention many more before or since against the left: 12 items

Russian Hackers -
Fake news.jpg
The Russian hacker thing seems to be a great system for separating the rational and skeptical, from the rest. Despite CNN and other FakeNews sites repeating that the Russian hacked the election (at Hillary campaigns behest), that Russians collaborated with Trump, that they manipulated the election, the only "evidence" they had were vaporous claims from anonymous sources that never materialized or pass scrutiny. While there was hard evidence of Hillary and Democrats colluding with Russians. So Dems/their Media just created this attack as an excuse to distract away from their actions in rigging the primary, fumbling the election, and then gaslit anyone who would question their narrative.
Protest funding - They say "follow the money". So where was the funding coming from for various "grass roots" leftist protests against Trump? Besides Soros, there was ANSWER, the Workers World Party front, and the Socialist Alternative. The media had no interest in reporting this story.
Paying thugs to assault people - Project Veritas undercover video, Wikileaks, and others all caught prominent Democrat operatives (Robert Creamer, Scott Foval) admitting that the DNC and Hillary Campaign was paying protestors to disrupt, and thugs to assault or provoke assault with Trump supporters are Trump rally's/events. Including daily conference call with the Clinton campaign, and he visited the Obama White House 340 times (45 of those with direct meetings with Obama, a few with 1:1's). They were also committing voter fraud, and left a paper trail. This isn't just outliers, this was establishment connections in a conspiracy to corrupt an election, and at least two people quickly had to quit to distance themselves from the truth. The media gave this scandal and thorough whitewashing and buried it. Little interest despite names, dates, and hard evidence of something far more material on the election outcome than, "Russia, Russia, Russia".
Inciting Violence -
The left Gaslights by trying to cover up their bad actions, by blaming the other side for it. An example of this is claiming the right incites violence, and inferring the left does not. This pops up especially after mass shootings. A few examples to the contrary include: Antifa, Democrats on violence, Fake Hate, How do you start a race war?, ICE, Incel, Kent State, Paying thugs to assault people, Project Veritas exposes Bernie Sanders campaign, Protest funding, Real Hate, Robert Reich on race wars, Statuary Rape, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Twitter blocks Senate Majority Leader, and more.
Hillary Quotes -
Just some of Hillary's greatest misses. Again, this isn't trying to be "fair" and list all the good things she's said. This is to point out the Pants-suit posse criticizing other politicians for being insensitive racists, or just asshats, might want to consider "lead by example". If it's wrong for the other side, then it's more wrong to ignore your own sides flaws. And pretending "when they go low, we go high" is just gaslighting.
Hillary Clinton: What Happened? - Hillary's book was a spiteful, divisive, finger-pointing-fest. It was everyone else's fault but her. Of course, she had some fake apologies like, I should have campaigned harder, or how it was her fault because the others didn't understand how brilliant she was, and so on. But it was as tone deaf as her campaign, and it was an attempt to gaslight anyone that would question her version of events.
Hillary Clinton: Go-Awaygate -
Hillary Clinton fires back at critics: No one told a man who lost an election to shut up. Of course that shows that she's clueless, abrasive, ignorant of history, and context is that everyone else was not as venomous and divisive a loser (or winner) as she has been. No one has cared about her genitalia in a long time -- but her perpetual victimhood is annoying as fuck and evidence of her attempts to gaslight anyone who disagrees with her.
Hillary Clinton: Divulges Nuclear Response Times -
Amongst the top most classifications are Special Access Program (SAP) and the “need-to-know” (NTK) classification that includes only a few top cabinet officials like the Secretary of State. These contain things like the nuclear response times, that have been completely classified and foreign enemies would always have to make educated guesses on how fast we could possibly get missiles in the air. Not any more. Thanks to Hillary trying to win political points, she blurted out one of the nations highest secrets ("There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so”). And the results are that many security officials and the Pentagon are once again pissed at her incompetence with classified information. (Not to mention the whole emailgate thing.

Does this really matter? Probably not much. They could approximate and guess at the time, it's just nice to have hard confirmation of your intelligence. But this was a far bigger deal than anything Trump has done wrt talking to the Russians about cooperating on terror, and mentioning what the newspapers had already published about how terrorists were trying to create laptop-bombs to target airplanes -- and they made a huge deal out of the latter, to gaslight anyone who knew better. So if that's our standard of guilt, then Hillary should be in Leavenworth. (I've yet to find a standard of behavior applied to Trump that doesn't make Hillary worse). Pick one standard.

Hillary Clinton: Bimbo squad -
Hillary is a hero to Women's liberation, unless you were one of her Husbands rape or assault victims... like: Juanita Broaddrick, Dolly Kyle Browning, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewisnski. Connie Hamz , Bobbie Ann Williams, Sally Perdue, Eileen Wellstone, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher, University of Arkansas Student, 22 Year old Yale Student, Lencola Sullivan, Elizabeth Ward-Gracen, Becky Brown, Helen Dowdy, Kathy Ferguson, Susie Whitacre, just to name a few that came forward and complained. And as we know with predators, there's like a lot more that have not, or were bullied by Hillary into silence.
Hillary Clinton: Attacked a 12 year old rape victim -
Early into her career Hillary was appointed as public defender in a rape case, and made the centerpiece of her defense attacking the 12-year old victim's credibility (eventhough there wasn't a shred of evidence that the victim had any sort of history of making false claims). Going on to claim the victim wanted it by implying that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor. She omitted this aspect of the case from her 2003 book, "Living History." (Selective memory seems to be a pattern). Then in a 1980 interview she admits she knew the guy was guilty, but joked and laughed about it, and how she manipulated the situation to get her guilty client a reduced punishment for child rape. A lawyers job is to defend their client, but lawyers are NOT required to do things they don't believe are true; like attack the credibility of a 12 year old rape victim, or present evidence/ideas that they know is false. She is admitting doing the latter, and has a pattern of wading neck deep into ethical dark-gray areas (at best). Then claims the opposite, like she's a champion of women's rights, especially sexual assault victims... unless they're victims of her clients or husband).
Birth of Birthers -
Recently Donald Trump re-ignited the birther campaign by saying the following, "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it...." This of course has revived the fable that the Obama birther movement didn't come from the Clinton campaign, and the Hillary-supporting media is quick to carry her campaigns' water and gaslight anyone who knew better. But as Ronald Reagan said, "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."

2019.04.12 Some People - Ilhan Omar was on video saying the terrorist supporting, anti-semitic CAIR, was founded because they recognized "Some people did something", meaning Islamic Terrorists took down the Twin Towers on 9/11. Fair was actually founded nearly a decade earlier. President Trump tweeted the video because it shows the truth about the left's PC apologism for 9/11. The left couldn't argue the facts, so they put their lie-machine in overdrive. WaPo FakeNews'ed by trying to claim that Bush said it too... before we'd identified the source of the attack (as if the context was the same). Atlantic tried to deflect for her. Other operatives for the DNC pretended that Trump was inciting violence or islamaphobia by showing the video of Ilhan's own words. This is moronic, the Republicans love her! She's the poster-child for stupid, racist (anti-Semitic), Politically Correct terrorist apologism. They need her to run-against in 2020. They're more likely to hire a security detail for her, than wish any harm on her. But still, Dems started a "#IStandWithIlhan", and cries about poor her, for having her own message magnified. The fake pearl clutching is an insult to our intelligence, and is obvious gaslighting.


That's just the tip of the iceberg: the whole Alternate History area has a few more examples. Not to mention getting into the much larger Alternate Reality or Left Lies section, where on many of these, they won't only lie about something -- but will attack anyone as not being in touch with reality, or being a shill for the opposition party (or Russians) if they try to point out the real history or version of events.

Again, it's one thing to disagree on what we think the likely outcome on something will be. I have no problems with that kind of political discord. We're talking about a much further extreme where you question the morality or sanity of those who disagree. By nature of the left being a more extreme ideology, more emotion based, and thinking they're morally superior, and having a lot more youth -- they tend to go there far, far, far more often than the other side could try, let alone get away with, with the bulk of the media and academia leaning far-left and being against them.


📚 References