Here’s The Real Danger Behind Trump’s Syria Strike

Here’s the real deal behind Trump’s Syria strike that no one else will tell you.

It’s about the real danger.

It’s so subtle that it got past me at first. That’s your tell for the tricks of persuasion working even if you know about them.

Scott Adams may be right about some of the 4D chess aspects of Trump’s Syria strike. On the surface, it does seem to fit the profile of a “fake response to a fake atrocity.” And by that I mean not that the chemical weapons weren’t real, but Assad using them is at least questionable.

For the sake of self-preservation against a potential mob, I hereby disclaim that I don’t consider Assad a “good guy,”(TM) just the least bad in a sea of bad options for Syria.

Anyway, the real danger behind the Syria strike comes from a psychological phenomenon I laid out here before: the “Yes Set” agreement.

Quoting from Unlimited Selling Power:

As the patient agrees with these yes-set questions, he or she begins to experience the comfort and relaxation that are being discussed. The earliest yes-set questions you use should be the ones that are easiest to agree with. As a “climate of agreement” is built, bigger requests can be made. The patient, who is now in a “habit of agreement” is much more likely to follow these suggestions.

As people agree with a salesperson or hypnotist, they tend to fall into a habit that increases the likelihood of continued agreement. The more people agree, the more they are likely to continue agreeing. Many highly skilled persuaders seek some form of minor or major agreement at least once each minute during their presentations.

Now notice the implicit questions/statements.

“Chemical weapons are bad, right? They should never be used against children, yes?”

It’s impossible to say “no” to these.

Then came the Tomahawk strike. This on the surface appears to be a small, easily agreeable, tit for tat strike.

Now comes the big question. There are still conflicting reports and I’m not drawing any conclusion until Tillerson’s trip to Russia this week, which will be our first big tell, but there is now chatter of regime change, starring Nikki Haley. There will be additional sanctions on Syria courtesy of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

Does this resemble a “Yes Set” trap to you?

The “Yes Set” agreement is predicated on starting with the small agreements to then get bigger ones.

In other words, if there was talk of regime change immediately following the chemical attack last week without the Tomahawk strikes, I doubt it would have been as well received. This kind of chatter resembles what went on in 2013, and the Obama administration lost that one. They started off too strong.

Trump's tomahawk strike in Syria

The Tomahawk strikes therefore can make more serious intervention more likely, not less. They’ve warmed the pot. They got widespread praise and agreement.

“Chemical weapons can’t be tolerated, right? And the Tomahawk strike was appropriate and necessary, right?”

I hope that this is just a one off. That is what Tillerson seems to be suggesting, but we can’t know for sure yet. All we can know is how to prevent a useless foreign adventure being sold to us. That means being aware of the persuasion that may be used.

Be aware of the “Yes Set” agreement at play in any talk regarding these Tomahawk strikes. If you see people hypothesizing or rationalizing more serious action, inform them of this.

I’m not sure whose fingerprints these are yet, the Deep State’s or Trump’s. Both are trained persuaders, and this sort of thing is why I believe the Russia narrative was set up all along.

Be alert and condemn, condemn, condemn. Keep the heat up. Warn that the base will not accept a useless foreign adventure when Trump explicitly campaigned against it.

Also, call out the cognitive dissonance in others who support Trump.

At the very least, Trump’s Syria strikes are distinguishing Trump’s supporters from his cheerleaders.

Read Stumped because you want to know other ways to prevent yourself from falling prey to the Deep State’s propaganda.