Yes it is a mix of two well known 'softening up' techniques. Here is the sequence of events.

1. Plays the guilt card, and sets himself up as an authority.

2. Never specifies logically the outcome supposed to be achieved, his analysis of their tasks could only be described as a poor attempt at debriefing, in fact he alludes to mysterious hints which are in fact irrelevant and obfuscating to any conceivable training exercise.

3. Increases the personal retribution line, the 'angry daddy' tactic, starts working up the beginnings of rage, and playing on people's instincitve fear of authority.

Hmm I wwoonder where he took it to from there???? Doesn't take a genius to guess. Takes the floor, delivers a harangue with undertones of his own worthiness and the audience's unworthiness. Waits for the majority to come to heel, then when he has their attention and belief, throw them a few crumbs of acknowledgement.

Errrr, masters are for dogs, aren't they. Did you say this was a transcript from obedience school, John?

The other thing it reminds me of is the mindset that causes people to go to S & M parlours. Punish me master, I have done wrong. I want to be punished. Thwack.

Sorry, I can't help finding it incredibly funny.

best

Nya