Posts Tagged ‘Propaganda’

THE PROTESTS AGAINST DEMOCRACY IN THE NAME OF TOLERANCE

January 26, 2017

Anyone seeing the few newscasts or many YouTube videos of the “demonstrations” in D.C. over the past weekend has to feel bad for the tolerant left. They are so out of touch with reality, so uncaring and abusive that they don’t care what or whom they destroy.

In particular there is one video of men in black destroying the windows of a Starbucks. One CNN video showed customers inside, ducking behind tables and fearing for their lives not knowing what might happen next. That makes the demonstration a terrorist act in almost anybody’s book.

The thing I find particularly funny is that Starbucks President and CEO, Kevin Johnson and Chairman of the Board, Howard Schultz are a couple of the most democracy defiant progressive liberals and Trump haters on the planet. Starbucks is, and has been, the socialist icon and hangout of the past three decades.

These idiots were simply destroying property and they didn’t care if it was repressive government property or that of like minded individuals. It was opportunity not unlike Ferguson or Baltimore or anywhere that progressives can gather to cause mayhem and destruction.

According to some accounts they were paid by Soros step down organizations to cause disruption, chaos and engage police. Starbucks is one of the many progressive owned enterprises that donates large sums of what could be employee profit sharing to the radical Soros groups.

The “demonstrators” just act with Twitter fed mob mentality. They are angered by their own lives. They will probably be the politicians or professors of the future. I seriously doubt that there is a private sector income earner in the group. In fact, I question if there are any income earners in the group at all, even those currently drawing a wage from the public sector.

All this took place during and shortly after the inauguration. There was no time to see if any of the policies of the new administration would be to their liking or benefit. It was all caused because the whining vagina did not receive her crown. It was scripted and directed by the same people who drove the government for the past eight years.  At least that won’t happen any more.

Advertisements

OUR GOVERNMENT AND IT’S MINISTRY OF TRUTH

January 5, 2017

Fake news is one thing. Making real news fake is quite another thing.

Seventeen agencies say the Russians hacked into the DNC computer system” is an example of how we are expected to sheepishly welcome what is authoritatively presented as truth. Actually, it was the DDNI, James Clapper, who said the Russians hacked the DNC computer system.

His statement was interpolated to include all the agencies under his jurisdiction. They include: Air Force Intelligence, Department of Treasury, Army Intelligence, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Coast Guard Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Department of Energy, National Reconnaissance Office, Department of Homeland Security, National Security Agency, Department of State, Navy Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.

Director Clapper is responsible for the Department of National Intelligence (DNI) and the sixteen others listed above, but they did not all agree that the “Russians” were behind the breach. (Well, that is, perhaps until they were told to smile, nod and otherwise acquiesce or be disciplined.) Hell, neither the directors of some of the agencies nor their staff knew anything about the hacking until they read it in the New York Times. Why would the Department of Energy investigate a cyber transgression?

The truth is, to this date, not one of the directors nor any of their charges have defining proof as to what, which state, group or individual actually invaded the site. To be sure, it was October 7, 2016 when Secretary Jeh Johnson and Director Clapper issued a joint statement  that the intelligence community is confident the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations”. The statement went on to say that the disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks are consistent with the Russian-directed efforts. Nothing any more positive has yet been said.

I remember my marketing teacher saying, “There is an implied credibility with repetition”. This one joint statement took on a life of it’s own. It was repeated by virtually every news outlet, email thread and Twitter feed until it morphed into what we now hear as “seventeen agencies all agree that the Russians hacked the DNC computer system and influenced with our presidential election”.

This misdirection has no reason other than to set problems for the new administration.  Barack is doing everything possible to cause chaos from January 20, 2017 forward so that his failed eight years won’t look so bad.

Back in October of last year <link> I wrote, They (Russians) may even be complicit in the information Wikileaks is sharing regarding Hillary’s unlawful email interactions and information storage.  However, “What difference, at this point, does it make” if it is the Russians, Guccifer, the NSA, Barack Obama, Donald Trump or Dorothy and Toto who hacked the emails?  It’s about the content, not who obtained it, how it was obtained or who shares it.

What did you read or hear today and accept as truth without checking further?

 

“FAKE NEWS” AND THE NEED TO REINSTATE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

December 14, 2016

We have fairness in broadcasting today. Not all of it is to the liking of the left leaning outlets controlling about 85% of the news, and that seems to be the problem. There was little rebuff with the repeal of the original 1949 FCC mandate because by 1987 the majority of news outlets had a significant liberal influence. The few others were scoffed and marginalized by the many. Truly, the only controversy came when facts surfaced that did not coincide with the coveted stories of the day.

The Fairness Doctrine, introduced by the FCC in 1949, required that broadcast licensees present controversial issues of public importance with honesty, equity and balance. Federal oversight included reprimands and fines for noncompliance issued at the discretion of the FCC commissioner. The guidelines (typically acceptable for any government agency) were ill defined and arbitrary. Print publications were not included in the doctrine.

With the wider opportunity for voices other than those deemed “the only truth”, liberals now want to change our speech and the presentation of ideas. Political correctness, inclusiveness and gender fluidity all allow for pigeonholing today’s non-conformists or traditionalists as bias and bigoted. Liberals (socialists) want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine with tighter guidelines and more controls that align with their agenda. Ergo, fake news.

The latest seems to be Russians hacked the DNC to overturn the election outcome. It makes all Russians suspicious whether or not anyone of Russian descent or even anyone inside of Russia had anything to do with the information theft.  Where is the mention that the emails were true or that they were generated and distributed by a phony, lying, deceitful, conniving and unlikable Democrat candidate?

How better to take control of a population than to create a situation and amplify it to the point of crisis? Fake news is a perfect way of introducing a problem. Simply fabricate some “news”, The Russians Did It – The Russians Did It, post it on the World Wide Web, await the inevitable dispersal and declare it phony information pressed by the opposition. By making it appear as if it is coming from your opposition there is cause to declare and allege it’s false thereby proclaiming immediate credibility for your side. This practice has been around for decades and known as False Flag incidents or operations. The new twist is nothing more than progressive adaptation.

Journalism is no longer objective reporting of recent circumstance or events. It has become increasingly biased, opinionated and political whenever possible. By tweaking what is said or how a situation unfolds, the reporter can influence the thinking of those receiving the information. It need not be entirely false, misleading is generally sufficient. It’s all in the presentation.

A headline like “Cop Shoots Black Man” is all many will read or hear. It’s all many want to hear. It’s all they need to know. The underlying story might be that the black man was a terrorist who tried to assassinate the cop or tried to evade the cop and blow up a bank building or such. It may also be later revealed that it was not a black man, but a man in black clothing. The lack of information is as important to the story as that presented. None-the-less, the original story will incentivize some to riot.

With a new administration on the horizon, expect desperate cries of need for an Information Czar or Minister of Truth to oversee and direct our enlightenment. It will be nothing more than an attempt to further subjugate us under the ruling thumb of pro-socialists. It may well come in the form of another attempt to re-institute an updated Fairness Doctrine.

 

POLITICAL MARKETING BY JOSEPH GOEBBELS

January 18, 2016

In a junior college marketing class some years back, I learned “there is an implied credibility with repetition”. The wording is now indelibly etched on my memory bank. To paraphrase, the more you say something, the more believable it becomes. Thus, if you want your product to be known and respected, or even accepted, you must tell the same story over and over again.

Recently, I ran across a quote from Joseph Goebbels that stopped me in my tracks. He said, “If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it”.

Whoa!

I have often compared politics to my own marketing education and experience. In fact, I have used the implied credibility phrase many times over in rants against the powers that be. I have done so not knowing that it originated with the Reich Minister of Propaganda under Adolf Hitler. The two phrasings say exactly the same thing. How you read and use the influential wording, and in what venue or context, means everything. Politics is the art of marketing, not governing as many believe.

Today, the political arena is about sales of humans and personalities. Political consultants are nothing more than directors of the carnival barker stage. They are marketers. Politicians will say anything to get your attention and your vote, meaning little of what they say.

I find this is true of both major political parties. Conservatives tend to have a bit more integrity, but just a bit more than liberals, yet much more than those who describe themselves as progressives.
Once a false credibility is achieved, the world is in the hands of the elected. Liberals of today don’t care if their #1 presidential candidate is a serial liar. The deceitful statement about a video repeated by the President and his propaganda machine was echoed so many times that the ignorant masses accepted it as truth. They simply looked the other way and resumed rallying. “There was no transmission of classified information”, though proven to be a lie means little to Hillary’s followers.

Liberals don’t care that their current president is a serial liar. They look for ways to reconcile what he has said and what he does. E.g. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”. E.g. “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Whatever happened to the truthful cliché, “Actions speak louder than words”?  Liberals tend not to make a connection between the two. No matter what the identified final truth is, they will fight and defend the spoken words. They will follow the leader and the imagined crowd without regard for right or wrong; what is of benefit to the people or to their elected elite. Today’s progressive liberals are socialists. They want to be governed; to be told what to do, how to do it and when to do it. They want not to think for themselves.

To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole. Joseph Goebbels

Be cautious with your vote!

WEAVING TANGLED WEBS

September 12, 2015

Trying to follow decisions made by different courts around the land is difficult for the average person and impossible to to understand how judgements are made. Activist judges on all levels (lower courts, state supreme courts, federal circuit courts and finally the Supreme Court of the nation) continue to invoke unconstitutional interpolations to the Constitution of the United States of America for the sole purpose of making laws rather than clarifying them.

Here’s a simple headline: The Washington Supreme Court Rules Charter Schools are Unconstitutional.
Reading the story, one finds that the “decision” questions the constitutionality of taking taxpayer money and giving it to private enterprises. The premise for this is that using taxpayer money to actually educate children rather than running them through public indoctrination centers is not a proper use. The money, once it is in the hands of corrupt government disbursement agents, must remain within the system of corruption. It can only be used within, by and for the purposes of direct government influence. That’s what this decision says to me.

Howwever, it is nothing more than another blatant example of liberal interpretation to suit a unique situation without regard for how taxpayer money is normally used as a whole.  The decision conveniently ignores the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers are not the one’s contracted to build any of the influential centers that fail to educate our kids. Instead, it is private contractors such as Fluor or Ledcor or Lusardi who use the taxpayer money to do such.

Using the school system alone to make fools out of the Washington State Supreme Court, one could take any of the purveyors for any school district.

Antithesis #1.
Are the books that convert our kids’ minds from normal to liberal written, printed, bound and sold by employees on the government payroll? Almost, but not really.

Antithesis#2: Are the meals provided to the youngsters while on the institutional grounds raised, planted, cultivated, cropped, butchered and sold by the overpaid tax usurpers? Not at all, that’s work Americans refuse to do…or so I’m told.

So, with this layman’s reading of the decision, how is it unconsititutional for our children to get a balanced education using taxpayer money?  Why must our youth be chained to a highly influenced liberal indoctrination center?

Apparently, if liberals lose control of the easily influenced minds of tomorrow’s generation before they are able to form reasoned thoughts for themselves, it poses a threat to the domination philosophy. Therefore, all counter arguments derived using logic must be summarily dismissed and replaced by what “feels” right or what most appeals to the liberal doctrine.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we attempt to parse well defined words in order to continue enslaving the masses.