Lets be clear, I don't care who wins the election, this is not about them, it is about the process. The electoral process is one in which we vote for the best of the worst because we make the wrong choices along the way. Rick Perry should never have been a candidate for President, none of them should, they are all against the average person and they all believe in privilege, they all believe that a few should be allowed to avoid the law rather than benefit from what they have done for people who have earned it.
Mr. Perry talks about how "bold" he is; but, he is still their shill (as they say in Las Vegas (look up shill in WikiPedia). Rick Perry's message (according to CNBC is “I hope what they will see is that America's a fabulous country and it gives them the opportunity to go say your piece, go protest on the street. But at the end of the day America's about having the opportunity to take care of your family.” Is that what it is about, is America about ensuring that if you work hard you will have comfort, I don't see it for the Baby Boomers, I don't see it for me and I don't see it for those that are younger than me. I don't see it.
Go back and read all my posts, I am willing to give up for those that will live longer and that is what this is all about. It is about making the fight something about a group rather than the rules of the game. It is about making a privledged class by birth rather than by right, if we avoid both than we choose randomness and that nobody can succeed. What rule of life does that look like and why bother doing anything if we are penalized for success and not rewarded for sacrifice? Is that the world you wish to live in? Or is it only the world you wish to live in if you "win"?
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Propaganda and Lies, how to know
A few decades ago an expert in propaganda spoke at my school. It was during the cold war and he was sent to teach us how to spot communist propaganda; but, all propaganda is the same, the methodology.
Today, I was reading the L.A. Times online and saw something funny. The top article in the section I saw said, "Student loans add to angst at Occupy Wall Street". Fair enough, it talked about how many of the protesters in their 20s were faced with student loan debts and no job prospects. The article right under it said, "Obama to reduce student loan debt payments". Isn't that nice.
The first article was published at 8:08 and the second at 8:11 and they were written by two different people. The one about how Obama is going to reduce payments, that was the first article; but, it showed up second. This is a case of problem, reaction and solution. It is an example of trying to buy people off. It would have been much easier for one person to write both stories, heck they were published at about the exact same time. I have to believe that the L.A. Times had an editor and knew they were both being published.
Anyways, one of the things we were taught was to look at how articles were grouped together. Let's say every time you read an article about a person, lets say Obama, every time you read an article about there is an article about prostitution next to it. This is a very subtle way of implying a connection when none exists. That is one of the tools of propaganda. I will not call it subliminal because you are aware of what the article says in a conscious manner, it is more conditioned response.
If I want you to find some food disgusting then every time I feed you the food, lets say tacos, I will put a foul smell in the air, lets say dead fish. I am attempting to get you to have what is called a Pavlovian response. In this case, they are attempting to buy off the Occupy Wall Street crowd by reducing their student loan payments. They are attempting to get us to believe that this is what they 20 somethings are really mad about; but, it isn't and it isn't going to work or change one darn thing. It is funny that this comes out the same day that the Oakland police and other cities began cracking down on the protesters. This is what you do to see if you can keep them from coming back, you throw them a cookie.
It is so pitiful watching the wealthy try and confuse those who have nothing and those who have lost everything. It doesn't work that way. Those in power never understood why they were in power, they thought it was because they knew how to manage people, it was not, it was so that they could help people grow in a civilized manner. It was never about keeping them down, it was about growing them properly. When the leadership no longer helps to grow a civilization then the civilization rises up and gets rid of the leaders or it dies along with it's leaders. It is very Darwinian, very Toynbee and very much nature.
The purpose of leaders is not greater rewards for those who give more, that should occur; but, should never be the leader's reason. A leader should always be a leader because he believes in his society more than his importance. We are corrupt because our leaders no longer believe that.
A population, a citizenship's purpose should always be to contribute to make the society closer and stronger and to choose leaders (if they have developed to that degree) that will look at the greater good rather than the good of just those who will get them elected. The citizenship is also corrupted. If we want a great society, then both the leadership and the people must be willing to give of themselves for the greater good of all.
Today, I was reading the L.A. Times online and saw something funny. The top article in the section I saw said, "Student loans add to angst at Occupy Wall Street". Fair enough, it talked about how many of the protesters in their 20s were faced with student loan debts and no job prospects. The article right under it said, "Obama to reduce student loan debt payments". Isn't that nice.
The first article was published at 8:08 and the second at 8:11 and they were written by two different people. The one about how Obama is going to reduce payments, that was the first article; but, it showed up second. This is a case of problem, reaction and solution. It is an example of trying to buy people off. It would have been much easier for one person to write both stories, heck they were published at about the exact same time. I have to believe that the L.A. Times had an editor and knew they were both being published.
Anyways, one of the things we were taught was to look at how articles were grouped together. Let's say every time you read an article about a person, lets say Obama, every time you read an article about there is an article about prostitution next to it. This is a very subtle way of implying a connection when none exists. That is one of the tools of propaganda. I will not call it subliminal because you are aware of what the article says in a conscious manner, it is more conditioned response.
If I want you to find some food disgusting then every time I feed you the food, lets say tacos, I will put a foul smell in the air, lets say dead fish. I am attempting to get you to have what is called a Pavlovian response. In this case, they are attempting to buy off the Occupy Wall Street crowd by reducing their student loan payments. They are attempting to get us to believe that this is what they 20 somethings are really mad about; but, it isn't and it isn't going to work or change one darn thing. It is funny that this comes out the same day that the Oakland police and other cities began cracking down on the protesters. This is what you do to see if you can keep them from coming back, you throw them a cookie.
It is so pitiful watching the wealthy try and confuse those who have nothing and those who have lost everything. It doesn't work that way. Those in power never understood why they were in power, they thought it was because they knew how to manage people, it was not, it was so that they could help people grow in a civilized manner. It was never about keeping them down, it was about growing them properly. When the leadership no longer helps to grow a civilization then the civilization rises up and gets rid of the leaders or it dies along with it's leaders. It is very Darwinian, very Toynbee and very much nature.
The purpose of leaders is not greater rewards for those who give more, that should occur; but, should never be the leader's reason. A leader should always be a leader because he believes in his society more than his importance. We are corrupt because our leaders no longer believe that.
A population, a citizenship's purpose should always be to contribute to make the society closer and stronger and to choose leaders (if they have developed to that degree) that will look at the greater good rather than the good of just those who will get them elected. The citizenship is also corrupted. If we want a great society, then both the leadership and the people must be willing to give of themselves for the greater good of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)