jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
I like some of the principles of the first post - but it falls apart with the repetition of the WTC collpase because the networks consciously made a decision to stop showing those - an instance of mind control in itself.
Degradation and upset are some strong ways to brainwash people. Upsetting people makes them feel guilty about something even if they are innocent. A reason kids often feel guilty about parents getting divorced isn't because they are at fault of course but because they are upset.
The Marxists knew if they degrade people and institutions, then people get upset and feel guilt and self-doubt. Being upset and emotional opens the door of the mind to impressions and suggestions (one factor behind PTSD - and also why TV stations flash their logos at moments of highest attention/drama during a program).
Speaking of "guilty children" - manipulators know how to transfer anger. A lot of kids grow up angry with their parents for various reasons. If a kid hates - say - a bullying Mom or Dad their anger and upset will make them feel inferior and anxious and they will need more approval to offset their inferirority.
The Marxists are good at taking kids anger for their parents (their first authority figures) and transfering it to other authority figures - and then giving them praise for doing so. If some kids are pressured into seeing their country as mean and racist they can't always defend against it because they have already been conditioned to fail before authority and pressure (which upsets them and leaves them with guilt and then need for approval). So they collapse and accept the suggestion about their country (like their parents) and take opposition to it. Their collpase isn't seen as weakness or cowardice though but as a "higher love" or a more virtuous patience. That's liberalism right there.
Gay/straight alliances are a perfect example because they stress people with idea they are homophobes if they dont see homosexuality as "also normal" and then provide an "out" by accepting them as "good" if they chose the alliance side of the stress equation.
We have a lot of broken people who where often first broken at home, and whose angers get channeled and glorified. You can see this especially in some black populations where they were abandoned by their Dad's (like Obama) and the conflict they get from that is transfred to whites (like Obama) who are portrayed as responsible.
The same principle is also seen in Islamic world that is VERY harsh on children. Its not hard for a brutal Imam who has broken a kid to then point at others outside the culture and transfer the blame.
Of course many churches, schools etc also use the same tactics and its not all Marxists using these things. I focus on the Marxists since they have been the most (intentionally) destructive the past 40 yrs. and the world is now upside down with right looking wrong and wrong looking right. Disorders are now "normal" and normal is a disorder - or at least seeing a disorder for what it is is considered an injustice of some kind. A person has to be brainwashed to believe in anthropomorphic global warming, husband and husband marriage, etc. Of course once people are in the mindset to accept these things they are pretty safe from facts and have many rationalizations and excuses. Of course that contorted mindset causes problems in a persons life in other spheres and they are often falling into holes in life they couldn't see.
Degradation and upset are some strong ways to brainwash people. Upsetting people makes them feel guilty about something even if they are innocent. A reason kids often feel guilty about parents getting divorced isn't because they are at fault of course but because they are upset.
The Marxists knew if they degrade people and institutions, then people get upset and feel guilt and self-doubt. Being upset and emotional opens the door of the mind to impressions and suggestions (one factor behind PTSD - and also why TV stations flash their logos at moments of highest attention/drama during a program).
Speaking of "guilty children" - manipulators know how to transfer anger. A lot of kids grow up angry with their parents for various reasons. If a kid hates - say - a bullying Mom or Dad their anger and upset will make them feel inferior and anxious and they will need more approval to offset their inferirority.
The Marxists are good at taking kids anger for their parents (their first authority figures) and transfering it to other authority figures - and then giving them praise for doing so. If some kids are pressured into seeing their country as mean and racist they can't always defend against it because they have already been conditioned to fail before authority and pressure (which upsets them and leaves them with guilt and then need for approval). So they collapse and accept the suggestion about their country (like their parents) and take opposition to it. Their collpase isn't seen as weakness or cowardice though but as a "higher love" or a more virtuous patience. That's liberalism right there.
Gay/straight alliances are a perfect example because they stress people with idea they are homophobes if they dont see homosexuality as "also normal" and then provide an "out" by accepting them as "good" if they chose the alliance side of the stress equation.
We have a lot of broken people who where often first broken at home, and whose angers get channeled and glorified. You can see this especially in some black populations where they were abandoned by their Dad's (like Obama) and the conflict they get from that is transfred to whites (like Obama) who are portrayed as responsible.
The same principle is also seen in Islamic world that is VERY harsh on children. Its not hard for a brutal Imam who has broken a kid to then point at others outside the culture and transfer the blame.
Of course many churches, schools etc also use the same tactics and its not all Marxists using these things. I focus on the Marxists since they have been the most (intentionally) destructive the past 40 yrs. and the world is now upside down with right looking wrong and wrong looking right. Disorders are now "normal" and normal is a disorder - or at least seeing a disorder for what it is is considered an injustice of some kind. A person has to be brainwashed to believe in anthropomorphic global warming, husband and husband marriage, etc. Of course once people are in the mindset to accept these things they are pretty safe from facts and have many rationalizations and excuses. Of course that contorted mindset causes problems in a persons life in other spheres and they are often falling into holes in life they couldn't see.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
The first half of the OP is dedicated to how people are set up mentally to accept whatever they are told.
9/11 is merely one example of an infinite number of examples that can be used. The point is that peoples thoughts are easy to guide and steer when you need them.
If the wind is blowing north an educated man knows that the air pressure to the north is lower and therefor the higher pressure air to the south is rushing to fill in the void.
All an uneducated man knows is that that the wind is blowing north.
In both cases the wind is moving north.
All that matters is that it is. Knowing the end game is not pertinent to the facts and the facts do not depend on us knowing the answer to this question.
So because you don't agree with the end does not make the evidence of the process non-pertinent. The end goal itself is inconsequential.
Obama's campaign is a superb example of that. His fans respond more to cues/triggers than actual facts.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
I think all politics are nowadays. Listen to them all talk. They say things like "we will implement change" "We will form a cohesive strategy" etc etc etc...
...but they never actually give you any answers or say anything of substance. They just sound good so we accept them as good and trustworthy. It is the result of a non-thinking generation.
It reminds me of a scene from Lawrence of Arabia
Man 1 reading book- It(book he's reading) is for children.
I have set myself to learn again.
Man 2- What are you learning from this?
Man 1- Politics.
Man 2 -You'll be a democracy in this country?
You gonna have a parliament?
Man 1 - I will tell you that when I have a country.
Did I answer well?
Man 2 - You answered without saying anything.
That's politics.
As I've posted elsewhere, that doesn't prove his policies do or don't have substance, it merely shows he understands how to get elected with the voters we have.
It's less about the issue of their offering specifics, than about who controls the media and how they use it.
One group can offer specifics, good plans; if the media are against them and primarily say negative things, they'll usually lose.
If people think we're free of that, consider one blatant example of the corporate media. When there wasn't as strong a right-wing message, Phil Donahue got his show on MSNBC, and was told he'd have complete editorial control. After 9/11, the corporate people reneged on that, and someone was put in place who had to approve all guests, who pressured them on the tone of the show, and who told them that for every anti-war guest, they had to have two pro-war guests for 'balance' - before cancelling his show that was their top-rated show, because the corporate people decided they did not want a single 'liberal' show during the national post-9/11 period.
For many people, simply seeing two people say something disagreeing with the one will often get them tending to agree with the two.
In hindsight, it sure served the public well to shut down any questioning of the war, huh?
That's only an especially clear example, but there are many for those few who go and read the media watchdog organizations' reports.
Unfortunately, many people think who cares who owns the media, as long as their entertainment is available, not realizing the corporations are happy to provide 'circuses'.
Indeed, the marketplace is not terribly friendly to political content; a political show tends to alienate customers who disagree and get boycotts, while bad entertainment doesn't.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
For that matter it doesn't prove whether or not mickey mouses policies have substance.
Donahue's views in no way represent democratic views. The democrats have been for the war and have brought no change. Donahue is very anti-war.
The media does what they are told. They have an agenda. General Electric and NBC Universal are but one example. You think nbc is going to be anti-war when GE is creating the weapons of war? I don't think so.
Also Craig I am not always certain of exactly what point you are trying to make. You should take more time to expound on your thoughts and make them clear.
This is not meant to be an insult.
If my response seems a few degrees off your question this is why.
I'm not sure where I got this from... I may have synthesized it myself, but i doubt it..
Nobody goes to bed at night thinking that they're the bad guy. Hitler didn't think he was doing evil. He felt like he was doing good. Looking at it through the lens of history it's easy to objectively say that he was wrong (he was a bad guy, really.. I'm not crazy)
I'm not entirely sure what my point is, but knowing this helps me to realize that there is always another way of looking at a situation and it helps me remember to always try and see things from the as many different perspectives as possible before I commit to a judgment. No one person ever gets it all right. Only by taking in as many different viewpoints as possible and holding them up to each other to compare and contrast do I ever feel like I really understand something.
I'm rambling and I should probably get back to work..
Thanks for the feedback; I think that you are correct in some cases. We all have our writing styles, and mine sometimes is too short even while being long.
The point I was making was that it's important people not look only at the politicians not saying the right things, the issue you raised, but to recognize that it may matter as much or more how the media report what they say. I'm trying to raise the issue that the huge media consolidation we've seen for bit corporate owners - 5 companies controlling 90% of the media - has a smothering effect on the content, despite the illusion of diversity.
I don't want people to only say 'those darned candidates' and miss the important issue of the media. A good book on a big part of the topic is David Brock's 'Republican Noise Machine: Right Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy'. There are also broader-focused books.
The tone of coverage greatly affects the public reaction, and what the candidates are safe to say. If Barak proposes we do something, it's a big difference whether the coverage begins with someone saying 'Does this show the lack of experience of Barak, did he screw up?', reinforcing a McCain advantage, versus 'Obama makes bold proposal for change', reinforcing an Obama advantage. And which tone is used is greatly influenced by the political orientation of the media owners.
It's not as if they decide who wins - but the do greatly influence the lines within which the candidates must play, leaving the Dennis Kuciniches outside the game.
Or of more interest to you, the Ron Pauls. I think you more than most understand that you shouldn't only look at what Paul says, but how he is covered.
However, when the topic is the two big parties instead of Paul, you seemed to slip back into only looking at what the candidates say, not the media situation.
On your specific response about GE, you almost seem to suggest recognizing the situation but throwing up your hands and saying not to do anything. I have a different reaction.
That includes personal choices of media to consume - and I've extended that to repeatedly recommending alternative media here - and government media diversity policies.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
No I think you make a very astute point. What comes to mind for me are two points. One that we do have to start open minded, obtain as much information as possible and attempt to look at things from different perspectives.
Secondly another thing Christ said; be slow to speak and quick to listen.
Because we don't know it all we are always lacking at least some context of all events. The 9/11 example and why "terrorists" hate us is a perfect example. Many people simply aren't aware that America has a history of abusing these nations and therefor lack the context of the situation making them more likely to accept the fact that the "terrorist" may actually have a logical motive, be it write or wrong. In a nutshell we must reserve judgement and be willing to humble ourselves when we learn something new and understand that our perspective was lacking and possibly wrong.
Such is the path of true learning.
There are thousands of people that post in these forums so rarely do I actually remember the political persuasions of individuals. In your case I don't know but I get the feeling you lean towards Obama. Am I right?
Forgive me if I have hypothesized wrong.
My primary problem with Obama is that he is a socialist and socialism is what got us into this mess to begin with.
Simply turn to your favorite Brainwasher such as Sean Hannity, Rush etc.
Sean has actually surpassed his master Rush with this skill.
Sean said Obama is sleazy today so therefore you must vote for McCain.
Perry,
Obama is not a socialist, and not even close. You're either repeating something wrong you heard, or choosing to engage in extreme hyperbole - to put it nicely.
And socialism isn't what 'got us into this mess'; it was neither something we've done, nor something that caused this mess.
You are equating something we don't have - socialism - and the corrupt big-spending of the Bush administration, simply because both have high spending. That's wrong.
That's a little like saying that spending $50,000 for a home down payment and $50,000 on recreational drugs are the same thing.
I'm an Obama supporter. I'm somewhat cautious; he's a wild-card still, but I see hopeful signs along with some discouraging ones, and think he COULD do some great things.
What I think are great things and you think are great things are probably different. We're both against some government spending; we differ on other government spending.
You seem to have little concern for the corporate entities' role in society; I have huge concerns about the excesses, while appreciating the central role the play in the economy.
For such an excellent opening post, you went seriously off track.
The two-party system is itself a fallacy. An illusion. They all work for the same people, and it isn`t the American citizen.
And contrary to what both sides say, they are spending this country into bankruptcy.
Here`s an easy question. When is the last time one party has been able to pass legislation (including spending) without the other party`s consent?
Just to be clear, a "Yes" vote by enough members of the minority party to pass the legislation is consent.
I am starting to smell circle-jerk, but I`ll wait and see.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
For such an excellent opening post, you went seriously off track.
The two-party system is itself a fallacy. An illusion. They all work for the same people, and it isn`t the American citizen.
And contrary to what both sides say, they are spending this country into bankruptcy.
Here`s an easy question. When is the last time one party has been able to pass legislation (including spending) without the other party`s consent?
Just to be clear, a "Yes" vote by enough members of the minority party to pass the legislation is consent.
I am starting to smell circle-jerk, but I`ll wait and see.
I agree with everything that you said. What does that have to do with the fact that Obama is a socialist? Hell most of them have socialist leanings and vote to socialize the state every chance they get ever expanding the states power over all forms of industry. That's what socialism is and this includes the majority of both major parties.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 19
- 81
The man is a career politician. I think that seriously detracts from his credibility. He's shown that he can do what it takes to do a politician's most important job: Stay in office indefinitely.Originally posted by: Perry404
Mxylplyx, you are probably safer that way but...have you ever heard of Ron Paul?
Nothing new there.
If the American citizens are the sole beneficiary, then I will agree that it is socialism.
But if one or more corporations (and through them, a select minority) benefit more than the citizens do, what is it?
And it has been the second over the first by a non-mass media landslide (meaning more than a few percentage points).
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Jeff7
The man is a career politician. I think that seriously detracts from his credibility. He's shown that he can do what it takes to do a politician's most important job: Stay in office indefinitely.Originally posted by: Perry404
Mxylplyx, you are probably safer that way but...have you ever heard of Ron Paul?
Nothing new there.
Right.
What's new about Paul is that he's the only man in Washington who walks the walk.
The most conservative member of congress who has never once voted for a tax increase and yet he has been re-elected 10 terms.
He has never accepted a government-paid junket or trip.
He has refused to take the lucrative Congressional pension
He voted against the Iraq war.
He voted against the patriot act.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
No...nothing new here.
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
If the American citizens are the sole beneficiary, then I will agree that it is socialism.
But if one or more corporations (and through them, a select minority) benefit more than the citizens do, what is it?
And it has been the second over the first by a non-mass media landslide (meaning more than a few percentage points).
It's a new form of socialism. By the way the people never benefit in a socialist state. Sure they do on paper but historically this is rare.
Oh, bull. Programs you would apparently call 'socialist' in the US has have greatly benefited people; like reversing the 90% poverty rate of seniors to 10% with Social Security; the elderly have greatly benefited from Medicare; LBJ's great society cut the longtime percent of Americans living in poverty by a third ever since. Those are a few highlights, of course there are countless more; Tennessee Vally Authority, public education, etc.
In many nations, 'socialist' programs have benefited people. If you want to discuss the issues you need some accuracy, not straw men.
It's right-wing economic programs that have consistently harmed most people while greatly benefiting a few.
People seem uninformed about how these things work. Take Chile, for example, as I've been reading some details about their history in the run-up to the Allende assassination. Is it any wonder the leftist economics were growing in popularity? The US had a program under Milton Friedman to try to spread his economics in Chile, but it had to wait until Pinochet. Before that, the US corporations were milking the Chilean copper mines. They spent a billion dollars, and profited $7.2 billion.
That's not a 'fair economic situation', it's extortion, the typical setup where the public is screwed, and the so-called leaders are rewarded by the corporations, which is why there's unrest - the US public wouldn't tolerate having its government work for other nations' corporate profits like that. So, by the time Allende was elected, all three major candidates favored nationalizing the copper industry to end that abuse and keep the money home. That would have been socialism benefiting Chile; instead the corporations declared war.
It wasn't just Chile as the motive; Chile was going to pay fair market value for any nationalization. The corporations were worried about their policy spreading in the region.
No, the poster was right to correct you (as I did in another manner) on your misuse of the term socialism. You use the term for some generic attack on large government spending.
One way to confuse discourse is to confuse the terms.
Communism-No one owns anything. Think Native American before the white man. Not perfect, but pretty close.
Socialism-The state owns everything. Seen as a transition to communism.
Perhaps the term which more aptly fits what I was talking about:
There is a difference between socialism and social programs. One could be said to benefit the individual, while the other may be said to benefit the state (and through them the corporations).
BTW, communist is probably the most mis-used word in the USA for the past 60 years. If some people are a little skewed on socialism, I would say that is evidence that supports the original post of this thread.
So Perry, while I am telling you you are wrong, I am saying that proves you are right.
Communism-No one owns anything. Think Native American before the white man. Not perfect, but pretty close.
Socialism-The state owns everything. Seen as a transition to communism.
Perhaps the term which more aptly fits what I was talking about:
There is a difference between socialism and social programs. One could be said to benefit the individual, while the other may be said to benefit the state (and through them the corporations).
BTW, communist is probably the most mis-used word in the USA for the past 60 years. If some people are a little skewed on socialism, I would say that is evidence that supports the original post of this thread.
So Perry, while I am telling you you are wrong, I am saying that proves you are right.
Complexity and uncertainty scare people and make them feel weak and vulnerable. Whoever can take those feelings away and make them feel protected and strong will earn their limitless allegiance.
Complexity and uncertainty create some fear in everyone. That's just human psyche. But what distinguishes authoritarian followers from non-authoritarians is that the latter can endure that fear, live with it and accept it, while the former cannot and seek out means to eliminate it.
I think, to the extent that there are many people who do not seek out or accept ideologies that eliminate the uncertainty and provide absolutism, but instead prefer truthful uncertainties (even if more unsettling) to fictitous absolutes (even if more comforting).
One thing we might also consider when we try to understand the unrelenting insistence on demonstrating strength:
For Example: One could state...This administration fears negotiation because it believes that their adversaries are better at it than they are. If they can't scare or beat their "enemies" into submission, they got nothin'.
Just to add more psychological fuel to the fire, I think we need to see this as a form of femiphobia (see The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity by Stephen J. Ducat). War is masculine, negotiation is feminine.
It's not just that they believe that their adversaries are better at it, they're afraid that maybe they aren't - both on the objective level (if we negotiate successfully, then we can't invade!) and the psychological one (help! we're girly men!)
Hence, both alternatives - they're better or we're better - are unthinkable. Which makes the whole topic unthinkable. It can't be thought about, so it must be ignored, or at worst, treated with ridicule and contempt.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Craig234 & OokiiNeko you may nitpick if you wish. There are a hundred different names for all the different forms of socialism.
For this reason I admit I use the term socialism very loosely. If you look at many of the socialist parties in Germany, France and other European countries you find the parallels very similar to the democratic party in the U.S. and even the Republican party as even though they talk differently they both vote along the same lines of socializing all forms of industry on one hand and centralizing government power all the while eroding the rights of the people on the other.
If the European socialists are so similar in their views to the Americans and are proud to use the term socialist then why wouldn't you be if you believe such a form of government can work? At least be honest with yourself.
The end goals are the same and the further we become socialized the poorer this nation will become. I don't need to argue the point. I think watching the state of the nation is evidence in itself.
For this reason I admit I use the term socialism very loosely. If you look at many of the socialist parties in Germany, France and other European countries you find the parallels very similar to the democratic party in the U.S. and even the Republican party as even though they talk differently they both vote along the same lines of socializing all forms of industry on one hand and centralizing government power all the while eroding the rights of the people on the other.
If the European socialists are so similar in their views to the Americans and are proud to use the term socialist then why wouldn't you be if you believe such a form of government can work? At least be honest with yourself.
The end goals are the same and the further we become socialized the poorer this nation will become. I don't need to argue the point. I think watching the state of the nation is evidence in itself.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
What are you talking about? There is right and wrong. Deposing a democratically elected leader and replacing him with a fascist dictator is ALWAYS wrong, and we have done that several times. Terrorism is ALWAYS wrong. These things are all connected to each other, but that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as clear right and wrong. We've done a lot of bad things, and had a lot of bad things done to us. That's all there is to it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter