Explaination of how gov't spin works

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

although not y2k specific, this article explains very well why it has been so easy to keep the masses passive.

theletterz

link: http://orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/120999_reese09_21.htm

What if what we know was chosen deliberately to deceive us?

Charley Reese of The Sentinel Staff

Published in The Orlando Sentinel on December 9, 1999.

A fairly recent movie, The Matrix, is an interesting science-fiction thriller. People believe they are living normal lives, but, in fact, it is all an illusion. In reality, their naked bodies are hooked up in vast rows of vats and used by machines, which control the Earth, to generate energy.

I would like to suggest to you that we, too, are living in an illusionary world. Our five senses {spcostr} vision, hearing, smell, taste and touch {spcostr} are our only contact with the world outside our bodies. These senses send data to the brain, which processes it and stores it in a memory bank.

For most of the time man has been on Earth, if he wished to see something, he had to be physically present. Stories told around campfires would create fantasized images. But beyond that, ancient man was fairly firmly rooted to the reality as interpreted by his own senses.

As painting developed, but, most important, as photography developed {spcostr} first still, then moving, then electronic {spcostr} man could be exposed to images of things he had not seen. We are even exposed to images of things that are, in fact, deliberate fakes. The conscious part of our brain knows that when we see a movie, we are seeing in costumes actors on a set being filmed. On the other hand, these images are stored in our brains, without a label that reads false image.

This is important when you realize that, during a lifetime, literally millions of false images will be stored in our brains. The further we get from the moment we first saw the false image, the more difficult it is to sort out what is a true image and what is a false image. For example, if I say Civil War, most of us will pull up images from the movie Gone with the Wind or images from the Public Broadcasting Service special about the war. None of us experienced the actual event. Our only visual images of it are from photographs, artwork and Hollywood sets. None of these captures the reality of the event in its wholeness.

Bear in mind, too, that we know nothing about the past except what we have been told in words, photographs and artwork produced by others. Suppose something that we have been told happened, in fact, did not happen. Suppose all the words we've read and heard and all the images we have seen in photographs were, in fact, deliberately chosen to deceive us. It's stunning, when you think about it, that 100 percent of our knowledge of the past is created in our own minds by words and images produced by other people, virtually all strangers. The same goes for much of our knowledge of the present.

We can be in only one place at one time and directly experience what is within range of our senses. Beyond that, we rely on words and images transmitted to us by strangers. Whether these words and images are indeed accurate reflections of the real things is difficult for us to know.

Let me suggest to you that most( Americans are living in a matrix created by a corporate elite that controls the news media, the entertainment industry, book-publishing, the government and most universities. Thus Americans are bombarded with the same message: America is the most prosperous, the most free country in the world. This is the longest-running boom in history. All the economic indicators show prosperity. Globalism is good and inevitable.

Now, certainly many Americans know that they are not prosperous, and it must be disconcerting constantly to be told that they are. The probable result is that they feel that their failure must be their own fault.

Wake up, folks. Reality may be rough, but it's a lot better than illusions.

[Posted 12/08/1999 9:41 PM EST]

-- theletterz (theletterz@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999

Answers

Reminds me of what my nephew asked his dad...

"What was it like when everything was only black and white?"

"Where will next years war be?"

My brother used to teach people to ignore most of what they see on tv, and "Maybe 10% of what you read is true and accurate!" Implying, in my mind that most everything we see and read is distorted.

The delusion is strong!

(Mark 13:22 KJV) "...and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."

(2 Th 2:9 KJV) "...the working of Satan [the Adversary] with all power and signs and lying wonders,"

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), December 09, 1999.


---

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - The Politicians Credo

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. 6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

---

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999.


Excellent post theletterz and absolutely true. I work for a city government and I see it every day. Reality is what the spin is, even the ones doing the "spin" don't know what the real truth is.

One of my favorite examples is of a city worker who was drug and alcohol addicted for many years. She missed work often, falsified her time sheets, indulged in petty theft, in short was a horrible employee. All of this was common knowledge in the department and was overlooked.

She died suddenly due to her lifestyle, so what do the heads of the department decide to do? They named a community room after her because it was a politically correct thing to do. A sinner becomes a saint...bada boom bada bing and everyone is happy.

It's all in the spin....

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), December 09, 1999.


We're all about to be 'woken up.' For many, it will be a most unpleasant experience. Ask Jesus today to come into your heart, and He will save you. The world of lies, of man, is about to dissolve. Choose the Truth.

-- Spidey (fr33@last.Amen), December 09, 1999.

Is everyone who subscribes to this bulletin board a religious bible person? Just wondering, since most of my conclusions about this topic have been made on the basis of biology, logic, and science.

-- nonchristian (knowone@knowhere.com), December 09, 1999.


>> Is everyone who subscribes to this bulletin board a religious bible person? Just wondering... <<

No. But the ones who are and the ones who aren't usually do not make an issue out of it.

It is no skin off my nose if a Christian uses the Bible to illustrate their own understanding of the world. It is important to them, so I grant them the right to share that importance. Doesn't mean I have to become a Christian or believe what they do.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 09, 1999.


From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Is everyone who subscribes to this bulletin board a religious bible person? Just wondering

The internet is an international marketplace of ideas. This forum understandably has a high percentage of people from English speaking countries (where christianity is often followed), but also includes some other regions. My impression is that the people on this forum are more broad minded and accepting of differences than are those who populate similar Y2K watering holes.

Just because one person on the thread quotes passages from some scripture doesn't mean that anyone here (including the poster) necessarily agrees with everything that appears in that scripture. One doesn't have to be Christian to appreciate the apparent clairvoience of the phrase "lying wonders," when applied to modern spin and propaganda. I don't understand the Mark passage, but the Thesalonians one seems quite applicable to me.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 10, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ