Tagged: war Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • James 19:51 on December 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Berlin, Christmas, , Europe, Germany, , , , , , , war, Xmas   

    Psychopath's Christmas message 

    In the wake of yet another terror attack on European soil, and the end of a rather crummy year for anyone framing themselves as any way liberal, progressive (or indeed as a decent human being), it’s easy to feel disheartened about the future, as though there is no hope. Well there is something you can do, and it’s easy.

    The Syrian civil war, which has so far claimed almost half a million lives has, after five years of brutal fighting, near enough come full circle this week, with President Assad’s forces retaking the rest of Aleppo that had been in rebel hands. What a tragic waste of life, and what a scandal that this has been allowed (made) to happen under our noses. That NATO and Russia have backed opposing sides and are at this stage fighting a proxy war against each other is no secret. The age of relative peace and prosperity some of us have enjoyed for the last few decades seems to be heading in a bloody change of direction.

    Certainly, soon-to-be President Trump’s tweets about bringing back nuclear weapons in a big way is enough to send even a fearless psychopath running to his duvet, as this is surely very bad news indeed for those of us who value peace.

    And then there’s ISIS. They, and terrorism in general, seem to sum up this era we’re living in rather well. They’re international, they appeal to the young and disenfranchised, they use social media as a powerful tool of propaganda, and they’re populist.

    The stereotypical westerner’s reaction, one of fear, a sense of helplessness and an increasingly paranoid and vicious popular feeling against Islam and Muslims, plays into ISIS hands very well. We also do those illiberal, authoritarian control freaks in governments a huge favour. In our fear, and our clamour for security at any cost, we risk handing over all the reins of power to maniacs who will bring nothing but misery. Oh wait, that should have been last year’s Christmas warning, because in America at least, that horse has already bolted…

    But let’s focus on terrorism. The thing about terrorism, what makes it such an effective method of war and why it will probably never be beaten by force, is an individual terrorist only has to ‘get it right’ once. Security forces have to get it right every single time. If they slip up, like they did in Berlin this week, people die.

    Against those odds, it is clear that successful terror attacks are inevitable. Even with the very best security personnel, and the very worst draconian anti-liberal laws, an attack will always occur sooner or later.

    So if fighting is useless, what else can be done? Well, there’s always good old fashioned fear. But no! We can’t respond to such horror with kneejerk reactions and a fearful outlook on the world beyond our front rooms. We shouldn’t build walls and spurn those who are different from us. We should not react with hostility to refugees, Muslims, or foreigners with suspicion or hatred. All of that plays into the hands of terrorists. Terrorists – and nefarious politicians – don’t want peace and goodwill to all men, they want us to be at each other’s throats – christians, muslims, jews, atheists, rich, poor, right, left, you name it.

    The real solution is deceptively simple, but in practise so very complicated.

    The only hope of putting a stop to terrorism and, more widely *all* conflict, forever is to embrace peace.

    This is the most difficult thing in the world, something which will take generations and centuries to achieve and which has every chance of failing. Why? Because it involves talking to, empathising with and building friendships alongside enemies. As a species, we’re not very good at that, but it emphatically is within our skillset. To use just one example, the Troubles in Northern Ireland didn’t cease because one side knocked the other out with superior firepower. No, the IRA and the British government sat down, around a table, and talked to each other – one adversary to another. They talked, they negotiated and they showed willingness to compromise. The solution they came up with (the Good Friday Agreement) isn’t perfect and doesn’t satisfy everyone’s wishes, but it is good enough that the fighting has more or less finished.

    It sounds sanctimonious, and it is. Nonetheless, we have to come together as a species, to love one another, to treat each other with kindness and forgiveness even when we really don’t want to. All of us have to agree that violence, fighting and killing just is wrong, and everyone has to agree not to engage in it, because if everyone (and I do mean everyone) refused to fight, there would be no war.

    You see what I mean? It’s so simple, yet it’s going to be practically impossible to achieve. In the short to medium term, the strong likelihood is that we’re going to carry on making the wrong decisions. The way current affairs are going, things could get a whole lot worse before they get better. But that doesn’t stop you or I from individually making the decision to spurn conflict and embrace peace. Every great movement has to start small, so why not you? Why not us? Why not now?

    Merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, happy solstice, yuletide greetings, enjoy the season – to all and any with the patience to read this post to the end.

    Be kind, and love one another.

     
    • liferolle 02:13 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      WOah where you been. It’s all about programming and one world agenda. Coming soon. That’s what I learnt along the way anyway. Plus christ mass is a satanic practice and always was long before the commercial Side of shit.

      Liked by 1 person

      • James 04:53 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Hi Luverly 🙂 Nonetheless, Satan or no Satan, I hope you enjoy the next couple of days and you’re in a good place.

        Liked by 1 person

    • nowve666 08:58 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Merry Christmas, James. Did you draw that picture? Lovely. You sure are full of surprises.

      Like

      • James 10:34 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Don’t be absurd, it sure wasn’t me. Merry Christmas, Fran.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Amaterasu Solar 12:53 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Seems most everything You brought up there is/was a psyop to create fear… ISIS is a CIA/Mossad construct (investigation offers evidence that this is so), existing in photo ops and “news” stories only. I could go on, pointing to the magic murder of ambassadors that do not bleed, gunmen that go from freshly shaved when shooting ambassadors to 5 o’clock shadows in a matter of minutes when They are “taken out…” But You will merely call My critical thinking “paranoia” or some such. LOL! Whatever. Do enjow the season, James.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Amaterasu Solar 12:55 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        er…enjoy! Must proofread, I must!

        Like

      • James 15:57 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        The thing about your theory is even if it’s true, it doesn’t matter. No matter who the ‘enemy’ really is, the only antidote is universal peace, through respect and love. So in that spirit, I wish you all the best for the holiday season, and a healthy and happy new year.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Amaterasu Solar 16:23 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          Actually, since the foundational problem on this planet is that the systems We consent to promote psychopaths, and the “antidote” is to quit consenting to such systems and consent to ways that promote the caring Ones to take care of things. “If You want peace, take the PROFIT out of war…”

          I chuckle a bit at a psychopath suggesting the solution involves love… But I will say, I care about You (however much You don’t care really about Me). May Your coming years bring satisfaction and comfort, James.

          Liked by 1 person

          • James 18:16 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

            And I have to chuckle at your caring about me when I have given you no reason to do so. That’s not really because of psychopathy, just that we’re total strangers. But feel free (I know you will do what you feel like anyway, so my ‘permission’ won’t mean anything to you!), and have a happy Christmas.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Amaterasu Solar 18:32 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

              Interesting fact about Me, James. I care about everyOne I interact with, whether I like Them or not (and I happen to like much of what I see in what You present). I care about Humanity as a whole and work to free all of Us to lives of leisure and industry of interest. [hugs]

              Like

              • James 18:39 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

                I care about humanity as a whole, but not that much about individuals, especially strangers.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Amaterasu Solar 19:17 on December 24, 2016 Permalink | Reply

                  Somehow, James, I don’t think of You as a stranger. One I have never met in the flesh, granted, but You have offered enough of Your thoughts that I feel Our minds have met, if only briefly. [smile]

                  Like

                  • James 18:07 on December 27, 2016 Permalink | Reply

                    I don’t think they ever have. I say that not to contradict you for the sake of it, merely to tell you the truth.

                    Like

    • Andrew 18:27 on December 26, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      Like

      • Amaterasu Solar 20:46 on December 26, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        Quite curious… What do You have to substantiate that freedom must be earned on a planet We were born to without Our consent, and which was stolen from Us through “trusts” and deceit?

        Like

      • James 18:05 on December 27, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        If you wish to write essays, you should get your own blog, rather than commenting on mine. I haven’t the time nor the interest to read whatever you wrote, but if you think you’ve got something to say which others will appreciate reading, set up a blog. Since the consensus on here is that you’re a psychopath, we’ll even provide a link in our sidebar so our readers can go and see what you’ve got to say.

        Like

    • Andrew 21:20 on December 26, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Your own life is proof of that. The moment you are free of your own family, you must make your own way. That is all the proof you need to know that the only guarantee you ever get, is that you are guaranteed a right to life. The other rights, you must earn, on the merits of the success towards goals using your own efforts. When people stop being successful in life, they can be ruined and lose their freedom to the court system, to drugs or to those who take advantage of them.

      Like

      • Amaterasu Solar 22:03 on December 26, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        That is only if We presume that things are best done the way they are being done, consenting to that way of doing things. The twin towers to psychopaths in power were set up by psychopaths to manipulate and control Us on OUR planet, making Us believe, through indoctrination , that this is the best of all possible ways We could do things. Frankly, I don’t consent to any of it, and work to topple those two towers such that We are no longer slave to the useless eliters, and ALL may live lives of leisure and industry of interest on this vastly abundant planet that could support 1000 times the number here now. Those two towers are top-down controlmind (government), and accounting for Human energy added into the system that accounts for Human energy added and moves the bulk of OUR wealth on this planet to very few psychopaths (money system).

        Sure, if We accept these, We must follow the rules the psychopaths in control put in place. I do not accept them. I do not consent. I consent to better ways, which I discuss at length in many short articles on My forum.

        Like

        • James 18:19 on December 27, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          I have to admire you, Amy. You spend so much time trying to convince people who will likely never agree with or support you (i.e. Andrew and myself). That’s so much harder than “preaching to the converted”, and like I said, really must be admired, if nothing else.

          Like

          • Amaterasu Solar 23:05 on December 27, 2016 Permalink | Reply

            I anticipate other readers… [smile] Truth told, I don’t care about whether I “win You over” (or whether You admire Me… LOL!). I enjoy placing the ideas out there for Those who read and might grasp that the foundational problem on this planet is psychopaths in control and that the systems We are consenting to promote Them, so no surprise They ARE in control. Maybe Some will also withdraw consent, share awareness, get Us closer to the tipping point.

            Liked by 1 person

    • Andrew 00:26 on December 29, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      I have pretty much summed up everything I had to say during the time that I posted information. It’s unlikely I would start a blog because I don’t find it interesting to talk about myself at all. As far as discussing things are concerned, you will usually be talking at someone’s level of agreement. There is no need, from my end of things, to distract from the subject matter at hand, and it is with this end that one learns to “let sleeping dogs lie”.
      I have learnt quite a bit in the last couple of months that I did not know before. I am definitely better off for having come here and found out what I did. I would hope that someone somewhere, in the now, or the future to come, will find something that will make things a bit clearer, and easier to understand. And with that, you are to find, that I am moving on, to other things.

      Like

      • James 04:40 on December 29, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        It’s like reading a Boris Johnson speech.

        Like

    • Andrew 01:51 on December 31, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      At least Boris Johnson is a colorful individual. He has lotsof entertainment value. Unlike, for instance, Teresa Vague. There are no psychopaths here. No psychopath would post the stuff that you, James, post. You are a narcissist, without a doubt. As are the “psychopaths” here. This blog should be named: Narcissist Central. No need to worry because a lot of narcissists think they are psychopaths and start blogs about the wonders of psychopathy…ha! The prevailing theme that runs through the whole site, whether empath or not, is a weird sense of entitlement, as though your empathy, or lack of it, it itself confers upon you certain rights to a special group. Only a narcissist, and a special kind of weird “empathy” would come up with that “innocent” view.

      Keep drinking the cool aid. I wrote what I wrote with very good reason. Only some people would see what was written. The rest of them, would literally, blank out, like you did, James. So thanks a lot. In any case, my information is there and I wrote it for a reason, and none of you people were that reason.

      Like I said before, I have gained a lot of information from your blog. I do sincerely thank you. Without your blog it would have taken me longer to realize that some people are beyond redemption and are better left alone to wallow in their own misery. Don’t worry. More misery awaits you down the road. There are always worse things to come for you who looks for them. If you don’t have enough, you could make up some more until you really go bonkers and then you will be in hell. No, ahem.., I meant heaven

      Like

      • James 11:01 on December 31, 2016 Permalink | Reply

        I thought you were fucking off? Go on then, off you pop.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 21:34 on January 2, 2017 Permalink | Reply

        More misery down the road, huh? Psychopaths don’t know misery. I’m no psychopath and I don’t know this misery thing. Why on earth would I be miserable? Glad to be of service to your awakening to the fact that people are beyond redemption. This is not news to me. It does not stop me from doing my humble part at promoting psychopathy awareness, anyway. Don’t worry, be happy.

        Like

      • nowve666 21:31 on February 15, 2017 Permalink | Reply

        You, Andrew, are probably a narcissist. But I wonder what you fancy yourself as. Since you think you know what a psychopath would post and what he wouldn’t post, I wonder if you think you are one. How else could you know what a psychopath would post?

        Like

    • Andrew 00:09 on January 10, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      I keep threatening to fuck off, but just can’t seem to manage it. I have a constant need to be the centre of attention and to talk shit about people I’ve never met. This is because I have no life; I spend my days trolling people on various websites.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 08:41 on January 10, 2017 Permalink | Reply

        Some psychopaths are more narcissistic than others. Some are more jovial and fun-loving. Some are more serious and morbid. There is a variety, just like in the rest of the population. How many psychopaths do you know? Because you can’t paint them all with the same brush.

        Like

      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 10:52 on January 10, 2017 Permalink | Reply

        Andrew, your “trolling” does not bother me. I am curious to know what gets you up in the morning? What is your motivation for proceeding through your day and doing it again tomorrow? If you are so inclined to answer?

        Like

    • Andrew 10:36 on January 15, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      I like to play

      Like

    • andy 13:11 on March 7, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      No such thing as a psychopath. But there are reactionists and special flakes which comprises most of those who are here. Basically, a site full of losers who post bullshit.

      Liked by 1 person

  • GeneticPsychosMom (Tina) 16:10 on September 11, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , war   

    The American Pathocracy Kept 6 Secrets About 9/11 

    On this 15th anniversary of September 11th, we should never forget how our government murdered 2,996 people for the purpose of overall financial gain. We should never forget the victims' families, people who will never have official answers to what happened that horrible day. We should never forget the 7,233 US soldiers who lost their lives fighting a war for the rich, unaware of their helping line the pockets of the rich and morally corrupt while believing they are fighting for freedom and justice. And we should never forget the millions of innocent civilians who have been killed/displaced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    On the 15th anniversary of one of the most tragic days in recent American history, U.S. citizens are bombarded with patriotic imagery, messages, and the oft-repeated 9/11 slogan of “Never Forget.”

    Over the course of the day, mainstream media and the like will show the horrific images of planes crashing into towers and the disturbing scene of ground zero in the aftermath.

    In the midst of all the grieving, the flag waving, and the speeches from opportunistic presidential hopefuls, there will be an uncomfortable moment of silence. This silence, however, will not be in remembrance of the victims that day, but rather the complete lack of coverage given to the unanswered questions and suspicious facts surrounding that fateful morning.

    A slew of unprovable conspiracy theories is associated with the events leading up to and occurring on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. However, the Free Thought Project does not delve into such speculation. We only deal in facts.

    The list below contains six hard-hitting facts that the mainstream media and the political powers have relentlessly attempted to keep hidden from the public.

    Fact 1:

    Coming in at number 1 is perhaps one of the most perplexing of all the facts. Amazingly enough, some folks still believe that only two towers fell that day. The fact that Tower 7, a 47-story building, collapsed, was but a small blip in the media. Since 9/11, World Trade Center Tower 7 is rarely, if at all mentioned in the mainstream media.

    Insanely enough, when Tower 7 is mentioned to some people, they think that it’s a conspiracy theory that it fell.

    However, Tower 7, which was not hit by a plane, in fact, collapsed into its own footprint at free-fall speed.

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology, (the government agency assigned to investigate the building collapse in the video above) attributes the collapse to the failure of a single column, in a complex scenario involving thermal expansion of beams supporting the column, caused by office furniture burning; a theory that is largely disputed by many experts.

    Fact 2:

    BBC, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 — well before it happened.

    Fact 3:

    The 9/11 Commission was railroaded. Not only were the commissioners given extremely limited funds to conduct their investigation, but they were also met with dead ends in almost every direction.

    For starters, only $15 million was given to investigate 9/11. Compare that to the over $60 million that was spent investigating Clinton’s affairs with Monica and the travesty becomes greater. This was the largest act of murder in recent US history, and more money was spent investigating a philandering president!

    Fact 4:

    Staying on the topic of the 9/11 commission, in 2004, President George Bush and VP Dick Cheney told the Commission that they would not be formally interviewed in relation to the attacks on September 11.

    On April 27, 2004 the White House released a statement saying there would be no recording or formal transcription of the interview. The duo also demanded to be interviewed together, against the wishes of the commissioners.

    Fact 5:

    After the myriad of holes began to form in the official narrative, several dedicated engineers and architects took to their own investigation. Today, there are over 2,300 architects and engineers who’ve signed on to the initiative, all declaring the official story to be false.

    Fact 6:

    The US government admitted they covered up the fact that the Saudi Arabian government supported the hijackers.

    “I had to stop every couple pages and…try to rearrange my understanding of history. It challenges you to rethink everything.” – Congressman Thomas Massie describing his experience reading the 28 pages in March 2014.

    “The 28 Pages” – part of an 838-page Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 – have been kept almost entirely classified since 2002.

    Former Sen. Bob Graham, a co-chairman of the investigation committee and strong advocate of declassifying the information, said, “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11 and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier.”

    In July, the 28 pages were finally released, although many parts are still redacted. They show that Graham was right—several figures in the Saudi Arabian government provided assistance to the 9-11 hijackers from within the U.S.

    “There is information, primarily from FBI sources, that at least two of those individuals were alleged by some to be Saudi intelligence officers,” reads the first of 28 pages. “The Joint Inquiry’s review confirmed that the Intelligence Community also has information, much of which has yet to be independently verified, indicating that individuals associated with the Saudi Government in the United States may have other ties to al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups.”

     

    September 11 Saudi connection 28 pages

    Excerpt from “Six Hard Facts Americans Forgot About 9/11 After Being Reminded Every Year to “Never Forget”” by Matt Agorist, September 11, 2016

     

    Psychopath TEST Politicians

    .

     
  • GeneticPsychosMom (Tina) 10:05 on February 9, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , war,   

    Propaganda: Psycho-Linguistics and Political Psychopathy 

    {A very thorough examination of the different methods employed in propaganda}

    Propaganda is generally to be defined as a calculated, coordinated campaign carried out through media that are capable of reaching a large amount of people, to further a primarily political agenda, (although principles of propaganda can be applied equally to further a religious or commercial agenda also).

    A number of techniques founded on social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.

    A basic assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic proposition presented as a statement of fact, although of course it is not necessarily true. Assertions often imply that the statement requires no explanation or evidence, but that it should merely be accepted without question.

    Examples of assertions can be found often in advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence, they are using an assertion. The subjects are supposed to simply agree with the assertion without searching for additional information, or applying any reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include damaging falsehoods or lies.

    “Glittering generalities” is one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. It also arises very often in politics and political propaganda. Glittering generalities are words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts. For example, when a person is asked to do something in “defence of democracy” or “freedom” they are more likely to agree. The concepts of democracy and freedom have positive connotations to them because they are regarded as highly valued principles by the majority of people.

    The “lesser of two evils” technique is an attempt to convince us of an idea or proposal by presenting it as the least offensive option. This technique is often implemented during wartime or economic recession to convince people of the need for sacrifices. This technique is often accompanied by adding blame on an enemy country or political group.

    In the UK, we currently have a Government that exercises an unhealthy and considerable control of the media. It’s often possible to predict when the next round of cuts and austerity measures are going to be inflicted on us because the announcement of policy is typically preceded by media justification prior to the event, usually involving the demarcation and scapegoating of the social group to be affected by the policy.

    We usually have a few weeks of the press stereotyping immigrants as a “free-loading drain on the taxpayer”, or poor sick and disabled people as “fraudsters” and “con artists”. Or unemployed people are portrayed as feckless, idle “spongers”, or lone parents as immoral and irresponsible “burdens”. But how else could a corrupt and authoritarian Government attempt to justify taking so much money from the poorest and most vulnerable citizens, whilst rewarding the wealthy with enormous tax cuts?

    The current Government are most certainly outrageous propagandists, on par with the Nazi Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, controlling the news media in particular, with the aim of shaping and controlling public opinion. They create and justify neo-feudal subordination, oppressive hierarchical social structures, and the end of our humanist ideal and practice of shared citizenship.

    I almost forgot to mention Cameron’s one remarkable but accidental, blurted out truth: We are raising more money for the richThat is verifiable fact.

    We must challenge this and we must fight it.

    Habitually search for the evidence that refutes what you are being told by any of the Coalition.

    It’s worth bearing in mind that when someone speaks or writes, they are trying to convince you of somethingAsk yourself what it is that they want you to believe, then analyse their basic proposition carefully. Examine what they are saying, look for consistency, coherence, reasoning and logic, and look for the evidence to support the proposition, of course.

    Critical thinking is essential to spark cogent, rational, open debate and provide a framework to support and guide the public to participate in well-informed discussions on current issues responsibly. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis in the US arose “to teach people how to think rather than what to think.”

    Ad hominem – A Latin phrase which has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments. David Cameron employs this strategy with considerable psychopathic expertise in Parliamentary debate. (See Prime Ministers Questions).

    Ad nauseam – This approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator. Joseph Goebbels, not known to be driven by the passionate inspiration of the moment, but by the result of sober psychological calculation, was particularly talented in utilising this approach. Iain Duncan Smith has a similar penchant for repeated mendacity. A serial offender.

    To justify his cruel and unwarranted welfare “reforms”, Iain Duncan Smith says that he has taken money that is essential for meeting the basic survival needs from the poorest people because “It’s fair to taxpayers.” Repeatedly.

    Appeals to authority – this technique involves citing prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action. The Tories, however, believe there are none who know better, or have more authority than the Tories. According to the Tories. See also Authoritarianism.

    The Tories tend to “unload” or “neutralise” some of their language too, especially in discussion and debate about their policies. For example, using the word “reforms” rather than a more neutral word like changesor a negative (and accurate) one like cuts. This is used to conceal the true aims and consequences of policies, and draws on Orwellian Doublespeak:  language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or even reverses the normative meaning of words.

    Ad Horribilis – Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population. For example Goebbels exploited Theodore N. Kaufman’s Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.

    This strategy is often employed to justify racism.

    Bandwagon – Bandwagon and “inevitable-victory” attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that “everyone else is taking.”

    • Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already, or at least partially on the bandwagon, are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.
    • Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people’s natural desire to be on the winning side. See also Behaviourism.

    Black and White fallacy – Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice (e.g. “You are either with us, or you are with the enemy”). So this involves reducing complex issues to overly simplified and contrived oppositional dichotomies, and uncritically favouring one of the two schemata.

    Big Lie – See also Disinformation. The repeated articulation of a complex of series of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the “big lie” generalisations merge and eventually supplant the public’s accurate perception of the underlying events.

    Common man – The ordinary folks or Common man approach is an attempt to convince the audience that the propagandist’s positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the target audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person.

    A common example of this type of propaganda is a political figure portrayed in a humble backyard, doing daily routine things. This image appeals to the “common person”. The Tories frequently try this one to attempt to shake off the solid, privileged, aristocratic and insular anti-social situation they inhabit, in vain attempts to appear “ordinary”.

    Demonising the enemy – Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman. The systematic media demonisation of the recipients of any social support and welfare is an example. This is done to erode public sympathy and support for the poor, so that the Government can then remove such “costly” support and hand out taxpayer’s money to the wealthy and private companies instead.

    Direct order – This technique is an attempt to simplify the decision-making process by using images and words to tell the audience exactly what actions to take, eliminating any other possible choices. Authority figures can be used to give the order, overlapping it with the Appeal to authority technique, but not necessarily.

    Disinformation – The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organisation, including outright forgery of photographs, motion pictures, broadcasts, and sound recordings as well as printed documents. And in the case of the Tories, statistics (Iain Duncan Smith). See David “paying down the debt” Cameron also.

    An example is Iain Duncan Smith’s lie about his education and qualifications, as stated in his biography on the Conservative Party website, his entry in Who’s Who, and various other places, which make the claim that he went to the Universita di Perugia in Italy. Mr Duncan Smith’s office has been forced to admit to Newsnight researchers investigating his academic background that he didn’t get any qualifications in Perugia, or even finish his exams. It’s easy to see why Mr Duncan Smith has made it his very own personal campaign to “monitor” the BBC for “left-wing bias.”

    Euphoria – The use of an event that generates euphoria or “feel good”, happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale, such as the Olympic games. Euphoria can also be created by declaring a holiday, or mounting a military parade with marching bands and patriotic messages. Royal weddings and births are elevated and spotlighted by the media for this purpose.

    Flag-waving – An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. The feeling of patriotism which this technique attempts to inspire may not necessarily diminish or entirely omit one’s capability for rational examination of the matter in question.

    In the most recent budget announcement by the Chancellor George Osborne, a measure was declared that proposes people who have “unfavourable English language skills should have their benefits cut”. A shallow, populist appeal to the shallow “common man” Daily Mail readers. Those who frequent the far-right saw this as a moment of national pride: “keeping Britain for the British”.

    Intentional vagueness – Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analysing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to “figure out” the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgement of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and application may still be considered.

    Not to be confused with “completely ignoring questions”. This is something of a speciality technique of David Cameron. He also mastered the technique of “getting away with it”, but that tends to come with experienced, psychopathic, aristocratic authoritarians.

    Labeling – A Euphemism is used when the propagandist attempts to increase the perceived quality, credibility, or credence of a particular ideal. A Dysphemism is used when the intent of the propagandist is to discredit, diminish the perceived quality

    Name-calling – Propagandists use this technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers with the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of facts. Name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against the an idea or belief on its own merits.

    Obtain disapproval or Reductio ad Hitlerum – This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated or feared by the target audience.

    Red herring – Presenting data or issues that, while compelling, are irrelevant to the argument at hand, and then claiming that it validates the argument. Or if you are Iain Duncan Smith, invention of statistics is the preferred sub-set technique here.

    Repetition – This type of propaganda deals with a jingle or word that is repeated over and over again, thus getting it stuck in someone’s head, so they can buy the product. The “Repetition” method has been described previously. A good example is “making work pay”, which has also become something of a Tory slogan, (see below). The phrase has come to mean stripping social security, and welfare provision, whilst driving down wages at the same time. Another example is Cameron’s unconvincing “Big Society”. There is definitely Orwellian Doublespeak going on there.

    Slogans – A slogan is a brief, striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. Although slogans may be enlisted to support reasoned ideas, in practice they tend to act only as emotional appeals. Opponents of the US’s invasion and occupation of Iraq use the slogan “blood for oil” to suggest that the invasion and its human losses was done to access Iraq’s oil riches. On the other hand, “hawks” who argued that the US should continue to fight in Iraq use the slogan “cut and run” to suggest that it would be cowardly or weak to withdraw from Iraq. Similarly, the names of the military campaigns, such as “enduring freedom” or “just cause”, may also be regarded as slogans, devised to influence people.

    A Tory slogan of epic farce value is: “we are all in it together”. We know that whilst the majority endure austerity, and life changing cuts to our basic income, the minority of very wealthy individuals are enjoying an increase in their already considerable standard of living, at our expense.

    Stereotyping (Name-Calling or Labeling) – This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. For instance, reporting on a foreign country or social group may focus on the stereotypical traits that the reader expects, even though they are far from being representative of the whole country or group; such reporting often focuses on the constructed and amplified negative traits.

    Testimonial – Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority in a propaganda message.

    Transfer – Also known as Association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organisation, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response.

    Unstated assumption – This technique is used when the propaganda concept that the propagandist intends to transmit would seem less credible if explicitly stated. The concept is instead repeatedly assumed or implied.

    An example of this is the current Tory notion of the “trickle down” effect. This is to justify tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by Government to businesses and the wealthy, on the basis that this will benefit poorer members of society eventually by improving the economy as a whole.

    The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said, during the Great Depression, that “money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy.” Worth remembering that the term was originally mostly used ironically or as pejorative. So to clarify the implicit Tory policy directive, money is taken from the poorest, and handed to the wealthiest, with the hope of it being “trickled” back down to the poorest at some point in the future.

    Virtue words – These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, “The Truth”, striver etc. are virtue words. In countries such as the U.S. religiosity is seen as a virtue, making associations to this quality effectively beneficial.

    Straw man – This type of argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

    Excerpted from: From Psycho-Linguistics to the Politics of Psychopathy. Part 1: Propaganda.  by Kitty S. Jones, July 2013

     

    Psychopath Test Politicians

    .

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: