Nota del EDITOR

Dear reader, this is one of the most interesting articles that I have ever seen. It disarticulates the myth of advertising or propaganda that the government and the corporate world use to keep the people controlled and maneuverable at their whim. Wish you enjoy it.

Destroying media (and other) propaganda campaigns using noncompliance

by Al Whitney
AntiCorruption Society

Because we have different perceptions, different ads or ‘messages’ have to be created to convince us ALL that black is white and white is black, i.e. fluoridated water is good for you, going into debt for new ‘toys’ will enhance your life, the politicians in Washington are looking out for your best interest, and the militaries role in the Afghanistan drug trade is necessary for national security.
Propaganda

Publically distributed messages or information to convince folks that black is white and white is black or that something that is not desirable to them or in their best interest.

Once we understand that the media is the mechanism used to convince the public that black is white and white is black, we can start reversing the impact the ‘perception management’ team has on us. So it is important to understand the goal of most of our corrupt politicians is to ‘manufacture our consent’ via ‘spin’, ‘framing’, and general deception. The media for the most part has become a devise to manipulate the population. Goal: to overcome the innate wisdom and common sense of the general population and get them to ‘comply’ or even promote – that which is not in their best interest, but serves the goals of the ‘controlling/profiteers.’

The creation of the ‘message’ or ‘spin’

A great documentary about this topic is the BBC documentary “Century of Self’”[1]. It tracks the history of Freud’s nephew, Ed Bernays and his creation of the ‘public relations’ (propaganda) industry. Another more recent but equally as fabulous documentary on propaganda, specifically in the United States, is Psywar.

This ‘industry’ has become so common place that the general population no longer thinks of those working in public relations as propagandists, so does not have the disdain for them that they should. Creating deceptions (lies) to manufacture consent (get compliance) or sell products is not an honorable profession – never has been and never will be! If you are reading this and work in public relations or advertising, understand – you are not being an honorable person when you engage in public deception for money!

The creation of successful propaganda requires gathering information from the public so that their objections or resistance to harmful policies (such as NAFTA) can be clearly identified and propaganda can be cunningly created to overcome or dispel them. Whether or not the propaganda campaign is successful is determined by the relentless ‘polling’ of the target population the propagandists are trying to reach.

Unfortunately there are ‘professional’ psychologists hired to aid in analyzing the public’s responses and assist in the manufacturing of the propaganda campaigns. These psychologists are not honorable people.

Basically without propaganda the corrupt ones would have no way to overcome wisdom and common sense. We would ask questions and ascertain for ourselves whether government policies are in our best interest or not. Corruption cannot survive without deception, which is why there is so much ongoing ‘demonizing’ of folks trying to expose corruption and lies by ‘labeling’ them ‘truthers’ as if they were dishonorable people! (Black is white and white is black!).

Tools for todays propaganda campaigns

Again The Century of Self does a great job exploring how these tools are used by the propagandists to ‘manufacture consent’. Some of the tools ‘devises’ used are:

– Polls, surveys, questionnaires, petitions
– Town Hall or Community Meetings (on specific topics to get ‘public feedback’)
– Focus groups
– Voting records
– Products purchased
– Social networks like Facebook, etc.
– Discussion forums on web sites

Next time you receive a poll, look at it has a devise to get information from you to better exploit or manipulate you (Black is white and white is black!). There is a lot that can be learned by analyzing polls. First we must understand that a lot of money is spent creating and administering the poll. Polling has actually become a ‘science’ (American Association for Public Opinion Research). If you think this industry and the enormous amount of money they are paid to find out what you think is done out of great concern for your general welfare. The questions on the poll are carefully selected and worded (‘framed’).

In political polls the questions are worded to convince you the issues they are asking about are indeed the most important ones that need to be addressed. In reality the questions reflect a political ‘agenda’ for which they are seeking public input so they can ‘manufacture consent’ to support it. Generally their questions are not about the issues that matter most to you, but the poll is part of an effort to convince you they are.

From Meet the Pollsters, 4-3-09

Elements of Obama’s approach bare the hallmarks of message testing, like the introduction of the words “recovery” and “reinvestment” to rebrand the “stimulus” package, and aides said the polling has focused almost entirely on selling policy, not on measuring the president’s personal appeal.

A source familiar with the data said a central insight of more recent polling had been that Americans see no distinction between the budget and the popular spending measures that preceded it, and that the key to selling the budget has been to portray it as part of the “recovery” measures.
In addition percent, your willingness to fill out and return their poll is analyzed statistically. If they get a 75 percent return out of 100,000 sent out, they conclude that 75,000 people continue to think the organization paying for the poll is a legitimate enterprise concerned with the public good. Next they look at the specifics of the 25,000 who didn’t cooperate and analyze their demographics. They now have a new group to target with the next round of media propaganda.

Polling is also done by corporations to aid them in the creation of marketing campaigns. Corporations have absolutely no ‘directive’ to better society – no matter what their ‘perception managers’ say. Their only ‘directive’ is to make profits.

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR

Dear readers;

As I was growing up, I observed how men were being cornered by society, little by little. The police, the courts, and other parts of the government have weakened men’s position of power. No longer are they treated with respect and have been taken out of the traditional role of the ‘man of the house, the breadwinner;’ they are losing court battles, and sometimes landing on the streets with almost nothing after a divorce, while the court chase him for not paying child support even when they had no job. They sometime are put in jail.

Sometimes this happens while the woman is employed and is making more than is necessary to live comfortably, and while is accompanied by a new man in her life.

The following article, which has no author, should be read by everyone in order to better understand the injustices committed against men by a brainwashed society that has been made to believe that men are the evil ones, while for whom no one raises a hand on his behalf. PART 2 AND LAST.

The Fascism of Feminism that hasn’t been shown

This essay examines some of the issues closely related to feminist campaigning, providing gender balance on subjects such as domestic violence, dispelling feminist myths, while analyzing the behavior of women in 21st century Britain.

by anonymous author

Many unsuccessful or unhappy people project their own failings onto different social groups in society, sub-consciously blaming others for their own personal issues. It’s a common psychological process and feminists are no different. This scapegoating invariably leads to persecution.

Many of these feminist campaigners have an irrational fear of men, and want to create a more feminized society where men are demasculated and controlled. They attempt to hijack every issue, and are only capable of viewing these issues from a self-interested, narrow-minded perspective.

These feminists are not interested in men’s opinions or understanding their emotions, they just make narrow-minded assumptions, feeding off each others ignorance and paranoia. Leaders of feminist groups, especially the more accessible internet pages on social network sites frighten and manipulate young women into seeing men as the enemy, exploiting their fears and fuelling their paranoia. Every man is a potential killer, rapist, sex offender or pedophile in their eyes, and this irrational fear is inherited by young impressionable women who may think the causes are just. It’s a form of grooming which needs to be urgently addressed.

Many influential feminists appear to revel in creating a barrier between men and women, fortifying it at any given opportunity, failing to understand the dynamic between men and women as a result of their own sexual orientation. These humorless, profoundly negative women need a war, a fight to give their life meaning.

No matter how powerful women become in society, these feminists will always pursue this agenda. If these campaigners are so intelligent and so useful, why don’t they contribute to society instead of consuming much of their time seeking out perceived sexism on the internet? How useful are these feminists in society?

They certainly don’t help society by propagating hate, and I doubt they help the majority of fair-minded women. They seem to have so much campaigning time as a result of their misanthropic tendencies but seem unable to put their rhetoric into practice. They are destructive, not constructive people. Their motivation is negative, not positive. Healthy women do NOT become feminists. Women are more likely to succeed in life if they haven’t been brainwashed with stifling feminist dogma. It gives them an excuse for failure, a reason not to try, and a persecution complex. Most women will grow out of feminist campaigning by their early/mid twenties, as they realize that sitting at a computer, developing a persecution complex does nothing to further their career, or their emotional development.

Some feminist organizations campaign vociferously against men’s playful, gentle ‘sexism’ which often involves complementing women on their physical appearance, celebrating the female form as art has always done, yet they seem oblivious to their own brand of harmful, spiteful, sadistic sexism, intended to make men feel inadequate, useless, and humiliated.

They believe women are viewed as sex objects in the media, yet men’s magazines are far less harmful than women’s gossip magazines, which show nasty undercover photographs of women with cellulite, or without make-up intended to humiliate the celebrity and comfort the lesser attractive readers. Their agenda is bitchy and spiteful, an attack on women, not a celebration.

Men would never disrespect women in this way. Women are the enemy of women, they always have been. The campaign against ‘lads’ mags’ in the UK by groups such as UK Feminista and Women’s Aid is a prime example of their controlling, fascist agenda. They believe that photos of semi-naked women cause men to act violently towards women.

This clearly demonstrates their contempt and lack of understanding of men. By their own terms, violence by women towards men must result from sexual images of men in girl’s and women’s magazines too then? Or does this psychological phenomenon not affect women? There are many semi-naked images of boy bands and sports stars in these publications. Maybe the content in women’s magazines creates a profoundly negative perception of men, which we find offensive? Do they consider this?

Clearly some women are intolerant of men interacting with women in a sexual way. This could easily be construed as heterophobia. Who decides what is pornographic, art, or fashion? Feminist extremists? Just because we don’t like something that doesn’t mean it should be banned. I’m sure many people are offended by hunting magazines in supermarkets showing carcasses resulting from ‘sporting’ endeavors. Some supermarkets have felt compelled to remove men’s magazines from their shelves as a result of legal threats and bullying by these feminist organizations. They even claim that female supermarket workers are being sexually harassed by being in the presence of these magazines!

The campaign to ban men’s magazines is one of the most misguided and ineffectual campaigns ever staged by feminists, and the battle to save them has become a metaphor in the fight against the control feminists seek to impose on men. Banning them would amount to a token act of symbolism, unlikely to have any meaningful impact on society.

Individuals and small groups should never be allowed to control society, that’s not what democracy is about, but then UK Feminista is an anti-democratic organization which believes that feminism should be at the centre of politics, which clearly demonstrates a desire for self-righteous control, and not equality. Organizations such as this create a climate of misogyny and man-hating, which is far more likely to cause sexism and domestic violence than the men’s magazines they seek to ban.

The editor of the first magazine to feature the voyeuristic photos of Kate Middleton was a woman. These feminists never campaign when women letch over other women and view them as sex objects. There’s more sexual predation by lesbians than men per head of the population but they never speak of this. Attacking men is their only motivation. These feminists drown in the bile of their own hypocrisy. They also believe women are exploited by men.

In fact, men are exploited by women for children, money, power and status. There is probably more disrespectful, sexist behavior in society by women. A good example of their casual unwitting sexism revealed itself the BBC documentary Panorama, where an episode discussed sexism in football. Many of the comments on the program by women were deeply sexist, the sort of gender stereotypes men are chastised for. Phrases like “women are better communicators than men”, “women behave with less bravado”, “men are angry because we are taking their jobs.”

Unfortunately the irony seemed lost on them. Many women and girls watch football because they are sexually attracted to players, they have half naked posters of footballers on their walls but when men do this they are considered shallow and sexist. The hypocrisy is staggering sometimes. Let’s not forget how women exploit footballers and other well-known celebrities by seducing them in nightclubs and then sell stories to national newspapers. Maybe campaign groups like Object should visit a modern hen night or nightclub to observe women’s behavior.