The Big Lie

The cultural trope of the dogged reporter in rumpled suit with a large view camera and fedora with a press card tucked in the hat band is an illusion that many of us still labor under.  Somewhere in our subconscious, we link this trope to the blow-dried puffballs that read teleprompters and who haven't been in the field researching for years, if ever.

In recent months, there has been somewhat of a backlash against this kind of "news" reading, with more and more folks realizing just how manipulated the audience is.  Our perceptions of the world at large are completely controlled by massive "information" corporations, many of which share board members and shareholders.

These corporations spend little or nothing on actual research.  They depend almost entirely on wire feeds like AP or Reuters that "gather" the news and distribute "stories" to paid accounts like FOX, CNN, and any of the other alphabet outlets.  One might notice the occasional difference in which "stories" lead off the broadcasts, but overall, there is almost zero difference in content between any of the outlets.

The local affiliates do some news gathering.  They have "reporters" and cameramen who run around in satellite trucks beaming news conferences from city hall, or images of chalk outlines and crime-scene tape.  This is hardly news, but it keeps the rubes happy and buying advertisers' products.  Pays well, too, if you're a puffball.

Few people stop to consider that ALL news is fake, though.  All of it at all times in all places.  It may be reporting actual events, but there is a catch:

The second a cameraman starts recording, you are only seeing what the cameraman (and his producer/reporter) what you to see.  He cannot possibly, nor does he try, to record the entire context of the scene.  He is busily getting interesting pictures and "coverage" of the scene, but it is only his perspective - influenced by his desire to get noticed and advance up the food chain - further influenced by the producer/reporter's orders to "get this".

The producer/reporter, in turn, is looking for a certain angle that will get him or her noticed so they can move up the food chain - perhaps go to national.  So they are looking for the most sensational aspects of the "story", a hook that will get attention.

So far, two people have had direct influence over what we the audience can see and learn about the "story".

Back at the news room, the Executive Producer and Assignments Editor are using corporate guidelines to decide what stories get aired, and which angle of the story they want to show.  They give direct orders to the producer/reporter - in many cases even before they arrive at the scene - on what the Management wants to see.  Is it a crime involving drugs that would support the official narrative of the Drug War?  What races are involved in the story and can that be spun into narrative support?  What genders are involved, and can that be spun?  Even the section of town - poor vs. rich areas - influence whether and how a story gets reported.

By now, dozens of people have influenced a story, and it hasn't even gotten to editing.  At this point, the producer/reporter will scribble a few notes, being sure to get all of Management's agenda points in, and then record a stand-up.  Even for live reports, this is not necessarily done at the scene, and can even be separated by large amounts of time from the actual footage at the scene.  In some cases (that I have actually been involved with) the cameraman is the only person on the scene and the stand-up is done much later after Management decides what angle they want to show.  The producer/reporter was not even at the scene and can be manufacturing a story out of whole cloth, choosing pictures that roughly match the "story".

At this point, the editor takes over.  The footage and producer/reporter's stand-up are assembled by someone making additional choices about what looks good, cuts together well and adds to the narrative.  The "story" is given a time slop of, say, thirty seconds, so the editor must figure out how to cram as much (or little) information in the slot given.

The finished story is reviewed by the producer/reporter, who may make changes.  It is then passed by the Executive Producer, who checks the story for "relevance" and ensures that it does not violate any of the political dictates of Management.

The finished video is cured for air and a "wrap-around" narrative is written for the puffballs to read off the teleprompters.  Occasionally, the anchor puffballs may kill a story, usually just to exert their authority, because they are considered part of the Editorial Staff.

By now, clearly a great many people have influenced a "story" before we even get to the Advertisers, who exert an inordinate amount of influence over content.  Certainly, any stories that are detrimental to their products or company are killed, but they are known to influence stories touch on the corporations' political agendas, as well.

If a story has passed what is now hundreds of influencing forces, it gets aired, where the audience decides how much importance and credibility they place on the "story".  The audience reaction - whether tongue-clucking or rioting - has been carefully contrived through multiple layers of "gate-keeping". It is a science of manipulation.

Clearly, it is ALL fake news.  Any given "story" may have varying degrees of "truth" in it, but from the moment the camera starts recording until the light and sound impedes on our senses, the process of "reporting" news is designed to remove "truth" and insert "agenda".  The news we watch is no more "real" than a blockbuster superhero movie.

If we all approached the media with the understanding that it is ALL FAKE NEWS, we would be a long way down the road to protecting ourselves from manipulation science.  Of course, the best option is to turn it all off completely, but this is a rather difficult option, since the media has infused vast amounts of our lives.

Being aware of the vast pressure of agendas on every frame of video and every word of narrative will erect a wall of defense against manipulation.  Additionally, being aware that manipulation is coming from every direction all the time is another line of defense.  Even a 24/7, live-streaming webcam cannot show us truth, since it can never show what is behind the camera.

IT IS ALL FAKE NEWS.  The image at the head of this column of an ABC report faking a crime scene report is not the exception, it is the rule.

Believe Only What We Tell You

Stand by for rant..

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released previously unseen USDA videos revealing a compulsory “Cultural Sensitivity Training” program. A whistleblower reported to Judicial Watch that employees were required to bang on tables, chanting in unison “The pilgrims were illegal aliens” while being instructed to no longer use the word “minorities,” but to replace it with “emerging majorities.” Judicial Watch received the videos pursuant to a May 18, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Are you weak-minded and insecure?  Join us!

I've had it with mealy-mouthed, touchy-feely psycho-babble mind control.  Granted, this particular incident is with US government employees, and they deserve all the psychological abuse being heaped on them for being part of the problem, but this kind of crap goes on in work places all over America, and it's spreading.

One of the most evil curses ever unleashed on humanity are these creatures called 'social workers'.  These are the 25-year-old childless busy-bodies that tell people how to raise their children because they read it in a book.  These are the mental midgets that tell us pilgrims were illegal aliens because they've never read a f*^&ing history book.  These are the people who unleash 'consensus building' and 'sensitivity training' on normal human beings.

These people need to be eradicated from the list of job types available, along with people who have 'education' degrees.  They are not only useless, they are dangerous.

You see, here's how it works...if you have to make laws and threaten paychecks to get people to adopt your point of view, then it is your opinion that is wrong, not mine.  I have the right to hold any opinion and/or prejudice I want, and you don't have the right to force me otherwise.  If your opinion is so freakin' great, then convince me with a decent argument.

Since these people are incapable of developing arguments in favor of their opinions, they must force people under color of law to adopt their beliefs.  All this 'sensitivity training' and 'cultural diversity' bullshit just smacks of fascist mind control.  What's worse, when a normal human being gets angry at these numb-nuts for forcing their namby-pamby horse-hocky on him, they start with the crap about controlling one's emotions, while at the same time telling him to 'get in touch with his emotions'.

I'm sick of it!

Every truly painful episode in my life has been at the hands of 'social workers'.  If you remember the old TeeVee series "Bewitched", these idiots are Mrs. Cravitz with licenses to forcibly enter your home and your life and start dictating how you should be living.

What's worse than these weasly pieces of human refuse feeling like they can force their point of view on people is that us normal human beings don't stand up to them en masse and heave them out the door.

You see, I have never given an inch to these a--holes, and it just sets them into a tizzy.  They can't deal with it when someone won't roll over and participate in group-think sessions.

That's when they pull out the, "Don't act like that.  You should participate like everyone else," routine.  And that just sets me off.

"Oh, so by your argument, I should have joined the Nazi party or asked for an extra helping of Jonestown Kool-Aid."

"This is just a trust-building/consensus-building exercise.  It's not the same thing."

"Yes it is.  It is training individuals to be part of the hive mentality.  Today it's your lame, useless exercises, but later it's the 'follow or die' commands from evil bastards like your employer."

Once in a while, I can get one or two others to see the light, but mostly people just 'go along to get along'.  And that is the most dangerous mentality ever adopted by the bovine masses.  It is the single most lethal thought process devised by the Controllers.  They shame and cajole people into following whadoatever unholy actions they take by 'bulding consensus'.

It's frightening when I see normally intelligent people group-think because they have deluded themselves into believing their own thoughts and opinions are wrong because they go against the majority.  They fail to see that the majority is a very dangerous thing.  They also fail to comprehend that true individuals have unique thoughts and beliefs, based on their unique set of experiences.

Just because in a group of 30 people, 28 don't agree with you does not make you wrong.  According to your past and your education, your opinions are right for you, and that's all that is needed to make you right.  If someone wants to try and change your mind by arguing a different point of view, then you have the choice to participate in the argument or not.  It does not negate your opinion when you refuse to argue it, though it may imply that you are insecure in your position.

But that's my opinion.  You don't have to adopt it.

You see, in the free marketplace of ideas, a billion people are allowed to have a billion opinions and compete to convince others of the soundness of the reasoning behind them.  If others find a certain opinion worthwhile, based on the completeness of the argument, then others may adopt that opinion, as well.

The general consensus among the masses of humanity is that walking in the rain will get you wet.  However, there are a few who believe that a person can learn to walk between the rain drops.  The few can choose to believe their view is correct, possibly based on experience.  They may also choose to teach others the trick, or not.  They can choose to demonstrate the trick, or not.  It doesn't negate their belief if they don't choose to prove it to others.  After all, do we reject a magician's illusions just because he won't tell us how he did it?

"judas" goat

The fact of the matter is that there is no single right way to think or believe.  If I choose to believe that people with plaid skin are evil low-lifes and I don't want to live or socialize around them, that is my right.  I don't have the right to force you to believe the way I do any more than you have the right to force me not to believe.  If you don't like my beliefs, then you don't have to hang around me.  It's that simple.

In the cited article, the people (granted they are useless eaters living off of others' tax money) were forced to sit around chanting, "The pilgrims were illegal aliens."

First of all, when the pilgrims came to North America, there were no immigration laws, so it is impossible for them to have been illegal immigrants.  Second, I am willing to bet not one of those bucket-heads was American Indian, so they have no logical position to believe that statement.  Third, if they truly believe that statement, then they must immediately pack their bags and return to whatever country from which their ancestors came (assuming they can comply with the immigration laws of said country).  And fourth, the group-think 'facilitators' at those meetings should be rounded up and placed in lead-lined boxes so their stupidity doesn't infect the rest of polite society.

Forcing people to change their vocabulary so that an appropriate adjective, 'minority' is replaced with the ridiculously non-sensical phrase 'emerging majority' just smacks of Orwellian fascism.  It assumes a false premise - that some group or another is becoming a majority.  A group either IS a majority, or it is a minority.  It is a logical absurdity to be an 'emerging majority'.  A group may be rising in numbers and/or influence, but it is not a majority until it has attained that status by head-count.

But really, that is the point of all these 'social workers' and 'consensus builders'.  Their sole purpose in this world is to confuse clear thinking, or in fact, to shut down all thinking.  They are unleashed upon us to tell us what to think and believe so that we become incapable of gain-saying the supposed masters of this world.  In fact, the fascist change agents, a more apt description of 'social workers', are the final result of what we are to become.  We will no longer have our own ideas, we will only be capable of convincing/forcing others to believe whatever slogan is inserted in the gap where our brains used to be.

I am sick to the point of physical dis-ease with all the psycho-babble and the intellectual dishonesty and absurdity that it entails.  The sheer stupidity of things like 'sensitivity training' and 'consensus building' disgusts me.  What's worse are the thinking people who go along with this crap so that they can be thought of as 'team players'.

All of this nonsense is enforced by the implanted need for 'self-esteem'.  Apparently, we can only achieve self-esteem by being part of the group and playing well with others.  Real people, though, derive self-esteem from intellectual integrity in the face of overwhelming pressure to adopt group-think.  To stand alone against peer pressure in order to defend one's opinions is the true source of personal power.

Any idiot can be cajoled into following the crowd.  It takes real inner strength and fortitude to stand against the crowd for what one knows to be the truth.

Fascist change agents are trained in methods of shaming others into following the crowd.  It takes both a strong will and knowledge of how change agents work to fight the urge to 'go along'.  Success in fighting such things not only brings with it true self-esteem, but it strengths the one thing that the supposed masters fear the most: strong, self-assured individuals.

Every child should be shown the behavior patterns of cattle as a means of demonstrating weak-minded group-thinkers.  Cows simply stick their nose up the butt of the one in front of them and mindlessly wander in herds.  They wear paths across fields because not one will stray outside the bounds of herd action.  They will, in fact, follow a judas goat to their certain death because they cannot think beyond the butt in front of them.

And 'judas goat' is an appropriate metaphor for fascist change agents.  They are specifically trained to lead the herd to certain doom, and do it cheerfully and with certainty that they are doing the right thing.  These weak-minded, insecure vacuum-brains are the perfect tools of the supposed masters.

I hate figs.  Can't stand the sight of them, and even the word 'fig' sounds disgusting.  Nothing you say or do will get me to eat or like figs.  It is a personal prejudice I have developed from experience and I refuse to change it.

All people have prejudices developed from personal experience and there is no reason to change those prejudices except that it serves the needs of a supposed master who enjoys making people do, say or think things that they would otherwise abhor.  It's nothing more than a control mechanism for the masses and entertainment for those who fancy themselves as masters of men.

Need a real-life example?  I think the GLBT (gay/lesbian/bi/trannie) movement is populated by idiots and intellectual midgets.  I base my opinion on the fact that these people define themselves and their socio-political agendas solely on the basis of with whom they have sex.  People I choose to associate with are much more diverse in their thinking and able to define themselves based on ideas and achievements, not their sex partners.  No amount of sensitivity training will change my mind on this.

Does that mean I won't associate with homosexuals?  Of course not.  I take each individual at face value.  However, if they try to convince me of some belief based on who they have sex with, I will put up an irrefutable argument that they have a very narrow view of the world - much like a cow - in that they cannot see the world beyond the confines of their beds.

They should have more self-respect and allow themselves to be seen as more than just sex objects.

The only appropriate response to 'social workers' and 'sensitivity training' is to shun the people and events involved.  By acquiescing in any way, we empower and entertain the supposed masters who like to watch us jump through their hoops on command.  If forced to warm a chair in one of these inane 'workshops', do not participate despite any attempt to shame you.

Males are 50% of the population, but only 25% of diversity drones.

What you will find, as I have, is that others in the group feel the same as you, they just don't have the integrity and strength to act alone.  The more you resist, the more others will come to your side of the argument.  The one thing the fascist change agents cannot deal with is obstinate refusal to be bought out.  You can literally see the synapses in their brain-gaps burning out.  You will probably be asked to leave so you don't infect the rest of the herd with independent thought.

In order to save society, it is absolutely necessary to put an end to this touchy-feely crap before it destroys the last vestiges of true humanity.  Real diversity is a thriving marketplace of competing opinions, not lock-step spouting of platitudes and slogans.  In fact, if 'social workers' are made pariahs in the way smokers have been, we would see the profession die out - as well it should - because these weak, insecure individuals require social acceptance for their self-esteem.  Remove that carrot and they will quickly find something productive to do.

The next time you are confronted by a 'social worker' in a 'diversity workshop', tell them that they are being very insensitive to your diverse point of view and that they should immediately resign and seek gainful employment.