Have you tried to debate with an emotional statist? Were you left dumbfounded at the fact that regardless of the common sense you spoke or how you rearranged said common sense that the statist still refused to accept simple facts? Chances are that you’re someone who engages with the ignorant masses of social media. Perhaps, it’s that you like to troll or you truly want to educate anyone who will give you the chance to try..
Previously on my last post, I linked to this article. But rather than focusing on why articles like this are being written, we’re going to discuss how the article’s intended message is designed to reach its’ audience. Propaganda comes in all forms; some of it is extremely well thought out, complex, and sophisticated while some of it is not. But, the means of delivery are the same. All humans have emotion. Emotion is the target. Therefore, propaganda focuses on the emotional tipping point of a given argument so that logic gives the way and the emotional response invokes the target to agree with the issue in a way that is beneficial to the organization that the propagandist belongs to.
The Daily Kos article does not give an accurate, clear, concise explanation of why the actions of the individual are considered to be “domestic terrorism”. In fact, simply by doing just that, not only would the article be forced to tell the truth but anyone who doesn’t have the education to understand the concepts being explained is automatically excluded as a potential target for this particular piece of propaganda. This is a numbers game. This piece needs to not only be able to be understood by as many people as possible, but it also needs to convince them of the argument at hand. So because we are not able to do that with logic that leaves the lowest common denominator. To quote Hitler, “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”
Let us take a closer look at how this works. This is a excerpt from the Daily Kos article. “It’s not a tragedy, as opposed to a mudslide, an earthquake or an accidental house fire. Those things don’t cause people living in 11 different states over to have genuine fear. If a house burns down in Iowa, homeowners in Florida aren’t scared shitless the next day. If a mudslide happens in Santa Barbara, homeowners in Montana aren’t worried to death it will happen to them next” 1) This is not a tragedy. We make comparisons to natural/accidental events that are intentionally dramatic events to invoke the emotions of the person who would engage themselves in such an article of this kind. 2) Those things don’t cause people living in those 11 states to have genuine fear. This lets the person know that this MUST be important since people are in fear everywhere! We can’t have everyone be afraid because fear is bad. 3) Those other events don’t cause fear on a grand scale, so we don’t have to worry about those particular events so much. According to the author, this defines terrorism. The author of that article goes on to make more points, but all the points are based in emotion. “If we are made to feel this way, we need to do something about it.” That kind of attitude grants the government the authority to skip irritating procedures, such as due process.
Now let us move on to very sophisticated propaganda. This, is hardcore nazi propaganda brought to you by the loving fascists over at Fox News. The first 26 seconds are the set up, which sets the tone of that segment. There’s also an attractive female anchor, who’s there to grab the attention of any potential male viewer watching the segment. This choice is not typically for everyone who is familiar with this flavor of content but quite the opposite. The average male who is ignorant of political topics will see her and will think along the lines of “Damn that bitch is fine! Let’s see what she has to say.” The intonation of this setup is provocative, serious and disguised to be ”professional”; the combination of those 3 elements subliminally says to the viewer who chooses to engage in the piece that “This is serious and it can happen to you, so you should listen.” It also sets the viewer who subscribes to this ideology in a fear state of mind in order to evoke emotional thinking rather than logical thinking. Finally, it pushes a specific narrative designed to strike fear into the hearts of conservatives in their perception of Muslim-Americans. Even the delivery of the narrative is specific and completely thought out designed to invoke a certain type of fear.
The interview begins at the 27 second mark in the video. There isn’t audio nor have the feelings of the scene changed. There’s a rapid segue to change from the intro scene to the interview—it’s used to enhance the dramatic quality of the interview. After the scene changes, we see what could be described by your average mainstreamer as an average American woman of her demographic. As this part of the interview begins, it should be noted that she has a blank stare on her face. After the first questions are asked, the woman begins to recall the event. Notice how she has a hard time making eye contact with the anchor. The way in which the woman describes the event is designed to perpetuate the ever increasingly popular victim mentality. She is submissive to the anchor by answering her questions. They also dive into the “gruesome details” of the event to perpetuate the perceived seriousness of not only the event but the situation on a local, city, state, national, and global level. This is achieved through promoting this narrative hard at home to give the perceived acceptance that terrorism is a threat not only abroad but even in rural America, which is the heartland in a place as innocent as Oklahoma. Those people hate us for our freedoms we used to have or something. “Did you feel? Did you feel? Did you feel?” Notice a pattern in that question? The victim replies by making a reference to her anxiety. This normalizes the kind of condition in the viewer, which is a huge product placement for big pharma, who seldom mentions their products outside of their silly commercials which are ran the most on MSM channels. As the segment progresses, the officer is portrayed as a hero. We see a picture of a black man who is supposed to be a terrorist. The white cop shooting black suspect = hero in this scenario. Left/right paradigm much? Next, She talks about how she feels when the cops arrive. “Ahhh Relief!” Then, they discuss about how she got put in the same hospital and oh gosh wow how could such a thing happen, and we don’t know if there was the proper security and if the cops were doing enough even though we don’t mention many of these things because they are conveyed subliminally through the anchors body language and expressions and intonation of her speech.
This is highly sophisticated propaganda, well-crafted, put together by people I would assume are much smarter than me. But then again I can see the hidden message so that makes me wonder. But this isn’t about me. If we recap, we notice multiple narratives being mixed together all at the same time to benefit everyone the GOP supports except the supporters. Notice who posted the video I linked to? Hmmm. We have the fear Islam agenda. We have the “#Domestic Terrorist” agenda. We have the “accept the police state” agenda. We have the instigation/justification of black/white tensions between citizens and police. We perpetuate the victim role by portraying the victim as a courageous survivor of a potentially lethal situation while we didn’t skimp on the details of how close to death she really came. The woman is also a character who is base as heck. She provides no intellectual stimulation to the interview at all whatsoever. She is designed to appeal to the average American as the “average American”. Someone who has no concept of critical thinking, no education, no way to decipher what’s real and what’s not. In a world of lies how can someone like this do anything but accept this narrative as reality. How can they not? But they have emotion. They know how they feel. They know how they like to feel. They know how they do not like to feel. They don’t think anyone should have to feel “bad” emotions because “bad” emotions are bad. What’s the worst emotion someone could feel? Fear? Pain? Loss? A combination of the three? Well, we know those things exist, but it’s ok we don’t need to explain it. There are some intelligent people in government and there are experts who concur with them. If you just listen to them and vote for what they want, all the bad feelings will go away and the world will be a better place.
This is what is in the mind of the emotional thinker. If you aren’t able to connect to the statist on the emotional level, you never will. We have the answers. We have the solutions. But, none of those things matter right now..We are getting raped in the infowar, and will continue to unless we learn how to connect with emotional statists. I understand there are radical ones that can never be reached and it’s a waste of time to try. But, SJWs and feminists are not the majority but rather a small percentage of the majority. Like it or not we need the minds of these people because they are being used against us in this democracy. And if we concede to the battle of the propagandized minds, then we are just waiting for battle in the streets after TPP goes through, policies get enacted, time passes, the dollar fails, jobs go overseas, and everyone is poor as hell and there is no option but violent revolution or starvation. (Especially for the ignorant) The choice is yours. Stand by and do nothing until you have to, or try to mitigate our bullshit future. This is me trying.