There's an enormous amount of discussion about Joe Biden's Secret Meeting and if it Signals a Biden-Warren Ticket (08/23/2015) among other things. What no one in the media has bothered to mention is that although it doesn't fit the stereotype of a conspiracy theory it does fit the definition of one.
Politicians and the media are constantly carrying on discussions behind closed doors designed to make candidates they support more viable by giving them positive coverage; and make those they don't support by refusing to cover them; although in this case they probably don't discuss them as often even behind closed doors. This guarantees that they can screen candidates and prevent opponents from having much if any control of the government.
(Edit since this post it has been reported that this meeting was about the possibility of her running as his vice president as reported more below. Also after she began her run for president mainstream media reported on an old video of her taking on Joe Biden making her look like the progressive one, Democratic Presidential Debates Could Reignite Warren-Biden Bankruptcy Fight 06/11/2019 However, when she was negotiating, for an alleged possible spot on his ticket if he ran in 2016 she was silent about her disagreements. This is par of the course, flipping on many issues she campaigns on once in office which is like any other politician, which I went into more in another follow up article Elizabeth Warren Makes Me Scream! )
The simple definition of a Conspiracy Theory is when two or more people communicate or act about things that effect the public in secrecy. The mainstream media almost never mentions this definition while they repeat the propaganda over and over again ridiculing those that discuss conspiracy theories they disagree with and treating those they agree with as if they're benign and should be accepted without criticism. This gives the most impressionable members of the public the impression that it is acceptable to conduct most political activities behind closed doors.
This is less likely to spur some conspiracy theories like when Dick Cheney held closed door meetings with the energy company executives to develop his plan without inviting environmentalists. However, it might be more insidious since Elizabeth Warren may have attracted the closest thing to a cult following in the Democratic party that I know of, and she isn't nearly as sincere as she seems as I indicated in several previous posts about her including the most recent, Elizabeth Warren steals credit from real grass roots efforts where I indicated that she often supports the agenda of the traditional political establishment often even the corporations she claims to stand up to. And even though she says she is trying to reform the system she has broken fund raising records from people that want to get a return on their investment and reversed herself on several issues for political reasons already.
She previously criticized Hillary Clinton for flip flopping on "that awful" banking bill then supporting it after being elected senator and collecting money from banks; but after winning the Senate seat she encouraged Hillary to run indicating that she would support her among other people in the establishment, including Lawrence Summers, who she also criticized. It is only after it began to appear that Hillary had major problems and there was a growing grassroots movement that she became more vocal for some issues and implied she might not be so supportive of Hillary after all, which indicates that she is turning into a typical politician, like many other ones that pretended not to be that way long enough to get elected.
Conspiracy combined with propaganda and psychological manipulation of the public is standard operating procedure in the system we have; and instead of trying to educate the public about it they use propaganda to ridicule those that question the government. Fortunately many of the most important factors don't involve the strictest definition of a conspiracy since they can't be kept completely secret; however propaganda and psychological manipulation keeps people distracted so they don't pay attention. The media establishment rigs the elections by refusing to cover candidates unless they collect enormous amounts of money from corporations and have the support of the two political parties. They routinely discuss politics behind closed doors and come out with policies that overwhelmingly benefit the campaign contributors.
Activities behind closed doors about policy and how to manipulate the public to support candidates fits the definition of a conspiracy and if people do a good job sorting though the news especially from alternative news outlets there is a reasonably good chance they could develop a viable conspiracy theory about what is going on.
When that happens they could be ridiculed by the media and so-called skeptics like Michael Shermer as I indicated in Are Michael Shermer and Philip Zimbardo trying to be secular cult leaders; Shermer isn't the only one that uses this tactic among others. Rachel Maddow and many other media pundits often promote stereotypes about Conspiracy theorists. often focusing on the worst and most dramatic that do an incredibly bad job developing viable conspiracy Theories so they can make it seem like all those that disagree with the government are incompetent. They conveniently refuse to cover the more rational conspiracy Theorists like they refuse to cover grassroots candidates that really do represent the public at the expense of multinational corporations that donate to campaigns.
This is typical propaganda tactic that seems trivial to most; however a large portion of activities, even by those that seem to be the most devoted advocates for the public, is done in secret and when they make policy decisions the establishment candidate routinely give preferential treatment to their campaign contributors at the expense of the public.
The political and media establishment routinely applies one definition for many terms including conspiracy theories and terrorism for those that they oppose and another for those they support. The definition for terrorism is to use violence to achieve political goals; but that doesn't refer to when the United States does this in wars based on lies.
The war in Iraq alone caused more innocent lives to be lost than the 9/11 attack and if we accept the traditional explanation of that then it was retaliation for past activities our government was involved in; however the traditional media rarely reports on that and those that research the history of things they don't like are ridiculed as Conspiracy Theorists.
Historical documents, including many declassified government files indicate that despite all the rhetoric about "defending freedom" in their activities abroad the US government has overthrown governments with far more political support from their own people in Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile and many other countries and when the tyrants they support have been overthrown they ahve a history of supporting terrorists that try to restore them or their allies including in Nicaragua and Cuba.
If they used the terms "terrorists" and "conspiracy theory" consistently then the biggest of both would be within our government; however that doesn't support their propaganda purposes or make them seem democratic, which they're not.
Edit: the media finally reported what some people may have suspected all along, Biden wanted Warren as his VP. 05/12/2016 This may seem trivial to most people but the political establishment routinely rigs elections simply by providing an enormous amount of coverage for the candidates they support and refusing to provide any coverage, if they have any choice for those that rise at the real grassroots level. Candidates that truly try to address the best interests of the majority of the public have to do an enormous amount of local campaign to attract enough attention from the public before they pressure the media to cover them for local offices. The ones supported by media and political establishment get coverage from them long before they have any grassroots support.
When it comes to higher office like the presidency or state wide office it is almost impossible to get any coverage. The media only covers candidates they approve of positively; and if their is enough grassroots support for those they don't support they only provide them a token amount of coverage compared to the ones they like and often treat them as fringe candidates.
No comments:
Post a Comment