Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Frank Luntz confesses to sabotaging democratic process for clients




When I went to school I wasn't part of the class of kids that began studying politics from a young age; however most of us had a little education about debate skills, even if it didn't last long. I didn't realize it until years later but my teacher was potentially teaching kids to start spinning lying and selling their points of views from a young age. For a debate class we were told that we would be assigned positions on a articular controversy and our assignment would be to make an argument for that position whether we believed in it or not.

This was in Junior High School and like many other Junior High School classes the top priority for many of the kids was simply to avoid the spotlight especially if the kids weren't among the coolest kids in class; however even though the coolest kids, or anyone else, weren't involved in political activism at my school. I remember thinking how outrageous this was since it would be inappropriate to defend the indefensible on many subjects, yet this was exactly what the teacher was suggesting the kids that get the wrong side of a debate might do.

I decided that I would speak out against it since this was so outrageous.... if I got the wrong position and was asked to defend the side I opposed. I didn't get the wrong side of an issue and, whether it was because I wasn't the coolest kid in class and might be picked on for not going along with the program or not, that was enough reason to avoid speaking out against what the teacher was asking us to do.

I didn't realize at the time what kind of implications that might have; however I didn't forget it either; and looking at how all these pundits or politicians take the side of the the candidate they endorse or are hired to represent it now seems clear that many of these talking heads were almost certainly taught to lie, often in sophisticated manners, from an early age and this lesson might have been typical among many children that later became politicians and are now selling the vast majority of us out to campaign contributors.

We have an education system for some people in the debating class that teaches them to sell out their beliefs from an early age! It is almost guaranteed that there are many others that do a much better job teaching kids to stand up for their principles; however even a modest look at the typical politician which children rise the highest within the political establishment, especially with candidates as pathetic as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who would never be nominated if the public was better educated. 

This was going on long before Frank Luntz wrote "Words That Work" where he virtually confesses to promoting outrageous propaganda and researching how to manipulate the public; however this is a clear indication of just how our political establishment became so bad. Frank Luntz doesn't actually refer to his book as a confession, instead he seems to indicate that everything that he recommends is reasonable and justified.

Some people seem to believe him, which raises major doubts about whether many people in this country have any critical thinking skills at all.

If the public, or at least those paying any attention at all, really did have critical thinking skills would anyone even consider either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump during the primaries?

No where in his book or, perhaps, the political by the mainstream media do they put much if any emphasis on trying to figure out what is true before choosing beliefs to defend. Very few members of the ruling class seem to do this in public and their chosen beliefs routinely benefit their own class with little or no regard for the majority of the public.

Generally the only way major efforts are made to defend the truth is when the public doesn't believe the lies of their leaders and the leaders recognize this, change their positions and try to take credit for coming up with new ides neglecting to mention that it is only because their followers actually came up with the new idea and wouldn't believe their lies.

Could that be part of the reason why he does all these focus groups?



When describing propaganda tactics Adolph Hitler once said something like, "good propaganda involves repeating your message over and over again with conviction as if it is true, which it is, but it should be done even if your message isn't true." This isn't an exact quote but he did say something similar, although I wasn't able to find the original source. He is virtually admitting that if it suited his purpose that he would have lied, and denying that he was lying at the same time.

Adolph Hitler was one of the most charismatic speakers in history and he was a master of many other propaganda tactics as well. He also developed an incredibly credulous cult following that was inclined to believe what he said no matter what even when he was virtually admitting that he would lie if he had to.

Frank Luntz isn't quite that obvious.

But if you look at his history whether it is from his book "Words That Work," or many of his media appearances it seems clear that he's willing to spin anything to his own point of view and he's often describing propaganda tactics to deceive the public for the best interest of his Party or what ever client is paying him at any given time.

He often openly admits that he advises people to stage the debate prepare for anticipated questions that might be inevitable or even arrange for a reporter to call out an arranged question to give the public a rigged image of the candidate like the following excerpts about both John Kerry and Lloyd Bentsen.

As a footnote, I am often asked what I would have advised John Kerry if I had been his communications adviser. The answer, and I told this to Kerry early in 2006, may have shocked and offended Bible Belt Republicans, but it would have changed the dynamic of the controversy. I would have asked Kerry to wait until he had a friendly audience in front of him (think visually) and the TV cameras behind him, and then had a reporter call out: “Senator, those people are questioning your patriotism. What do you have to say to them?” I would have had Kerry turn and face the accuser, with the friendly audience now as his backdrop, and I would have told him to deliver the following lines in a stern but controlled voice:

Let me tell you something, I fought for this country. I was wounded for this country. I’m proud of my service. You tell the people peddling this trash, and the people who support them—including the President and the Vice-President—to go to hell. I went to Vietnam and fought for the American flag. They didn’t.*

Unless and until you say something to break the rhythm of a negative story, it will continue. A graphic profanity would have broken the rhythm, changed the focus, and, while a debate about the use of such words in politics would have ensued, that would have been a better debate for John Kerry. (Frank Luntz “Words That Work” 2007 p.88-9)

*Tom Brokaw had asked Quayle to explain what he would do if, as vice president, he had to assume the duties of president. Quayle’s response was to emphasize correctly that he had “as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency.” Bentsen’s quick response sounded like it was ad-libbed, but according to political journalists Jack Germond and Jules Witcover in their outstanding text “Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars,” Bentsen had actually tried a similar line in a debate rehearsal: “You’re no Jack Kennedy and George Bush is no Ronald Reagan.” (Frank Luntz “Words That Work” 2007 p.126-7)


How obvious doe it have to be that this is staging the discussion that is presented to the vast majority of the public?

Keep in mind that the media is now controlled by only six large corporations and the entire political establishment along with the mainstream media is controlled by a fraction of 1% and this type of staged event is standard operating procedure with thousands, if not millions of variations to make points for the benefit of that small percentage of the public.

Frank Luntz made it clear that he understands that even though the basic principles are relatively simple even though he tells the public about his scams they don't fully understand it or know what to do about it. He reviews several myths in his book making it clear why many people often vote against their own interests and recognizing this enables him to study how to manipulate them, although he doesn't say that part.

He reports that it is a myth that Americans are well educated, that they read much and that they vote based on the issues. He also reports that it is only partially true that Americans respond well to patriotic messages, and explores which Americans are more likely to do so.

This isn't followed up by any effort to recognize that maybe this could be a problem in a democratic society and that greater efforts should be made to educate the public better, encourage them to read more and do their own fact checking. Nor does he recommend that Americans learn how to research whether or not their patriotism is misplaced or not. He doesn't discuss whether blindly believing the government when they tell them their being attacked and starting a war based on lies is appropriate patriotism.

Instead he studies these characteristics so that he can make his propaganda more effective.

Recently he went on TV and gave an an open recommendation to Donald Trump about how to start his first debate with Hillary Clinton and address the recent controversy about his argument with Kzihr Khan. He recommended that he apologize for his previous statements and that he also ask Hillary Clinton to apologize for her response to Pat Smith putting her on the defensive; however he didn't recommend that he challenge the beliefs of many Americans about how the "Gold Star" families sacrificed their loved ones "fighting for freedom," which sadly isn't true; they died because they were sent to wars based on lies for the benefit of those in power who never send their own children to war, or at least not the front lines where they would be put in danger; and their campaign contributors are often the ones that profit off wars while the credulous are the ones believing the propaganda and sacrificing lives for lies.

That's not the kind of fact checking anyone in the political establishment or media seems to do; and those that do are ostracized from any position that might reach a large audience.

The most common method that he uses is to recommend certain phrases that give one impression over another; however he doesn't encourage fact checking, which could inevitably inform people that he's trying to create deceptive impressions.



Whether you use the phrase "free market economy" "global economy" or "capitalism" he fails to mention that the vast majority of control over the economic system is in the hands of the few that control the ideology, which is what his "Words That Work" are intended to do. The people that do the work to create wealth are the working class but the people that control propaganda like himself get paid much more not because his services benefit all of society but because they enable him to rig the economic system for the benefit of his clients.

This same concept enables him to avoid considering whether there should be any requirement to "give" or "not deny the public their "entitlements" which are "often earned benefits" that they pay into as a result of legislation they might not fully understand.

When discussing "exploring for energy" or "drilling for oil" he manages to avoid the potential damage to the environment which is often in the "back yards" of the poor while all the profits go to the rich.

He also fails to consider that "equal opportunity in education" isn't remotely close to the truth even if he doesn't call it "school choice." All this talk about choice versus public schools fails to focus on lack of funding for schools in poor areas and that those that control the money control all the alleged choices the public have.

Nor does he mention that many large corporations like Walmart, Koch Industries, Home Depot, Lowes Department stores, Microsoft and many others along with think tanks financed by the wealthy are driving this school reform movement and controlling all the choices none of which benefit the poorest and a lot of which influences education. Even oil gas and coal companies are involved in the content of education attempting to suppress education about the damage they do.

However you won't find this out from the political establishment of traditional media; instead only those seeking alternative media outlets including books exposing these scams by lesser known people like Diane Ravitz, Jonathan Kozol, Naomi Klein and many more that the traditional media never mention find out about this. 

One thing he might actually be right about is using the term "climate change" instead of "global warming," since some good researchers have actually reported that climate change may not always increase temperatures even if that is the long term direction on average. But he fails to mention that even if the science is wrong about climate change, which it probably isn't then pollution still causes an enormous problem but it is only for the poor who don't pay his salary directly.

They don't realize it but they do pay him indirectly though, since he's paid by corporations, that get their money from consumers. He wouldn't want to mention that since these consumers might speak out more while they shop if they were well informed about what their money was doing after it left their hands.

That might lead to .... well .... Democracy!



It doesn't take a genius to recognize that "relaxed air quality standards" will lead to the opposite of a "clear skies initiative;" however if his target audience isn't accustomed to doing the minimum amount of critical thinking they might not recognize this.

Regardless of the size "more effective and efficient government" could be obtained if the public knew what the government was doing and they had accurate information to hold them accountable instead of "words that work" for those that pay for political campaigns when they're trying to deceive the rest of us. This also goes for "entitlements" which are actually "earned benefits" we pay into.

Frank Luntz obviously hopes few if any body learns how to recognize these scams; however they should hope that they can't get away with them to long.

If they can get away with these scams it will eventually cause a major collapse, which is where we're heading since these scams are what's preventing the government and economic system from functioning properly and it will even backfire on those profiting in the short term from these scams when people realize how bad they've been scammed.

He does mention one worthwhile quote, “Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don’t have for something they don’t need.” by Will Rogers; however it is up to the public to realize that they need to recognize these scams even when it comes from him since he doesn't spell out that he's trying to mislead them.



His most popular scam by twisting words is to use the term "death tax" instead of inheritance tax. this has been repeated so often to a large segment of the public that they think it applies to the majority of the public and that they have to pay for it. The correction to this was much lower profile and only reached a smaller percentage of the public informing them it is only for the extremely wealthy. And even when this correction is made it fails to mention that no billionaire earns billions; they get this money by rigging the system with their political connections.

So whether you call it a "death tax" or "inheritance tax" it should be considered retrieving loot that was unfairly taken from the majority and returning it where it belongs, even if they don't get all the loot stolen from them.

Sometimes right or wrong people learn to turn the tables on Frank Luntz or the other propagandists that are scamming us by coming up with propaganda of their own, although I think these examples will be far closer to the truth if scrutinized. If we can't eliminate propaganda the best we can do is learn to scrutinize it and fact check it even if some disagree with one view or another including mine.



If someone is taking from "hard working Americans" it must be the 1% stealing from labor and taxing the 1% will return some of the loot to hard working Americans. But it would be better if they got "performance pay" by not forcing them to compete with sweatshop workers when the 1% outsources jobs as a method to steal from working people. "Job creators" are of course consumers which is why we shouldn't let the 1% cut corners scamming them too.

It's also a good reason why they should be reminded how much potential clout they have if they learn more about the issues and speak out to expose these scams.

Both workers and consumers should have more "economic freedom by taking control of the economy away from thieves in the 1%. One way to help accomplish this goal is to expose the tactics that Frank Luntz and many other political scam artists use; and even turn the tables on them. Although the rest of us shouldn't use tactics that won't stand up to scrutiny, since our goal isn't to exchange one group of scam artists with another.

The advantage of this is that in the long run assuming we ever get reasonably equal time to review the details our claims will stand up to scrutiny while theirs fall apart. The only reason they've been able to make their arguments for so long is because that by controlling over 90 % of the media they've been able to repeat their claims over and over again without any scrutiny, alt least not that reaches the majority of the public. Those that are accustomed to checking alternative media outlets are much more likely to see through their scams, especially if they aren't obsessed with following celebrities, sports, or some other obsession du jour being promoted by the media.



Frank Luntz also even admits that he's participating in a conspiracy against the people and that conspiracy is standard operating procedure and there are plenty of laws designed to do more to protect the conspirators than they do to prevent them from scamming the public, although he doesn't phrase it that way.

Frank Luntz writes, "Most of my work is proprietary and cannot be revealed. I have even refused the pressure of journalists and polling associations who have insisted that I disclose these documents because of their impact on the public debate. But several of my more controversial memos did not involve specific clients or require me or my firm to sign confidentiality agreements. Those are the documents I include here publicly for the first time."

Did any of your past employers ever ask you to sign a contract that forbids you from disclosing to the public or the authorities any crimes that you might commit at the orders of your employer?

Doesn't seem likely and it is highly unlikely that if people in the white collar corporate world had their employees sign such a contract that they would phrase it that way.

However that doesn't mean they don't come close using sophisticated language made up by lawyers to carefully avoid blatant violations of the law.

Most working class people rarely if ever think about what this means and the traditional media almost never mentions it at all; on the rare occasions that they do mention it they almost always do so briefly without addressing the details and act as if it is normal and above reproach. This is almost never discussed except in private by a small percentage of the public familiar with these contracts.

However Non-compete clause's, Non-disclosure agreement's, and Non-Disparagement or Protection of Reputation clause are standard operating procedure for many white collar jobs. They're almost certainly taught in business law and a few other business classes; and other white collar jobs that require signing of these contracts probably mention a little about it when they sign them although they probably don't teach most people the full consequences of signing and since most of the people that sign them want a job they probably don't ask too many questions.

As Frank Luntz says the psychological manipulation tactics that he discusses with his paying clients are secret and protected by law; the DNC leaks that were released by Wikileaks are probably also secret and protected by law; and if not for the leaks the only people that would know about them may have been those that are forbidden by law to disclose how they've been colluding to give favorable coverage to Hillary Clinton at the expense of Bernie Sanders. Several researchers that object to these laws and how they're used have tried to point this out; however they're only able to do it on a low profile manner since they can't get any help from traditional media, who they often expose for their deception.

This includes research about psychological manipulation of children before they develop critical thinking skills, disclosure about activities that might impact safety, disclosures about gradual reduction of quality of merchandise and research on whether or not consumers notice it or not, disclosures about allegedly competing businesses manufacturing their products side by side in sweatshops that are supposed to compete against each other, disclosures about slotting fees and interlocking corporations that are also supposedly competitors and much more.

Researchers that have disclosed some of this include Naomi Klein, author of "No Logo" and "The Shock Doctrine," Stacy Mitchell author of "Big-Box Swindle," Susan Linn, author of "Consuming Kids," Juliet Schor author of "Born To Buy," and Roy Fox author of "Harvesting Minds who I managed to contact on line a few years ago and reported how he objected to these laws being used to study how to manipulate children in Roy F Fox on unethical targeting of children by marketers

These trade secrecy laws almost certainly make it easier for people like Roger Alies to conduct spying operations on his own employees and enemies with company money are reported in Roger Ailes Had a 'Black Room' at Fox and Used Company Funds to Spy on Journalists 08/07/2016 These confidentiality agreements are almost certainly preventing the majority of the public from learning much more about this story and may continue to do so if they carry out business as usual. Apparently his severance contract may have been leaked an retracted according to We Got Played! Why Ailes’ $40 Million Exit Agreement Was Probably Leaked to Drudge. 07/20/2016 This might explain why Fox is the ones settling with Gretchen Carlson even though it was actually filed against Roger Ailes not Fox. a recent media report indicated that this was probably related to his contract and that the settlement included another non-disclosure agreement, which is standard operating procedure for lawsuits.

However this means that if there are problems with his spying operation or sexual harassment allegations that impacts the news it could conceivably be kept secret thanks to this non-disclosure clause. Roger Ailes only signed his most recent contract last year and it was supposed to last another couple of years. We have no idea what is in it but it seems clear that one of the biggest news operations that is allegedly giving us the information we need to make important decisions is far more concerned about using their position for propaganda purposes, not that this is surprising for Fox; however it is increasingly obvious that the other five oligarchies aren't even doing a good job pretending to be much better anymore.

What ever the full story is behind this and many other scandals we may never have the right to know if the current political establishment is maintained.

One of the other rare discussions of these contracts have finally made it into the media, for a little while, thanks to Donald Trump's extreme use of these contracts, even with unpaid volunteers according to If You Volunteer for Donald Trump, You Can't Say Anything Bad About His Family. Ever. 09/01/2016 However this may not be as enforceable as the article implies, though most people wouldn't know it. This was mentioned briefly in the traditional media as well; and one of the pundits mentioned that it probably isn't enforceable since the volunteers aren't being paid and the agreement was hidden in the fine print that almost no one reads, especially without a magnifying glass.

That doesn't mean these agreements can't be used to suppress speech since the majority of the public doesn't know whether they're enforceable or not and people like Donald Trump have a pattern of using lawsuits to intimidate people unfamiliar with the law, like Melania Trump sues Daily Mail and US blogger for $150m over sex worker claims. 09/02/2016 The official version of truth may not be decided by evidence; it may be decided by who has the best lawyers and political connections. Perhaps more important is that we still don't know the vast majority of things that are withheld from the public by law even when the people withholding it often say they want to be transparent like many politicians including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, although they routinely demonstrate they don't want any such thing with their actions.

We still have enormous amounts of information available to the public that lets us know how corrupt our economic system is just by recognizing how much certain white collar workers make and that those who deceive the public or conduct activities in secret make much more than those that do work that improves the quality of life, although they often steal the credit for productive work with their propaganda. Advertisers, union busters, public relations executives, political advisers, media spokespersons and many other white collar jobs are probably required to sign non-disclosure agreements keeping their activities secret from the vast majority of the public and they get paid much more than factory workers or other service workers that do work that is productive and doesn't have to be kept secret.

Many of these white collar workers making bog money and signing secrecy agreements may have been taught to adopt the beliefs of their clients whether they agree with them or not and argue in their favor from an early age like the class I remembered from junior high school; however it has gotten extremely easy to spot people that sell their beliefs since they take it to a bizarre extreme. A close look at people that spoke up in the past when politicians became so extreme indicates that it was more common, and among those without access to the traditional press it still is.

When the vast majority of the Democratic political establishment lined up and endorsed Hillary Clinton long before the primaries began or any effort was made to inform the public about the issues that should raise major alarm bells, especially since it was never followed up by an effort to educate the public; instead it has been a non-stop effort to indoctrinate those that don't take the time to do their own research. This should be even more obvious when one politician after another can't even tell a good lie when lying or spinning about the lies of the candidate that they support as indicated in Tapper Shuts Down Jennifer Granholm, Clinton Surrogate on Clinton’s Email Talking Points 08/06/2016 and Hassan Can’t Say If Clinton Is Honest, Even After She’s Asked Three Times. 08/16/2016 Neither Maggie Hassan or Jennifer Granholm could do a good job spinning the fact that Hillary Clinton has an incredibly long history of getting caught in one obvious lie after another yet they still support her because they clearly have a political or financial incentive to do so; not because they actually believe she's credible or trustworthy.

They usually don't get caught literally saying they will sell their support but it has become standard operating procedure and they have ways of coming to agreements behind closed doors without breaking the law.

How obvious does it have to be?

When Rick Perry adviser joined Trump campaign 08/25/2015 only as couple of days after saying that he was a loyal supporter to Rick Perry who wouldn't give up; but then when he found out Trump could actually pay him and Rick couldn't he abandoned Rick in a heart beat. An even more obvious example was when an Iowa Conservative Leader Mired in Controversy After Rick Santorum Endorsement 12/23/2016 was blatantly exposed for selling his endorsement.

There's an enormous high paying industry lying to the vast majority of the public that helped create the enormous amount of income inequality we have now. This has nothing to do with meritocracy!

It certainly appears as if they can buy lots of pastors who preach to their congregations about candidates they support as well, although many people hesitate to question people's religious beliefs, which might be the problem. Doe anyone believe that many if any Black Pastors would support Donald Trump without some kind of incentive? However he seems to have plenty of them on the traditional media even if there are few if any more out there or if he has little or no support from African Americans. An article, VIDEO: Black pastors endorse Trump at Virginia rally 12/03/2015 describes a few of of the pastors endorsement him in a high profile manner which include Dr. Steve Parson, Pastor Darrell Scott, Pastor James Davis, Pastor Mark Burns some of whom have been exposed in scams including lying on their resume and tweeting racists photos.

Wayne T. Jackson seemed to be more concerned about honest outreach when he was Detroit pastor set to ask Trump: ‘Are you a racist?’ 08/29/2016 He said just because he was willing to talk to him doesn't mean that he endorsemed him and that they should be willing to hear from all choices, which seems reasonable, although naive. If we ahd a better interview process this might be routine but now high profile candidates only talk to audiances that support them and that tehy've checked out and, not surprisingly he's been exposed scripting the interview according to Leaked Script Shows What Advisers Want Donald Trump to Say at Black Church. 09/01/2016 He denies knowledge of efforts to script it but if he gave his questions ahead of time as part of an agreement what could he possible expect?

Hillary Clifton has also done her share of catering to religious leaders for their support hoping they can sway their followers. as indicated in the following articles.

Hillary Clinton Meets With Ministers, Attends Fundraiser in Philly 12/28/2016

Understanding The Clintons' Popularity With Black Voters 03/01/2016

How Hillary Clinton cornered the black vote 03/07/2016

Black Pastors Are Breaking the Law to Get Hillary Clinton Elected 08/08/2016

Preachers have been controlling the flock based on faith long before Frank Luntz developed his secular manipulation tactics; and there are even warnings about it in the bible, which mentions false profits, numerous times. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't do a good job advising the majority of the public how to recognize these false profits. There are plenty of verses warning people what might happen if they don't believe the true prophet or messiah however the only verse that I remember telling how to recognize the false one is that their predictions don't come true.

The most devout religious people are taught to blindly obey their leaders; and since God doesn't seem to maintain an open line of communication with most people the false prophets are often the ones controlling the message allegedly from God and they often teach people to believe without fact checking.

Hypocritically Frank Luntz has been highly critical of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In Clinton's case on one occasion he showed up at one of her rallies and was outraged because he said, "this is so fake." Was he upset that it was fake or that she didn't do as good a job faking it? She's only using tactics that he's been recommending for years to indoctrinate her followers.

When conducting focus groups discussing Donald Trump he often acts surprised by their absurd explanations why they support him. This may seem subtle in some cases; however to anyone paying attention it is not hard to recognize. He's been studying how to manipulate peoples emotions for decades; while simultaneously encouraging this kind of support for emotional reasons instead of trying to teach uneducated people to recognize scams from their politicians, unless he happens to oppose a given politician and is supporting a different scam.

The psychological manipulation that he's been advising his clients to use for decades is a major part of the reason why we wound up with the two most corrupt and manipulative nominees in history!

And now he want us to believe he has nothing to do with this absurd situation and perhaps he'd even like credit for opposing both these horrible candidates who support the same oligarchies he does,

The media may be far more concerned with indoctrinating the majority than they are in teaching them but there are far more reliable sources including Michael Schulman and Eva Mekler authors of “Bringing Up A Moral Child" who provide the following hypothetical way to tech children to sort through the issues at a school election:

Sally: All the kids are excited about the election for school president tomorrow afternoon.
Mother: Really. Who's running
Sally: Adrienne against Mary. I'm voting for Adrienne.
Mother: Why did you choose her?
Sally: Well, all my friends said that they were voting for her.
Mother: Is she the best person for the job?
Sally: Well .... I guess. I'm not sure.
Mother: What qualities do you think a class president should have? What does she have to do?
Sally: She supervises the student fund committee—so she should be a good planner and a good moderator.
Mother: What else?
Sally: And she represents our school at the district conference—so she should be up on school principles and a good debater.
Mother: Anything else?
Sally: A lot of younger kids look up to the class president so she should be someone who will be nice to them and make them feel like their part of the school.
Mother: Is it important to you that the president be someone who can do the best job?
Sally: Sure
Mother: Do you think it would be better if the principle appointed the president.
Sally: Oh no. The kids get to see sides of each other that the principle doesn't see. And sometimes the class president has to even argue with the principle. No, it is important that the kids elect her.
Mother: Well, do you think your friends considered the requirements of the job when they chose Adrienne?
Sally: Maybe not, they probably chose her because she's lively and funny.
Mother: Does she also have other qualities needed for the job?
Sally: I'm not sure.
Mother: Then do you think you're ready to decide who to vote for?
Sally: I'd better give it some more thought and I have some questions I want to ask both Mary and Adrienne tomorrow morning. I think it's best I make up my own mind who I'll vote for.
Mother: One more question. Were you voting like your friends because you thought they might not like you if you disagreed with them?
Sally: I didn't think about it at the time. But maybe. But I don't want them to like me just for going along—not when I think their decision is wrong. Then they're not really liking me are they?
(Michael Schulman and Eva Mekler “Bringing Up A Moral Child" 1985 p.122-7)


How many people have ever heard of Michael Schulman and Eva Mekler? Clearly not enough, fortunately there are more people at the grassroots level trying to do a sincere job educating the public including children at an impressionable age; but not nearly enough and they're at an enormous disadvantage with the propagandists hired by the richest people in the country to control the information people use to make their political decisions.

Until we do a much better job teaching children how to participate in the democratic process from an early age they'll continue falling for the same scams we're being stuck with now. There is absolutely no way either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump could win one primary, let alone the nomination, if the public had access to reliable information, or if they recognized how corrupt the political establishment and media was and looked at the more reliable sources that already exist.





Recognizing Propaganda Examples by Mike Russo


"The Truth is whatever people will believe" whether Roger Ailes said this or not he's certainly studied how to manipulate the public into believing what he want's and isn't so concerned about warning the public about his tactics as Joseph Heller, who appears to be the original source for this quote.





It's hard to imagine why they can't do a better job manipulating the public after looking at all these disclosures about their research and how they manipulate the public. One partial explanation was mentioned by Frank Luntz when he said something about some of his wealthy clients being reluctant to listen to his advise. This certainly could explain a lot; however it is hard to imagine that they're so out of touch with reality that they can't see their scams are way to obvious to those that pay attention even if they successfully fool many of the most complacent people.

Regardless of how or why the political establishment became so insane, it is increasingly obvious that the candidates they refuse to cover, including Jill Stein are far better than the ones they do; and that we can't expect any significant reform from these lunatics that they do cover.

Even if they do manage to rig the election for one of these two incredibly crooked politicians the stronger the vote opposing them could put them on notice that voters may not fall for this scam much longer and it could also help inform people where the reliable news in, in alternative media outlets that actually cover decent candidates.



Frank Luntz “Words That Work” select excerpts

Frank Luntz “Words That Work” Online copy 2007 PDF




No comments:

Post a Comment