Friday, August 5, 2016

Convention War Mongering Demagoguery Result of Indoctrination Research

The indoctrination research on Hispanics reported in my previous post, DNC Describe Wink And Nod Method For Bribes & Indoctrination Studies is only part of the research they have done into how to manipulate the public; additional research has been disclosed throughout various news articles over the decades to those who pay close enough attention; and some of them have been reported in various books including, on the Republican side "Words That Work" by Frank Luntz, and many others. Once people recognize how appeals to emotions by charismatic speakers and glorification of war ignoring lies then it becomes apparent that the Democratic National Convention, like the RNC is a long list of lies glorifying Hillary Clinton with little or none of it standing up to scrutiny once people look into it.

If there are any improvements at any of the local levels it is almost always because the grassroots are pushing for them, while the politicians take the credit, often even though they resist the improvements and with help from the media that routinely ignore grassroots pressure. The Democratic Convention was a non-stop commercial that glorified the political establishment without addressing the most important issues or accurately discussing the enormous amount of corruption and infighting that was being exposed.

The media is quickly forgetting the enormous amount that was exposed by the DNC leaks, perhaps because they were exposed rigging the elections; so anyone that wants to fully understand what is going on needs to check with alternative media outlets that are at least trying to cover the corruption in both political parties and the media.

* Wink and Nod Bribery Tactics * Hispanic and Other Demographic Groups Indoctrination Tactics * Betraying Karla and other Latinos for Political Reasons * Long List of Demagogues Selling Out Pretending to be Progressives * Bipartisan Worship of War * Infighting at the DNC including biased rigging of the Primaries for Hillary * Collusion with Consolidated Corporate Media to rig coverage so only Corporate candidates have a chance * Coverage of protests almost absent from traditional media * Russian or Mika Conspiracy Theories * Highlights of Additional Leaks *

Long List of Demagogues Selling Out Pretending to be Progressives

Motivational speakers politicians and their advisors have been studying charismatic speaking skills for decades if not since ancient Greece or longer to learn how to effectively manipulate the public. It works much better when the speaker gets so excited that he or she can get the crowd as excited as well and convince them not to think things through. In 2012 Jennifer Granholm delivered a speech which some might have called enthusiastic, to put it mildly, that matches the oratory skills of any charismatic preacher to excite crowds.

The response as indicated at the time was mixed, Jennifer Granholm at the DNC: Star turn, Howard Dean meltdown or just a hilarious animated gif? 09/07/2012 The objective for many motivational speeches is to get the crowd excited without checking any facts so they don't suspect that they might be subject to a misleading sales pitch which is standard operating procedure in politics or motivational scams including get rich quick scams or weight loss scams among many other things.

This was no exception, and neither were many if any of the other speeches at this years convention or any other political convention. Jennifer Granholm and other rust belt politicians have expressed concerns about outsourcing blaming Mitt Romney in 2012 and now the GOP led by Donald Trump; however Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and many other democrats are just as strong supporters of the trade deals that lead to this outsourcing. Hillary Clinton has flipped on this issues when it comes to many trade deals including CAFTA the TPP and outsourcing in general. Neither she or Obama have promoted the policies the Democratic Party claims to defend when they've been in office although they routinely promise to when campaigning. This is demonstrated by the following speech which Donald Trump is reminding the public of, but this is just one of many speeches that she has made supporting outsourcing:

Hillary Clinton's outsourcing problem with union workers

"Senator, if I may touch on what you just mentioned in your speech about outsourcing and over the fact of neutrality of interest, it wasn't clear to me whether you had a view on outsourcing that there should be some legislation in America to stop or restrict outsourcing which the last presidential Democratic candidate (John Kerry), as you know, took a stand on.

"What is your view on it?" Purie asks the former first lady.

"No, I don't think you can effectively restrict outsourcing. I think that there are incentives that perhaps are appropriate to try to persuade American companies without any sanctions, but you know, through both moral persuasion and then perhaps some economic incentives too at least think very hard before those decisions are made, but you know, it's an inevitability," she said.

"There is no way to legislate against reality, so I think that the outsourcing will continue. I just fault my own government for not doing more to open up new areas where America would have a competitive, comparative advantage and to do more on the education front, to do more with new technologies that we could be developing for our own use as well as for export, but I don't think there's any way to, you know, legislate against outsourcing. I think that's, you know, just a dead end." Complete article

This is the candidate being supported by Wall Street, Walmart and many of the biggest outsourcers in the business community; how can labor leaders or politicians who pretend to support unions possibly believe that she is the one that is going to stand up against outsourcing?

Perhaps the bigger question is how can they convince the public that they support unions without actually doing so?

The answer clearly seems to involve getting an enormous number of people to make emotional speeches that don't stand up to fact checking speak to a national audience. Jennifer Granholm didn't stand out quite so much at her speech this year, partly since she may have toned it down slightly but also partly because they seem to have taught all their other speakers to be just as excited and charismatic including Corey Booker and many others. Corey seemed so excited you might have thought that he expected some kind of a miracle both during his speech and afterwards when he talked to the media during several interviews; however Hillary Clinton doesn't represent progressive values he claims to champion any more than the ones that Granholm does; and neither does Corey Booker, who talks more about supporting the public than he actually does.

Of course Donald Trump is also another supporter of outsourcing that promises to stand up to it, although he supported it from the private sector, profiting directly from it, while Hillary Clinton supported it from the public sector, profiting by collecting camping donations and speaking fees. The political establishment also has bipartisan support of many other issues that neither of these two candidates can be trusted to stand up to including protection of the environment, privatization of education, protecting working people from wage suppression, and denial of the causes of crime.

In the case of preventing violent crime the Democratic Party has found a way to be endanger future victims by ignoring the root causes of crime and make it appear as if some people that point this out are not being respectful of the victims of crime by not supporting their appeals to emotions supporting incompetent policies that don't work.

They did this by glorifying Gabby Gifford, a victim of violent crime while supporting a candidate that is incompetent or corrupt when it comes to preventing the most important root causes of crime.

I don't want to speak poorly of Gabby Giffords and don't think it is her fault for making her speeches; and the gun control that she now supports can be part of a reasonable crime prevention policy; but it isn't the most important factor and many of the more important ones are being ignored by the political establishment.

I went into the details of how the political establishment ignores the root causes in numerous posts including Media Suppresses Causes Of Orlando And Texas Shootings Again, The Media Is Following The Wrong Script With Dylaan Root Ignoring Solutions Again and when Gabby Giffords was shot in 2011 in Unacknowledged Censorship in Arizona about Jared Loughner where I reviewed research about how child abuse leads to escalating violence and other root causes of violence including in adequate education, poverty income inequality and even Gun control, which is the only major subject that the media is willing to discuss with the possible exception of mental health. However even when it comes to gun control and mental health they don't act in a manner that has an impact on policy or helps educate the public about reducing violence.

If they had reviewed some of the best research they could have learned that the most effective way to solve metal heath problems is to prevent them from developing in the first place since the same child abuse and bullying that leads to escalating violence also leads to mental health problems. Corruption war mongering and income inequality also contribute to mental health problems as I explained in another series of posts starting with Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows where I reviewed the most important contributing cause and ending with Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit where I explained that most of the root causes are not addressed by politicians because they're far more concerned about serving the interests of their donors. The lowest crime rates happen when people at the local level learn how to prevent them on their own with little or no help from the political establishment of the media which doesn't report on the root causes.

When evidence shows that gambling, insurance, marketing scams that increase poverty contributes to crime politicians are routinely more interested in increasing corporate profits than reducing crime. Gambling contribution to crime would be obvious if they wanted to acknowledge it but instead they promote it as good for the economy and a way to finance schools even though it does more harm than good; insurance provides incentives for fraud and even murder, as well as increasing poverty since consumers don't get their money's worth but since they and many other industries including private prisons benefit corporate donors Hillary Clinton supports them more than the people.

I don't like to criticize a crime victim that speaks for Hillary Clinton any more than anyone else; however by supporting incompetent policies that will only create more victims I believe it is far more disrespectful to ignore the root causes and glorify policies that are guaranteed to fail.

If charismatic speeches like Jennifer Granholm's were going to help contribute to solutions they would have done so long ago, since they've been coming up with one after another every election year; however when it comes to actually implement policies they routinely abandon all the promises that they make during these speeches and ignore the real solutions. The people that make these speeches routinely get paid a lot of money for one reason or another along with union busters, advertisers public relations people and the people caught red- handed rigging elections in the E-Mails leaked by Wikileaks; however the people doing work to improve quality of life have their wages suppressed and don't have the resources to accomplish the job.

This is even worse when it comes to glorifying war, which has been going on for centuries and more sophisticated propaganda seems to be designed that it may never stop.

Bipartisan Worship of War

Hillary Clinton often says that her vote for the Iraq War was a "mistake" and that she's learned from it; however that "mistake" involves war crimes that were based on lies and as I explained in a previous article Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Experience is a disaster it is far from an isolated "mistake."

Her "Mistakes" in foreign policy are routine and corporations with political connections that donate to her campaign make a lot of money from them.

During a speech on March 6, 2011 Hillary Clinton said, "It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity" as reported in Campaign 2016: Hillary Clinton Pitched Iraq As 'A Business Opportunity' For US Corporations 09/30/2015 and Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department 07/07/2016

However there was no mention of this at the Democratic Convention, nor was there much reminder of it at the Republican National Convention which also glorifies war.

Instead there was one speaker after another talking about how our military was fighting to defend our country, without mentioning that they were actually fighting one war after another based on lies. Even retaliation in Afghanistan was at least partially based on lies since, assuming people accept the media's version of events, at least to some degree, the attack on 9/11/2001 was retaliation for a long list of military interventions that went back decades, although the public was rarely if ever reminded of it by the traditional media. The United States Government funded both the Mujaheddin, which became the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the eighties who turned against us. When we invaded Iraq and maintained a military presence in Saudi Arabia this outraged Osama Bin Laden and many other Arabs including some that our government continued to do business with leading to the eventual attacks on 9/11/2001

There is more to it than that although the traditional media rarely mentions it but alternative media outlets go into much more details; however even the traditional media admits that he Iraq war was a distraction based on lies about Weapons of Mass destruction which Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei warned us before the war weren't there and they were proven to be right afterwards.

Knowing this it should be clear that this illegal invasion was not defending our country and that Iraq was no threat before this but it was a threat afterwards. This should clearly indicate that anyone who participated in this illegal war without question shouldn't be considered a hero.

After World War II it was repeated over and over again that "I was just following orders" was no excuse when the losing side made this claim; however when the winning side makes this claim then they're routinely called heroes even when wars are based on lies and do far more to endanger our safety than to protect it.

The political establishment and the media providing enormous amounts of propaganda that drowned out Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei warnings were more responsible for the disaster than the soldiers who were trained to blindly obey orders during boot camp so I don't want to put the bulk of the blame on them especially when they suffered serious injuries or even died as a result of trusting leaders who lied to them.

However even though they're not the most responsible Pat Smith and Khizr Khan were both criticizing one war monger while defending another that is just as bad.

Looking the other way at this may seem respectful however it will also contribute to additional wars based on lies if the war propaganda isn't challenged.

It would be far more disrespectful to future victims of wars based on lies to remain silent when exposing these lies could potentially save them from dying!

Even though this war was based on lies, in one speech after another, they try to give the public the impression that they were defending us from an enemy not inciting more violence and terrorism.

When Rep. Ruben Gallego's said "When we were kicking in doors looking for insurgents in Iraq.... " he didn't mention the stories about how "kicking in doors" was a routine method of terrorizing civilians as well as insurgents and may have done far more to incite violence than prevent it according to numerous articles reported in alternative media outlets including Confessions from U.S. Soldiers in Iraq on the Brutal Treatment of Civilians By Chris Hedges, Laila Al-Arian 07/12/2007 and Iraq War Vets Describe "Brutal Techniques" Used by U.S. Military Against Iraqi Civilians Amy Goodman, Sgt. John Bruhns and Spc. Garett Reppenhagen 07/12/2007

It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is clearly part of the reason why Iraq was turned into a haven for terrorists as a result of another war based on lies.

By kicking in doors of both "insurgents" and civilians they're making us look like to the greater of two evils to the Iraqi people and doing more to incite retaliation than to protect the people of our country.

It might be justified to say that we're better off without Saddam Hussein but if that is the argument then it would be important to keep in mind we armed him in the first place as part of our actions against Iran. And before that the CIA conducted a coup in 1953 which led to the Shah being installed and torturing his own people with support from the CIA and SAVAK eventually leading to the revolution.

There is no attempt to learn from past support of tyrants and arm sales so that we can avoid the same disasters in the future.

Instead we continue glorifying war.

And once again they use the injured to create emotional appeal that is hard to challenge without seeming like we're being disrespectful of the injured like Tammy Duckworth; however once again it is more disrespectful to future victims of war to look the other way passing up opportunities to prevent wars based on lies.

If we didn't glorify war and trust our leaders twenty or thirty years ago and worried more about protecting jobs at home so veterans would have other opportunities without joining the military unless someone really attacked us without provocation then Tammy Duckworth and many other injured veterans would never have been injured in the first place.

I mean no disrespect to her but she made a mistake when she trusted her leaders and she paid for that mistake by losing her legs; and it wasn't for a glorious cause at all. Even though I mean no disrespect I'm sorry to say that her speech including the following excerpts are misguided at best and help glorify the economic system that left her without other opportunities except to join the military and fight a war which proved to be based on lies; and now she's supporting the efforts to glorify future wars.

Twelve years ago, I was copiloting a Black Hawk helicopter over Iraq. .... I started that day doing what I loved. I ended it knocked down — surviving only because my buddies refused to leave me. ...

My family and I had been knocked down before. My dad, a proud Marine, lost his job in his fifties. For a time, Dad did odd jobs; Mom took in sewing; I got a minimum-wage job. We relied on food stamps to help us get by. .... Thanks to Pell Grants, work study, affordable student loans, and lots of waitressing, I fulfilled my dream of college. ....

My story is not unique. It’s a story about why this is the greatest nation on earth — a nation that so many are willing to die defending. A nation that says if you keep working hard, we won’t abandon you. Complete article

Sorry to say when wars are based on lies it's simply not true that so many died defending us even though that is what they were led to believe.

Furthermore when she says, "I started that day doing what I loved," while participating in an illegal war, I can't help but wonder if this might cause problems, one way or another. We all want to love what we do for work but when it comes to fighting wars, is that something we really want to love? Isn't that something that we should look on in horror and try to avoid if at all possible?

She lost her legs as a result of lies about weapons of mass destruction and a history of supporting tyrants and selling arms around the world; and I can understand why she would be reluctant to admit it wasn't for a glorious cause; but by helping provide propaganda glorifying war and presenting all veterans as heroes without adequately challenging many of the mistakes made in the past she's helping to set the stage so that more people could sacrifice for lies and corporate profits, not for their country.

Like Khizr Khan she's using her war record and the sympathy that comes along with it to help campaign for a candidate that profited off of her suffering and is trying to create more "business opportunities" for her Wall Street backers.

She's also supporting a candidate that has a long history of supporting outsourcing and wage suppression that prevented her from getting ahead in the first place. Furthermore the claim that this "nation" ... "won't abandon" us isn't entirely true at all especially for minorities; although a quick look at her record indicates that she's far less likely to abandon minorities than Republicans.

However there are enormous sacrifice zones in this country that are abandoning large numbers of people especially minorities. These sacrifice zones have all their economic and educational opportunities taken away and it is difficult if not impossible for anyone to get out of them. We should be doing more to spend money on them than wars based on lies. And on top of that even though she eventually supported the fight for fifteen after initially supporting a raise to $10.10 by 2016 her presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton hasn't been so supportive of it and only changed positions when it became necessary for her campaign and is unlikely to do much if anything to get it if elected.

Infighting at the DNC including biased rigging of the Primaries for Hillary

The traditional media was slow to report on the Democratic National Committee leaks when they happened, only covering after it went viral on the internet. Fox was first to cover it on Saturday the day afterwards; at that time the only mention of it on other networks was a tweet from Jake Tapper saying they would cover it the following day during the Sunday morning shows. Several times during that day pundits claimed that this was a minor thing and that they wouldn't be talking about it tomorrow, which was laughable. However even though they continued to talk about it for a couple more days they didn't cover nearly as much of the content as the alternative media outlets.

After a couple days they did stop talking about the majority of it, focusing most heavily on alleged conspiracy theories, which I'll get to later.

If they had focused more time on the content of the leaks they would have disclosed that the Democratic National Committee was rigging the primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton and the media was heavily involved; so they would have been exposing their own fraud as some of the following disclosures indicate; and there is more coming although it is more readily available on alternative media outlets than the traditional media.

Some of their E-Mails indicate that they're even using propaganda and repeating some of their own lies in private, which may seem like a good idea now that they've been released.  However at time it is still obvious that it is lies, one of the clearest examples is when they claim they're taking the "High road" while participating in all these deceptive tactics. This example is when they hep Debbie Wasserman Schultz with her own campaign which is against the rules like when they halped rig it against Bernie Sanders.

Wikileaks E-Mail Eric Reif For approval: end of primary emails 04/26/2016 Emails from DWS thanking Bernie long before he dropped out Amy K. Dacey Barack Obama mentioned

Bernie narrative 05/21/2016

DWS CNN right now 05/18/2016

Wikileaks E-Mail: Brinster, Jeremy RE: FNS 4-24-16 04/24/2016 Yes, Super PAC paying young voters to push back online on Sanders supporters She's forced to continue to appeal to young liberals as opposed to pivoting back to center

New York Post: Leaked emails show how Democrats screwed Sanders 07/22/2016

The Intercept: DNC Staffers Mocked the Bernie Sanders Campaign, Leaked Emails Show 07/22/2016

Wikileaks E-Mail: Re: MSNBC’s Brzezinski: Wasserman Schultz ‘Should Step Down,’ Dem Primary ‘Has Been Unfair’ To Sanders 05/18/2016 "This is the LAST straw. Please call Phil a Griffin. This is outrageous. She needs to apologize." .... "Since you already went to Chuck I’ll wait for his response." .... "I think we need to speak to both of them. I've been talking to Phil about this since our breakfast." DWS

Inquisitr: Wikileaks Reveals DNC Had Hillary Clinton Moles Inside The Bernie Sanders Campaign 07/24/2016

Wikileaks E-Mail: Donna Brazile: Fwd: Washington Post inquiry 05/13/2016 I have no intentions of touching this. Why? Because I will cuss out the Sanders camp!

WikiLeaks claims interim DNC chief Donna Brazile ‘implicated’ in #DNCLeak, too 07/2/2016

Luis Miranda RE: Ralston article 05/18/2016 These are small-picture people. Instead of accepting the plain facts that Clinton won the caucus and out-hustled Sanders at the state convention, they want to talk about arcane rules being imposed, whether chairs were really thrown and if anyone should make a fuss out of chalk on walls and sidewalks (even if the messages were hateful).

Wikileaks E-Mail Fwd: NOT rigged 04/21/2016

Wikileaks E-Mail RE: Problem brewing in Rhode Island 04/26/2016 No worries. To be clear - no inquiries yet, but RNC will be pushing it.

Political_Revolution: DNC "We just need something to cover ourselves" on RI closing polling locations 07/22/2016

Re: For approval: Hillary Clinton emails 05/07/2016 (Preparing of Hillary Clinton E-Mails at the DNC is obvious evidence of them acting on her behalf as part of their campaign, while the DNC claims to be neutral.

Wikileaks E-Mail: FW: Chaos At Nevada Democratic Convention; DNC Leaders Flee Building As Sanders Supporters Demand Recount | Video | RealClearPolitics 05/16/2016 Nevada article has been fixed to at least not implicate the DNC the way it did before:

DNC Vice Chairman Referred To Megyn Kelly As A ‘Bimbo’ 07/24/2016

DNC emails: Steven J. Ybarra: Megyn Kelly is a bimbo 05/18/2016 He may have a point that Megyn Kelly uses sex appeal to manipulate people but so do a lot of the Democratic political operatives and even if men don't use the same tactics they manipulate the public in other ways. The E-Mail leaks is a long list of psychological manipulation tactics that has nothing to do with looking out for the best interests of the public. However the term Bimbo is still sexists, often implying that female manipulations tactics is somehow worse than male manipulation tactics.

Wikileaks E-Mail: Luis Miranda FW: Debbie ...please thinks this is the right approach..."High Road" 05/21/2016 From news article: Wasserman Schultz has pushed back against Sanders' accusation that the party had rigged the system against him. "We've had the same rules in place that elected Barack Obama. These rules were adopted for state parties all across the country in 2014," she said earlier this week. Asked about the "throwing shade" line on Wednesday, Wasserman Schultz told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "My response to that is hashtag SMH (shake my head)."

Hilary Rosen: Re: Debbie ...please thinks this is the right approach..."High Road" 05/21/2016

Hillary Clinton Hires Debbie Wasserman Schultz 07/24/2016 There have been some exaggerations about many of Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz's activities but if hiring her as "honorary chair" is an exaggeration it isn't much of one, which did come from her statement. And although some reports indicates that it may be an unpaid job there should be no doubt that Debbie Wasserman Schultz can count on financial compensation to keep her on board one way or another. If she didn't it would be a rare exception, although it is surprising that they didn't realize immediately that she should keep a low profile for months if not years after this disaster was exposed.

I usually prefer to minimize or eliminate appeals to emotions but they've been taking things to such bizarre extremes that it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that they're virtually flipping the public the bird daring us to stand up to epidemic levels of corruption or capitulate to pseudo-democracy.

John F. Kennedy's quote, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." seems to apply clearly here. This is already proving true with the handful of shootings of police officers who enforce rules made by corrupt politicians who accept police brutality.  However there are still plenty of people trying to make peaceful revolution work and there are still options if we don't accept the media's propaganda, including Jill Stein.

It isn't in anyone's best interests to continue with this insanity including the politicians who profit from it in the short term or the police officers who enforce unjustified rules from those corrupt politicians. If they continue with their insanity even they will pay the price if it causes escalating collapse of society, through economic, environmental causes, wars or any other forms of disaster which the corrupt political establishment may bring about.

No comments:

Post a Comment