Elections have been rigged in this country long before the alleged Russia conspiracy exposed DNC and Podesta showing some of the methods that they used to rig elections, and the evidence has always been at least partly public! However, the mainstream media has constantly been distracting the public with an enormous amount of propaganda so they won't notice!
The simplest way to understand that the elections are routinely rigged is simply understanding that without name recognition no candidate can get elected. And the only way to get enough name recognition to be a viable candidate in the first place is to get a fair amount of media coverage; but, the vast majority of the media is controlled by six corporations that routinely decline to cover candidates they don't support, ensuring that they can't get elected.
So before even considering the legitimacy of whether or not ballots are stuffed there's no doubt that until we have a much more diverse media elections will always be at least partly rigged. But, the election rigging doesn't even stop there, and one form of additional rigging of the election or another has also been routinely carried out by domestic organizations that have nothing to do with Russia and it's often reported locally, although the mainstream media almost never gives the worst election fraud much coverage.
But there are dozen if not hundreds of books or articles that are well researched showing a large portion of this fraud, although only a fraction of the public is aware of it, and a lot of this was reported before the 2016 election even began. A significant portion of this research was reported after the 2000 election, which was an incredibly obvious disaster, or the ones that were rigged since then. Some of the research shows that there's been a highly inconsistent and unreliable voting system throughout the country, and when the election in 2000 turned out to be a disaster the politicians, many of whom were elected as a result of the incompetent system, promised to reform it, and may have made it even worse!
As Andrew Gumbel author of "Steal This Vote" points out even Jimmy Carter admits that our elections have little or no legitimacy and that he wouldn't even be willing to monitor them because they don't meet his criteria:
Andrew Gumbel "Steal This Vote" 2005
A few days before the November 2004 election, Jimmy Carter was asked what would happen if, instead of flying to Zambia or Venezuela or East Timor, his widely respected international election monitoring team was invited to turn its attention to the United States. His answer was stunningly blunt. Not only would the voting system be regarded as a failure, he said, but the shortcomings were so egregious the Carter Center would never agree to monitor an election there in the first place. "We wouldn't think of it," the former president told a radio interviewer. "The American political system wouldn't measure up to any sort of international standards, for several reasons."
What, after all, was to be done with a country whose newest voting machines, unlike Venezuela's, couldn't even perform recounts? A country where candidates, in contrast to the more promising emerging democracies of the Caucasus or the Balkans, were denied equal, unpaid access to the media? There were a number of reasons, in the sharply partisan atmosphere surrounding the Bush-Kerry race, to wonder whether campaign conditions didn't smack more of the Third World than the First. Every day, newspapers recounted stories of registration forms being found in garbage cans, or of voter rolls padded with the names of noncitizens, fictional characters, household pets, and the dearly departed. The Chicago Tribune, a paper that knows its voter fraud, having won a Pulitzer for its work on the infamous Daley machine, found 181,000 dead people on the registration lists of six key battleground states.
Bush opponents were all too inclined to believe, in fact, that the Republicans were about to steal the presidency, just as they believed it had been stolen the last time. The Republicans, for their part, laughed this off as conspiratorial nonsense, but they also weren't shy about announcing how hard or how dirtily they were prepared to fight if it came down to another Florida-style tug-of-war. Long Island's GOP congressman Pete King, caught on camera by the documentary maker Alexandra Pelosi during a White House function on election day, bragged even as the first polls were closing that Bush had already won. When Pelosi asked him how he knew, he answered, perhaps jokingly, perhaps not: "It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting."
Election day itself, at least in the battleground states, was a deeply jarring experience for America's trusting majority, which had led itself to believe that all was for the best in the best of all possible democracies. Everyone bristled with suspicion and mutual mistrust. The Republicans accused the Democrats of trying to sneak ineligible voters to the polls and threatened to deploy official challengers to sniff out the mischief -- something much discussed ahead of time but that ultimately failed to materialize on any scale, perhaps because of a flurry of negative publicity stirred up on the eve of the election.
The Democrats, meanwhile, could barely keep up with their own seemingly endless list of grievances. Across the country, voters in urban, heavily African American precincts complained their polling places had far too few voting machines to accommodate the crowds, creating lines as long as seven or eight hours toward the end of the day and deterring an unknown number of voters. In suburban Cincinnati, observers erupted in fury when they and the media were thrown out of county election headquarters for the duration of the vote count. They were told there had been a terrorist threat, but the FBI later denied all knowledge of it.
The poisoned atmosphere scarcely improved as Bush was declared the winner, with a comfortable popular margin of well over three million and a lead of more than one hundred thousand in Ohio. After the most hotly contested election in a generation, many of the president's detractors simply refused to believe it could be so. Additional excerpts
A few days before the November 2004 election, Jimmy Carter was asked what would happen if, instead of flying to Zambia or Venezuela or East Timor, his widely respected international election monitoring team was invited to turn its attention to the United States. His answer was stunningly blunt. Not only would the voting system be regarded as a failure, he said, but the shortcomings were so egregious the Carter Center would never agree to monitor an election there in the first place. "We wouldn't think of it," the former president told a radio interviewer. "The American political system wouldn't measure up to any sort of international standards, for several reasons."
What, after all, was to be done with a country whose newest voting machines, unlike Venezuela's, couldn't even perform recounts? A country where candidates, in contrast to the more promising emerging democracies of the Caucasus or the Balkans, were denied equal, unpaid access to the media? There were a number of reasons, in the sharply partisan atmosphere surrounding the Bush-Kerry race, to wonder whether campaign conditions didn't smack more of the Third World than the First. Every day, newspapers recounted stories of registration forms being found in garbage cans, or of voter rolls padded with the names of noncitizens, fictional characters, household pets, and the dearly departed. The Chicago Tribune, a paper that knows its voter fraud, having won a Pulitzer for its work on the infamous Daley machine, found 181,000 dead people on the registration lists of six key battleground states.
Bush opponents were all too inclined to believe, in fact, that the Republicans were about to steal the presidency, just as they believed it had been stolen the last time. The Republicans, for their part, laughed this off as conspiratorial nonsense, but they also weren't shy about announcing how hard or how dirtily they were prepared to fight if it came down to another Florida-style tug-of-war. Long Island's GOP congressman Pete King, caught on camera by the documentary maker Alexandra Pelosi during a White House function on election day, bragged even as the first polls were closing that Bush had already won. When Pelosi asked him how he knew, he answered, perhaps jokingly, perhaps not: "It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting."
Election day itself, at least in the battleground states, was a deeply jarring experience for America's trusting majority, which had led itself to believe that all was for the best in the best of all possible democracies. Everyone bristled with suspicion and mutual mistrust. The Republicans accused the Democrats of trying to sneak ineligible voters to the polls and threatened to deploy official challengers to sniff out the mischief -- something much discussed ahead of time but that ultimately failed to materialize on any scale, perhaps because of a flurry of negative publicity stirred up on the eve of the election.
The Democrats, meanwhile, could barely keep up with their own seemingly endless list of grievances. Across the country, voters in urban, heavily African American precincts complained their polling places had far too few voting machines to accommodate the crowds, creating lines as long as seven or eight hours toward the end of the day and deterring an unknown number of voters. In suburban Cincinnati, observers erupted in fury when they and the media were thrown out of county election headquarters for the duration of the vote count. They were told there had been a terrorist threat, but the FBI later denied all knowledge of it.
The poisoned atmosphere scarcely improved as Bush was declared the winner, with a comfortable popular margin of well over three million and a lead of more than one hundred thousand in Ohio. After the most hotly contested election in a generation, many of the president's detractors simply refused to believe it could be so. Additional excerpts
Major additional doubts were raised about Bush's 2004 win by Mark Crispin Miller in "Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless we Stop them)" 2005 He followed this up with the following which shows additional information about how the Help America Vote Act was used to enable for profit corporations, donating primarily to Republican campaigns, although additional sources show they also support establishment candidates, including Hillary Clinton, to control the voting system with a large portion of their activities done in secret:
Mark Crispin Miller, Editor and lead contributor, "Loser Take All" 2008
Amid the furor over hanging chads and butterfly ballots in Florida, however, the "faulty memory card" was all but forgotten. Instead of sharing culpability for the Florida catastrophe, voting-machine companies used their political clout to present their product as the solution. In October 2002, President Bush signed the Help America Vote Act, requiring states and counties to upgrade their voting systems with electronic machines and giving vast sums of money to state officials to distribute to the tightknit cabal of largely Republican vendors.
The primary author and steward of HAVA was Rep. Bob Ney, the GOP chairman of the powerful U.S. House Administration Committee. Ney had close ties to the now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose firm received at least $275,000 from Diebold to lobby for its touch-screen machines. Ney's former chief of staff, David DiStefano, also worked as a registered lobbyist for Diebold, receiving at least $180,000 from the firm to lobby for HAVA and "other election reform issues." Ney - who accepted campaign contributions from DiStefano and counted Diebold's then-CEO O'Dell among his constituents - made sure that HAVA strongly favored the use of the company's machines.
Ney also made sure that Diebold and other companies would not be required to equip their machines with printers to provide paper records that could be verified by voters. In a clever twist, HAVA effectively pressures every precinct to provide at least one voting device that has no paper trail - supposedly so that vision-impaired citizens can vote in secrecy. The provision was backed by two little-known advocacy groups: the National Federation of the Blind, which accepted $1 million from Diebold to build a new research institute, and the American Association of People with Disabilities, which pocketed at least $26,000 from voting-machine companies. The NFB maintained that a paper voting receipt would jeopardize its members' civil rights - a position not shared by other groups that advocate for the blind.
Sinking in the sewage of the Abramoff scandal, Ney agreed on September 15th to plead guilty to federal conspiracy charges - but he has already done one last favor for his friends at Diebold. When 212 congressmen from both parties sponsored a bill to mandate a paper trail for all votes, Ney used his position as chairman to prevent the measure from even getting a hearing before his committee.
The result was that HAVA - the chief reform effort after the 2000 disaster - placed much of the nation's electoral system in the hands of for-profit companies. Diebold alone has sold more than 130,000 voting machines - raking in estimated revenues of at least $230 million. "This whole undertaking was never about voters," says Hood, who saw firsthand how the measure benefited Diebold's bottom line. "It was about privatizing elections. HAVA has been turned into a corporate-revenue enhancement scheme." Additional excerpts
Amid the furor over hanging chads and butterfly ballots in Florida, however, the "faulty memory card" was all but forgotten. Instead of sharing culpability for the Florida catastrophe, voting-machine companies used their political clout to present their product as the solution. In October 2002, President Bush signed the Help America Vote Act, requiring states and counties to upgrade their voting systems with electronic machines and giving vast sums of money to state officials to distribute to the tightknit cabal of largely Republican vendors.
The primary author and steward of HAVA was Rep. Bob Ney, the GOP chairman of the powerful U.S. House Administration Committee. Ney had close ties to the now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose firm received at least $275,000 from Diebold to lobby for its touch-screen machines. Ney's former chief of staff, David DiStefano, also worked as a registered lobbyist for Diebold, receiving at least $180,000 from the firm to lobby for HAVA and "other election reform issues." Ney - who accepted campaign contributions from DiStefano and counted Diebold's then-CEO O'Dell among his constituents - made sure that HAVA strongly favored the use of the company's machines.
Ney also made sure that Diebold and other companies would not be required to equip their machines with printers to provide paper records that could be verified by voters. In a clever twist, HAVA effectively pressures every precinct to provide at least one voting device that has no paper trail - supposedly so that vision-impaired citizens can vote in secrecy. The provision was backed by two little-known advocacy groups: the National Federation of the Blind, which accepted $1 million from Diebold to build a new research institute, and the American Association of People with Disabilities, which pocketed at least $26,000 from voting-machine companies. The NFB maintained that a paper voting receipt would jeopardize its members' civil rights - a position not shared by other groups that advocate for the blind.
Sinking in the sewage of the Abramoff scandal, Ney agreed on September 15th to plead guilty to federal conspiracy charges - but he has already done one last favor for his friends at Diebold. When 212 congressmen from both parties sponsored a bill to mandate a paper trail for all votes, Ney used his position as chairman to prevent the measure from even getting a hearing before his committee.
The result was that HAVA - the chief reform effort after the 2000 disaster - placed much of the nation's electoral system in the hands of for-profit companies. Diebold alone has sold more than 130,000 voting machines - raking in estimated revenues of at least $230 million. "This whole undertaking was never about voters," says Hood, who saw firsthand how the measure benefited Diebold's bottom line. "It was about privatizing elections. HAVA has been turned into a corporate-revenue enhancement scheme." Additional excerpts
These books and other sources all confirm that computers used to tabulate the vote are often using what they call private proprietary computer code that shows how the system works is protected by trade secrecy laws, which means that if there's a way to rig the count then the public isn't allowed to know about it, which is blatantly in violation of the democratic process. Andrew Gumbel writes “The proprietary interests of voting system vendors have been allowed to drive the standards drafting procedure… The privatizing of elections is taking place without the consent or knowledge of the governed.” (Andrew Gumbel “Steal This Vote” 2005 p.191) and there's additional information, including articles or books listed below, about how they can potentially rig elections and showing that it's standard operating procedure.
This is a minuscule fraction of the research into voting fraud that's available from credible sources, yet the vast majority of the public isn't aware of most of it. One thing that is worth noting is that both authors of these books and numerous other researchers on the subject cite "Bev Harris of Black Box Voting fame" or "well-known voting rights activist Bev Harris," as if Bev Harris is a famous celebrity, which for the most part she isn't, although researchers into this subject apparently quickly become aware of her and her work.
This is quite common on research for just about any given subject, including election fraud, or propaganda designed to indoctrinate the public, where almost everyone is aware of Edward Bernays, yet the vast majority of the public isn't aware of Bernays anymore than they're aware of Bev Harris. The reason for this is quite simple; most people don't read, especially good non-fiction books that aren't promoted by the mainstream media!
George Orwell and several other classic authors warned about how consolidated media could be used to indoctrinate the public, and to be honest with you, for a long time, even though I was aware of these warnings, I thought I was the exception and understood the news better than most people because I paid attention more to it; however, that was based on the false assumption that mainstream media was at least partly reliable, although I knew that Republicans and even some Democrats weren't so credible as others.
Tracy Campbell also had a similar experience where he found out how common voter fraud was after writing a book about Boss Tweed and initially assuming that he was the exception to the rule, before looking closer at the history of voter fraud, and doing much more research on the subject as describe in the following excerpt of his book:
Tracy Campbell "Deliver the Vote" 2006
In 1887, Edgar Levey was a New York City poll official who possessed a trait that made him stand out among many of his peers: He was horrified by the brazen manner in which votes were routinely bought and stolen. Before the polls even opened in Levey’s precinct, long lines of illegal “colonizers” were waiting to cast their votes – votes that had already been purchased, often by the very officials whom Levey worked alongside. When the voting commenced, Levey was further dismayed as ward heelers distributed five-dollar bills to arriving voters with “no effort at concealment.” He noted, sadly, “This was my first introduction to ‘practical politics.’”
When Levey confronted the vote buyers, things only grew worse. He was soon surrounded by angry ward captains, whose taunts and threats had a consistent theme – they were outraged that “a dude with a clean collar had come to deprive them of an honest living.” Levey wondered: “How large a proportion of voters understands the practical workings of our election methods?” that day, Levey learned a painful truth: “Democracy is a failure.”
That jarring assessment did not reflect the common views that the republic stood as a “shining city upon a hill,” whose elections were free and fair contests that objectively measured the “consent of the governed.” Indeed, the American experiment seemed to represent a substantial progression in ho political power was earned. For centuries, power had rested with the descendants of a specifically ordained family, whose legitimacy to rule was grounded in the sanctity of their blood ties. Or, and even easier approach was one where military leaders acquired power by the benefit of an army. The fact that these citizens would select their leaders by casting ballots rather than by using guns was the realization of a democratic dream.
Yet what Levey saw on Election Day was not limited to his precinct, to New York City, or even to his generation. Buying votes, stuffing or destroying ballots, moving poll locations, transposing results, importing illegal voters from other towns or states, suppressing, disenfranchising, and sometimes killing voters comprises a long, sordid tradition in American political culture. In retrospect, it would be innocent to assume differently.
Unfortunately, one of the innocent people was me. Even after writing a book on a New Dealer who had been convicted of stuffing ballot boxes, I still assumed that Boss Tweed had been the first to take the bite from the corrupt apple in the Garden of Eden, only to discover that corruption was there long before Tweed or the rise of Tammany Hall. What had begun as a small book on recent fraud quickly grew. My research took me back much further than I ever expected, back to the early days of the republic. Indeed, I found so much fraud involving hundreds of local, state, and national elections, that I was soon staggering under the weight of so much evidence.
Imagine my dismay, then, on the evening of November 7, 2000, as I watched the presidential returns. Part of that dismay stemmed from the fact that my already-onerous research agenda was now significantly compounded. Yet I was able to draw some solace because by that time, I had come to know something about how American politics that most people were not prepared to accept as an ongoing reality: namely, that the process itself was deeply corrupted and had been for over two hundred years. p.xvi .....
With the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, simmering political divisions necessarily arose between those siding with the revolutionaries or those remaining loyal to the king p.8 Additional excerpts
In 1887, Edgar Levey was a New York City poll official who possessed a trait that made him stand out among many of his peers: He was horrified by the brazen manner in which votes were routinely bought and stolen. Before the polls even opened in Levey’s precinct, long lines of illegal “colonizers” were waiting to cast their votes – votes that had already been purchased, often by the very officials whom Levey worked alongside. When the voting commenced, Levey was further dismayed as ward heelers distributed five-dollar bills to arriving voters with “no effort at concealment.” He noted, sadly, “This was my first introduction to ‘practical politics.’”
When Levey confronted the vote buyers, things only grew worse. He was soon surrounded by angry ward captains, whose taunts and threats had a consistent theme – they were outraged that “a dude with a clean collar had come to deprive them of an honest living.” Levey wondered: “How large a proportion of voters understands the practical workings of our election methods?” that day, Levey learned a painful truth: “Democracy is a failure.”
That jarring assessment did not reflect the common views that the republic stood as a “shining city upon a hill,” whose elections were free and fair contests that objectively measured the “consent of the governed.” Indeed, the American experiment seemed to represent a substantial progression in ho political power was earned. For centuries, power had rested with the descendants of a specifically ordained family, whose legitimacy to rule was grounded in the sanctity of their blood ties. Or, and even easier approach was one where military leaders acquired power by the benefit of an army. The fact that these citizens would select their leaders by casting ballots rather than by using guns was the realization of a democratic dream.
Yet what Levey saw on Election Day was not limited to his precinct, to New York City, or even to his generation. Buying votes, stuffing or destroying ballots, moving poll locations, transposing results, importing illegal voters from other towns or states, suppressing, disenfranchising, and sometimes killing voters comprises a long, sordid tradition in American political culture. In retrospect, it would be innocent to assume differently.
Unfortunately, one of the innocent people was me. Even after writing a book on a New Dealer who had been convicted of stuffing ballot boxes, I still assumed that Boss Tweed had been the first to take the bite from the corrupt apple in the Garden of Eden, only to discover that corruption was there long before Tweed or the rise of Tammany Hall. What had begun as a small book on recent fraud quickly grew. My research took me back much further than I ever expected, back to the early days of the republic. Indeed, I found so much fraud involving hundreds of local, state, and national elections, that I was soon staggering under the weight of so much evidence.
Imagine my dismay, then, on the evening of November 7, 2000, as I watched the presidential returns. Part of that dismay stemmed from the fact that my already-onerous research agenda was now significantly compounded. Yet I was able to draw some solace because by that time, I had come to know something about how American politics that most people were not prepared to accept as an ongoing reality: namely, that the process itself was deeply corrupted and had been for over two hundred years. p.xvi .....
With the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, simmering political divisions necessarily arose between those siding with the revolutionaries or those remaining loyal to the king p.8 Additional excerpts
In the nineteenth century, when election rigging was much more blatant, by most accounts, the majority of the public, either didn't know, or they accepted as the way it was and didn't think they could do anything about it; now most people are better educated about many things but seem to know less about election fraud then they did back then. Now, even though there's still much more of the old fashioned election fraud, with computer technology to help, the most effective way to rig elections is by controlling the media ensuring that only candidates supported by the six oligarchs controlling most of the national news get media coverage needed to get name recognition needed to get elected while establishment politicians making an enormous amount of promises they never intend to keep get obsession coverage.
Now the mass media is trying to convince us that election fraud is mostly a myth, or at least that's what CNN and MSNBC are repeating over and over again along with most of the other media; but right wing media including Fox News is trying to feed this myth, using it as an excuse for voter suppression, especially against minorities and lower income people. The truth is probably somewhere in between. There's no doubt that the republican's are using exaggerations of threats from voter fraud to push voter ID laws, and that some of the most blatant election rigging like McRae Dowless in in North Carolina were also Republicans rigging elections; however, election rigging is still not limited to Republicans, and in many cases, as reported by both Gumbel and Miller, establishment Democrats have stopped attempts to continue investigations into Republican voter fraud, even when there's an enormous amount of evidence.
In the 2016 election there was an enormous amount of evidence of voter fraud by the Hillary Clinton campaign; however this didn't take place until after the mainstream media spent months if not years presenting her as the inevitable nominee, even though she had record breaking high negative polling approval ratings that was only matched by Donald Trump who was also breaking records for high negative approval ratings on the Republican side. You would think they would have known not to pick a candidate that was so extreme to rig the nomination for, but for one reason or another they did, and it was so incredibly obvious that a large portion of the public saw right through it and as I reported in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating? there were epidemic levels of voter fraud in over thirteen states, which was the count that I put in that article, although I'm sure more of them came weren't added.
What makes it so surprising that they didn't do a far better job picking a candidate that at least looks like he or she cares about the majority of the public or advising Hillary Clinton how to put on a better show, is the fact that there's an enormous amount of research into how to manipulate the voters, most of which the media doesn't point out to the public; but it's not completely secret. In most cases this research is distributed at the college level among a small percentage of the public, which although technically it is available to the majority of the public, it gets no promotion from the mainstream media and most people wouldn't know where to look for this research. One of the closest things to an exception is Frank Luntz's "Words That Work" which I went into in Frank Luntz confesses to sabotaging democratic process for clients.
Psychological manipulation of the masses has gone back hundreds if not thousands of years, since the Romans, Greek and Egyptians used demagogues to manipulate the emotions of the masses. This was put into writing no later than five hundred Years ago when Niccolò Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" and "The Discourses" which has been the source of many conspiracy theories, which I thought absurd the first time I heard about it, since it was available publicly for hundreds of years.
How could this be part of a conspiracy if it's not secret?
It can be part of a conspiracy since, although most people have heard of him, they know little or nothing about his work so they wouldn't recognize the indoctrination tactics, including keeping the masses poor so they're easy to control, against them.
One of the fundamentals of propaganda is to keep the vast majority of the public uneducated so they don't understand how they're being manipulated, and appealing to their emotions. So even though indoctrination methods like those described by Niccolò Machiavelli or Edward Bernays who much fewer people have ever heard of can be downloaded on the internet
Edward Bernays acknowledges this in his books including "Crystallizing Public Opinion" 1923/1961 where he writes "To the average person, this profession is still unexplained, both in its operation and actual accomplishment." His interpretation of this as you can read in his books appears to be from the point of view of the wealthy that doesn't make an y attempt to teach the majority of the public to look out for their own best interests. according to his Wikipedia page "His best-known campaigns include a 1929 effort to promote female smoking by branding cigarettes as feminist 'Torches of Freedom' and his work for the United Fruit Company connected with the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan government in 1954. He worked for dozens of major American corporations including Procter & Gamble and General Electric, and for government agencies, politicians, and non-profit organizations."
His clients clearly were far more interested in their own profits than the well being of the public, who were sickened by the millions as a result of his propaganda promoting cigarettes, and tortured partly as a result of his help providing propaganda to justify the coup in Guatemala, which resulted in death squads torturing people for decades to control them the repercussions which we're still facing as a result of the current immigration crisis. Edward Bernays openly admits that he's trying o manipulate the public in his books; however like Machiavelli and Luntz, he doesn't seem to worry that if the public read his books they would learn how to to recognize his manipulation tactics and look out for their own best interests, presumably because they're all aware of the fact that the vast majority of the public doesn't read that much, instead they often respond to charismatic speakers or demagogues.
And instead of trying to improve the education system so they can teach the public how to think for themselves, they study how to manipulate them allowing the wealthy elites to put their own best interests ahead of the vast majority of the public, which is why we have so much unjustified economic inequality and are constantly fighting one war after another based on lies! He virtually admitted this as well ninety years ago as indicated in the following excerpts from another of his books:
Propaganda (1928) by Edward Bernays
Chapter I Organizing Chaos
THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.
They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.
It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four.
In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time.
In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market. In practice, if every one went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed. To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea. ......
Chapter IV The Psychology Of Public Relations
The systematic study of mass psychology revealed to students the potentialities of invisible government of society by manipulation of the motives which actuate man in the group. Trotter and Le Bon, who approached the subject in a scientific manner, and Graham Wallas, Walter Lippmann and others who continued with searching studies of the group mind, established that the group has mental characteristics distinct from those of the individual, and is motivated by impulses and emotions which cannot be explained on the basis of what we know of individual psychology. So the question naturally arose: If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?
The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits. Mass psychology is as yet far from being an exact science and the mysteries of human motivation are by no means all revealed. But at least theory and practice have combined with sufficient success to permit us to know that in certain cases we can effect some change in public opinion with a fair degree of accuracy by operating a certain mechanism, just as the motorist can regulate the speed of his car by manipulating the flow of gasoline. ..... Complete book
Chapter I Organizing Chaos
THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.
They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.
It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four.
In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time.
In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market. In practice, if every one went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed. To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea. ......
Chapter IV The Psychology Of Public Relations
The systematic study of mass psychology revealed to students the potentialities of invisible government of society by manipulation of the motives which actuate man in the group. Trotter and Le Bon, who approached the subject in a scientific manner, and Graham Wallas, Walter Lippmann and others who continued with searching studies of the group mind, established that the group has mental characteristics distinct from those of the individual, and is motivated by impulses and emotions which cannot be explained on the basis of what we know of individual psychology. So the question naturally arose: If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?
The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits. Mass psychology is as yet far from being an exact science and the mysteries of human motivation are by no means all revealed. But at least theory and practice have combined with sufficient success to permit us to know that in certain cases we can effect some change in public opinion with a fair degree of accuracy by operating a certain mechanism, just as the motorist can regulate the speed of his car by manipulating the flow of gasoline. ..... Complete book
This is only a small fraction of the research into how to manipulate the public with propaganda; and the vast majority of this propaganda is almost all controlled by a small fraction of the wealthiest people in the country or the world. They use this propaganda to manipulate the vast majority of the public so they can rig the economic system in their own favor, often even turning many people against each other, and fighting wars based on lies, when it suits their purposes.
This may sound like a description of the Deep State or the Illuminati that many conspiracy theorists claim control the world, as if they have absolute power; however, most of the rational researchers, including Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann and many other propagandists clearly don't see it that way and their writings that are public don't completely support this assumption, since they're not completely unified on everything with a common agenda, as many conspiracy theorists seem to think, except perhaps to rig the economic system in favor of the wealthy.
Many of the researchers that have tried to warn the public about their propaganda, including Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, C. Wright Mills, and Mark Crispin Miller don't quite see it that way either; however they do describe an enormous amount of influence by a small percentage of the public to control vast powerful institutions that create propaganda to advance their objectives at the expense of the vast majority of the public, including "Manufacturing Consent" by creating "Necessary Illusions" to justify an economic system that benefits the wealthy and create support wars that are based on lies.
The most extreme or exaggerated versions of a Deep State or the Illuminati would require extraordinarily evidence, as many skeptics routinely demand, and this article or the books cited in it aren't necessarily doing to provide that.
However if you were to ask if they could educate the public about how to recognize this propaganda enabling them to learn how not to fall for it, there's evidence to show that they could at least try to do so, yet the most powerful institutions and politicians are doing no such thing!
They also have plenty of good research available to show how to reduce violence as I pointed out in Research On Preventing Violence Absent From National Media which show's how early child abuse, increased poverty, abandoned inner cities and other contributing factors all lead to escalating violecne, espeically in areas where the poorest people live. Another previous article covering this subject, Dobson’s Indoctrination Machine, show's how corporal punishment, which is a form of child abuse leads to indoctrination as well making children more inclined to blindly obey orders or believe what their leaders tell them to believe without question.
Furthermore, if you asked if they understand propaganda enough to teach people not to fall for Donald Trump's racist tirades, including the research into James Dobson's indoctrination tactics and more, there's little or no doubt that they know how to do a much better job than they're doing and if they wanted to they could. They also know how to control elections, at least for national office or statewide office, of most large states, to ensure that only candidates supported by the political establishment can get enough name recognition needed to get elected, by simply refusing to provide much if any media coverage for candidates they don't approve of, and providing an enormous amount of positive propaganda coverage for those they do approve of, although some segments of the media may not all agree on which candidates they approve of, which is why they compete on some levels. they also know enough that if they don't cover any of the negatives of candidates they will lose what ever credibility they have left.
The result is that we wind up with one politician catering to the wealthy replacing another, over and over again, with candidates from both parties taking campaign donations from the same Wall Street insiders and agreeing on many of the most important issues that they support, rigging the economy in favor of the wealthy.
The same question could be asked about one subject after another, including do they know how to warn the public about the lies leading us into war one time after another? And they certainly do; which means that these propagandists are accomplices to mass murder, or at least they would be considered that way if not for non-stop propaganda.
Do they understand that if they rig the economy to too much of an extreme that the public will be outraged and instigate mass protests or fall for one demagogue or another like Trump? Yes!
Do they understand that Climate Change is a massive threat to society as we know it? Yes!
I could go into one subject after another, and if you went to the trouble to look up the best research on that subject, what ever it is, it's virtually guaranteed that you would find that the mass media is doing a terrible job reporting on the fundamentals to the public, often distorting it for one reason or another. Often if you look deeper you might find a financial incentive for the media or their advertisers, like large oil companies and weapons manufacturers, that might have interlocking boards of directors or stockholders and may be buying a lot of advertisements form the mass media. As Peter W. Singer might say intentionally or not we would up with a situation were there's "Peace in the west and war for the rest," and a large part of the reason is the intentional and deceptive decisions by those controlling the political and media establishment.
This sounds like a more sophisticated variation of robber baron Jay Gould's claim that he could "hire one half of the working class to kill the other half," only that wouldn't be in their best interests, but when it suits their purposes they seem to arrange for something way to damn close!
If this isn't a Deep State or the Illuminati controlling the world, then it's something way to damn close!
The obvious motive may seem to be greed. But with all these think tanks and academic researchers how can they possibly not know that if they push their extreme wars too far, especially while there's the threat of climate change pending and numerous class conflicts all over the world that it could escalate out of control and destroy even the wealthy elites that are constantly manufacturing consent for their rigged economic system?
They have to understand that this is a massive game of chicken that could end in what many people consider an apocalyptic destruction of our society. Yet instead of educating the public about how to avoid this possibility they provided trump with the obsession media coverage that he needed to get the republican nomination then they rigged the Democratic nomination for a candidate that the public hated so badly that he was able to win, the election, which lead to this insane charade, reality TV show, or so it seems.
What could be so important that they would push the country and the world to such a bizarre extreme? Or are they a bunch of ideological lunatics? Many of them certainly seem to be a bunch of ideological lunatics, but not all of them, and those people surely can do much better job educating the public if they wanted to yet instead of doing so the democratic Party is constantly creating one fake progressive after another catering to the Oligarchy; and even when a handful of progressive candidates get elected to Congress like "the squad," Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley, the first thing they do is provide propaganda cover to defend Nancy Pelosi against the centrist challenge to her election as a speaker with the incredibly lame claim that she's a progressive even though she began demeaning "the squad" before they lined up behind her, and except for when there were extreme right wing attacks she continues to demean them over and over again!
Most rational skeptics might think that greed is the most likely answer, however, if they're right then we still have to reverse this process and bring about rational reform to stop non-stop wars based on lies and insane destruction of the environment which could easily lead to an escalating destruction of our society as we know it, and if they work together to accomplish this then things might work out fine; but that's not what they're doing. Instead the dominant political establishment is treating them like a bunch of radicals, even though they have far more practical solutions to our problems, when they're not defending Nancy Pelosi asking questions like Will the overexposed ‘Squad’ take Democrats over the cliff? 07/18/2019 as part of a propaganda effort to portray them as the ones that are fanatics which is repeated by the vast majority of the establishment.
Supposedly rational skeptics, that attempt to debunk climate change deniers, like Michael Shermer, who I've reviewed several times including Pseudo-Skeptics Can't Handle The Truth Or ...... also support the current economic system that is leading us off the cliff with environmental destruction, and he's demonstrated with his actions that he's also an effective propagandist, not a scientific skeptic as he claims and the media routinely supports this claim.
If you've read some of my past articles including "Wars and rumors of Wars" Are Here Today for One Reason Or Another you might know that one alternative theory that I've been considering is that it might be part of a much larger conspiracy that might actually involve a variation of Deep State or Illuminati, although not the extreme exaggerations often pushed by many online conspiracy theorists, which I suspect could be part of a disinformation campaign to create false stereotypes to cover up the real thing.
Any good rational skeptic would be justified demanding extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims; but the absurd behavior of the entire political establishment is increasing indicating that something insane is going on. However, if that was the most extraordinary evidence that there was then I would be highly skeptical as well. But there has been extraordinary evidence of many unsolved mysteries around for thousands of years, and the most clear cut is the ancient megaliths, some over seven hundred tons, that were moved long distances despite experiments that only moved them successfully, without cheating up to ten tons, and some additional ones that were between ten and forty tones, where they cheated to get them on sledges by suing heavy equipment then only managed to move the larger ones a few inches forward at a time, successfully moving them no more than twenty feet before giving up with an enormous number of broken ropes and other problems.
They didn't even try to move larger megaliths, presumably because they knew they failed.
Additional evidence of major unsolved mysteries including a long history of mystics or prophets that have had major impact on the development of society; although large portions of this are easily be explained away as normal social development; but I suspect that a close look at the details might raise additional doubts indicating that there might be a connection. It would be difficult to refer to this as the extraordinary evidence that is needed to prove a far-fetched theory, though; since it would require an enormous amount of fact checking of complicated history which allows a lot of room for interpretations or mistakes.
But UFOs, Crop Circles, Cattle Mutilations, and other major unsolved mysteries add to this list and the combined amount of evidence, assuming truly rational skeptics that weren't totally closed minded reviewed this might provide enough evidence to seriously consider alternative theories.
My past articles on this subject also cite Philip Corso who claims that he helped share alien technology that was allegedly reverse engineered to develop many modern technology, including some shared with Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto and many other major corporations, which developed computer technology, bullet proof vests, night vision goggles, and many other things. This was a best seller in 1997 and the forward was written by Senator Strom Thurmond, who under pressure retracted it; but others have provided alleged corroborating evidence, including former Canadian Defense minister Paul Hellyer. Since this has been refuted and often presented through unreliable sources it may not be adequate to consider it conclusive evidence; however, it does narrow things down.
Paul Hellyer seems far more credible than most of the people on the Ancient Aliens show, most of the time; but if you look closely at his record or anyone else's involved in this disclosure, assuming there's something to it, it's virtually guaranteed that you'll find obvious blunders that they should have caught, which raises doubts about whether or not they're trying to do a good job, but the same goes for the skeptics like Michael Shermer. I went into this previously in what I called the "Recruit a Group of Crackpots" theory, which involves releasing accurate information from unreliable sources mixed in with false information, and inaccurate information from sources that seem reliable. This, of course, sounds like something out of the Twilight Zone, but something in sane is obviously going on, so it's not a question of if an insane theory is true, but perhaps, which one is close to the truth.
Either there is something to this and they're trying to cover it up with massive amounts of disinformation or there isn't anything to it and there's a massive conspiracy to make it seem as if there is something to it. Anyone that takes a close enough look at the information about the subject will find that there are an enormous number of people supporting claims that there have been extraterrestrials visiting Earth, so this can't be completely dismissed so easily.
Furthermore, a close look at the rapid development of advanced technology since World War II and the Roswell crash may provide additional supporting evidence to Corso's claims, assuming people take the time to check the facts, which most people don't seem to do.
Current events including Trump's rallies like the one's in 2016 where they constantly chanted "lock her up" and the one earlier this week where they started chanting "send them back" are exactly the kind of crowd mentality that Edward Bernays and many other propagandists since then including Lee Atwater, Irving Janis, James Carville, Frank Luntz and the tactics exposed in the DNC or Podesta leaks are exactly what they've been studying for decades. It's hard to imagine that they would want to incite this intentionally; however, there's an enormous amount of evidence to show that they've been doing just that and it's unlikely that Trump is doing this all on his own, without help from advisers. The script he read demonizing "the squad" this week wasn't something hat he improvised like many of his speeches have often been; according to the pundits the morning after this was on the teleprompter.
Furthermore he has a history of demonstrating that he does know better than to incite hatred when it suits his political purposes like when he spoke out against David duke and Pat Buchanan for their racism during the 2000 campaign when he considered running for the Reform Party. Also according to Donald Trump once backed urgent climate action. Wait, what? 06/08/2016 Donald Trump and his three adult children signed an open letter to President Obama and the U.S. Congress backing urgent climate action, which makes no sense at all considering his insane positions cine then.
However, if this is part of a far-fetched charade then it might begin to make sense.
This insanity isn't limited to Donald Trump, it's routine for the entire political establishment including Lindsey Graham who came up with another incredibly absurd flip flop this week ass well according to FLASHBACK: Graham says Trump is 'a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot' 07/15/2019 in 2015 he said “I want to talk to the Trump supporters for a moment. I don’t know who you are, and I don’t know why you like this guy," he began. "I think what you like about him is he appears to be strong and the rest of us are weak. He’s a very successful businessman and he’s going to make everything great." which is quite rational.
Then this week he said "We all know AOC and this crowd are a bunch of communists. They hate Israel, they hate our own country. Calling guards along our border, Border Patrol agent concentration cam guards. They accuse people support Israel doing it for the Benjamins," Graham stated. "They’re anti-Semitic. They’re anti-America. Don’t, aim higher. We don’t need to know anything about them personally. Talk about their policies." this was totally out of context and it's not the first time he's come up with this absurd behavior, he also cow-towed to Trump after his attacks on John McCain, who was supposed to be his best friend for decades, and raved like a lunatic while defending Brett Kavanaugh despite previous comments defending rape victims.
This insane behavior isn't limited to the Republican Party, since they got elected because of the Democrats lining up behind Hillary Clinton and now Nancy Pelosi often behaves as irrational as Clinton did during her campaign, like her adamant refusal to pursue impeachment hearings, even though there's plenty of evidence to justify it.
Pelosi's opposition to Trump is pathetically weak which may have been why he offered to get her the votes she needed to become speaker. this makes absolutely no sense if either side is trying to do a good job, but might begin to make sense if this is part of an insane charade to distract and manipulate the public!
Another issue that raises some doubts which most people may not have noticed is the fact that Mark Crispin Miller apparently wrote the introduction to a 2005 edition to Edward Bernays "Propaganda" which is very odd. this was only ten years after Bernays death at the age of 103, and presumably his copyright would have still been in the hands of his heirs, who might have believed as he did, that the ruling elite should be able to use propaganda to benefit themselves by manipulating others, although they don't typically phrase it quite that way. Yet Mark Crispin Miller has a history of trying to expose their propaganda, like Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, and they would have known this when they allowed him to writ the introduction.
Why? If this was part of a controlled disclosure effort then this might begin to make sense; however, there might be other explanations for this, so I wouldn't consider this strong evidence of anything unless it was added to other more compelling evidence.
If there is something to Corso's claims that he shared technology from aliens, and they've been influencing the early development of our society from the beginning then what could their objective be? My earlier speculation included the possibility that they've been using us for research projects large and small that could include medical research, and if climate Change is impacted by man, then it could also include research into some degree of #Geoengineering, since this could indicate that it's already going on.
If they did share technology then it could be possible that those developing it and the politicians creating this insane charade might have convinced themselves that they're getting something in return and might even try to argue that in return for sacrifices, which are made by those without political power they're getting advanced technology which could theoretically help out the entire population, assuming they actually shared the benefit with the rest of the public. However, if that were the case they would prepare the public to handle the truth in the most effective way possible.
This would involve being honest whenever possible and implementing an education system where ever possible, which is the opposite of what they're doing. This is true as well, although for different reasons even if the ancient aliens theory is totally wrong.
Skeptical? If you haven't carefully checked your facts on this subject then you should be, which is good. In his book, "Crossfire," Jim Marrs began by saying "Don't trust this book" and went on to say not to trust any one source on the subject, which was JFK's assassination, which turned out to be good advise for that subject and this one. Don't trust this article, and feel free to check your own sources. Even if the theory about Ancient aliens turns out to be totally wrong as many people clearly believe, then there's an enormous amount of good evidence to show that the political establishments has been developing an enormous amount of propaganda enabling them to manipulate th vast majority of the public, and rig elections.
If you haven't read any of these books on Propaganda that the mainstream media practically never mentions then it's unlikely that you'll be familiar with most of the manipulation tactics they use.
Even without the more far-fetched part of this theory, there's still little or no doubt that we need major efforts to expose this propaganda and election rigging by educating the public about it, and there are plenty of reliable sources for that without going into theories that many people may not take seriously. there's also plenty of credible research showing that we need to take rational and major measures, which the establishment will refer to as extreme, to reverse the destruction of the environment and this will have to be accompanied by major political reform and an end to unnecessary wars based on lies.
Most of this can be confirmed from reliable sources available in good non-fiction books or news outlets that are almost completely ignored by the political establishment and mainstream media.
Edit 07/22/2019: Since the Trump rally last Wednesday there have been dozens of reports about how Lara Trump helped encourage the racist chant that the media has been talking about non-stop the last few days. There are some contradictory version of this, but some of it was caught on tape. Omorosa also appeared on Politics Nation to describe some of the tactics to organize the crowd and get them chanting when the campaign wants them to as described in the following article:
Omarosa outs Mike Pence’s nephew as a ‘section leader’ who orchestrates Trump rally chants 07/21/2019
Omarosa Manigault Newman revealed in an interview with Rev. Al Sharpton that President Donald Trump has section leaders of each rally that helps urge the audience to chant and even leads them in chants. One of those so-called “section leaders” is Mike Pence’s nephew, John Pence.
“I had to attend many of these rallies when I worked on the campaign and even in the White House,” Newman told Sharpton Sunday. “There are these section leaders who start the chant, control how long the chants go and quiet them down when they want to.”
She explained that these organized “section leaders” are embedded in the rally crowd themselves.
“In fact, you’ll be surprised to learn that Vice President Pence’s nephew, John Pence, is one of the big coordinators of these rallies,” she continued. “And so this is how closely these rallies are coordinated with also what’s going on in the White House. John Pence is a very big key player in the campaign, but he’s particularly responsible for all of the staging and choreography of the campaigns and, yes, they are very much orchestrated and manufactured to get the outcome that we saw from Donald Trump saying go back to your countries that you came from and if you don’t love it, leave it.”
She explained that all of it is coordinated and manufactured “to stoke fear in this country and we’ve seen it, we feel it, and they’re going to continue on because they believe it’s a winning strategy.”
Sharpton wondered if he has people who can shut down chants in the audience, why they didn’t do that during the North Carolina speech.
“He stood there for 13 seconds,” Sharpton said.
“If he wanted to shut it down, he would have looked to his right which is where the lead is standing, and he would have given a signal,” Newman explained. “They would have been shut down immediately. The way that he stepped back and he basked in the glow of these ugly chants, it indicated to the section leaders to let them keep going, to stoke them up, to keep it going.”
She explained that those section leaders were likely chanting the “send her back” chant along with everyone else, if not leading it.
“I think it would be important to have cameras kind of pan to the crowds at the next rally and you will see the orchestration, the coordination and how they manufacture this environment that makes Donald Trump look like this horrible leader that he is because he loves it,” she continued. “You saw him basking in it because that is the end result that he was going for.” Complete article
Omarosa Manigault Newman revealed in an interview with Rev. Al Sharpton that President Donald Trump has section leaders of each rally that helps urge the audience to chant and even leads them in chants. One of those so-called “section leaders” is Mike Pence’s nephew, John Pence.
“I had to attend many of these rallies when I worked on the campaign and even in the White House,” Newman told Sharpton Sunday. “There are these section leaders who start the chant, control how long the chants go and quiet them down when they want to.”
She explained that these organized “section leaders” are embedded in the rally crowd themselves.
“In fact, you’ll be surprised to learn that Vice President Pence’s nephew, John Pence, is one of the big coordinators of these rallies,” she continued. “And so this is how closely these rallies are coordinated with also what’s going on in the White House. John Pence is a very big key player in the campaign, but he’s particularly responsible for all of the staging and choreography of the campaigns and, yes, they are very much orchestrated and manufactured to get the outcome that we saw from Donald Trump saying go back to your countries that you came from and if you don’t love it, leave it.”
She explained that all of it is coordinated and manufactured “to stoke fear in this country and we’ve seen it, we feel it, and they’re going to continue on because they believe it’s a winning strategy.”
Sharpton wondered if he has people who can shut down chants in the audience, why they didn’t do that during the North Carolina speech.
“He stood there for 13 seconds,” Sharpton said.
“If he wanted to shut it down, he would have looked to his right which is where the lead is standing, and he would have given a signal,” Newman explained. “They would have been shut down immediately. The way that he stepped back and he basked in the glow of these ugly chants, it indicated to the section leaders to let them keep going, to stoke them up, to keep it going.”
She explained that those section leaders were likely chanting the “send her back” chant along with everyone else, if not leading it.
“I think it would be important to have cameras kind of pan to the crowds at the next rally and you will see the orchestration, the coordination and how they manufacture this environment that makes Donald Trump look like this horrible leader that he is because he loves it,” she continued. “You saw him basking in it because that is the end result that he was going for.” Complete article
Omorosa certainly has her credibility problems, despite Al Sharpton's effort to shore up her reputation at the beginning of this interview; however, her description of how section leaders organize the crowd is partially confirmed by other sources, including many that claim that Lara Trump help lead the chant by cheering the crowd on. there are also similar stories about other candidates using similar tactics. After reading some of the efforts to create propaganda to "control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it," as Bernays was studying to accomplish ninety years ago, there's little doubt that the tactics have improved significantly since then.
Trump also used these crowd control tactics when shouting down protesters during the 2016 campaign where they were often told to shout "USA USA USA" and point to the protester until the police could come and escort them out, often with some supporters taking their signs and in a few cases even attacking them.
There's also little or no doubt that many other campaigns also use similar tactics. Similar chants were shouted during the Romney campaign, and the Clinton campaign was caught planting questions in 2008 and having questioned leaked to her by Donna Brazile in 2016, among many other things like positioning themselves in front of cameras with their signs during interviews with news pundits etc.
Trump was often exposed demanding that his campaign workers sign non-disclosure agreements, and the reason that they claim that the Russians interfered with the elections is they stole information that was supposedly proprietary, which involved psychological manipulation tactics and may have also involved requiring non-disclosure agreements.
Anderson Cooper assails Lara Trump over ‘send her back’ chant 07/20/2019
Lara Trump Blames MAGA Crowd For Racist Chant After Cuing It Up For Them 07/19/2019
LARA TRUMP before Trump took the stage at his North Carolina rally last night: “If you don’t love our country, the president said it: You can leave.” 07/18/2019
Trump Rehearsed and Planned Send Her Back Chant At Rally 07/18/2019
 |
| The original text of "Propaganda" phrases this as a question, as quoted above; however there are extensive other quotes to indicate that he has had some degree of success as partly controlling the "motives of the group mind," and others have improved the effectiveness of his research since then. |
The following are some of my past articles on UFOs followed by additional sources for this article, most of which have nothing to do with UFOs:
Hurricane Apocalypse Coming With or Without Fringe Conspiracy Theory
Why so few arrests for Crop Circles makers? Is there microwave evidence?
UFO Hypothesis Far More Credible Than Catholic Claim of A "Miracle Of The Sun"
Spectacular Heart Transplant for Sophia But at What Cost
Who's Controlling Oligarchies Dividing The Market? Aliens?
Do Aliens own Stock in Monsanto, DuPont, or Microsoft? This includes a list of most of my previous articles on this subject.
The following are additional sources for this article including several books about Propaganda that are available free on line and numerous articles about election fraud etc.:
Walter Lippmann "Public Opinion" 1922
Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky 1992 PDF
Noam_Chomsky "Necessary Illusions"
Edward Bernays "Crystallizing Public Opinion" 1923/1961
Edward Bernays "Crystallizing Public Opinion" 1923/1961 PDF
Edward L. Bernays > Quotes
Edward Bernays "Propaganda" 1928/1961
Now “public opinion” stood out as a force that must be managed, and not through clever guesswork but by experts trained to do that all-important job. Edward Bernays "Propaganda" 1928/2005
Asked if DNC system was rigged in Clinton's favor, Warren says 'yes' 11/03/2017 Tapper then asked, "Do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?" And Warren responded simply: "Yes."
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign. 11/02/2017
Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile agree the 2016 primary was rigged 11/02/2017 Update: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who comes from the Sanders wing of the party, just told CNN in response to Brazile's op-ed that the she believes the 2016 Democratic primary was "rigged."
Donna Brazile said the 2016 primary was rigged before she said it wasn't 11/07/2017
James Clapper March 2013 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing transcript Senator Wyden: So, what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question--does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions, of Americans?
Director Clapper: No, sir.
Senator Wyden: It does not?
Director Clapper: Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.
Lawmakers want James Clapper prosecuted for surveillance testimony before statute of limitations runs out 01/17/2018
Fair Elections Digest Volume 1, Number 2 October 31, 2002 This edition was written primarily by Steven Hill (shill@fairvote.org), senior analyst and author of "Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's Winner Take All Politics."
Quotes About Mission 2
Behind Closed Doors The Recurring Plague of Redistricting and the Politics of Geography by Steven Hill National Civic Review, Winter 2002, volume 91, issue 4, pages 317-330
Steven Hill "Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's Winner Take All Politics." 07/0/2019
Where People Didn't Vote: Graphic 07/12/2012 Four years ago, voter turnout in San Diego County reached record highs. During this year’s primary, it approached record lows. Let’s see they compared. Voter turnout in the June 5 primary was second weakest of any major election in the past three decades. About 37 percent of registered voters countywide ended up casting ballots. It’s a stark contrast from the 2008 general election that put Barack Obama in the White House. Voter turnout was the strongest of any major election in the past three decades. About 84 percent of registered voter cast ballots.
Why San Diego Lagged Behind All California Counties In Reporting Election Results 11/07/2018 Just 38 percent of San Diego County residents cast ballots Tuesday, according to data from the California Secretary of State. The county's turnout on Tuesday was less than half of its 81.5 percent rate in the 2016 November election and the lowest in a mid-term election in more than 35 years.
Philadelphia Voter Turnout Wasn't High. It Was Worse in the Suburbs 05/22/2019 1. Philadelphia: 22.62%
This Chart Shows Philadelphia Black Voters Stayed Home, Costing Clinton 11/19/2016
Kenney Says Philly Turnout Was High Tuesday. That’s Completely Untrue. 11/10/2016 Sixty-four percent of registered voters came to the polls. That’s actually four points lower than the 68 percent who showed up in 2008, and two points lower than the 66 percent who came out in 2012. ....... To make matters worse, about 346,000 of the city’s 1.2 million residents of voting age are currently not registered to vote.
North Carolina Had No Choice A House election tainted by fraud gets its inevitable do-over. 02/22/2019 Though Harris won by 905 votes in uncertified totals, an operative named McCrae Dowless had, according to numerous affidavits and accounts by people in Bladen County, run a huge scheme to stuff the ballot box for Harris using absentee votes.
Black Box Voting.org
Election Fraud and the Myths of American Democracy - Andrew Gumbel 2008
Mother Jones: Steal This Vote The US electoral system is deeply dysfunctional?and always has been. Andrew Gumbel interview 10/18/2005
Failing the Electoral Standards The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has been monitoring elections in emerging democracies ever since the fall of the Berlin wall, but now it has done something different By Andrew Gumbel 04/25/2005
"Every emancipation has in it the seeds of a new slavery, and every truth easily becomes a lie." “The Best of I.F. Stone”, p.47,
Ex‐Official Says He Stole 1948 Election for Johnson 07/31/1977 “It stuck out like a sore thumb,” Mr. Dibrell said. “Also. the last 202 names were made with the same colored ink. and in the same handwriting, whereas the earlier names in the poll list were written by different individuals and in different color inks.”
How Johnson Won Election He'd Lost 02/11/1990
"The Myth of Voter Fraud" By Lorraine C. Minnite 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment