Consumer Politics and Propaganda

Consumer Politics and Propaganda

 A new kind of politics is being practiced in America with new and old forms of propaganda.  I call it consumer politics. It begins with party leaders looking for special interest groups that can support their party.  Then they try to sell themselves to the group as the party that can get them what they want.  In essence, the party leadership is looking for consumers that will buy their leadership with their vote.  When the party finds their consumers, they then begin the propaganda to get the rest of the party to support the new special interest group.  Once they have enough of the party faithful convinced, they move on to try to win the sympathy of the general public.  Of course, at the same time, looking for more special interest groups so they can buy their votes; as time goes on the available groups get smaller and their issue gets more and more absurd.

One of the most effective forms of propaganda used by the party leaders is for them to get the party members to view the special interest group that is come on board as the underdog.  By making the new special interest the underdog you can manipulate the emotions of people and make an appeal to their compassion while demonizing the opposition.  With this technique, you can actually make the party faithful feel virtuous when supporting evil.  Once this underdog value system is set up in the minds of people, all other values will take a back seat.  We see an extreme case of this in some Americans who view the terrorist as underdogs and therefore come to their defense.  The question to these folks is no longer who is right or wrong or what is good or evil, but who is the underdog?  The underdog is always right, and the overdog is always wrong.  This form of propaganda is especially affective by those involved in class warfare.  In class warfare, the overdogs, who are the rich, demonize except for the one on the underdogs’ team.

Both the Nazis and the Communists used underdog propaganda to further their agenda.  The Nazis made the Jews the over dogs that controlled all the money and the medical profession and the German people were betrayed as the underdogs.  This gave the right and yes, the obligation to deal with this problem.  Of course, Hitler came up with the final solution.  The Communists used the same tactic on the rich and finally on the middle class, making them overdogs that the proletariat had to overthrow.

Another form of manipulation is to subtlely change the subject without letting your opponent and the audience knowing it.  To do this effectively the new subject must be emotionally charged and have a personal interest and benefit to the people you are trying to manipulate.  The best example of this is the abortion issue.  The debate was changed from abortion and when life starts, to woman’s rights.  This change in subject effectively closed the debate for the party faithful which now feel justified that they and their party are the virtuous ones for protecting women’s rights, even while being responsible for millions of abortions.

The pro-abortion movement was also aided by throwing into the mix lifeboat ethics, which basically used the fear of overpopulation to promote and justify abortion and at the same time giving people the feeling that they were saving the world by supporting abortion.  Lifeboat ethics propaganda was used intensely in the sixties to sway a whole party into supporting abortion even though it was contrary to their religious beliefs, which demonstrates the power of propaganda that is based on our fears and selfishness.

These forms of propaganda are being used by the gay rights movement.  They effectively changed the subject from a moral question to a civil rights issue with the help of a political party that wanted their support.  They then marketed the idea that they were the underdogs, being discriminated against as the blacks.  They accomplished this through their party and the help of the media, even though gay’s educational lever is higher than the average American and their income is much higher than the average American.  However, once you win the underdog status you cannot lose in American.  We love the underdog even if he is wrong.

Still another example of supporting the underdog whether right or wrong is the conflict between the nation of Israel and the Arab nations around them.  When Israel was viewed as the underdog everyone was on their side.  However, when the issue was changed from the nations around them to the Palestinians who were viewed as the underdogs, many turned against Israel even though in many cases Israel was right morally.

What does this do to people and political parties?  It puts a political party into the category of a religion, a place that no political party should occupy.  In essence, the party begins to shape people’s values and their loyalties through its propaganda.  I personally know a number of people that put their parties’ platform before their religious teachings.  Having your party serve as your religion also allows people to get a feeling of rightness for supporting the party no matter what the party is doing.  This is exactly what happened in Germany and Russia.  It seems to me that a feeling of righteousness should come from doing good, not from being a member of a political party. Lyle

 

The Myth of Multiculturalism, How to Destroy a Culture with Identity Manipulation

The Myth of Multiculturalism

How to Destroy a Culture with Identity Manipulation

Every culture on the face of the earth has its identifying traits and it is those identifying traits that make it a culture.  If you change those identity traits you change the existing culture and if you change enough of those distinctive traits, you actually destroy the culture by turning it into something other than the culture you started with.

There are a number of threats to true multiculturalism today.  One of them is radical individualism, which is tied to the philosophy of liberalism, and the second one is globalization, which is coming from or has its roots in, global capitalism.  Both, in turn, have led to increased centralized planning, in order for large multinational companies to gobble up the world’s capital.  This centralized planning has led to an increasingly larger government.  This bigger government believes that it can manipulate numerous societies to create a one-world empire and culture.  The problem with all of this is that its’ promoters fail to see that the individual gets their identity and sense of selfhood from their culture. Their cultures are based not on their similarities with other cultures, but on their differences.  If you remove the differences, you take away the very soul of the individuals who make up those cultures.   When a people lose their identity or sense a threat to their identity they will suffer an existential emptiness brought about by the loss of that distinct uniqueness and identity.  Over time, this loss of identity will in turn lead to social unrest.

True multiculturalism is the world the way it is with all its different cultures, its borders and its nations.  The expression ‘multiculturalism’ as used today is a ‘melting pot’, which is the very opposite of multiculturalism.  The corrupt use of this word represents the globalist’s last effort to destroy true multiculturalism and to replace it with uniformity (political correctness).  The world with all of its diversity is simply the way it has to be in order for it to be truly multicultural.  In fact, it seems that it has evolved that way, which means that it is natural, and you cannot fool mother nature for very long without experiencing her wrath.  However, modern man, especially those of the west and on the left, seem to believe that they can change human nature.  Some even go so far as to say that man has no nature thereby expressing the blank slate theory of human nature.  Nevertheless even they have created a new culture, or cult, which could be called the ‘culture of nobody or nothing’. A cult that is already causing havoc in the west.

The way to have real multiculturalism is simply to leave things alone, to leave them the way they were created by nature and the Creator, which seems to be extremely hard for the Western intellectual myth-makers who think of themselves as the saviors of the world.  These intellectuals, since the time of the enlightenment, have been spewing out their nonsense with lesser men gobbling up their vomit.

One of the best arguments against the myth of multiculturalism is the very country that people use for an example of multiculturalism, that is the USA.  America is referred to as a melting pot. Even the metaphor itself is a contradiction to multiculturalism. The metaphor points to many cultures becoming something other than any one of them, as they melt together:  The many become one.  However, the premise that they become one if they melt together itself, is questionable.  If you have a subculture that refuses to meld in, it will become the source of many social problems that can weaken a culture.  And if a culture that resists assimilation gets large enough, it will actually become the culture. The parasite consumes its host.

It has been said that Rome united the world through its multiculturalism.  However, it also divided the world.  It is a known fact that when Rome invaded other nations,  they would remove its ruling class and many of the lesser classes and bring in foreign immigrants.  They knew that this would weaken the culture and help prevent rebellion.  I’m sure you’ve heard the statement that “diversity is our strength,” well; Rome had diversity and diversity did not save it from decay and complete collapse.  We could gather from this that our national leaders today are either ignorant of this, or they are attempting to control the masses and weaken them by dividing them and pitting them against each other.  Either way these leaders are pathetic.

 

 

 

 

Cognitive Pathology and Consensus

Cognitive Pathology and Consensus

What is cognitive pathology?  It is the study of the source or origin of a belief, in other words, why people think the way they do.  You have probably experienced someone informing you, that you believe a certain view because of some hidden motives.  For example, someone declares that you are a Republican because you believe in capitalism, or you are Democrat because you believe in big government.

Atheists often use cognitive pathology to explain away the validity of the believer’s faith.  This has been the case from Feuerbach to Bertrand Russell.  Both Feuerbach and Russell seemed to believe like many atheists, that if you could explain the source or cause of peoples belief, that basis would invalidate those beliefs as being rational.  Of course, this kind of thinking is not unique to atheism.  It is a method used by many to attack or dismiss any arguments made against their beliefs on any subject.

I have run across this thinking in politics and science.  For instance, if you are against the theory of manmade global warming, you must be a capitalist or own stock in an oil company, For that reason you cannot face the truth about climate change therefore, I need not to bother myself with answering your arguments.  Another example would be; if you believe in smaller government, you must be a libertarian, therefore, all your criticism of government must be untrue and comes from your prejudices.  This is not to say that climate change is not real nor is it an endorsement of small government, it is simply an example of how people will use cognitive pathology to win an argument, or to avoid any possible argument against their belief system.

The problem with cognitive pathology is that it is often used as a form of reductionism  to reduce human emotions and thoughts down to one source.  This kind of thinking is common in a scientific age that has tried to reduce everything down to cause and effect; believing that everything can be reduced to one cause.  Another problem is that even if you could reduce a person’s belief on an issue to a single cause, that would not itself nullify a person’s belief or prove it to be false.  The belief itself must still be examined for its truthfulness.  Otherwise cognitive pathology becomes nothing more than a personal begging of the question, which I find often to be the case with those that continually use this kind of  circular reasoning.

A similar concept to cognitive pathology is the argument from a consensus.  In this form of argument, the person simply asserts that their position is correct because that’s what the majority believe.  This is usually done without proof as to what the majority actually believes.  Furthermore, proving what the majority believes in, is a massive job, which most people are not willing to undertake.  So, if someone uses the argument of consensus simply ask for proof, if the consensus is not self-evident.

I have run across a number of atheists who use consensus arguments to try to support their unbelief.  They say something like this, “the majority of scientists do not believe in God.”  To begin with, this is a pretty large blanket affirmation to make without any hard evidence to confirm it; and without the evidence it is nothing but  dishonest propaganda.  In fact, if you Google the question, you’ll find a lot of polling data on the subject and in my study of different polls, it looked pretty close that those  who believe in a higher power edged out the unbelievers by a couple of points[1].  One of problems with polling of this type is that it usually does not consider the difference between the types of scientists that are being interviewed.  What is called the ‘soft’ sciences like psychology, psychiatry and sociology, would to encompass a much larger number of unbelievers because much of their studies are based on a methodology other than the scientific method, which for many put them outside of a true science.

Cognitive pathology and consensus arguments are the preferred tool of the pseudo-educated class and status quo class to cover up their bias and to discredit the arguments of their opponents without answering the argument.[2]  Using these two techniques, they can dismiss arguments with little or no thought, much less a good argument.  Some use them to support an ego that has run amok.  Sometimes, I myself have practiced it, though hopefully noting it in the context of my writing, that in the end it proves nothing other than a person has the analytical skills to dissect the motives of others; and let me hasten to point out that in the majority of cases humans have more than one motive for doing or believing something.

The closest explanation, to explaining the source of faith and unbelief is William James book “The Will to Believe”[3].  In his book, James who was a psychiatrist and a philosopher postulates the theory that people basically believe what they want to believe about God.  James believed that a man’s will was their source of faith or unbelief as much as reason.  However, it is seldom reason alone that dictates whether a person believes in God or not.  He also points out that conditioning and temperament can make a person dead to a particular belief.[4]  By the expression “dead to a belief” he means that a person will not even consider looking at it or engage his reasoning to examine it.

[1] According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.  By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006.  Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.  Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.  Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, conducted in May and June 2009

[2] This is done in political debate by inferring that one’s opponent is racist or homophobic.  This infers that their statements or arguments come from a racial or gender bias.

[3] “The Will to Believe: and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy”

[4] James believed that temperament and disposition are some of the major factors in what people believe about things and especially metaphysical things.  You can read about this in his book on pragmatism.

Immigration

In the next few months the president and Congress will be undertaking immigration reform. It is imperative that the American people understand the complexity of this issue and its importance. It is obvious that the subject has been neglected for years because of the partisan politics involved. Both parties are competing for the large block of immigrants coming into the country and big business is putting pressure on the government to leave the borders open so they can have an endless surplus of cheap labor. Neither group, the politicians or the corporations are thinking about the long-term effects of mass immigration on the United States. Watch the below video it will blow your mind about immigration.

Conspiracy, Conspiracy, Conspiracy

The latest way for the left to reject the truth is to  call it a conspiracy. Then they simply pass off all evidence as a far right conspiracy. Once the label is applied they cease their inquiry into the evidence. However, the following video should give them pause for it is evident that Kennedy believed in a conspiracy against the country that was going on in  secret and in high places. After viewing the video and giving it some thought, take a look at George Soros and his army of useful idiots that are undermining our country. He has given $100 million to the DNC and has funded millions more to them through his shadow organizations. Watch the video on him after Kennedy’s on lyleduell.me. Hit below link.

The Timid Preachers Among Us

  • The Timid Preachers Among Us

Ephesians 5:11-13

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.

In my interaction with the clergy and those in full time religious work, I hear a lot of concerns about the faith becoming irrelevant for the majority of the people.  I think this is and should be a real concern, because this isn’t an idle observation or concern, but the truth.  Religious leaders have become ill, relative to the people in western culture.  The clergy has become a group of people whose sole purpose is to make their people feel good, inflate the membership and teach them abstract doctrines that have no relationship to real life, or sometimes God.

It seems that most religious leaders are quite content with being muzzled by our secular culture that would and has relegated the clergy to second-rate citizens that are not allowed to speak about politics in the public square or in their pulpits.  This seems to be true even though the government and society is corrupt and doing evil things.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about all of this is that the clergy in private seems to think of themselves as great defenders of the truth.  However, the only truth they stand for is truth that is convenient and non-offensive.  This all becomes quite obvious, when you look through Face book and see an amazing absence of any real content posted by preachers.  Most of the posts that are submitted about the corruption of politicians and government are posted by laypeople.  Little is said by the clergy about anything that is controversial.  So the Christian movement has become an army of foot soldiers with its officers hiding behind the wall of  separation  between the church and state.  By the way, that wall was erected by a corrupt politician, Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954, and then voted in by a bipartisan ballot in Congress. Just think, large corporations can do anything they want politically and yet nonprofits like churches, American Legion and veterans organizations have no say, less they lose their tax-free status.

The consequence of this withdrawal from the real world is that the church and its leadership have ceased being the light of the world and the salt of the earth.  They are more like sugar and spice and everything nice.  The result is; the world, western culture, and the church, are filled with corruption and decay.  My counsel to the clergy is for them to take their heads out of the sand.  Stop speaking platitudes to the choir and get your holy hands dirty and engage the world.  If you haven’t noticed there is a war going on.