Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘manipulation’

Political INCORRECTNESS Food for Thought


waving flag

Still True Today

All about the vote Buying votes  or a liar Never-Hillary-Egl-sm Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

 

 

Obama taskforce studying how to “nudge” – er, control your behavior


http://allenbwest.com/2013/12/obama-taskforce-studying-nudge-er-control-behavior/#U0OL7AEbsfXc4IFD.99

Written by Allen  West on December 10, 2013
Obama1984
 “In a universe of deceit, truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Often  attributed to George Orwell, this statement is eerily appropriate in light of  this latest revelation about the Obama administration.

In Politico, Richard Williams reports:

Earlier this year, the White House revealed that it is establishing a task  force dedicated to studying how to motivate you—just as parents do—to do what  the government thinks is best for you.

Just another example of how well this administration is spending your  taxpayer dollars. Not.

Per Williams:

To be clear, Congress did not pass legislation authorizing such activity;  this is something dreamt up by bureaucracies to force their own preferences on  citizens, whether by combating obesity or discouraging procrastination when it  comes to saving for retirement.

The report goes on to explain the genesis of this very disconcerting  endeavor, called “behavioral economics”—the study of how psychology affects  people’s decisions. It most recently became a buzzword when former White House  official Cass Sunstein co-authored the book Nudge while Sunstein was  still a law professor at Harvard.

Williams reports:

In 2009, Obama appointed him as administrator of the Office of Information  and Regulatory Affairs, where Sunstein championed cost-benefit analysis of  regulation, as well as “nudges.” Sunstein left government in 2012 to return to  academia, but the “nudge” school of thought has clearly lingered in the Oval  Office: The newly created behavioral economics task force is the most prominent  example yet.

Just so you know, Sunstein is married to US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and when he testified before our House Small  Business Committee actually said “increased regulation is a means to create  jobs.” He believed that government must hire more people to enforce the new  regulations – yes, these are the types of people Obama has close to him.

President Obama and his progressive socialist disciples seek to turn the  United States into a “1984″-type totalitarian government-controlled society  where history is rewritten (see Common Core). Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling on the  Individual Mandate, government has the authority to modify individual behavior  by way of taxation, forcing you to purchase private sector industry products.

All of you who (still want to) think Barack Obama is a “likable cheeky” fella — you are wrong. He is a deceptive charlatan and manipulative despot. Right now,  the Democrats are crafting poll-tested messages and slogans to mentally enslave  America. Obey or rebel, the choice is yours — I have made mine.

Why the Democrats are Scared Out of Their Minds


http://lastresistance.com/3309/democrats-scared-minds/#kj46V5d1stsxHMw4.99

Posted By 

“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.” – Adolf Hitler
It’s been said that rhetoric is the art of controlling the minds of men. Political rhetoric takes words and places them in just such a way as to make an idea appeal to the largest possible audience. It is vocabulary manipulation, and it is extremely effective.

The Democrats have been using this strategy for as long as I can remember. Here’s the interesting part: rhetoric is directly linked to desperation. The larger, and more aggressive the imagery, the more desperate the Democrat. Case in point: Liberal radio host Stephanie Miller.

According to Breitbart, Miller said this of Republicans, in response to a listener’s comment regarding the battle over the debt ceiling/Obamacare:

“May I correct you? They are not holding your children hostage; they are trying to blow your children up. There is a difference…They are suicide bombers they are no longer hostage takers. They are no longer just regular terrorists they are suicide bombers.”

Honestly speaking, Republicans would never have attempted something like what they are currently doing just several years ago. It is through the influence of real leaders like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and David Vitter that they are finally standing up for the American people. This sudden bravery on the part of Republicans has the Left freaking out. They are running scared. Because many Liberals have never dealt with actual, warm-blooded opposition, they are overreacting in terms of rhetoric.

Liberals are desperate for the American people to believe in them, so they use frightening phrases like “suicide bombers,” “blowing your children up,” and “hostage takers” to rattle us. Imagery like that is often quite effective.

Right now, it may seem like the violent rhetoric is working, and for a time, it just might. But what Republicans need to do is think in the long term. The reason rhetoric works so well against Republicans is because they don’t fight back. There is no consistent opposition to the ridiculous accusations laid out by the Left. But that’s all changing. With new, emboldened leadership, other Republicans are being forced to step up their game. They are fighting fire with fire, and sticking to it.

Guess what? It’s working. The Left is scared out of their minds. It’s a great day. Expect the rhetoric to become even more violent and extreme so long as Republicans actually stick to their game.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil . . .” – Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)


PLEASE take the time to read the entire article I’ve published below. This man says what I have been wanting to say but lack the articulation he has. – Jerry Broussard

How to Take Back the Country, Step One. . .

Written on Sunday, April 28, 2013 by

index

 

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil . . . – Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

Four is five, and five is four.

In my column, The Line, I explained the underlying core issue dividing our country and why it’s time to draw the line. If you’ve stepped across and joined me on this side of the line, welcome to the breed of Lt. Col. Travis. This column will lay out one of the greatest weapons we can use to win the ideological war. This article is a little lengthy and requires some concentration, but if you cozy up with a drink and some time, you’ll be glad you did.

A couple of weeks ago I was talking with a good friend about the state of the country. He quoted Isaiah 5:20 and said, “I always wondered how a person could call ‘evil good, and good evil,’ but it’s obvious, it’s happening now.” He was right. It’s happening now, and we’re allowing it.

The power of words is remarkable. As a former stage hypnotist, current speechwriter, and law student I well understand the effect certain words have on the mind. One or two words can change the entire perception of a sentence, and therefore, a thought.

This is what happened to our country. Over the years, one or two words, here and there, created a dramatic shift in the populous toward the liberal agenda. Ironically, no one has brought it to light. From my expertise in words, I believe that if conservative pundits and leaders will adopt the tactic that I explain below, and aggressively use it in their media interactions, we will see the populous shift back to supporting constitutional principles.

First, how it’s happening.

To understand how society has been manipulated by words, let’s take a look at the infamous math riddle George Orwell made famous. In his book, 1984, Orwell explained the slogan “2+2 = 5” as a dogma that the Party presented as truth. The reason for this was because the actual fact that two and two equaled four was politically inexpedient. Since the logic explaining why 2+2 = 5 is bent, the conclusion stood only because the Party said so. The result was indubitable deference to the Party: whatever it said, was the controlled truth.

The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?” – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Interestingly, 2+2 can, through theory, mathematically equal 5. This gives a spooky awe to Orwell’s proposition. I’ve seen several different theorems that explain how two and two can make five but, in my opinion, two are especially intriguing. The trickiest theorem essentially states that upon starting with the truthful proposition that 20 = 20 (x = x), we can follow a logical sequence of “if thens” to finally prove that 4 = 5 (x = y).

Read the following slowly and do the math with me. Understanding this will prove both necessary and important when I explain how the left has used the tactic.

Instead of going through the full theorem, I’ll sum it up this way. To deduce from 20 = 20 that 4 = 5, you must use square roots. If one takes the equation 4 – 4.5, solves it and then squares it (-.5 x -.5) you’ll get .25; which is the exact same answer as 5 – 4.5 solved and squared (.5 x .5 = .25). So, if the square of the first equation, 4 – 4.5, equals the square of the second, 5 – 4.5, then the two equations are equal to each other. If they equal each other, then we may skip squaring each side and just work with their original forms. So, we have 4 – 4.5 = 5 – 4.5. We then solve each side to get -.5 = .5. Now add 4.5 to each side and, bam! The truth that 20 = 20 has now been deduced to show that it is the exact same as 4 = 5 (or 2+2 = 5) (new truth).

Of course, the presentation is much more convoluted than that, but those who are brushed up will spot the flaw. The problem is that, while the squaring the two equations creates the same result (.25 = .25), a negative number is not the same as a positive number. In other words, -.5 is not the same as .5, even though they both square up to equal .25. It’s all in the “if then” presentation. It’s a matter of the conclusion versus logic.

The second theorem goes through similar steps, but in the end its flaw is that it requires dividing by 0. The novice mathematician doing mental math performs the function despite the error and arrives at the controlled conclusion. The problem is that it’s mathematically impossible to divide any number by zero.

Now, welcome back. So, what does all this fuzzy math have to do with the left’s words? Well, if 4 can be 5, then of course it’s possible for good to be evil, and evil to be good. Fuzzy math teaches us “doublespeak.”

Although the term “doublespeak” is not explicitly used in 1984, most attribute its origins to George Orwell. The basic concept is to deliberately disguise, distort, or reverse the meaning of words. In mathematical terms, the target word (x) is assigned a new definition (y). But the definition has a flaw (like dividing by zero or presenting a negative to be equal to a positive). However, with the right presentment, the flaw can be overlooked and I can make good become evil and visa versa. Soon enough the majority of the population believes the new truth, even those on the right.

Let’s turn to some examples. Since the Gosnell trial hasn’t been respectively covered, let’s use that topic.

Somewhere along the line, we accepted the labels of “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” How ridiculous. Where is the word “abortion”? After all, that is the beginning point (20 = 20). The left justifies their it by claiming their label means they support “a woman’s right to choose.” Choose what exactly? To own an AR-15? To support cutting entitlements and scaling back government? Ending affirmative action? Freeing the market from burdensome regulations? Supporting traditional marriage as the only definition of marriage? No, the left vilifies all of these. They support a woman’s choice to have an abortion. Period. So, let’s call it what it is. They are not “pro-choice,” they are “pro-abortion.”

Start saying “pro-abortion” on a regular basis and watch what happens! Since the word “abortion” doesn’t feel very good, I suspect you will see an immediate back-pedal. “No, no, no. We aren’t ‘pro-abortion,’ we just support a woman’s right to choose, for herself, to have an abortion.” Illogical. The pro-abortionist tries to equate positives and negatives. One cannot support a person’s right to choose an abortion without necessarily supporting the practice itself. Their argument is the same as me supporting a woman’s choice to kill her neighbor. “I’m not ‘pro-neighbor-killing myself, but I support a woman’s choice to do it.”

Oh, but neighbor killing isn’t the same as abortion because the neighbor is alive? Now we’re dividing by zero. Is the living cell in the womb not just as alive as the living cell in the neighbor?

Oh? The cell is alive, but the fetus isn’t viable? Nonsense. The 6-moth old baby, the 6-day old newborn, and even the 6-year old child are just as dependent on their mother for survival as the 6-day old zygote.

And deeper we go, exposing how pro-abortionists divide by zero to make abortion equal “supporting a woman’s choice.” This is how four has become five . . . how evil has become good. Words and their presentation.

No. “Pro-choice” is pro-abortion. And pro-abortion is pro-dismembering fetuses. Hmmmm, maybe we should start using the latter term?

Feel the power of words? And that is just one example.

Try “affirmative action.” Break down its logic and you get the actual fact: race preference or race favoring. (Believe me, I’ve studied the line of affirmative action cases. You’d be amazed at the preference systems colleges have tried to give non-Caucasians.)

“Gun control” is doublespeak for gun taking through regulation. The faulty premise here is that the left claims “gun control” bills do not come out and call for an actual gun confiscation. This is their presentation: “No one is taking away your guns.” But they mask the negative integer. The regulations are actually so strict that it becomes nearly impossible to obtain or keep your guns and ammo. It is, at the very core, confiscation via regulation. (Regulatory takings are unconstitutional under Supreme Court case law. See also my column, The Emporer’s Pen and the Extent of His Power for more on this.)

“Entitlements” is doublespeak for dependence.

“An act of terror” is doublespeak for terrorist attack, or more bluntly, and as is the case in most situations, Islamic terrorist attack.

“Assault rifle.” Laughable. I would argue that every rifle can “assault,” since that word is only a noun and never an adjective. This is doublespeak for semi-automatic rifle.

And of course, “political correctness” is doublespeak for, well, doublespeak.

The list goes on, but the point is this, the left has successfully made evil good by using faulty premises and great presentation. The left is controlling the narrative because the right has rolled over and accepted doublespeak simply because the left has said so. Sadly, I can think of only one political leader who has ever challenged the flaw on the air. Everyone else is deathly afraid of being called “racist,” “sexist,” or whatever (do we need to break down the logic on those words too?).

It’s time to fight back with words.

I call on every patriot, pundit, and conservative who has a voice and a far-reaching medium to quit accepting the left’s manipulative doublespeak and start using truthspeak. Remember, one or two words can change the entire perception of a sentence, and therefore, a thought. Truthspeak resets the public’s perception and thoughts back to the original truth. This is why the left tries to eviscerate leaders like Allen West. Truthspeak is the left’s primary enemy, and he’s the only one I can think of off the top of my head who publicly speaks it.

Therefore, my fellow Americans, let us declare in our dialogues and monologues, our posts and our tweets, speeches and interviews that two and two do not equal five simply because it feels better to say. Good feelings were never the predicate of truth. Two and two make four, but only for as long as we guard its underlying logic. No more passive defensiveness. Go on the offensive! A Spade is not an upside down heart, so why accept the flaw and call it one? Call a spade a spade! Flood their minds with truth and watch the public support for the left buckle and fall.

Mark. My. Words.

That choice is yours to make. That choice—the dedication to one’s highest potential—is made by accepting the fact that the noblest act you have ever performed is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that two and two make four.” – John Galt

Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/how-to-take-back-the-country-step-one/#ixzz2RosAtYlw

 

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: