Can we believe anything!

Organizations are full of people. I believe most people are inherently good until they were corrupted by the age old sin of greed. I don't consider myself immune from the sin of greed. Because let's face it most of us have played the fantasy game "what would you do for a million dollars?" and privately there really isn't much we would not have done. Not that I don't believe there are some good people out there that would not corrupt because they are out there. They have no desire to be leaders of nations. Probably because of the level of corruption makes them sick... Those that seek the truth can find it, but it's not easy. You must listen to all sides of the story. Most people are programmed to shut out whole story's when they hear or read a key word. It can be seen on this site over and over again. i.e. "You lost me at _______" , "I was with you until I got to_______". Whole books can be summed up into one word. Or words can be assigned to ideas and theories. One word can control people.

 

A very good read. I was a little concerned that it might have been a Zionist agenda at first but after reading for a minute that assumption was quickly put to rest. I knew Mr. Rosenberg was a Zionist, but I didn't know he is for the 1967 boarders and has rejected Israel since they tried expanding to the greater Israel in 1967. More proof not all Zionist are Nazis.

 

I found this definition on Wikipedia and thought it was relevant to this thread. I strongly recommend everyone read it. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques

 

Here is a small example of the link....Labeling
A Euphemism is used when the propagandist attempts to increase the perceived quality, credibility, or credence of a particular ideal. A Dysphemism is used when the intent of the propagandist is to discredit, diminish the perceived quality, or hurt the perceived righteousness of the individual. By creating a “label”, “category”, or “faction” of a population, it is much easier to make an example of these larger bodies, because they can uplift or defame the individual without actually incurring legal-defamation. Labeling can be thought of as a sub-set of Guilt by association, another Logical Fallacy

 

Milieu control
An attempt to control the social environment and ideas through the use of social pressure.

This can be seen everywhere.

 

It's just like every other day, PC. You have to do your own "due diligence". If you "trust" someone else to do that for you, then maybe you oughta be asking "why" you trust that person before you place faith in him. Otherwise, put on your Sherlock Holmes hat and grab Dr. Watson and the pipe, and let's figure out the truth. In my own personal opinion I haven't believed anything this government's told me since Kennedy got shot. Even now after fifty years they haven't told us the truth, and the bottom line is someone murdered our elected president and got away with it. And meanwhile when we do the FOIA requests so we can dig into the Kennedy thing, suddenly we discover all kinds of other horrible stuff like MK/ULTRA and Bordentown, and we slap our foreheads and think to ourselves, "no wonder they didn't want to tell us". But the truth is, it's still going on! The same people are in power now, that were in power then. The same backhanded undercover stuff goes on, and the CIA has the same relationship with the media that it did back then. Nothing changes if nothing changes. Human nature hasn't changed in ten thousand years. The minute there's codified law, there's also someone who thinks it doesn't apply to him, or finds a way to operate outside it with impunity. The fundamental assumption in my politics is that no one can be trusted (including me). That's where my politics begins.

 

I agree 100%

 

dys·phe·mism


/ˈdisfəˌmizəm/


noun

noun: dysphemism; plural noun: dysphemisms




a derogatory or unpleasant term used instead of a pleasant or neutral one, such as “loony bin” for “mental hospital.”

Dysphemism is a new word for me.

 

Excellent! Did you read the whole thing? I learned a lot or rather it made perfect sense of techniques I have seen repeatedly throughout my life and on these forums.

 

The truth can be propaganda as well, for example, the truth about 9/11 will not decrease conclusions thus emotions, because as soon as you start to connect the dots or make conclusions over an historical event or political topic you don't believe or don't trust, your mind is more active than when you didn't start findinf out these details, or fidning the answers your mind wants (because your mind is surviving, it needs info to feel secure, but deception (propaganda) can trigger the same feeling) In other words, curiosity killed the cat (curiosity is the thing that can lead a nation or population into a war)

One caused the other, and the other side started to become as evil as the one that started this chain reaction. First blood works like a trap.
Because evil acts like a chain reaction, it spreaded all over the world over thousands of years of history, and the contra reaction was terror, and political opposition, and mass demonstrations, so actions always cause reactions.

The most difficult thing about evil is to try to stand firm, not try to react to it (so all communications over all political topics and 9/11, Osama, ISIS, Bush, Obama, etc, etc, let million of people became part of evil, now you can see a chain reaction of communication, and it is very hard to put the genie back in the bottle, because every effort is going to increase communications in society)

When a majority succeed to stand firm a process cannot deepen (because less people are becoming part of a chain reaction of communication)

It is hard to not get influenced by evil, because propaganda acts like a trigger.
Even this reply can or will cause a response, this is why the chain reaction of communication continues to grow, it needs to stall, because when it does not slow down, a revolution can be the end result.
Revolutions are never good (not even an energy revolution which sounds good, because millions of people became part of a revolutionary process)

Standing firm, and sit and wait seems the only safe way out of chaos (but ofcourse the evil doers will try to lure you out of that motionless position, they need 'soldiers' in their wars, it's genetic, because it has to do with the overpopulation, so survival, because destruction of billions of people will lead to more space and natural resources of the remaining populations) Survival is neverending story, because it's primitive (human nature is, still is?)
It has to be like this, but if people break through that pattern, by standign firm, it can be the first time in history that this neverending story ends, a new kind of situation is the result (overpopulation, the fundamentel reason remains, so has to be dealth with one way or another, because this is a relatively small planet.

 

No, but I'm glad you asked. I went back and read the whole list of techniques, and then went to a couple in depth.
I thought that the list of "Thought-terminating clichés" was especially interesting, and almost funny:

Thought-terminating cliché
Edit

Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism popularized the term "thought-terminating cliché". This refers to a cliché that is a commonly used phrase, or folk wisdom, sometimes used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the clichéd phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.

Lifton said:[4][5]

“ The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.
”
In George Orwell's 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the fictional constructed language Newspeak is designed to entirely eliminate the ability to express unorthodox thoughts. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World society uses thought-terminating clichés in a more conventional manner, most notably in regard to the drug soma as well as modified versions of real-life platitudes, such as "A doctor a day keeps the jim-jams away".

In her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt described Adolf Eichmann as an intelligent man who used clichés and platitudes to justify his actions and the role he played in the Jewish genocide of World War II. For her, these phrases are symptomatic of an absence of thought. She wrote "When confronted with situations for which such routine procedures did not exist, he [Eichmann] was helpless, and his cliché-ridden language produced on the stand, as it had evidently done in his official life, a kind of macabre comedy. Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking attention that all events and facts make by virtue of their existence."[6]

Examples

General examples
◾“It works in theory, but not in practice.” (Base rate fallacy)
◾“Why? Because I said so.” (Bare assertion fallacy), “It makes sense to me, and that's all that matters.”
◾“I’m the parent, that’s why.”, “When you get to be my age you’ll find that’s not true.” (Appeal to authority).
◾“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.”
◾"This is the exception that proves the rule"
◾"Rules are rules.", “You just don’t do that.”, “Because that is our policy.”
◾“It's just common sense.”
◾“Everything happens for a reason.”
◾"Who do you think you are?"/"Who are you to..."
◾“Don't judge.”
◾“You don’t always get what you want.”, “You win some, you lose some.”
◾“Ah well, swings and roundabouts.”
◾“We already had this conversation.”, “It's not worth discussing.”
◾“We all have to do things we don't like.”
◾“Such is life.”, “It is what it is.” , “Whatever will be, will be.”
◾“You are not being a 'team player'.” (Ignoratio elenchi)
◾“Can't everybody just drop it and get along?” (used as an attempt to stop an ongoing debate or argument)
◾“Whatever.”, “Who cares?”
◾“Be a man and…”
◾“It's a matter of opinion!”, "It's all relative.", "That's just your feelings."
◾“You only live once.” (YOLO)
◾“We will have to agree to disagree.”
◾“Don't be silly.”
◾“There's no smoke without fire.” (used to convince others that a person is guilty based on accusation or hearsay and to discourage further examination of evidence)
◾“Me thinks thou dost protest too much.”, “The more you argue, the less we believe you.”
◾"People are going to do what they want."


Political examples Thought-terminating clichés are sometimes used during political discourse to enhance appeal or to shut down debate. In this setting, their usage can usually be classified as a logical fallacy.

Religious examples Thought-terminating clichés are also present in religious discourse in order to define a clear border between good and evil, holiness and sacrilege, and other polar opposites. These are especially present in religious literature.
◾"The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away." Job 1:21
◾"Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" (opposing same-sex marriage)
◾"That's not Biblical."
◾"God moves/works in mysterious ways."
◾"God never gives you more suffering than you can bear.”
◾"Only God can judge."
◾"God has a plan."
◾"The Lord works in mysterious ways."

 

By choosing not to take part you protect yourself from an unseen or seen evil. Because we know both are evil then by choosing one side or the other opens you up to be evil. You made a comment to me when I first joined this forum I believe the above quote finally adds meaning to that statement. I kind of thought this is what you ment that "only by staying home can you be a king in your own castle"
You are very wise xanadu. I should be more like you. I have learned about standing firm in the face of evil from the bible some time ago. I dismissed it as a brainwashing technique. I thought that by doing nothing would make things worse. I thought it would allow evil to continue its tyranny. I finally get it! The only way to know for sure one is not protecting evil or advancing it, is to not take part at all.

 

We have learned in the last 6 years not to believe anything Obama says or anything said by anyone in his admin!!!

 

I don't know if you are a US CITIZEN or not but if you are this link is a very interesting and informative read. Every US CITIZEN should read this. http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Contents.html

Read it and let me know what you think. I suggest reading it more than once. I'm going to read it for the second time and I will probably read it a third time just to make sure it's embedded in my memory. I have been investigating this for 10 years now and this site is the best at connecting the dots.

 

An American citizen lives in one of the 50 states and has inalienable rights secured by the state and national constitutions. He spells his name in upper and lower case letters.

A United States citizen may also live in one of the 50 states, as a resident, but has only privileges and immunities, with no constitutional protections. He spells his name with all capital letters.

Check all your licenses, bills, mortgages, deeds, credit cards, etc and see which one you are claiming to be!

You will notice that the 14th Amendment says that the States shall uphold the 'privileges and immunities' of United States citizens. What about their 'rights'? United States citizens, subject to the government, do not have a constitution, or inalienable rights. You cannot get that FROM a government. Property (artificial persons) can only have civil rights, privileges and immunities granted by the government. They are people that have been slightly upgraded from property (slaves) to having the privilege of being a citizen/subject of the United States government. It sounds much nicer! Remember that the amendment says U.S. citizens are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the government.

 

Part 2 of the 14th amendment also says that the states: shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; . Why does it make that statement? Didn't the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) already secure the inalienable rights of the American people? They sure did. Then why a second prohibition?

Legal scholars have argued that the Constitution only limited the powers of the federal government, not the state governments, so this was added in the 14th amendment to restrict the power of the states. Sounds good, doesn't it? But don't the constitutions of the 50 states already protect the inalienable rights of the state Citizens? They sure do! Do they need a national constitutional amendment to make them uphold their own state constitutions? Only if the state constitutions were no longer valid. Is your state constitution still valid? Yes. But, the truth is, state constitutions do NOT apply to federal 'property' (U.S. citizens).

 

The United States 'government' has jurisdiction only over areas delegated to it by the states and over property acquired by conquest. The state governments also, only have jurisdiction over the areas delegated to them by the state Citizens. Do the people control the government or does the government control the people? Can the government exercise powers not delegated to them? No. The problem is that you DID give them the power, when you waived your inalienable rights and claimed to be a U.S. citizen, subject to their jurisdiction. They just dangled a few carrots (federal benefits, ie: Social Security) over your nose and you grabbed them and asked to be a subject, so you could get MORE benefits. The states did the same thing, so they could get subsidies also

 

Truth- A man was killed by a police officer today after he attacked the officer and tried to take his weapon.

Propaganda- White cop shoots unarmed black man

 

For proof: If you claim constitutional rights in court, the judge will tell you that if you mention constitutional rights again, he will find you in contempt of court, and throw you in jail. He could do that ONLY if you were resident (property) of the state. Because then you would not have inalienable rights, secured by the state constitution

 

Inalienable rights are flagrantly violated on a daily basis by all levels of government, because most people have waived these rights and traded them for privileges. The problem is that so few people claim their inalienable rights anymore that they are no longer recognized by the government. The people would rather have privileges from the government. You can't claim to be a sovereign over the government, and at the same time claim benefits handed out by the government for their subjects. Does the King or Queen (you) apply for their own government's benefits, thereby becoming subjects of their own government?

 

I think it's less important what someone believes (or professes that they believe) and it's more important to focus on results of enacting their beliefs.

I mean if we have a country with 100 people in it and we raise the minimum wage to $40 per person. The belief and the intent was to help the people who make the least amount of money. But the results will be that the country will go into bankruptcy. So while the belief and intent was admirable, the results are exceedingly detrimental.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

You can prove this with video evidence? Or is it eye witness account's. To be the truth it has to be absolute, beyond a shadow of doubt. If you can prove this then and only then can this be seen as the"TRUTH"

 

Good example

 

The truth is "just the facts mam." Propaganda is adding commentary to and or distorting the facts.

Truth- A man was killed by a police officer today after he attacked the officer and tried to take his weapon.

Propaganda- White cop shoots unarmed black man

 

I see. So it was an example of a propaganda technique. Not a statement of your beliefs.