Walter Scott is seen here being executed for having the unmitigated audacity to disrespect a cop who was going to arrest him by running away. Who knew that nonpayment of child support was a capital offense in South Carolina?
Forget anything and everything you’ve heard or thought about police shootings. This isn’t Ferguson or Michael Brown or Eric Garner or Tamir Rice or even Akai Gurley. Those cases involved at least the initial argument that a suspect/perp did something that might have warranted an officer’s activities. Michael Brown menaced Officer Darren Wilson. Eric Garner resisted arrest and died from the rigors of the arrest process and not being shot or beaten. This case is different. Drastically. Walter Scott was executed by an officer who never apparently thought of giving chase. Who shot Scott, as many have stated, like a deer. For sport. Sick sport. No argument could be made that this man posed a threat as he merely ran away and never even looked back, nothing furtive or threatening in the least. No feasible and available argument to explicate why this officer summarily dispatched this man. None.
We don’t need no stinkin’ grand jury. This North Charleston police officer, now charged with murder, decided he wasn’t going to give chase to a 50 year-old, out of shape traffic and child support miscreant. No, siree! Give chase?! Are you kidding? This cop violated every known rule of police pursuit known to mankind without exception. “When you’re wrong, you’re wrong,” North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said, announcing the arrest. “When you make a bad decision, I don’t care if you’re behind the shield or a citizen on the street, you have to live with that decision.” It will be a tutorial in police academies (I hope) for generations to come.
Michael Slager (CREDIT: Charleston Police Department)
This is the judge and executioner of Walter Scott. Add to the mix his cockamamie story about having Scott trying to wrest his Taser away from him — a Taser that he’s seen apparently dropping next to the dead, limp and bullet-riddled Scott — and there’s your opening for some serious Justice Department investigation. Notice also this mindless cop SOP thing about insisting that everyone be handcuffed behind their back even after they’ve clearly and absolutely are immobilized after HAVING BEEN SHOT IN THE BACK FIVE TIMES! His insistence upon protocol apparently didn’t include a cognizance of even determining whether he had probable cause or justification to use deadly force. Thank Gawd there was a video and thank Zeus the videographer who was in proximity wasn’t roughed or even worse. The fact that Scott was shot in the back as verified by a coroner’s report wouldn’t necessarily have provided his guilt for he could have alleged a furtive or quick or sinister move that precipitated such. No, thanks to Little Brother, Big Brother was nabbed in the act. And emphasis cannot be made enough as to the rarity of a cop charged with murder. Bravo!
What is this? Is it revenge porn? Is it someone posting the documentation of how proud he is to be associated with a sylph of this nubility? Is it sextortion? Is it a retweet of a picture sent from the lass contained therein? It’s the motivation of the poster that determines in great part the criminal exposure (pun intended) and therein lies the problem.
Hey, Stuart Smalley, butt out! Al Franken, the constitutional jack the Ripper, who decided that net neutrality was a great thing all of a sudden, wrote a letter to the FBI. “As technologies rapidly advance, it is our responsibility to ensure that our nation’s laws keep pace with those technologies. But it is also our responsibility to ensure that existing laws are strictly enforced.” Remember Lionel’s Law: the law always lags behind technology. Well, what this represents is yet another example of your government trying to claw back the jurisdiction it lost when the Internet got out of control after DARPA and ancillary institutions began its research in the early 60s. The government’s attacking the Internet on many fronts: net neutrality via Title II of the Communications Act, copyright and intellectual property statutes, decency, national security, perhaps licensing and the Fairness Doctrine and now revenge porn.
Here come the lawsuits . . . and it’s about time. In 2014 the ACLU and a broad coalition of bookstores, newspapers, photographers, publishers, and librarians filed a federal lawsuit challenging an Arizona law that criminalizes speech protected by the First Amendment.
[T]he law criminalizes far more than such offensive acts, and it is not limited to “revenge.” A prosecutor need not prove that the person publishing the photograph intended to harm the person depicted. Likewise, a person who shares a photograph can be convicted of a felony even if the person depicted had no expectation of privacy in the image and suffered no harm. The law applies even when the person in the picture is not recognizable, and the law is not limited to “porn” – it criminalizes publication of nude and sexual images that could not possibly be considered pornography, let alone obscene.
It’s all covered, Sparky. Think of what can qualify under revenge porn or even sextortion, both involving the dissemination of information without consent that proves “embarrassing.” Think about news stories and storied Congressmen who snap photos of their genitals and sext away. When the news media publish them, they are guilty under these most vague statutes. Reports and exposés of Abu Ghraib depicting detained Muslim men forced to simulate fellatio whilst nude or appearing nude. It’s the question of overbreadth that plagues so many issues of constitutional import not to mention the following statute of note.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of “interactive computer service providers,” including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish. [Source]
The late Michael Mahon Hastings was a journalist, author, contributing editor to Rolling Stone and reporter for BuzzFeed. LA Weekly reported that he was preparing new reports on the CIA at the time of his incineration in 2013. He was 33 years old. Nothing to see here.
Cool, huh? Hardly. As and per usual the media and consumer public have no ability to look beyond and behind the story and look deeper. With the advent of automation and the automaton, AI, drones and driverless cars the implications are frightening, to put it mildly. One day you’ll be a passenger in your car, not a driver, but a mindless passenger. You’ll be driven where you’re allowed to drive and should there be an accident of any sort, the issue of liability will be raised most assuredly.
Who killed Michael Hastings? Read this great piece on various speculation as to Hastings’ potential assassination. And where would anyone get that crazy notion. Oh, Dick Clarke, perhaps. “Wait, are you telling me that there is yet another example of a story I know nothing about because the media have yet again failed to do their job?” Ahem.
Could it be true? Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard A. Clarke said that what is known about the crash is “consistent with a car cyber attack”. He was also quoted as saying “There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers—including the United States—know how to remotely seize control of a car. So if there were a cyber attack on [Hastings’] car—and I’m not saying there was, I think whoever did it would probably get away with it.” Ouch. But I digress. Watch the following horrors infra to see how farfetched that is.
Run! In the horror video that follows, Dr. Kathleen Fisher, a DARPA program manager, talks candidly and eerily jovially about the ability to hack into automobile computer systems. She candidly explains how it is possible to remotely control modern cars through Bluetooth and smart phone technology and destroy them. As I trust you know, DARPA, the acronym of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, is the Department of Defense research agency responsible for the development of new technologies for use by the military. Her incredibly troubling address demonstrates that such an ability exists and the Pentagon has researched it and that should send shivers up and down your spine. She makes the comments within the first three minutes of the following video.
Send in the drones. Will drones be viewed as stalking devises, provocations of war? Subjects of harassment? After the umpteenth drone gets sucked up into a passenger jet turbine and disaster results, we’ll see how many people still love drones and UAVs. Not to mention the horrors caused in Yemen via our own POTUS Barry.
The commercial drone industry is in its infancy, so much so, that the FAA is having a difficult time separating aerial drone photography from actual commercial use. One thing the FAA seems to have a clear understanding of is Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ intent to fill our skies 400 feet or below with drones whizzing packages to Amazon’s Prime Members. Amazon has been awarded the FAA’s Experimental Airworthiness Certificate. Allowing Bezos to adhere to the FAA’s provisions. What could go wrong? [Source]
The Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System is the world’s largest known fossil water aquifer system. It is located underground in the Eastern end of the Sahara Desert. Gaddafi had invested $25B into the aquifer, which he announced had the potential to turn Libya that is 95 percent desert into an arable and fertile oasis. You know how that ended.
California’s nothing. California Goober Jerry Brown this week ordered mandatory water reductions for the first time ever in California’s history, citing the state’s four-year drought crisis after a winter of record-low snowfalls. This is nothing compared to what’s in store. I’ve written about this and have been most outspoken. In September of last year I penned the following tour de force, ’twas hailed by critics! I commend it to you herewith.
“In 1906, Pablo Valencia, dared the journey from Mexico to California in search of gold. He survived without water for a week, seven days. He was rescued and documented the experience of thirst. Saliva becomes thick. The tongue swells so large that it squeezes past the jaws. The throat so swollen that breathing becomes difficult creating a terrifying sense of asphyxiation. The face feels full due to the shrinking of the skin. Many people begin to hallucinate. The eyelids red, the eyeballs begin to weep tears of blood. When Pablo Valencia was found, his skin was like purplish grey leather, scratched but with no traces of blood. His lips were disappeared as if squished and contriturated. His nose was at so hard its length. His eyes trapped in an insensate stare. This is not a film about saving the environment, it’s a film about saving ourselves, because whatever one’s environmental, political or religious opinions, whatever one’s race, sex or economic standing, whoever of us goes without water for a week, cries blood.”
Recalibrating the notion of right. Let me review a few things. First, we are in the third wave of colonialism. The first two saw gold and petro-imperailsm as its goals and now it’s hydrology and hydro-imperialism. There is no way to find alternatives to water and hydration. The human body is funny that way. And Mama Nature has steadfastly announced that the supply of the world’s water is necessarily limited and fixed, this despite the fact that demand is rising as the world’s exploding and burgeoning population increases without surcease. (Unless the eugenicists have a crack at changing that.)
Another commodity to seize, another vehicle of imperialism. By 2030 climate vicissitudes, population growth, critical pollution, deforestation and rampant urbanization will multiply to such an extent that the demand for water globally is estimated to outstrip supply by 40%! There are no stopgap measures available, as you may have noticed. Keep in mind also that as a dutiful and unquestioning mainstream media sign off on each and every military adventure allegedly caused by the terrorist bad guy du jour, the real reason for hostilities, the real casus belli will be water.
The current Chairman and former CEO of Nestlé, the largest producer of food products in the world, believes that the answer to global water issues is privatization. This statement is on record from the wonderful company that has peddled junk food in the Amazon, has invested money to thwart the labeling of GMO-filled products, has a disturbing health and ethics record for its infant formula, and has deployed a cyber army to monitor Internet criticism and shape discussions in social media. [Global Research December 2013]
Right? What right? Increasingly, for water to be useful, it needs to be mined, processed, packaged, and transported, just like gold, coal, gas or oil. Unlike oil, there are no substitutes, alternatives or stopgaps for water. And with that come inordinate and incomprehensible potentials for mind-blowing profit. This is a marvelous treatise I commend to you.
“Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.”
According to the U.S.-based Center for Public Integrity, Western nations stand to make up to a US$1 trillion from privatizing, purifying and distributing water in a region where water often sells for far more than oil.
Although over two thirds of our planet is water, we face an acute shortage. This scarcity flies in the face of our natural assumptions. The problem is that 97 percent is salt water. Great for fish, not so good for humans. Of the world’s fresh water, only one percent is available for drinking, with the remaining two percent trapped in glaciers and ice.
Put differently: if all the water on earth was represented by an 11-litre jug, the freshwater would fill a single cup, and we can only access the last drop.
“I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.” – Indiana Governor Mike Pence
It is written. In the spirit of the good book, I’d like to reference this moment of inspiration. “She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.” (Ezekiel 23:20 NIV)
I gain such strength from the clarity of his word. And marvel at its continued relevance in my life. Truly. As I am amazed at the room for expansionary re-organization into a modern perspective. Never hoary, never anachronistic, never antediluvian. Never.
Pass the ammunition. Mike Pence (that feller supra) may be seeking the GOP nomination if only in his dreams. He’s repeatedly defended Indiana’s law and has referred to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by Bill Clinton and similar legislation once supported by then-Illinois state legislator Barack Obama. As his Aha! moment, ostensibly. But at the time Obama supported the law, it seems Illinois had a provision barring discrimination based on sexual orientation which the Indiana statute lacks. Oops. Pence and his folks say the law, which was passed overwhelmingly by the Republican-led state legislature (imagine that!), will merely keep the government from forcing businesses to act against strongly held religious beliefs they may claim warrant and justify discrimination. Sounds fair to me. Right?
Let us prey. Let’s review the statute, shall we? Indiana’s version of RFRA states in part as follows.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
E pluribus whatever. Now, let’s compare it to the Federal RFRA.
(a) IN GENERAL - Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION - Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person–
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
See the difference? Because there is none. It’s a waste of time and potentiality patently palpably unconstitutional on all counts. The government is attempting to address a series of criteria and standards for private business owners to apply before exercising rights that should remain unencumbered. And as horrible as discrimination may seem and in fact is, the legislation that is concocted to address it is worse than the problem itself.
All this about a wedding cake? Seriously? What inane and insane commercial kamikaze would dare ruin business over something as stupid as a cake. what’s more, who in their right mind would want to frequent and patronize an establishment that didn’t want their business? Not to mention, the chance and temptation for a terrorist Pillsbury Carlos the Jackal wannabe to plop a dollop of egesta into the batter matter (à la “The Help“) should dissuade all but the most ardent of point makers. The argument is silly, the cause a waste of time. Shop owners and private commercial establishments have the right to exclude anyone they want. And then suffer the consequences.
A cult is defined as a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object or a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing. Any questions?
What is a cult? According to the HBO documentary “Going Clear” and Alex Gibney Scientology is. It’s not a religion, clearly. At least that’s what it suggests. And what’s a religion? Dunno. When is a faith system bogus? Not sure. How does Scientology compare with others? Hard to say. But don’t let these great questions get in the way of a mediocre documentary. You see, collectively we all agree that it’s OK to pile on these folks. And just for the record, yeah, I think they’re nuts. Not Scientologists, all religions. But nuts or not, it’s their right. And how the IRS is to apply a series of rational criteria to determine what is and isn’t valid is beyond me. Note how just some religions are mocked. Certainly never climate change fanaticism. And, yes, that’s a cult also.
Scientology allegedly makes its money as a nonprofit and not paying its workers a salary. Sound familiar?
Be very careful of the definition you craft. The notion of compulsory behavior and brainwashing would apply to a host of behaviors and areas of our world, viz. the military. Look at a group of Marines at Parris Island. Heads shaved, dehumanized, broken down and built up. But that’s different, right? That’s for a noble cause. And speaking of draconian servitude, did anyone mention the NCAA? Be very careful when you a charismatic group or cause is labeled over-the-line. I would submit that under this very tenuous definition, more organizations, upon closer inspection, would qualify as cult.
What do you call this? Fealty, obeisance. The cult of personality. Devotion has no parameters or rules. It’s a wave that pours over people. There’s a collective mentality, an organic collective that absorbs people. And its been studied and perfected since time immemorial. What HBO did was chronicle the obvious, in all its no-scheiße splendor. But don’t expect anything similar to cover Muslims or the ultra-ultra-Orthodox Jews. Not on your life. Catholics, I submit, are always fair game, but I digrees.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Where have I heard that before?
Behold the psychology of the rally. Before Nuremberg and Goebbels, who said, ““The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” It’s axiomatic. It takes people over. Why are churches en masse? There’s a Catholic pun there. It’s the psychology of the event. Sports, pep rallies, concerts. Are you seeing what’s happening here?
He is risen. Hat’s off to Obama’s people. Now compare this with that of Scientology. No difference. Not since the referenced infra can I remember an eye-fluttering swooning over a figure, political or otherwise. I mean, we’re talking Beatles quality vapors. And I still see it. And it shows you the brilliance of recruiting this man, in particular. It’s fanaticism, tribal. Leagues, factions, persuasions and demographics. Yankees, Manu, FOX, MSNBC, left-right. There’s nothing special about Scientology, there’s something special about our brain.
Fanaticism knows no party affiliation. And the professional Right is not off the hook. Their apotheosis and deification of St. Ronald of Reagan knows no equal. What we’re seeing here is the psychology of humans, not a cult or phony religion. Had we not the hardware intellectually and emotionally, it would have no success. With Reagan and Obama and God, not in that particular order, the human penchant for irrational belief, cultivated and developed through fear, indecision and a desire for the appropriate locus of control, is the foundation upon which everything is based. And the First Amendment is our attempt to codify and protect our unique penchant.
A comparison. The mainstream media report on stories, detailing specific facts, and then ignore the skepticism that reading their stories would inspire! They don’t even follow up on facts they report. They ignore their own stories. Let that sink in as I provided this comparison.
Let’s look at the crash site and debris field. This is what was left of Germanwings FLT 9525, an Airbus A320. Notice the referenced graphic from BBC News. A significant debris field, to be sure.
Reference, anyone? Compare it with the remains of FLT 93, a Boeing 757–222, at the edge of a strip-mining quarry in rural Pennsylvania, about two miles due north of Shanksville, PA, in Stony Creek township, on September 11, 2011. Quite a difference in appearance, I must admit. And I always had questions about that since we’re on the subject of airline crashes. Where are the 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines and 60-ton high grade aluminum/titanium alloy frame? That must have been some collision to completely destroy and atomize and disintegrate every scrap and fragment of the plane almost at the molecular level. And what’s more interesting to me is how many self-styled aviation collision experts will make up answers on the spot. I’ve been assured by these luminaries and aviation crash authorities that at the right speed a plane will disintegrate upon impact. Well, some. And even though this defies any and all logic. And for the life of me, after careful review and a scrupulous command of the facts, I cannot recall any representative of the lucid media asking about this much less noticing the obvious inconsistencies.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. No accusations of inside jobs or cabals and corrupt covens. No criminal conclaves or consortia. This isn’t skepticism or a refutation of anything. This is just and merely a discussion of the patently obvious, the blatantly apparent. At least to you and me.
Didn’t someone mention this? Yes. It was reported repeatedly but the gravamen of the story never stuck. CNN reported this and I reference it verbatim with emphasis added. Read this carefully.
Meanwhile, investigators say they’ve found debris from the crash at least eight miles away from the crash site.
A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake.
More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash.
State police and the FBI initially said they didn’t want to speculate whether the debris was from the crash, or if the plane could have broken up in midair.
Investigators later said the debris was all very light material, such as paper and thin nylon the wind would easily blow. The wind was blowing towards Indian Lake and New Baltimore at 9 knots. “According to the NTSB, it is not only possible that the debris is from the crash, it is probable,” Crowley said.
What?! Read that again. That must have been some wind. A mighty wind to reference Christopher Guest. Amazing, is it not, the differences in the crash sites? I’m sure there is a perfectly sound basis for the disparity in destruction.
Magic. Engines askew. Significant scattering. Fascinating stuff one would think. In fact, it was reported in PittsburghLive.com on Friday, September 14, 2001, “before it magically disappeared” sometime after October 20th or so from a website with articles from much earlier dates still archived, the following. Interesting. Anyhoo.
[State police Maj. Lyle] Szupinka said investigators also will be searching a pond behind the crash site looking for the other recorder and other debris. If necessary, divers may be brought in to assist search teams, or the pond may be drained, he said.
“It appears to be the whole engine,” he added.
Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a “briefcase.” [Source]
Here we go again. And enter those pesky conspiracy theorists again. In 2002 The Independent reported that some “will say that the plane was shot down by a missile, perhaps a heat-seeking missile that honed in on one of the plane’s engines – a theory possibly substantiated by the 2,000yd flight of the 1,000lb engine part, but arguably refuted by consistent eye-witness accounts, including Lee Purbaugh’s, that when last sighted the plane was not emitting smoke.” How have the media missed that which they reported. How weren’t and aren’t curiosities piqued?
So, what does all this mean, Alfie? It means that I find these stories fascinating, truly fascinating. As well as the media’s organic sense of incuriosity. I’m no aviation crash expert nor do I play one on TV, but I do know rudimentary laws of physics and that debris fields of plane crashes eight miles away likely don’t involve gusts and zephyrs causing engines to waft through the air. It’s evidence again of why I believe absolutely nothing in the ossified American mainstream media.
Today’s podcast subjects. Glad you asked. Take note.
The lack of interest on the part of the Jurassic mainstream media in the psychiatric treatment of Andreas Lubitz, specifically what psych meds (if any) he was on or coming off of. Read this wonderful disquisition on the subject from Paul Joseph Watson. But why should they be intrigued by this aspect of the case when they’ve missed so much about other cases?
The difference in coverage if Andreas Lubitz had been Muhammad bin Whatever. The obvious discrepancy should be glaring.
The remote control capabilities of today’s planes. This is most interesting, I believe.
A comparison to FLT 93 near Shanksville as indicated supra.
Facebook was indirectly funded by the CIA with the goal of learning and storing everything there is to know about you. Why? To monitor and ultimately control. – Sandeep Parwaga, HenryMakow.com (February 17, 2011)
Did you hear the latest? From Liberty Blitzkrieg, the following amazing news and reportage. It’s been reported that Facebook will be hosting mainstream and other media coverage and content on Facebook rather than making users tap a link to go to an external site, thus depriving them of the ability to track user demographics and data. And this can’t be emphasized enough. Or in the case of the Jurassic mainstream media, mentioned at all. It’s a story that was reported without delving into its implications, into the dark interstitial message that the implications portend. Because when you control the news, you control perception. And when you control the ability to profit from news reporting, you control everything. It’s been reported of Facebook’s plan to cut out the middle man, explaining how it might work and why publishers would feel compelled to participate.
Am I making any sense?
What this means. This mind-boggling proposal by Facebook carries yet another risk for publishers: the loss of incredibly valuable consumer data and demographic metrics. When readers click on a specific article or feature, an array of tracking tools and devices allow the host site to collect valuable data and demo information on who they are, how often they visit and what else they have done on the web. This information and data are critical, more important than the information being referenced itself.This is in fact the heart and soul of the Internet media display. Remember, it’s not about the information provided in the article, it’s about the information provided on the consumer of the article who visits the site. That is the bread and butter of today’s news propagation and media industry. “But in the short term,” said Alan D. Mutter, a newspaper consultant who writes a blog called Reflections of a Newsosaur, “it’s a scary proposition because publishers want to control their brand, and their audience and their advertising dollars.”
Two Internets. And if Facebook indeed pushes beyond the experimental stage and makes content hosted on the site commonplace, those who do not participate in the program could lose substantial viewer and commercial and consumer traffic — a factor that, sources provide, has played into the thinking of many media sources and publishers. Their articles might load more slowly than their competitors’, and over time readers might avoid those sites altogether.
OMG, indeed. This would make the harshest of Machiavellian business models pale by comparison. This is now, not the future. This poses an existential threat to mainstream media as we knew it heretofore. The potential for retooling and re-fabricating the information delivery platforms is beyond comprehension. And yet, the MSM, who are in the cross-hairs of this new and bold feature, rather than reporting on it as a threat blink their eyes and suck their thumbs and detail the augury of their ultimate demise. Amazing.
Today’s podcast. Myriad miscellany. My convergence and conversion. Pass it on.
“Whatever of social importance is done today, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture, charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of propaganda.” ― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda
It’s all propaganda. Propaganda derives from a new administrative body of the Catholic Church created in 1622, called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith), or informally simply Propaganda. Its goal was aimed at “propagating” the Catholic faith in non-Catholic countries, and you know how well that went. And with propaganda comes perception and awareness. How you see something and it registers. Based on your framework, vantage, ken, experience, frame of reference, history, experience, bias and predilection. If politics is ever to resonate it must register with the perception and awareness of the target. And with that comes the symbolism that is used with a particular ideology or persuasion or direction. If talk radio had been around in the 60s it would’ve been primarily “liberal.” The reason why is that it was the liberal who was angry and felt disenfranchised.
Days of yore. It was the liberal who fought against the Vietnam War, who supported women’s rights and civil rights and the environment. It was a liberal who was angry. It was the liberal who had a passel of symbols, semiotics. But then the worst thing happened for liberalism. Liberals won. And with that came the diffusion and dilution of what was once its collective passion. In the 80s with the advent of Rush Limbaugh it was the angry white man and conservative who dominated talk radio because they were the ones who felt alienated and castigated and left out. Their symbols are still seen today: the flag, God, the family, Ronald Reagan and a series of syrupy, sappy, saccharine imagery that replaces well thought and well formed ideology. Let me repeat, it’s all about perception and awareness which are crafted and channeled and directed to the artful use of and deft application of surgical propaganda.
North who?NORTHCOM. “Created in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) is charged with responsibility for overall military defense of the U.S. homeland and defense support of civil authorities (DSCA).” Those simple words belie the potential for incomprehensible and inconceivable excess. But, I’m getting ahead of myself.
Bless him. He called the feds a “sock puppet” for the vaccine industry, Robert Kennedy Jr. spoke out Monday against making it harder for parents to exempt their children from vaccinations. “All of the studies show the primary reason people don’t vaccinate — the primary reason — is mistrust of the regulators. The solution to this problem, to the extent that it’s a problem in New Jersey, is to restore the regulatory process, not to compel people to do something that they may feel they have very good reason not to do.”
Therefore, herein the problems lie. Problems that are glaringly obvious to those of us in the business of constitutional conversance, know exactly what these issues convey and connote. But those are just a few of the issues addressed. And thus, this podcast.