Posted by: quiscus | July 19, 2009

July 19, 2009

1.  “Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.”

2.  As a genaral matter, the Queen is supposed to stay out of politics:

“Guantanamo row may halt Queen’s visit to Bermuda”

3.  “Workers Rights in America: Card Check’s Death

Maybe you didn’t hear the news: Card Check — the key provision of the Employee Free Choice Act — is dead.  You might not have gotten the message because U.S. labor “leaders” are remarkably silent on the issue.  Not a peep.

The media, however, has the story right: the Democrats are now officially seeking a compromise, one that strips the bill of its essence — the right for workers to start a union by stating their intention to do so.

So why are most union leaders so quiet?  No one likes to talk about their blunders, especially the colossal type.  The defeat of Card Check is a mighty blow to labor, and admitting that your strategy failed to achieve it may cause others to question your authority.

So the labor officials remain silent.  They ignore the fact that they spent hundreds of millions of dollars in dues money to elect Democrats so that Card Check’s passage would be assured; that they encouraged workers to make thousands of phone calls, knocking on countless doors to garner support for a supposedly Card Check-endorsing Obama; that once Obama was elected, most union “leaders” simply encouraged their members to act like lobbyists, and stay out of the streets. They also ignore history and the similar embarrassments that occurred under Clinton…and Carter, etc.  They do the same thing over and over, achieving the same results — absolutely nothing.

The Democrats have massively betrayed the unions…again.  And labor is doing nothing to hold them accountable for it — once again.  The next elections that take place will likely showcase the union tops fear-mongering about what a Republican administration might do to American workers. And if you would like a preview to such a nightmare, simply imagine Obama’s policies being replicated by the right wing; it can’t get much worse.

Key to understanding the defeat of Card Check is understanding the nature of the Democratic Party.  If one simply looks at the Democratic Leadership Committee, not to mention those who Obama has consciously surrounded himself with in his administration, you’ll find a group of hardened corporate lackeys — no exaggeration required.   Few of these people can point to even a remotely pro-labor record; and it is such people who have complete control of the Democratic Party.

If one is on the side of working people and does not recognize these truths, it can only mean willful political naivety or conscious treachery — neither characteristic should be found in a labor leader. ”

4.  “Hillary Clinton admits that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) runs the Government

As with a recent blog I did about a Rothschild puppet blatantly promoting a One World Government solution to our “man-made” global warming “crisis,” now Secretary of State (and CFR member) Clinton admits in her latest address to the Council on Foreign Relations what Carroll Quigley wrote about in Tragedy and Hope (Chapter 65), Dan Smoot wrote about in The Invisible Government, and Gary Allen wrote about in None Dare Call It Conspiracy:

“Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future. [emphasis mine]

I can assure you that when I was in public school in the 1960s and early 1970s, not once did I ever hear about an organization called the Council on Foreign Relations in any of my history classes. If this organization seems to have such a powerful influence on the Federal Government’s actions, why have I only been hearing about it in the past decade? Hmmmmm.”

5.  More on that Clinton speech:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: