It is not the same people that are both destructive and constructive, these two opposite poles in every society. When the destructive part begins to dominate, then great changes are about to occur.
Congratulations on this one GA. I like #3, the part about ritual. It's who and what we honor on specific occasions. Of course we honor our war-dead, and we honor those political leaders that made the war possible, so that we could have these dead war heroes. It would have some sense if they died defending our own territory from invasion, and not soldiers of fortune seeking riches on the far corners of the planet.
Our generals and presidents explained it to us so eloquently when they were trying to ring-fence China. Dear population; You know there are those things called dominoes, and they fall in a series.
(That's not really how you play dominoes, there is a little more intelligence to it, matching the dots, and planning some available dots for the next move.)
But our leaders think in terms of blocks played with by two-year-old's. Anyway, they were so convincing that 60,000 of our young men decided to give up their lives for the proper placement of dominoes. Well, same thing in Korea a few years before. (Vietnam really started in 1955, even though the Tonkin Gulf was 1964).
What America really needs is a purging ritual. All those politicians, generals and admirals that brought us the folly of war must be deported posthumously. Their passports, birth certificates and all records of their lives must be destroyed, and they names written in our annals as our greatest traitors. Really their family fortunes should also be frozen, and returned to the common good.
Then we can start on the alive despots, that are running the current atrocity mill.
Also, I'm reading this interesting book written about what justifies the current strategies of manipulating the public. as well as HOW this manipulation is being done.
It's called: "Foolproof - Why Misinformation Infects Out Minds and How to Build Immunity" by Sander van der Linden
Supposedly, the current manipulations of Google, Facebook and Apple are designed to be running counter to "Misinformation." "Supposedly" is the operational word here.
After reading only part of this book, I think it's techniques are being used to self-justify a set of value systems with an agenda that has not much to do with extending freedoms of a Constitutional Republic designed for self-determination. I've actually learned to regard Democracy to be, essentially, MOB RULE.
But the book so far does outline what is going on rather well.
I found a book review of "Foolproof" on the Guardian that is perfect for illustrating "fake news", by innuendo. In one place they say:
"while only 8% of people in the UK share Donald Trump’s view that global warming is a hoax, one in five (20%) of Americans do."
What the hell does that statement mean? And what the hell has Donald Trump's opinion have to do with it? The Global Warming narrative has at least a dozen facets that are up for question. Nobody on the planet denies that the glaciers are melting. So that is not a hoax. How about that the green new deal will release more carbon in the construction phase that it will save in the operational phase? Is that a hoax. How about existing billionaires will rake in several $ trillions. Is that the main focus, or are we just trying to save the planet? How about fossil fuels run the civilized world now, and only do to them was it developed in the first place? What will replace them timely? Or do all of our lifestyles have to be reduced by half? There is so much raw HOAX in the global warming story.
Then there are the “six degrees of manipulation”.
1. These include discrediting factual information using deflection and denial, and
2. making emotional appeals to generate responses based on feelings instead of rational thoughts – (for instance by exaggerating the risks of rare side effects from the Covid-19 vaccines.) What the hell does RARE SIDE EFFECTS mean? That only my grandmother died from it and your grandmother is still alive, (but maybe crippled). The Guardian smell is all over it.
3. Polarization strategies are employed to deepen divisions between groups of people on issues, such as abortion, that strongly align with liberal and conservative viewpoints.
4. Conspiracy theories are seeded to cast doubt on mainstream explanations for events. (Of course there are things we call conspiracies?)
5. Trolling seeks to exploit and provoke people about controversial issues, such as baiting high-profile individuals on social media about their views on Brexit.
6. The sixth strategy is the impersonation of expert individuals and organizations to lend spurious credibility to outright falsehoods. The book highlights the example of the Oregon Petition, which has been circulated periodically over the past 25 years with more than 31,000 signatures of SUPPOSED scientists who reject the scientific consensus on climate change.
The book is creating “herd immunity” against the growing scourge of fake facts and nonsense narratives. (But there is no immunity yet against the Guardian.)
Yes, so far the book appears to be another example of not only being "about" a subject, but also using the tactics of the subject to baldly manipulate. It's disorganized, presents its ideas with inflammatory, divisive language and then touts how wonderfully democratic it is!
But all of this makes it an interesting book. It does show the tactics and what values it's motivations originate from, even though it tries to hide these values.
For instance, this intent of "Carbon Tax" is merely designing another way to tax the peons who don't have money to spare. They assume that people are uninformed that taxing any business results in higher fees charged by the business to cover their expenses. The same holds true for increasing import costs for countries - these countries pass these costs onto consumers. Existing billionaire corporations merely regard a "Carbon Tax" as an additional cost of conducting business. It's a myth that corporations do anything to "offset" the cost to the planet.
Also, education isn't structured to note what is being left out, because everything considered is always supplied to answer any question on the test.
For instance, the Carbon Tax doesn't take into account how many children a parent has - or offer any consideration if a person is childless. Each additional human increases the cost to the planet. Childlessness should offset Carbon Tax costs to that person, but that's not a considered factor because the point is to rake in the money of the tax.
One of the things done with demonstrators is the news singles out a random person and asks them why everyone is demonstrating. Then they use whatever is said to divide and scatter purpose.
But something different is happening this point now. All of the demonstrators that were singled out by the new referred the news to the demonstration's Public Relations expert connected to the reason for the demonstrating.
National Pubic Radio pointed out that ALL of the other opposing sites had PR specialists, why not the demonstrators?
I think that clear separation between the powers behind society allows for tension between them and maximizing the "middle ground" between them for people to use. A conscious controlled disunity of interests would be ideal, allowing for incoherence/inconsistency to respond to developing needs while being held together enough to be recognized as a single unit.
At simplest, something like Church, State, and People - each with their own ideas and coming together only to settle intractable issues. Kind of stability through tension.
Motivating the people to come to a balance within society and with other societies/the environment is a thankless and never-ending task that eventually gets centralized and handed off to bosses, leaving it ripe for collusion.
You refer to a middle ground of tension between opposing views. I think you are suggesting that we could live this way if there was some balance. It is kind of like military deterrence, but that only works where there is parity. You are suggesting Church, State , and people. But who are the people, and what voice do they have, (certainly not unified in anything but don't raise my taxes). The voice of the people would be represented by political movements. Labor unions have given up the ghost. And the major political movements have merged (against the people).
They have also made it next to impossible to create a third movement. It would be held as a spoiler. The Greens will get on the ballot this year, and maybe get 3% of the vote. At least they may bring up some debate topics that are presently off of the calendar. They say the word "Genocide" so they are banned from Twitter, and everywhere else.
Incoherence/inconsistency doesn't respond to anything. It probably only falls to my entitlement, and my rights.
There is no central Church, and all the other churches wouldn't allow it, so no voice there.
People will start to come into some form of balance with world depression, societal collapse and WWIII. 32 world NATO states are using all their spare change to fight with and dismember Russia. Next they'll move on to China, if there is anything left of them. How else would you define WWIII?
Congratulations on this one GA. I like #3, the part about ritual. It's who and what we honor on specific occasions. Of course we honor our war-dead, and we honor those political leaders that made the war possible, so that we could have these dead war heroes. It would have some sense if they died defending our own territory from invasion, and not soldiers of fortune seeking riches on the far corners of the planet.
Our generals and presidents explained it to us so eloquently when they were trying to ring-fence China. Dear population; You know there are those things called dominoes, and they fall in a series.
(That's not really how you play dominoes, there is a little more intelligence to it, matching the dots, and planning some available dots for the next move.)
But our leaders think in terms of blocks played with by two-year-old's. Anyway, they were so convincing that 60,000 of our young men decided to give up their lives for the proper placement of dominoes. Well, same thing in Korea a few years before. (Vietnam really started in 1955, even though the Tonkin Gulf was 1964).
What America really needs is a purging ritual. All those politicians, generals and admirals that brought us the folly of war must be deported posthumously. Their passports, birth certificates and all records of their lives must be destroyed, and they names written in our annals as our greatest traitors. Really their family fortunes should also be frozen, and returned to the common good.
Then we can start on the alive despots, that are running the current atrocity mill.
.
Also, I'm reading this interesting book written about what justifies the current strategies of manipulating the public. as well as HOW this manipulation is being done.
It's called: "Foolproof - Why Misinformation Infects Out Minds and How to Build Immunity" by Sander van der Linden
Supposedly, the current manipulations of Google, Facebook and Apple are designed to be running counter to "Misinformation." "Supposedly" is the operational word here.
After reading only part of this book, I think it's techniques are being used to self-justify a set of value systems with an agenda that has not much to do with extending freedoms of a Constitutional Republic designed for self-determination. I've actually learned to regard Democracy to be, essentially, MOB RULE.
But the book so far does outline what is going on rather well.
I found a book review of "Foolproof" on the Guardian that is perfect for illustrating "fake news", by innuendo. In one place they say:
"while only 8% of people in the UK share Donald Trump’s view that global warming is a hoax, one in five (20%) of Americans do."
What the hell does that statement mean? And what the hell has Donald Trump's opinion have to do with it? The Global Warming narrative has at least a dozen facets that are up for question. Nobody on the planet denies that the glaciers are melting. So that is not a hoax. How about that the green new deal will release more carbon in the construction phase that it will save in the operational phase? Is that a hoax. How about existing billionaires will rake in several $ trillions. Is that the main focus, or are we just trying to save the planet? How about fossil fuels run the civilized world now, and only do to them was it developed in the first place? What will replace them timely? Or do all of our lifestyles have to be reduced by half? There is so much raw HOAX in the global warming story.
Then there are the “six degrees of manipulation”.
1. These include discrediting factual information using deflection and denial, and
2. making emotional appeals to generate responses based on feelings instead of rational thoughts – (for instance by exaggerating the risks of rare side effects from the Covid-19 vaccines.) What the hell does RARE SIDE EFFECTS mean? That only my grandmother died from it and your grandmother is still alive, (but maybe crippled). The Guardian smell is all over it.
3. Polarization strategies are employed to deepen divisions between groups of people on issues, such as abortion, that strongly align with liberal and conservative viewpoints.
4. Conspiracy theories are seeded to cast doubt on mainstream explanations for events. (Of course there are things we call conspiracies?)
5. Trolling seeks to exploit and provoke people about controversial issues, such as baiting high-profile individuals on social media about their views on Brexit.
6. The sixth strategy is the impersonation of expert individuals and organizations to lend spurious credibility to outright falsehoods. The book highlights the example of the Oregon Petition, which has been circulated periodically over the past 25 years with more than 31,000 signatures of SUPPOSED scientists who reject the scientific consensus on climate change.
The book is creating “herd immunity” against the growing scourge of fake facts and nonsense narratives. (But there is no immunity yet against the Guardian.)
.
Yes, so far the book appears to be another example of not only being "about" a subject, but also using the tactics of the subject to baldly manipulate. It's disorganized, presents its ideas with inflammatory, divisive language and then touts how wonderfully democratic it is!
But all of this makes it an interesting book. It does show the tactics and what values it's motivations originate from, even though it tries to hide these values.
For instance, this intent of "Carbon Tax" is merely designing another way to tax the peons who don't have money to spare. They assume that people are uninformed that taxing any business results in higher fees charged by the business to cover their expenses. The same holds true for increasing import costs for countries - these countries pass these costs onto consumers. Existing billionaire corporations merely regard a "Carbon Tax" as an additional cost of conducting business. It's a myth that corporations do anything to "offset" the cost to the planet.
Also, education isn't structured to note what is being left out, because everything considered is always supplied to answer any question on the test.
For instance, the Carbon Tax doesn't take into account how many children a parent has - or offer any consideration if a person is childless. Each additional human increases the cost to the planet. Childlessness should offset Carbon Tax costs to that person, but that's not a considered factor because the point is to rake in the money of the tax.
Just to say, I have not found the book, nor am I reading it. My derogatory comments were aimed at how the Guardian treats it.
.
Heard an interesting point on Public Radio.
One of the things done with demonstrators is the news singles out a random person and asks them why everyone is demonstrating. Then they use whatever is said to divide and scatter purpose.
But something different is happening this point now. All of the demonstrators that were singled out by the new referred the news to the demonstration's Public Relations expert connected to the reason for the demonstrating.
National Pubic Radio pointed out that ALL of the other opposing sites had PR specialists, why not the demonstrators?
I think that clear separation between the powers behind society allows for tension between them and maximizing the "middle ground" between them for people to use. A conscious controlled disunity of interests would be ideal, allowing for incoherence/inconsistency to respond to developing needs while being held together enough to be recognized as a single unit.
At simplest, something like Church, State, and People - each with their own ideas and coming together only to settle intractable issues. Kind of stability through tension.
Motivating the people to come to a balance within society and with other societies/the environment is a thankless and never-ending task that eventually gets centralized and handed off to bosses, leaving it ripe for collusion.
You refer to a middle ground of tension between opposing views. I think you are suggesting that we could live this way if there was some balance. It is kind of like military deterrence, but that only works where there is parity. You are suggesting Church, State , and people. But who are the people, and what voice do they have, (certainly not unified in anything but don't raise my taxes). The voice of the people would be represented by political movements. Labor unions have given up the ghost. And the major political movements have merged (against the people).
They have also made it next to impossible to create a third movement. It would be held as a spoiler. The Greens will get on the ballot this year, and maybe get 3% of the vote. At least they may bring up some debate topics that are presently off of the calendar. They say the word "Genocide" so they are banned from Twitter, and everywhere else.
Incoherence/inconsistency doesn't respond to anything. It probably only falls to my entitlement, and my rights.
There is no central Church, and all the other churches wouldn't allow it, so no voice there.
People will start to come into some form of balance with world depression, societal collapse and WWIII. 32 world NATO states are using all their spare change to fight with and dismember Russia. Next they'll move on to China, if there is anything left of them. How else would you define WWIII?
.