Saturday, December 31, 2011

Words With Friends

Usually I wouldn't waste time with stuff like this but its simply to delicious to ignore. I can't describe it but allow me to, if the reader doesn't mind, to copy & paste word for word something from a recent Rush Limbaugh show:

RUSH [Limbaugh]: "Dr. Frank Luntz. Dr. Frank Luntz was at Orlando, Florida, on Wednesday at the Republican Governors Association, and Dr. Frank Luntz said this."

[Frank] LUNTZ: "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. Okay, "they
should occupy a job" and "take a bath." I get that
joke. But, man! They're having an impact on what
the American people think of capitalism. And so
I'm trying to get that word removed and replace
it with either economic freedom or free market."

RUSH [Limbaugh]: "So Frank Luntz, favored pollster of Fox News, is now telling Republican governors, "Don't use the word 'capitalism.'" It hurts us. Frank Luntz is trying to get the word "capitalism" removed from the conservative Republican lexicon; and instead replace it with either economic freedom or free market. Frank Luntz says, "I'm so scared of the anti-Wall Street effort. I am frightened to death." They're about
disbanded, aren't they? They've migrated to
where it's a little warmer than it was. I got 15 of
them to show up the other night. Obama got a
hundred of them. What is there to be afraid of,
for crying out loud? But there you have it!
There's capitulation, and now we can't use the

End of quote (

What's there to be afraid of Rush? Luntz, Republican propagandist, is absolutely right. For all of Limbaugh's braggadocio about OWS being disbanded, how could he miss that?

I called Luntz a "propagandist". Why did I do that? Because under a very reliable definition of propagandist or producer of propaganda that is exactly what he does.

Harold Lasswell in Political Theory of Propaganda said it best: "The problem of the propagandist is to intensify the attitudes favorable to his purpose, to reverse the attitudes hostile to it, and attract the indifferentor, or worst, to prevent them from assuming a hostile bent."

So when Luntz says "I'm trying to get that word [capitalism] removed and replace it with either economic freedom or free market." Using Lasswell's definition what is he doing? Producing propaganda. Therefore he is a propagandist.

He's trying to use buzzwords like "freedom" and "free market" because he needs to change public opinion, rather manipulate public opinion of his ideology.

Noam Chomsky dubbed this act "manufactoring consent". Let's define that term for those of you who don't understand it:
"manufacture consent, that is to bring about agreement on the part of the public"- (Chomsky).

Luntz wants you to agree with him and his ideology. So much so he will use any means necessary, even deception to achieve that goal.

But why? Why does Luntz wanna impose his linguistic jiujitsu on us? Perhaps Walter Lippman can answer this: "it was necessary [to manufacture consent] because the common interests elude public opinion entirely and can only be understood and managed by a "specialized class" of "responsible men" (Lippman)

"Responsible men" like Luntz who are smart, cagey and overall just plain better than us. The "specialized class" being those who pay bastards like Luntz to play these games with words, trying to mindfuck everyone into agreeing with him.

But why should we cater to this "specialized class"? "The class of citizens who have to take some active role in running general affairs, that's the "specialized class". They are the people who analyze, execute, make decisions and run things in the political, economic and ideological systems- (Lippman).

The elites who run our systems, who keep themselves rich and in power are "special", so then, what then are we? Well according to Lippman we are a "herd", yes a "herd" like cattle. To be more precise he says: "There is the "bewildered herd"..their be spectators [and] not participants" (Lippman)

Basically we should shut up and let guys like Luntz dictate. We should do nothing more than choose between Luntz and his Democratic counterpart, its not our place to participate in the process. We should not be able to define our own words or to be allowed to fight against concepts we don't like.

That's what Occupy Wall Street is to them, a "bewildered herd". Masses that are uncontrollable, illogical, immoral criminals who dare to make demands of the "specialized class" but Luntz was being honest when he said he was afraid, the elites are always afraid. They always fear revolutions and revolutionaries, they fear losing control.

Sure it starts with the elimination of "capitalism", the word not the ideology, and replacing it with "economic freedom" but where does it end? Well it ends when we have neutraized and overcome them. If we have the power to force them to change their verbiage, we have the power to make them change this society. If they refuse, they are removed and their spots, ironically, should be occupied.

Class warfare and the friendly fire therein

Marxism is essentially a pro-labor social stance. Now I see a lot of people talk as if that is a bad thing. Since when is it wrong to be a laborer and be pro-labor?

The majority of Americans are laborers and are working class, so then is it to say they are "marxist" for looking out for their own benefit? Didn't Ayn Rand call it "rational self-interest"?
Why is it okay for those with means to look out for their own benefit but the majority of the nation should not?

For instance House Speaker Boehner said "we listened to the American people." <- is that a marxist statement? According to most of you it is because whenever someone is "listening" or "in tune" with the labor class it is marxist.

When politicians run on platforms of helping to create jobs what do you think that is? Its telling the majority of Americans [the labor class] that they are looking to create work for you. Is that marxism?

If your in doubt ask yourself this: Why would the elite class care about job creation? They wouldn't be elites if they didn't already have money.

I have done a lot of independent studying as of late [before school started] and I came to the conclusion that America is thoroughly Anti-populist.

Meaning they hate the commonfolk which are the majority of the nation. Now where do I get this? Well you have people who are staunchly anti anything potentially "collectivist", when collectivism is not wrong.

This country was built on collective efforts! Where did this come from? I say the 50s, 60s, 70s because there were raucous populist uprisings. Workers, minorities, gays, etc during these times, but not only in America but in other nations as well [like China, for instance].

So now the 80s hit and when Reagan kicks in everybody hates the working man now. I mean people are so hell bent on riding the coat tails of the elites that they actually put them on a pedestal above themselves.

Look at the prison system.
Overwhelmingly poor, working class whites and minorities. Financially hierarchical systems of legality, medical, financial, political and social systems despite the majority of the country being poor or working class (what John Edwards has referred to as "Two Americas"). Why is this allowed?

Wasn't the purpose of building this nation was to NOT have elites? In my opinion the biggest collectivists are the ones who claim to hate it.
They are the ones who join political parties, lobbying and action committees yet they tell you how bad collectivism is.

They say a corporation only has responsibility to its stockholders but what are stockholders if not a collection of individuals?

The hypocrisy is amazing one you think about it.
The whole thing is a mindf-ck. They repeatedly believe that the well off will eventually sprinkle something down and the rest have to just wait and see, maybe scratch something for themselves from what is left. Meanwhile they are getting pumped (through heavy taxation) to feed the government beast.

Then you have the perversion of values where people actually get themselves tricked into thinking its honorable to offer up more of your money so he can keep more of his. He's telling you government is evil, and government is the devil etc and that corporations are beholden to profit so they have a stake in success.

When that too is a lie, they will just get their government buddies to sign off on a little bit of help, but these same people say government is evil and is stopping us from making more jobs.

Enough with the lies and propaganda:
"...truth is, we still live in a country where there are two different Americas...

... one, for all of those people who have lived the American dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans, everybody else who struggle to make ends meet every single day. It doesn't have to be that way.

We can build one America where we no longer have two health care systems: one for families who get the best health care money can by, and then one for everybody else rationed out by insurance companies, drug companies, HMOs...

We shouldn't have two public school systems in this country: one for the most affluent communities, and one for everybody else..."-
John Edwards [2004]

I do not support John Edwards but he was right then and he's right today. The difference is that in that speech he was talking about uniting the "Two Americas" but in the 7 years that has passed the breach has grown exponentially.

Time to stop the friendly fire and become "rationally self-interested".
There was an error in this gadget