Climate change, anyone?
While the Left-Wing of American politics and its fearless leader, greedily salivate over the mountains of public payola that could potentially be had from an illusory temperature change's fictionally altering the earth's climate, there is another climate change taking place in the US, and this one is far more real and far more dangerous than anyone could ever evaluate with a climate researcher's slide-rule.
This danger belongs solely to the media mistruths of today, which seek to bend fiction into plausible fact, and which have now become as profligate as the stars in the nighttime sky, in America.
Oh, indeed, they were always there, but before, more or less clumped in various areas only. Now, However, these areas of infection within America's fourth Estate, have come together to reveal something more akin to a grotesquely animated rotting corpse than any healthy body of journalism.
This unfortunate fact, concerning the media, was given a proverbial exclamation point, recently, by none other than CBS news Director John Dickerson, who wrote in "The Slate" that the President "must go for the throat" and "pulverize" the Republican Party if Obama is truly intent in transforming American politics.
No Bias, in the mainstream media, Ladies and Gentlemen?
This, from none other than the political news director of one of the big three news networks in America, who now brazenly urges the political Left to essentially annihilate those who would offer plausible opposition to Obama's grand game plan. They, it would seem, who no longer even try to camouflage themselves, in fact, as it has now become almost business as usual for the media to bend knee in fawning fealty and theatrical submission to Obama's singular greatness.
Indeed, what had begun as what CBS Insider journalist Bernard Goldberg referred to as "A Slobbering Love Affair" in his 2009 book, concerning the Media's soft-gloved approach to all things Obama, has now devolved even further than that rather aptly described metaphor. After watching only a few moments of the President's 2012 inauguration ceremony, it became painfully clear that the "slobbering love affair" was gone, but only to be replaced by a media reduced to being nothing much more than a pathetically sadistic "cuckold" for the President's public amusement.
In fact, America's Obama-modulated Ministry of Misinformation, that being the new mainstream media, has literally now taken on what could only be described as a 'novel approach' to reporting the news in far too many cases, in order to please his Immenseness. Within this new paradigm of perfidy, with so many news items being either misinterpreted and or novelized in favor of the ruling political class and their impetus, many of us have begun to wonder why those others in the media still even doggedly toil at effecting any sort of allusion towards political centrality.
Are the novella fictions or facile illusions roiling out of the Inner Beltway like the foul product of a malfunctioning bowel, still just not quite enough to keep Americans politically entertained, if not satisfied?
fac·ile
/ˈfasəl/
Adjective
- (esp. of a theory or argument) Appearing neat and comprehensive by ignoring the complexities of an issue; superficial.
- (of a person) Having a superficial or simplistic knowledge or approach.
Even the inimitable Rush Limbaugh, the titular head of American Conservatism, has now taken to reporting entertainment news segueways, in the course of his daily programming, largely out of a sort of fascinated satirical despair, if nothing else, on his part.
But, it should be further noted, only in Limbaugh's souring view of the exasperatingly low-info miscreants of anti-progress, who find their de-signatured way of life exemplified by the antics of the plastic class in either Hollywood, New York or especially DC, these days.
Neo-Propaganda
This novel approach for the media is, in fact, based upon the same type of script that a number of fiction novelists use to make their fabled stories both uniquely believable on the one hand while seemingly brilliant studies in plausibility, on the other.
To explain just a bit further, the author or news writer, in this case, will first work out a sequence of events or political points in the form of a timeline, in effect, manufacturing a desired outcome in which the maximum amount of fascinating input can either be achieved or re-edited, in between an amalgam of literary way-points, much the same as the mortar used between bricks. These customized articles then work as a sort of yellow brick road designed to lead the adoring reader down into the dreamland of an Oz-like construct that bears no actual resemblance to the world in which we actually live.
For example. totalitarian madman Adolph Hitler in his book, Mein Kamph, learned how to use these same types of techniques to a devastatingly debilitating effect on the populace in his efforts at taking over Germany, and later Europe, via a uniquely customized propaganda, or audaciously sodomized facts, take your adulterated pick.
The following are several major points, taken directly from the book, Mein Kamph, which have apparently become the media equivalent of Journalism 101, towards our rather pathetic excuses for American journalists of today and their neo-propaganda:
- "Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people."
Ex: Obama's war on women, war on wealthy, racial warfare, class warfare, war on business, banks, Doctors, etc., each identifying and exemplifying a villain to which blame can be either attached or ascribed. A thing that the media has gleefully participated in ad nauseum, over the last decade.
- "All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed"
Ex: Fiscal Cliff debate, debt ceiling debate, gun control debate, balancing the budget, etc., many of which required the trotting out of either hurt children (23 executive gun control orders), hurt women (Sandra Fluke), or hurt from the wealthy (Romney responsible for woman's death) etc., et al, each of which put the media into a cuckolded swoon.
- "The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses."
Ex: They gonna put ya'll back in chains (V.P. Biden) You didn't build that (Obama) Balancing the budget on the backs of the middleclass (Obama) Forward, The Transformation of America, Yes We can, Change We Can Believe in, etc., all of which have been joyfully proliferated throughout most of the US media, sans few if any critical questions.
- "The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another"
Ex: Obama's nationalization of healthcare, the budget deficit battles, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, battle against oil, green campaign, climate change, etc., each rooted in an appeal to individual security rather than liberty, a word you will rarely hear Obama use. Yet a thing that the media seems to have thrown in the refuse pile of useless ideological terms.
- "The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. "
In effect and in this case, Hitler exemplifies the main difference between Liberalism, a form of knee-jerk reactionism or hysterical emotionalism, to virtually everything; and it's opposition of Conservatism, that which seeks change on a historically inclined basis; slowly and carefully, constitutionally, while avoiding meddlesome, destabilizing change, which can often have disastrous, if not unseen, effects.
Most Recent Example of Executive Branch/Media Duplicity?
The sequestration cuts, which are slated to soon hit across numerous portions of government spending, will also hit the US military. However, when Congress and the Obama Regime came to an agreement regarding where the cuts would hit, it was the Obama Regime that demanded the cuts hit the US military, not the Republicans.
In fact, the defense spending cuts were originated by the Obama Regime and the Democrats in Congress, in the debt ceiling debate of 2011. It was then White House OMB Director Jack Lew, who is now Obama's Chief of Staff, who proposed the sequestration cuts to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who dutifully began pushing for and finally enacted the cuts in the Senate, with grudging House acceptance, in the budget Control Act of 2011.
However, one might never know this particular fact by watching any daily newscast or by reading a typical newspaper.
Ironically, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently could be heard repeatedly pitching verbal tirades and blaming Congress for the defense budget cuts, which, simply-put, is a rant being aimed at the wrong party of culpability. Once again, it was the Obama Regime and Sen. Harry Reid who initially demanded that the military be hit first by the cuts, and the history on this, as in most other areas, is easily researched and confirmed by just a few Google searches on a computer.
As per usual, our fourth Estate of Neo-Propagandists will largely remain either completely silent or forgetful as to the truth, as this political game is nothing much more than the Obama regime playing politics with a subject that they, quite frankly, could not care any less about.
The self-evident truth, in this case? Since when, Ladies and Gentlemen, has any Liberal, Leftist, Democrat ever protested against decreased military funding, in the last generation?
Comments