Tuesday, May 20, 2014


One method used by the governing classes through certain media outlets to prevent people from researching areas known as 'conspiracy theory' is by employing the old ad hominem logical fallacy.

Yes. Ridicule & defining the moral agenda for large numbers of people.

Kurt Eichenwald, former New York Times journalist, & contributing editor for Vanity Times primarily employed condescension & derision in this article. 

Mikipedia political blog has broken down some of Kurt's tactics for you so that we may be better placed, both individually and collectively, to appreciate these tools when they are being employed dynamically. 


The results are in: we’re a nation of idiots.
Journalistic tactic: Start with an absolute, but controversial statement to hook you in emotionally, before, reeling it back somewhat to then introduce a more measured, balanced concept that you are more likely to accept.

Well, that might overstate the case a bit.
Here is the reelback. Note however, that it is a partial reelback due to the words "a bit". 

But some of the latest polling data does seem to show that at least 30 percent of American citizens—and maybe lots more—are as dumb as a bag of inbred hammers.
And here is that measured position that readers of this article are being asked to accept.

   1. That 30%+ of the American citizens "are as dumb as a bag of inbred hammers".

   2. That these people are conspiracy theorists.

   3. That you are too smart to be caught up in such nonsense.

To achieve this, Eichenwald, introduces a poll as an authority figure vehicle, as well as, derision, when he labels certain people as being "as dumb as a bag of inbred hammers" despite the fact that inaminate objects can not breed, much less inbreed. 

So why?

Authority figures are often used as a reason for you to believe something, or to perform a particular action in politics, courts, the corporate media & in general arguments between people. 

The logic of appealing to an 'authoritative source of truth' is sound. The problem comes with what is actually cited as an authoritative source.

In this instance, it is a recent poll. This is an appeal to community opinion, or, popularity.

Community opinion is only ever employed as being important and legitimate if it suits the agenda of those appealing to us to agree with them.

The truth about their opinion of 'community opinion' is revealed whenever you disagree with them, especially if you say no to them, or research and share whatever really happened. 

Derision, on the other hand, is an attempt to program you to express certain sentiments to certain people in certain situations.
PPP has been criticised for having a pro democrat bias that is denied by PPP.

The poll in question is a delightful one put out this week by Public Policy Polling, a concern ranked by Fordham University as the best out of 28 organizations for the accuracy of its national pre-election estimates in 2012. 

The concept of the opinion poll as a measure of truth and popularity is consolidated and extended with the introduction of the Public Policy Polling company, despite criticisms that this company is ostensibly a democrat mouthpiece. Certainly, Vanity Fair itself believes that this is the case.

So why hasn't Eichenwald, an experienced writer, journalist & editor, shared this inconvenient truth with his readers? 

How much accuracy can we place on the poll results used by Eichenwald, when his own employers believe that the pollsters themselves display political bias?

This time, the folks at P.P.P. decided to have a bit of fun, and rather than polling about which political party is up or down, opted to ask Americans about their beliefs in conspiracy theories. I can just imagine the laughter at the P.P.P. offices when they started putting together the questions.

Eichenwald isn't the only journalist to sneer and condescend about conspiracy theories. This is one of the programming tools used on those who think that they are more intelligent because they are higher earning tax slaves, because they have a degree, or are in possession of some other type of superiority complex. This tool is a combination of flattery and divide and conquer. It identifies 'the idiot' and you as 'intelligent' on the basis that you are not 'the idiot'.

What is important to remember is that so far, Eichenwald has thrown rocks at people that he doesn't like and used a distorted, political instrument to try and convince you that not only are they are stupid, but that, you should not like these people, and that further, you should not like what they research, irrespective of whether the research is correct or not.    

The results, though, were no comedy. More like a horror movie—and one with a plotline that goes beyond any level of belief.

So we learn that the role of the community as an authority figure is actually dependent on if those opinions conform to Eichenwald's.

How many of you think Barack Obama is the Antichrist?
Conspiracy Theory #1, leading with one that many readers will think is a silly concept despite the fact that i, and many other researchers.
You know, the fella (or fellas-not women or a woman though, depending on which part of the Bible you’re reading) confronted by Jesus in the Second Coming?
Deliberate distortion of a response to fit the looming criticism. Many people would have said yes on the basis that Obama, –like Bush before him– is an arsehole or even the opposite of Christ, rather than considering that they were vocalising whether or not they felt that the end times were here.
Twenty-six percent of Americans either believe that the president is preparing for war with the Messiah or aren’t sure that he isn’t. (Of course, since Obama has been in office for five years, these yahoos should really start to wonder what’s taking Jesus so long to get back to Earth to confront the demon president.)
When facts do not support your view, fudge them, as Eichenwald has done here.
As illustrated by the poll itself, only 13% of respondents believe that Obama is the anti christ. Another 13% simply don't know. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf
This was the only mention of the Obama/Antichrist in a poll question so all references to end times is a sensationalist tactic by Eichenwald.

Isn't it ironical that the very evidence that Eichenwald uses to throw rocks at people is political and flawed?

Hopefully, these are the same 26 percent of wackos who believe that the government puts fluoride into drinking water not for dental health but for “other, more sinister reasons,” as the P.P.P. question read. It was all a communist plot, you see, to do . . . something.
Now Eichenwald introduces his first real 'conspiracy theory' linking it together with his 'proof' about end times, Obama & the anti-christ.

Note that Eichenwald at no point in time attempts to elucidate why people make this claim, nor, does he he mention any of the health professionals, whose research illustrates that fluoride is a dangerous neuro-toxin that will kill you if ingested at a high enough concentration.

What Eichenwald does instead is to insinuate and throw rocks,to imply that all fluoride awareness research and education is linked to the aforementioned political/biblical belief.

Should we expect more from someone who is clearly a supporter of Big Brother and the surveillance state?   

Stanley Kubrick did a delightful send-up of this conspiracy theory in the film Dr. Strangelove, with a main character who declared that fluoridation was designed to contaminate the “precious bodily fluids” of Americans. He started World War III because of his beliefs; fortunately, most of the 26 percent probably couldn’t even start a math test.
Fictional movie scenarios as proof??? This

That doesn’t mean that these uninformed–unnecessarily added opinion to the sentence is an attempt to program your opinion– folk are harmless.
After setting you up to think that conspiracy theorists are idiots. Eichenwald now moves to try to program you into agreeing that these are not harmless idiots, but, are actually something else.

Fifty-four percent of Americans—more than half the country!—either believes that childhood vaccinations cause autism or aren’t sure whether they do.
Note that Eichenwald is back to adding different responses together to secure his desired result? Are you aware that he has as much disdain for his readers as he does for conspiracy theorists? How else do you account for his presentment of jumbled bits and bobs of evidence pasted together as something conclusive, his lack of empirical evidence, instead relying on opinions, humour, condescension, rocks and Kubrick.
Never mind that study after study, including one just released by the Centers for Disease Control, say this belief is uneducated malarkey.

Why should anyone consider that when we have former Playboy model and B-movie actress Jenny McCarthy disagreeing? Yes, that is where we are: Americans are more likely to believe a nursing-school dropout than PhDs from America’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning.
Interesting choice. Why did Eichenwald not choose to illustrate the views of another woman from America's culture, someone like Mayim Bialik, actress from popular sit-com, 'The Big Bang Theory'?
Would this be because a playboy bunny is a better fit for Eichenwald's contention than someone that holds a degree in neuro-science??


Is there any doubt that this Eichenwald article is anything other than a hit-piece trying to dupe people back under the governments control because they cannot stop people from learning and committing to freedom? 

Which brings us to the next absurdity: climate change.

Forty-nine percent either believe the college dropouts and billionaires or aren’t sure if they should—that global warming is a hoax.

Not simply that scientists are in error (which they aren’t) but that they have orchestrated the most expensive, wide-ranging, and mind-numbing fraud in the history of the world, just ’cause.

Once again, it’s the PhDs versus college dropouts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. 
Notice that Eichenwald is appealing to the readers perceived party bias, rather than their need to read truth. This happens in every single conspiracy theory hit piece produced by the corporate media.
Notice that we are back to false messiah's as the prophet scenario.
Using Limbaugh & Hannity as experts is running three programs.
1. The utilisation of mass media identities as 'authority figures' right or wrong which is an attempt to limit your sources of information.
2. Asking you to accept that climate change denial is reliant on media identities rather than acceptable authority figures or science. And, that
3. Any arguments put forward by these aforementioned media identities is going to have exploitable flaws that can be successfully argued against. 

Sure, there are a few scientists—almost never climatologists except for the ones that are climatologists but not quoted as being as experts in their field like the Fox News Journalists—who cast aspersions on the idea that all the melting ice and record temperatures in the world might have something to do with the planet getting warmer.
The planet is getting cooler.

But when the vast, vast, vast –three times for extra oomph– majority of scientists—including one hired by the Koch brothers, the multi-billionaires with a financial interest in poo-poohing climate change really?—have concluded not only that the phenomenon is real but that it is being triggered by man-made pollutants, perhaps doubters should set aside their doubts.

But the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world –as opposed to the unnamed climatologists or, heaven forbid, the science itselfhave done a great job convincing Americans that climatologists have entered into this massive, incomprehensible conspiracy –incomprehensible to Eichenwald, who is actually distorting the positions of most people who question the legitimacy of the science that supports the philosophy of climate change– to fool the world that there’s a problem. 

The reason, they say, is that climatologists are doing it for the money, so they can continue to live in their climatologist mansions and drive their climatologist Ferraris
Who is making this claim? The aforementioned idiots @ Fox? 

(For the 26 percent who might not get it, that was sarcasm.) Eichenwald is back to throwing rocks @ those that disagree with him.

Meanwhile, the people who selflessly fight for Americans—the billionaire industrialists and oil-industry magnates—
speak only truth because,
you know, they have no financial reason to suggest climate change is a fraud.
As opposed to the scientists arguing for scientists arguing for climate change.
After all, they have dedicated themselves to a modest life so they can advance the truth, residing in their tumble-down, billionaire shacks and driving their billionaire 1994 Chevys. (Once again—sarcasm.)
Once again, rock throwing.

I’m not belittling the McCarthys, Limbaughs and Hannitys simply to be snide. 
i do believe this statement. 
The reality here is that science is hard.
Hard? Really? Science can be quantified as a weight value??? Maybe, Eichenwald thinks that Science is difficult? 

Perhaps for Eichenwald

Maybe that is why he has dumbed all of the different scientific disciplines into one word, an easily digestible statement that appears correct to the agreeable, those in support and those who aren't thinking about the statement critically. 

This is another programming statement that is intent on locking you into agreement with the concept that Eichenwald is seeking to weave. 

The statement is actually playing on Eichenwald's logic that those that disagree with him on conspiracy theories are mentally deficient. 
It requires deep and long-term training to understand the ractions in ecosystems or microchips or intestines.
A statement of the obvious, designed to have readers believe that those that Eichenwald has targeted for attention, do not know that one must study in order to learn.

That would, presumably include the climatologists, who don't accept the science of climate change, and, the surgeons, doctors, nurses, teachers, and degree holders that don't vaccinate or partake in fluoridated water?

Of course, readers of this article are being encouraged to not think of those people. Rather, the programming has been to liken Eichenwald's targets as imbeciles.

Eichenwald wants his audience to join him feeling superior and throwing rocks at conspiracy theorists.

Eichenwald is a proponent of a Big Brother style surveillance state. He is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair & a former New York Times reporter.   
Is it possible that he has an axe to grind with conspiracy theorists?   

If a doctor said you had stomach cancer, would you consult Rush Limbaugh for a second opinion?
Or Kurt Eichenwald?
Of course, that sounds like nonsense,
Gosh, i agree with Eichenwald again.
but many Americans have no qualms about listening to political commentators and untrained activists when it comes to even more complex scientific questions.
Such as those on CNN, the ABC, BBC etc.
In essence, the greater amount of training it takes to understand something, the more likely, it seems, that Americans will turn to people with shallow knowledge for guidance.

Take vaccines and autism. The entire idea started with a horrific, fraudulent study in a 1998 issue of the Lancet. Click on the link to the abstract, and you’ll notice the large, red word “RETRACTED” across it. The reason is that the study has been deemed a fraud. Not a single legitimate study backs the idea. But the McCarthys of the world march on, true believers who are simply unqualified, frightening Americans into believing their children are safer if they have no protections against deadly disease.
A distortion by using a situation that is advantageous to Eichenwald rather than the mountain of scientific data.

This is Eichenwald's 'smoking gun'.

Treat it as you would, W.Bush's smoking gun after 9/11, which whilst mentioned in the poll, has not scored Eichenwald's condescending derision so far in the article. 

Matter of time?  

The untrained assault on climate change is the same thing.
As opposed to the untrained support pushing climate change.
Consistently, political commentators will say such things as “there’s a blizzard! Global warming is fake!” without any understanding that there is a huge difference between weather and climate.) The greater problem was the phrase “global warming,” because the uninformed didn’t understand that rising climactic temperatures can cause changes in an ecosystem that result in wild swings in weather from both cold and hot. That’s why the phrase is now “climate change.” But folks like Limbaugh don’t get it. He just issued a new proclamation that climate change is fake because there has been stratospheric cooling. This is why you don’t get your science from a radio personality—Limbaugh just offered up the very scenario that the climatologists said would occur: climate change causes stratospheric cooling.
The old, he is arguing our position anyway retort. If that is case, why the fuss?
Notice that Eichenwald is talking about political commentators rather than scientists. This is all part of the programming that no scientists disagree with climate change. 
Except for those scientists that Eichenwald admitted earler on in this article.  

So, should you listen to me? Of course not. I’m not a scientist either.
Although, Eichenwald can write a decent enough sensationalist tabloid hit piece.
But there is plenty of valid research, easily accessible through google, that lays out the trends and issues surrounding the safety of vaccines and the changes in climate we experience.
Plenty of the same that offers the antithesis scientific view on both climate change and vaccination.
But Americans, based on the PPP poll, would rather listen to celebrities.
No. No such question was asked in the poll. This is another opinionated smear by a man with an axe to grind.
Bottom line here is that American ignorance isn’t always just funny—it can be downright dangerous. 
Whenever an authority figure, or supporter thereof, doesn't like the stated opinion of 'we the people', it is the people that are wrong.

The poll just gets more and more depressing.

Almost half of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 or aren’t sure whether he was. 
28% do. Thanks to publications that Eichenwald was involved in like the New York Times & the others who printed Bush's lies without question. 

Twenty-two percent: the Bush administration knowingly allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen.
Yes. It is on the low side. Despite this 9/11 truthers have done a wonderful job educating the public. This number is significantly higher depending on the survey.
Nineteen percent: the Paul McCartney we see perform these days is a lookalike who took the real singer’s place after he died in 1966.
Now we are back to the glib. Trying to associate real issues with glib ones. Older readers will be familiar with this one.

Here’s a great one.
Back to humour, condescension and rock throwing. This will not be about something glib like the Beatles.
Thirty percent either believe that the media or the government adds secret mind-control technology to television-broadcast signals or aren’t sure whether it’s true.
Another distortion. It's 15%. The question itself is an interesting one;
Notice how it is a distortion? No one claims that tv signals program people, but, as demonstrated, Eichenwald is more than happy to distort reality to make his point.

As we have seen in this article, corporate media outlets routinely program people, primarily through psychological means, in a manner similar to advertising. To learn more about this, go and research Edward Bernays.
Seriously! Almost one-third of Americans think they are being or might be subjected to secret mind control. (Bet that doesn’t stop them from watching American Idol, though.)
It would be better if the number was higher, but, of course the stated claim by Eichenwald is actually different than the one in the poll.

Eichenwald has simplified things down to suit his purpose.

Still, my favorite takes us into the beehive of lunacy inside too many American brains. The question asked by P.P.P., in total, was this:

Do you believe that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order, or not?

In a nation that spawned the Tea Party, small wonder that the results here are horrifying: 53 percent of Americans either believe in this vast conspiracy or aren’t sure if it’s false.

Our work is paying off to the point that they now are using spin doctors like Eichenwald to try and reassure you that you are free.

The problem is that people have stopped listening to these liars. People are waking up and learning about the true nature of their servitude.
Look, folks, the reality is that conspiracies are hard to pull off.
Like really hard. Maybe as hard as the hardest setting on your favourite video game, or even harder than that.
Large groups of media executives, reporters, politicians, and scientists couldn’t manage to conspire to have lunch, must less take over the world.
The old Noam Chomsky line. They can't all keep a secret. Like on the Manhatten Project for instance. Of course, there is no consideration of the compartmentalisation of information via hierarchy. Yet, the reader isn't meant to be thinking critically by this stage of the article. S/he is meant to be cheering loudly as each point is read.
But these nutty –opinion– beliefs have real consequences, on real people. Or, as Scientific American put it in an article last year, “[t]he new science denialism is creating an existential crisis like few the country has faced before.”
This reads like an opinion, as opposed to what real science actually does to learn about the world around them.

Why not quote the scientific magazine that performed unbiased tests and gained results that are agreeable to Eichenwald?

Oh that's right...... they don't have any.


Yes, we have become scientific and political illiterates, –well, he is by admission, you don't have to agree to be that– and no nation can survive on a bedrock of such delusional stupidity.
Really? Eichenwald is suggesting that nations with large scale illiteracy can't survive, but, nations, can & have survived such situations, not, that the readers should be thinking critically as i mentioned earlier.

Of course, the 26 percent (or more) won’t believe me, if they manage to read this.
Back to rock throwing again for the loping or full circle effect. 

Isn't Eichenwald clever to think to employ this common journalistic trick?
I’ll just be deemed an “elitist” for daring to suggest that demon science and data, rather than ridiculous conspiracy theories, should be used to judge reality.
No. It is more correct to label this man a wanker who deliberately distorts facts to make a point, who makes a comment like the one here, but, practices the exact opposite.
So, it may be a losing battle, but we should all try. I don’t want to be forced, someday, to stand by as the rest of the world renames our nation “America the Ignorant.”
That happened sometime in early 2001.

[Note to my editor: Please don’t forget to keep the combination of words in this piece that serve as a mind-control device, which will distract readers from the coming political battle between the government, Satan, and real Americans. My political and media masters have demanded that we don’t mess this up. And do not forget to delete this note to you. We can’t let anyone find out about this conspiracy. Best, Kurt.]
Why would an editor write this to himself?
Why would it be here if it was real and not a poor taste joke that is symptomatic of the article in its entirety? 

This article illustrates the need to be aware when consuming corporate propaganda and programming. 

No comments:

Post a Comment