7 Responses

  1. For the Empire, to control the public’s vocabulary is to control the public’s thoughts. Think of it as fundamental programming. If you can program the peasants to use your euphemisms (e.g. “intervention”) and your labels (e.g. “ISIS”) then the peasants will serve you even if they claim to oppose you. Since most people think in labels and buzzwords, mind control lies in vocabulary control. For example, Tulsi Gabbard (above) refers to the Syrian “gas attack” as “horrific,” rather than alleged. Jimmy Dore refers to the Syrian proxy war as a civil war. In this way they both serve the Empire without wanting to. In controlling the public mind, what counts is not logic, proof, or evidence, but fundamental programming (i.e. vocabulary). If you can program a peasant to call Assad a “dictator,” then you will control the peasant’s mind. The Empire wins. Everything beyond “dictator” becomes chatter.

    • Commercial advertising and government propaganda work in exactly the same way, since most people think in labels and slogans.

      Just do it.
      It’s the real thing.
      Freedom fighters.
      Melts in your mouth, not in your hand.
      Gas attack.
      Finger lickin’ good
      Please don’t squeeze the Charmin.
      Nuclear threat.
      Good to the last drop.

  2. “When we get rid of Assad, who will we replace him with? ISIS and al-Qaeda.” ~ Jimmy Dore

    I contend that often the Empire’s goal is not regime change, but regime prevention – i.e. to destroy the current government while preventing any new government from forming. Libya is one example. Syria is another. Why pay a puppet dictator when you can reduce a nation to rubble, and steal whatever it has? The Empire makes its choice on a case-by-case basis (regime change vs. regime prevention).

    • Exactly. Prevent any viable national states forming. They just want create chaos there with many factions and war lords killing each other. They do not want any state that would engage in policies promoting their self interest. They abhor secular states in particular. I think even a friendly to Israel and USA state that becomes too successful will be destroyed. I think this was the case with Iran under Shah that was super friendly with Israel and USA but they were doing too well economically and were getting strong military. Israel did not like it, so islamic revolution was organized and Khomeini was brought from France which setback Iran’s development by several decades.

      • Are you sure, Utu? Many sources say that most Persians lived very poorly under Reza Pahlavi, he basically allowed all the oil profits to go to BP, and spent little on domestic development. Many critics of Khomeini and successor governments aren’t fans of him either. Ruhollah has his share of defenders crediting for literacy campaigns, defense against Iraq in the 1980s, antivice campaigns, and social programs.

  3. I wonder how that happens, how someone goes over to the Dark Side, what did they offer him and what did he take? Very sad. At least we have her, I called her office and said I fully supported her and as they are running a Dem opponent against her I will donate to her campaign as well. Sad times.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: