Divide & Conquer – Left / Right Paradigm

Divide & Conquer Left-Right Paradigm

Google’s intolerant workplace culture will cost it everything

Source: ActivistPost.com
August 17, 2017

Not even kidding: College will require “Abolition of Whiteness” course for political science majors

Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
May 29, 2017

Many once-fine institutions for higher learning in America are slowly but very steadily being transformed from educational facilities to cultural revolution centers aimed at destroying traditional American principles, values and mores.

How else can you possibly explain this outrage: Requiring political science majors to take and pass a course called “Abolition of Whiteness” that is little more than mandatory shaming of anyone born Caucasian.

As reported by Campus Reform, Hunter College in New York City, beginning in the Fall 2017 semester, will require the course, which is to be taught by “Women and Gender Studies” Prof. Jennifer Gaboury. The course is cross-listed for her department and the Political Science Department, and will fulfill one of four classes in the “4 subfields of political science” under the overarching “POLSC 204: Contemporary Issues in Political Theory.”

As someone who holds a BA in political science, I can tell you that this course offers nothing in terms of genuine understanding of American government — how it functions, its constitutional underpinning, political parties, the legislative process, etc. Rather, it is just another way insane Left-wing “academics” can feed into the racist and preposterous construct that whatever ails our country can and must be laid at the feet of white people. (Related: Read Evergreen State College students SEIZE campus, begin forced searches of vehicles for white professor who refused to kow-tow to liberal insanity.)

As Campus Reform notes, the school’s official course catalog doesn’t say very much about what the course actually discusses. However, a flyer advertising a previous version of the course from the Fall 2016 semester says it is “an overview of whiteness studies in the United States,” focusing specifically “on concepts of consciousness, in/visibility, disavowal, and resentment.”

So in other words, students are taught that not only are whites the epitome of all that is bad in America, they should feel badly about creating so much “resentment” for all they’ve allegedly done, and must disavow their own race.

It isn’t as though a degree in “Women and Gender Studies” is going to land you a decent job, but what is a course like this supposed to add, specifically, to someone’s understanding of government?

Nothing, of course. It’s not about that. It’s about meting out punishment for being white.

“We’ll be examining how whiteness — and/or white supremacy and violence — is intertwined with conceptions of gender, race, sexuality, class, body ability, nationality, and age,” says the course description. It adds, “a petition for this course is on file with the College Senate so that it fulfills Pluralism and Diversity Parts B, C, or D.,” which is a reference to mandatory course work that, respectively, focuses on “the historical conditions, perspectives and/or intellectual traditions” of ethnic minorities in the United States, women, people with non-traditional sexual orientations, as well as Europeans.

While the course does not yet appear to have been officially added to the list of classes which satisfy the “Pluralism and Diversity requirement,” the mere fact that it has been proposed and being seriously considered is worse than outrageous.

If there is any aspect of “Abolition of Whiteness” appropriate to the instruction of political science in this day and age, instruction which includes lessons in political activity and political behavior, which party — rather, which ideology — do you think gives the subject the most serious consideration?

If you said Donald Trump’s party, you’d be wrong. Trump isn’t the “white supremacist” he’s framed as being, his supporters aren’t the racists they’ve been portrayed as being. In fact, only the Alt-Left, which is squarely ensconced in the Democratic Party, pushes the narrative that whites are evil, whites are bad, and if only power were taken away from whites then America would become utopia. (Related: Read America’s Universities Have Become Training Camps For Violent Left-Wing Extremism.)

No course like this should be taught on any college campus, but can you even imagine such a course being suggested and approved called “Abolition of Blackness,” where students are taught to “disavow” and “resent” black people? Or Hispanics? Or Native Americans?

I can’t either.

Breakaway Guide To Censorship, Disinformation, Logical Fallacies & More

TheBreakaway | BreakawayConciousness
Zy Marquiez
May 18, 2017

As a preamble, let me preface this with a big thanks of appreciation to all of those individuals who have contributed to the crucial information provided below and who have sought to make it available to everyone.

Now, in order to learn how to navigate through the nefarious web of deception created these days within all types of media, there will be five distinct articles cited at length that outline information that’s quite vital for incisive individuals to know so they can become self-sufficient in their ability to discern the truth from veritable smoke screens. It is suggested these are studied regularly until they are learned given how important and efficient they are.

Logical Fallacies will be the first tool addressed. This is because logic is arguably one of the most important – if not the most important – tool an individual will have at their disposal in order to maneuver through their everyday life more efficiently, especially when dealing with the daily nonsense that the establishment and mainstream media espouses. For those seeking additional information on Logic, please read 13 Great Reasons To Study Logic, and Socratic Logic V3.1 by Peter Kreeft Ph.D.

We will commence by citing a piece that was shared earlier this year.

In Logical Fallacies Employed In Every Day Life, we shared:

What is a logical fallacy?

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Strong arguments are void of logical fallacies, whilst arguments that are weak tend to use logical fallacies to appear stronger than they are. They’re like tricks or illusions of thought, and they’re often very sneakily used by politicians, media, and others to fool people. Below follow some of the more common fallacies.

Strawman
Misrepresenting Someone’s Argument To Make It Easier To Attack
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to prevent your own position as being reasonable, but this is kind of dishonest and serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After will said we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenseless by cutting military spending.

Slippery Slope
Asserting That If We Allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

False Cause
Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.
Example: Pointing to a fancy chart, a Senator shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of terrorist attacks have been increasing; thus global warming causes terrorism. [Don’t believe me? Look it up – an actual senator that said this.]

Ad Hominem
Attacking your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

Special Pleading
Moving the goalposts to create exceptions when a claim is shown to be false.
Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his ‘abilities’ were tested under proper scientific conditions, they magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for them to work.

Loaded Question
Asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that it can’t be answered without appearing guilty.
Example: Grace and Helen were both romantically interested in Brad. One day, with Brad sitting within earshot, Grace asked in an inquisitive tone whether Helen was having any problems with a fungal infection.

The Gambler’s Fallacy
Believing that ‘runs’ occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins.
Example: Red had come up six times in a row on the roulette wheel, so Greg knew that it was close to certain that black would be next up. Suffering an economic form of natural selection with this thinking, he soon lost all of his savings.

Bandwagon
Appealing to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.
Example: Shamus pointed a drunken finger at Sean and asked him to explain how so many people could believe in leprechauns if they’re only a silly old superstition. Sean, however, had had a few too many Guinness himself and fell off his chair.

Black-Or-White
Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Example: Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or on the side of the enemy. [Note: George Bush did this by the way…]

Begging The Questions
A circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise.
Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo’s Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.

Appeal To Authority
Using the opinion or position of an authority figure, or institution of authority, in place of an actual argument.
Example: When an individual states that vaccines are safe just because doctors say so, even though countless studies can be cited to eviscerate the ‘safety’ argument.

Appeal To Nature
Making the argument that because something is ‘natural’ it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal.
Example: The medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon offering various natural remedies, such as very special plain water. He said that it was only natural that people should be wary of ‘artificial’ medicines such as antibiotics. The converse is also true, which could be in a way called Appeal To Technology/Science.

Composition / Division
Assuming that what’s true about one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it.
Example: Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was made of atoms and therefore invisible too. Unfortunately, despite his thinky skills, he lost the game of hide and go seek.

Anecdotal
Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument.
Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 – so don’t believe everything you read about meta analyses of sound studies showing proven causal relationships.

Appeal To Emotion
Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
Example: Luke didn’t want to eat his sheep’s brains with chopped liver and brussels sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a third world country who weren’t fortunate enough to have any food at all.

The Fallacy Fallacy
Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that it is necessarily wrong.
Example: Recognizing that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

Tu Quoque
Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – answering criticism with criticism.
Example: The blue candidate accused the red candidate of committing the tu quoque fallacy. The red candidate responded by accusing the blue candidate of the same, after which ensued an hour of back and forth criticism with not much progress.

Personal Incredulity
Saying that because one finds something difficult to understand that it’s therefore not true.
Example: Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.

Burden Of Proof
Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
Examples: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong his claim is therefore a valid one.

Ambiguity
Using double meanings or ambiguities of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.
Example: When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn’t paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn’t have to pay them because the sign said ‘Fine for parking here’ and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there.

No True Scotsman
Making what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument.
Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like atrue Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.

Genetic
Judging something good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it comes.
Example: Accused on the 6 o’clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.

The Texas Sharpshooter
Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption.
Example: The makers of Sugarette Candy Drinks point to research showing that of the five countries where Sugarette drinks sell the most units, three of them are in the top ten healthiest countries on Earth, therefore Sugarette drinks are healthy.

Middle Ground
Saying that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes is the truth.
Example: Holly said that vaccinations are safe, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim was untrue because there were dozens of studies proving otherwise. Their friend Alice offered a compromise that vaccinations are sometimes safe.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Next we will proceed by citing various ways truth if often suppressed. Many of these techniques are seen nigh daily, which is why its important to remain cognizant of them.

In Thirteen Techniques For Truth Suppression, David Martin of [BrassCheck.com] writes:

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

Dummy up. If it’s not reported, if it’s not news, it didn’t happen.
Wax indignant. This is also known as the “how dare you?” gambit.
Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.”
Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nut,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and of course, “rumor monger.” You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.
Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.
Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
Dismiss the charges as “old news.”
Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hang-out route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.
Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven’t reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.
Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.

______________________________________________________________________________

Tackling the fundamentals in Disinformation – How It Works, Brandon Smith [Alt-Market.com] writes:

There was a time, not too long ago (relatively speaking), that governments and the groups of elites that controlled them did not find it necessary to conscript themselves into wars of disinformation.

Propaganda was relatively straightforward. The lies were much simpler. The control of information flow was easily directed. Rules were enforced with the threat of property confiscation and execution for anyone who strayed from the rigid socio-political structure. Those who had theological, metaphysical or scientific information outside of the conventional and scripted collective world view were tortured and slaughtered. The elites kept the information to themselves, and removed its remnants from mainstream recognition, sometimes for centuries before it was rediscovered.

With the advent of anti-feudalism, and most importantly the success of the American Revolution, elitists were no longer able to dominate information with the edge of a blade or the barrel of a gun. The establishment of Republics, with their philosophy of open government and rule by the people, compelled Aristocratic minorities to plot more subtle ways of obstructing the truth and thus maintaining their hold over the world without exposing themselves to retribution from the masses. Thus, the complex art of disinformation was born.

The technique, the “magic” of the lie, was refined and perfected. The mechanics of the human mind and the human soul became an endless obsession for the establishment.

The goal was malicious, but socially radical; instead of expending the impossible energy needed to dictate the very form and existence of the truth, they would allow it to drift, obscured in a fog of contrived data. They would wrap the truth in a Gordian Knot of misdirection and fabrication so elaborate that they felt certain the majority of people would surrender, giving up long before they ever finished unraveling the deceit. The goal was not to destroy the truth, but to hide it in plain sight.

In modern times, and with carefully engineered methods, this goal has for the most part been accomplished. However, these methods also have inherent weaknesses. Lies are fragile. They require constant attentiveness to keep them alive. The exposure of a single truth can rip through an ocean of lies, evaporating it instantly.

In this article, we will examine the methods used to fertilize and promote the growth of disinformation, as well as how to identify the roots of disinformation and effectively cut them, starving out the entire system of fallacies once and for all.

Media Disinformation Methods

The mainstream media, once tasked with the job of investigating government corruption and keeping elitists in line, has now become nothing more than a public relations firm for corrupt officials and their Globalist handlers. The days of the legitimate “investigative reporter” are long gone (if they ever existed at all), and journalism itself has deteriorated into a rancid pool of so called “TV Editorialists” who treat their own baseless opinions as supported fact.

The elitist co-opting of news has been going on in one form or another since the invention of the printing press. However, the first methods of media disinformation truly came to fruition under the supervision of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who believed the truth was “subjective” and open to his personal interpretation.

Some of the main tactics used by the mainstream media to mislead the masses are as follows:

Lie Big, Retract Quietly: Mainstream media sources (especially newspapers) are notorious for reporting flagrantly dishonest and unsupported news stories on the front page, then quietly retracting those stories on the very back page when they are caught. In this case, the point is to railroad the lie into the collective consciousness. Once the lie is finally exposed, it is already too late, and a large portion of the population will not notice or care when the truth comes out.

Unconfirmed Or Controlled Sources As Fact: Cable news venues often cite information from “unnamed” sources, government sources that have an obvious bias or agenda, or “expert” sources without providing an alternative “expert” view. The information provided by these sources is usually backed by nothing more than blind faith.

Calculated Omission: Otherwise known as “cherry picking” data. One simple piece of information or root item of truth can derail an entire disinfo news story, so instead of trying to gloss over it, they simply pretend as if it doesn’t exist. When the fact is omitted, the lie can appear entirely rational. This tactic is also used extensively when disinformation agents and crooked journalists engage in open debate.

Distraction, And The Manufacture Of Relevance: Sometimes the truth wells up into the public awareness regardless of what the media does to bury it. When this occurs their only recourse is to attempt to change the public’s focus and thereby distract them from the truth they were so close to grasping. The media accomplishes this by “over-reporting” on a subject that has nothing to do with the more important issues at hand. Ironically, the media can take an unimportant story, and by reporting on it ad nauseum, cause many Americans to assume that because the media won’t shut-up about it, it must be important!

Dishonest Debate Tactics: Sometimes, men who actually are concerned with the average American’s pursuit of honesty and legitimate fact-driven information break through and appear on T.V. However, rarely are they allowed to share their views or insights without having to fight through a wall of carefully crafted deceit and propaganda. Because the media know they will lose credibility if they do not allow guests with opposing viewpoints every once in a while, they set up and choreograph specialized T.V. debates in highly restrictive environments which put the guest on the defensive, and make it difficult for them to clearly convey their ideas or facts.

TV pundits are often trained in what are commonly called “Alinsky Tactics.” Saul Alinsky was a moral relativist, and champion of the lie as a tool for the “greater good”; essentially, a modern day Machiavelli. His “Rules for Radicals” were supposedly meant for grassroots activists who opposed the establishment and emphasized the use of any means necessary to defeat one’s political opposition. But is it truly possible to defeat an establishment built on lies, by use of even more elaborate lies, and by sacrificing one’s ethics? In reality, his strategies are the perfect format for corrupt institutions and governments to dissuade dissent from the masses. Today, Alinsky’s rules are used more often by the establishment than by its opposition.
Alinsky’s Strategy: Win At Any Cost, Even If You Have To Lie

Alinsky’s tactics have been adopted by governments and disinformation specialists across the world, but they are most visible in TV debate. While Alinsky sermonized about the need for confrontation in society, his debate tactics are actually designed to circumvent real and honest confrontation of opposing ideas with slippery tricks and diversions. Alinsky’s tactics, and their modern usage, can be summarized as follows:

1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.

We see this tactic in many forms. For example, projecting your own movement as mainstream, and your opponent’s as fringe. Convincing your opponent that his fight is a futile one. Your opposition may act differently, or even hesitate to act at all, based on their perception of your power. How often have we heard this line: “The government has predator drones. There is nothing the people can do now…” This is a projection of exaggerated invincibility designed to elicit apathy from the masses.

2) Never go outside the experience of your people, and whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.

Don’t get drawn into a debate about a subject you do not know as well as or better than your opposition. If possible, draw them into such a situation instead. Go off on tangents. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty in your opposition. This is commonly used against unwitting interviewees on cable news shows whose positions are set up to be skewered. The target is blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. In television and radio, this also serves to waste broadcast time to prevent the target from expressing his own position.

3) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

The objective is to target the opponent’s credibility and reputation by accusations of hypocrisy. If the tactician can catch his opponent in even the smallest misstep, it creates an opening for further attacks, and distracts away from the broader moral question.

4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

“Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Gold bugs are crazy.” “Constitutionalists are fringe extremists.” Baseless ridicule is almost impossible to counter because it is meant to be irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

5) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

The popularization of the term “Teabaggers” is a classic example; it caught on by itself because people seem to think it’s clever, and enjoy saying it. Keeping your talking points simple and fun helps your side stay motivated, and helps your tactics spread autonomously, without instruction or encouragement.

6) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

See rule No. 5. Don’t become old news. If you keep your tactics fresh, it’s easier to keep your people active. Not all disinformation agents are paid. The “useful idiots” have to be motivated by other means. Mainstream disinformation often changes gear from one method to the next and then back again.

7) Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Never give the target a chance to rest, regroup, recover or re-strategize. Take advantage of current events and twist their implications to support your position. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

8) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

This goes hand in hand with Rule No. 1. Perception is reality. Allow your opposition to expend all of its energy in expectation of an insurmountable scenario. The dire possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.

9) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

The objective of this pressure is to force the opposition to react and make the mistakes that are necessary for the ultimate success of the campaign.

10) If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

As grassroots activism tools, Alinsky tactics have historically been used (for example, by labor movements or covert operations specialists) to force the opposition to react with violence against activists, which leads to popular sympathy for the activists’ cause. Today, false (or co-opted) grassroots movements and revolutions use this technique in debate as well as in planned street actions and rebellions (look at Syria for a recent example).

11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. Today, this is often used offensively against legitimate activists, such as the opponents of the Federal Reserve. Complain that your opponent is merely “pointing out the problems.” Demand that they offer not just “a solution”, but THE solution. Obviously, no one person has “the” solution. When he fails to produce the miracle you requested, dismiss his entire argument and all the facts he has presented as pointless.

12) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. The target’s supporters will expose themselves. Go after individual people, not organizations or institutions. People hurt faster than institutions.

The next time you view an MSM debate, watch the pundits carefully, you will likely see many if not all of the strategies above used on some unsuspecting individual attempting to tell the truth.
Internet Disinformation Methods

Internet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly and openly being employed by private corporations as well governments, often for marketing purposes and for “public relations” (Obama is notorious for this practice). Internet “trolling” is indeed a fast growing industry.

Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:

Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of the impersonal nature of the Web.
Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the think tank propagandists like the SPLC, which purports that Constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.
Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive Web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved.
Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. When they post, their words feel strangely plastic and well rehearsed.
False Association: This works hand in hand with item No. 2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the “Trojan Horse Troll.” For example: calling those against the Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics”; deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with racists and homegrown terrorists, because of the inherent negative connotations; and using false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining the evidence objectively.
False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.”
Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words.

Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet troll.

Stopping Disinformation

The best way to disarm disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. This gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person utilizing it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest and weak for even making the attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes and usually fold and run from debate when it occurs.

The truth is precious. It is sad that there are so many in our society who have lost respect for it; people who have traded in their conscience and their soul for temporary financial comfort while sacrificing the stability and balance of the rest of the country in the process.

The human psyche breathes on the air of truth. Without it, humanity cannot survive. Without it, the species will collapse, starving from lack of intellectual and emotional sustenance.

Disinformation does not only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; it makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding, and doubt: all things that lead to destruction. It can drive good people to commit terrible atrocities against others, or even against themselves. Without a concerted and organized effort to diffuse mass-produced lies, the future will look bleak indeed.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Knowing how disinformation works, now we will take a gander at 25 Rules Of Disinformation that were written by H. Michael Sweeney, although we found them personally at WashingtonsBlog.com:

Preface: This handy set of rules covers most of the games which disinformation artists play on the Internet (and offline). When you know the tricks, you’ll be able to spot the games. Even if you’ve read this list before, you might be surprised at how useful it is to brush up on these tricks.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.
Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.
Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.
Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Now to anchor all of the above information, we will cite How To Spot – And Defeat – Disruption On The Internet which comes from WashingtonsBlog.com:

We’ve seen a number of tactics come and go over the years. Here are the ones we see a lot of currently.

Start a partisan divide-and-conquer fight or otherwise push emotional buttons to sow discord and ensure that cooperation is thwarted. Get people fighting against each other instead of the corrupt powers-that-be. Use baseless caricatures to rile everyone up. For example, start a religious war whenever possible using stereotypes like “all Jews are selfish”, “all Christians are crazy” or “all Muslims are terrorists”. Accuse the author of being a gay, pro-abortion limp-wristed wimp or being a fundamentalist pro-war hick when the discussion has nothing to do with abortion, sexuality, religion, war or region. Appeal to people’s basest prejudices and biases. And – as Sweeney explains – push the author into a defensive posture:

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule … Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Pretend it’s hopeless because we’ll be squashed if we try. For example, every time a whistleblower leaks information, say “he’s going to be bumped off”. If people talk about protesting, organizing, boycotting, shareholder activism, spreading the real facts, moving our money or taking other constructive action, write things to scare and discourage people, say something like “we don’t have any chance because they have drones and they’ll just kill us if we try”, or “Americans are too stupid, lazy and greedy, so they’ll never help out.” Encourage people to be apathetic instead of trying to change things.
Demand complete, fool-proof and guaranteed solutions to the problems being discussed. For example, if a reporter breaks the story that the big banks conspired to rig a market, ask “given that people are selfish and that no regulation can close all possible loopholes … how are you going to change human nature?”, and pretend that it’s not worth talking about the details of the market manipulation. This discourages people from reporting on and publicizing the corruption, fraud and other real problems. And it ensures that not enough people will spread the facts so that the majority know what’s really going on.
Suggest extreme, over-the-top, counter-productive solutions which will hurt more than help, or which are wholly disproportionate to what is being discussed. For example, if the discussion is whether or not to break up the big banks or to go back on the gold standard, say that everyone over 30 should be killed because they are sell-outs and irredeemable, or that all of the banks should be bombed. This discredits the attempt to spread the facts and to organize, and is simply the web method of the provocateur.
Pretend that alternative media – such as blogs written by the top experts in their fields, without any middleman – are untrustworthy or are motivated solely by money (for example, use the derogatory term “blogspam” for any blog posting, pretending that there is no original or insightful reporting, but that the person is simply doing it for ad revenue).
Coordinate with a couple of others to “shout down” reasonable comments. This is especially effective when the posters launch an avalanche of comments in quick succession … the original, reasonable comment gets lost or attacked so much that it is largely lost.
Use an army of sock puppets. You can either hire low-wage workers in India or other developing countries to “astroturf” or – if you work for the government – you can use hire military personnel and subcontractors to monitor social media and “correct” information which you don’t like (and see this), or use software which allows you to quickly create and alternate between numerous false identities, each with their own internet address.
Censor social media, so that the hardest-hitting information is buried. If you can’t censor it, set up “free speech zones” to push dissent into dank, dark corners where no one will see it.
When the powers-that-be cut corners and take criminally reckless gambles with our lives and our livelihoods, protect them by pretending that the inevitable result – nuclear accidents, financial crises, terrorist attacks or other disasters – were “unforeseeable” and that “no could have known”.
Protect the rich and powerful by labeling any allegations of criminal activity as being a “conspiracy theory”. For example, when Goldman gets caught rigging markets, label the accusations as mere conspiracies.

The following 4 tactics from Sweeney are also still commonly used …

Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.
Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

Postscript: Over a number of years, we’ve found that the most effective way to fight disruption and disinformation is to link to a post such as this one which rounds up disruption techniques, and then to cite the disinfo technique you think is being used.

Specifically, we’ve found the following format to be highly effective in educating people in a non-confrontational manner about what the disrupting person is doing:

Good Number 1!

Or:

Thanks for that textbook example of Number 7!

(include the link so people can see what you’re referring to.)

The reason this is effective is that other readers will learn about the specific disruption tactic being used … in context, like seeing wildlife while holding a wildlife guide, so that one learns what it looks like “in the field”. At the same time, you come across as humorous and light-hearted instead of heavy-handed or overly-intense.

__________________________________________________________________________________

The above amalgamation of tools, techniques, tips, and data points should not only be able to help individuals ascertain the modus operandi used against them regarding censorship, disinformation, deception et al. but also assist in what to do in response to them where applicable.

Be it a newcomer, or an old timer, this information will serve as an excellent foundation for those looking to learn the ways that the establishment casts its nefarious webs, or perhaps serve as a review to those that have been doing this for a long time.

Make sure to review it from time to time in order to make sure it’s not forgotten.

___________________________________________________________

Suggested resources reviewed below for those seeking ideas to self-teach and become autodidacts:

7 Phenomenal Books For Homeschoolers, Self-Directed Learners & Autodidacts
13 Great Reasons To Study Logic
Open Source Education – Examples
What’s An Elite Education? Famous Teacher Explains
Socratic Logic V3.1 by Peter Kreeft Ph.D.
The Trivium – The Liberal Arts Of Grammar & Rhetoric by Sister Miriam Joseph Ph.D.
How To Read A Book – The Classic Guide To Intelligent Reading by Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren
Philosophy 101 – An Introduction To Philosophy Via Plato’s Apology by Peter Kreeft Ph.D.
The Complete Workbook For Arguments – A Complete Course In Critical Thinking [2nd Ed.] by David R. Morrow & Anthony Weston
The Imaginative Argument – A Practical Manifesto For Writers by Frank L. Cioffi
Sherlock Holmes – The Complete Stories by Arthur Conan Doyle

The following books reviewed below cover the disturbing issues within the public schooling system:

Rotten To The Common Core by Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.& Gary Lawrence
Dumbing Us Down – The Hidden Curriculum Of Compulsory Schooling by John Taylor Gatto
A Different Kind Of Teacher – Solving The Crisis Of American Schooling by John Taylor Gatto
Weapons Of Mass Instruction by John Taylor Gatto
Drilling Through The Core, by Sandra Stotsky & Contributors

The True Purpose Of Modern Schooling

TheBreakaway | BreakawayConciousness
Zy Marquiez
May 17, 2017

There are individuals out there that whittle facing the storm, and there are those who challenge the storm. John Taylor Gatto is one of the latter.

John Taylor Gatto is the former NY City and NY State Teacher of the year [1991], where he inspired his students to achieve some amazing results through his nontraditional methods of instruction.

Not only has Gatto been relentless in detailing many of the inherent issues within the public school system for quite some time now, but he’s had the courage to take it a step further and detail that all of the issues within public schooling are not mistakes, it is done by design.

To illustrate this, an excerpt of John Taylor Gatto’s Weapons Of Mass Instruction will follow below.

Within Weapons Of Mass Instruction, John Taylor Gatto breaks down Alexander Inglis’s book Principles of Secondary Education, which “..makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever re-integrated into a dangerous whole.”[xviii][Bold Emphasis Added]

Furthermore, as author notes that Inglis, who has an honor lecture in education named for him in Harvard, breaks down the natural purpose of schooling into 6 basic functions,” which are as follows:

1. The adjective or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority…It is also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can’t test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2. The integrating function. This might well be called “the conformity function,” because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a larger labor force.

3. The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student’s proper role in society.

4. The differentiating function. Once the social role has been “diagnosed,” children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits – and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5. The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin’s theory of natural selection as applied to what he called “the favored races…Schools are meant to tag the unfit – with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments – clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That’s what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6. The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will be quietly taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.” [xviii-xix][Bold Emphasis Added]

And just in case some wonder that Inglis was alone in these thoughts, he was not. Horace Mann, James Bryant Conant, George Peabody, and many others shared the same sentiments.

What witness above is nothing more than the employment of Social Engineering from the bottom up, at a national scale, beginning with the most malleable minds in the land – those of children. It doesn’t get any more cut and dry.

John Taylor Gatto is one of the few individuals out there whose wisdom seeps into all societal strata. His words should be heeded, because the issue is only exacerbating year after year.

In life, an individual can choose to write their own script, or be part of someone else’s.

As we can gather, if those in control of the system carry out their plans of mass conformity and control, children, an all future generations, will never write their own authentic scripts unless they breakaway from those proverbial shackles.

Education, true classical education, and not the facsimile society is being sold, is the only way out. Everything else is merely a parody, and by public schooling’s repeated failures this is shown to be true.

_____________________________________________________________
Sources & References:

[1] John Taylor Gatto’s Weapons Of Mass Instruction, pp. xviii
[2] Ibid., pp. xviii-xix.

His other blog, BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com features mainly his personal work, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information nigh always ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.
____________________________________________________________
Suggested resources reviewed below for those seeking ideas to self-teach and become autodidacts:

7 Phenomenal Books For Homeschoolers, Self-Directed Learners & Autodidacts
13 Great Reasons To Study Logic
Socratic Logic V3.1 by Peter Kreeft Ph.D.
The Trivium – The Liberal Arts Of Grammar & Rhetoric by Sister Miriam Joseph Ph.D.
How To Read A Book – The Classic Guide To Intelligent Reading by Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren
Philosophy 101 – An Introduction To Philosophy Via Plato’s Apology by Peter Kreeft Ph.D.
The Complete Workbook For Arguments – A Complete Course In Critical Thinking [2nd Ed.] by David R. Morrow & Anthony Weston
The Imaginative Argument – A Practical Manifesto For Writers by Frank L. Cioffi
Sherlock Holmes – The Complete Stories by Arthur Conan Doyle

The following books reviewed below cover the disturbing issues within the public schooling system:

Target Indonesia?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 27, 2017

There are some interesting developments on the other side of the world from Syria, in Indonesia, to be precise, courtesy of some articles many of you sent to me, including Mr. E.G., who supplied the following three articles:

Prabowo Expresses Gratitude to FPI Leader for ‘Saving Indonesia’s Democracy’

Trump’s Indonesian Allies In Bed With ISIS-Backed Militia Seeking to Oust Elected President

Of the two articles, I want to concentrate on the second, for if its sweeping allegations are true, we have yet another case of elements of the American deep state supporting the most radical elements within Islam, to overthrow the government of yet another “moderate” or “secular” Muslim state, in this case, Indonesia. See if the following play book sounds vaguely familiar:

Associates of Donald Trump in Indonesia have joined army officers and a vigilante street movement linked to ISIS in a campaign that ultimately aims to oust the country’s president. According to Indonesian military and intelligence officials and senior figures involved in what they call “the coup,” the move against President Joko Widodo (known more commonly as Jokowi), a popular elected civilian, is being impelled from behind the scenes by active and retired generals.

Prominent supporters of the coup movement include Fadli Zon, vice speaker of the Indonesian House of Representatives and Donald Trump’s main political booster in the country; and Hary Tanoe, Trump’s primary Indonesian business partner, who is building two Trump resorts, one in Bali and one outside Jakarta.

This account of the movement to overthrow President Jokowi is based on dozens of interviews and is supplemented by internal army, police, and intelligence documents I obtained or viewed in Indonesia, as well as by NSA intercepts obtained by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Many sources on both sides of the coup spoke on condition of anonymity. Two of them expressed apparently well-founded concerns about their safety.

Now, of course, when one thinks of the words “coup”, “Indonesia” and “military junta” all at once, one tends to think of 1965 and the coup against Indonesian president Sukarno, a coup that, for all its complexities, many (this author included) still think has the CIA’s hands all over it (and let’s not forget the ever-present Hjalmar Schacht hovering in the background, and Sukarno’s more recently revealed connection to Operation Golden Lily’s looted Japanese gold). Indeed, as the article itself notes, the 1965 coup is viewed that way to this day, in Indonesia:

Yet in repeated, detailed conversations with me, key protest figures and officials who track them have dismissed the movement against Ahok and the charges against him as a mere pretext for a larger objective: sidelining the country’s president, Jokowi, and helping the army avoid consequences for its mass killings of civilians — such as the 1965 massacres that were endorsed by the U.S. government, which armed and backed the Indonesian military.

Now, as then, the fear is Communism in the government:

Barely mentioning religious questions, they said Indonesia’s problem was New-Style Communism, and the army must be able to step in and guide the situation because Indonesia is not mature, not ready for democracy. Jokowi, they charged, was providing a space for communism, and the only strong organization that can face up to that is the army.

As to their street protest movement, they said, we civilians must be backed by the military, something they said was indeed happening secretly because now under reformasi the military can’t engage in politics. According to Haji Usamah, “It’s an intelligence operation by military personnel, but the army can’t be out front. They give the strategic view and direction. The army doesn’t like the communists.”

Leaving aside the memories of 1965, I want to concentrate on the high octane speculation of the day. I am certainly not by any stretch of the imagination familiar with Indonesian history, culture, or the internal tensions in that country, other than in the most general way. What intrigues me about this article and more importantly, with the more disturbing developments in that country in general, are things that lie outside the convenient comparisons of today with 1965, of President Jokowi with President Sukarno. Certainly the internal tensions are there to be exploited. What is disturbing is the wider picture and pattern that we’ve seen before: radicalized Islamic elements, the military, and US connections.

The question is: why, with these suggestions of US deep state connections, would those elements be interested in toppling yet another relatively secular and moderate Muslim state? The reasons for that, I suspect, are many and varied, and not the least of them involve the idea of setting up a “clash of civilizations” scenario. There appears to be a certain element of the globaloney crowd that wants to promote the most egregious and radical forms of Islam wherever it can. And thus far, its allies in these endeavors have been radical elements, funded and armed by a variety of cutouts, with many of those roads leading to Riyadh. Why there? Consider: the world is being divided into two blocs (again), one centered on Russia and China, and the latter’s New Silk Road project, against which Mr. Globaloney has only one thing to offer: dollars, drones, and empire. As a way of extending its reach, it would appear that the “standard play book” is being revised, updated, and translated from Damascus to Jakarta. But Riyadh, too, is getting cold feet, and has recently made noises about wanting to join the BRICSA bloc.

Howsoever one parses its role, it does seem clear that there are deeper players in the most recent Indonesian shenanigans, and I hate to say it, but we have not heard the last of those deeper players. This is one to watch, folks, for rest assured, Washington, Beijing, Tokyo, and Moscow are watching.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Amairikuhn Edgykayshun: Female Student Docked For Using…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 2, 2017

It’s been a while since I had one of my customary rants about the fraudulent state of Amairikuhn edgykayshan and the insane circus agenda of the cultural Marxists infesting it. Just in time, Ms. S.H. noticed the following article and sent it along:

Student has grade docked for using ‘mankind’ in English paper

Now you’ll note the latest victim of the “politically correct diction” crazy is, in this instance, a young lady who thinks the whole language agenda is a bit ridiculous:

Cailin Jeffers, an English major at NAU, told Campus Reform that she received an email from one of her professors, Dr. Anne Scott, informing her that she had been docked one point out of a possible 50 on a recent paper for “problems with diction (word choice)” related to her use of the word “mankind” as a synonym for “humanity.”

…

“After our first essay we were given a list of ‘do’s and don’ts’ based off of errors my professor found in our essays. Most of them make sense, just things like ‘make sure you’re numbering your pages’ and ‘cite in proper MLA format,’ but she said we had to be sure to use ‘gender-neutral language,’” Jeffers told Campus Reform. “Included with this rule were several examples of what was and wasn’t okay to use. In one of these examples she stated that we could not use the word ‘mankind.’ Instead, we should use ‘humankind.’ I thought this was absurd, and I wasn’t sure if she was serious.”

Jeffers decided to test the policy on her next paper by including two instances of the word “mankind,” and when the paper came back with the requisite points taken off, she requested a meeting with Scott.

Well, beyond the fact that Northern Arizona is using the very inadequate MLA (Modern Language Association) directives for proper citation – which in my curmudgeonly opinion is absolutely inadequate as a scholarly method of source citation, if only for the reason that it is a completely artificial set of rules, and did not develop from the tradition of academic orthography that emerged over the centuries of use – you’ll note that there is a tactic going on here, one designed to short-circuit the whole idea of “free speech”. Ms. Jeffers’ professor stated:

“I would be negligent, as a professor who is running a class about the human condition and the assumptions we make about being ‘human,’ if I did not also raise this issue of gendered language and ask my students to respect the need for gender-neutral language,” Scott explained. “The words we use matter very much, or else teachers would not be making an issue of this at all, and the MLA would not be making recommendations for gender-neutral language at the national level.”

The professor of Gender Neutrality and Political Correctness was challenged by her student;

“I stated that I agree with everything she said about my paper except my use of ‘mankind.’ She proceeded to tell me that the NAU English department, as well as the Modern Language Association, are pushing for gender-neutral language, and all students must abide by this,” Jeffers recalled. “She told me that ‘mankind’ does not refer to all people, only males. I refuted, stating that it DOES refer to all people, [but] she proceeded to tell me that I was wrong, ‘mankind’ is sexist, and I should make an effort to look beyond my preset positions and ideologies, as is the focus of the class.”

So note first that the professor put on the airs of “objectivity” and waxed fairly frothy about respecting Ms. Jeffers’ choices of words. But then she went on to state Ms. Jeffers would still be punished for writing the way she wanted to, cited the MLA commissars as the “authority” for her ukase, and when Ms. Jeffers protested that the word mankind did exclude the female sex – funny thing, this curmudgeon doesn’t remember his elementary school or middle school English teachers – women to a… uhm…er… man (this gets so confusing!) – the Professor of Commissarial Conformity lost all objectivity and simply redefined the word according to MLA dictates, and insisted that it did.

OK, we get it, but I hope the tactic here is perceived. In order to “get around” that pesky little thing called “free speech”, the professor couched everything as an academic exercise, nothing more, as an “experiment”.

But one wonders then if the professor, or the institution of lower learning in which she roosts (Edidor’s note, that’s my attempt to be politically correct: “tenure” and words like that are so old fashioned and tainted with masculine imagery) would tolerate a class – just for the sake of experiment – in requiring students not to use “gender neutral” language, but rather, the old traditional language most of use still use, you know, words like “he, him, she, her, it” and “mankind” and so on.

Which brings me to the next article, shared by Mr. V.T. But before this, I have to relate a personal encounter I had with such looniness, one that occurred in the Oxford Union Society during a debate in which I participated. I was at the box, holding forth on something-or-other, and the speaker intervened to correct my use of the word “men” to refer to humanity. She insisted I use gender inclusive language in my remarks. “Men” had to be banned from my vocabulary and replaced with the word “persons”. Well, being a theology student, I objected that this word had more specific technical meanings and that such usage actually confused the issue, and then informed her that the end result of this madness would have to be to change the occurrence of the word “man” or “men” to persons: the word “immanent” would have to be changed to “impersonent” which rhymed with “impertinent” which was “what I find your whole scheme to be.” This was met by a rousing chorus of “hear hears!” and I continued my curmudgeonly and peroration in traditional diction.

At the time, I meant my remarks as a rather humorous comment, and never dreamed that they would become somewhat prophetic, as the article shared by Mr. V.T. illustrates (copy and paste into your browser):http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/29/womyn-womxn-womban-taxpayer-funded-university-ponders-alternate-spellings-for-woman/Yes, that’s right, even the words “woman” or “women” are no longer inclusive enough because – you guessed it – they include the words “man” and “men”:

Garcia-Pusateri then introduced several different ways feminists have invented to misspell the word “woman.”

The possible misspellings include “womyn,” “womxn,” “womban,” “wimmin.” There’s also the term “femme” — which means a conspicuously feminine lesbian, according to Urban Dictionary.

The first time the wrong spelling “womyn” appeared in print was at the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival in 1976, a handout provided by Garcia-Pusateri asserted.

Obviously, the intention of the misspelling “womyn” is to avoid spelling “women” with the word “men.”

The solution to all this? I suspect Ms. Jeffers has pointed the way: simply refuse to go along with it, even at personal cost. That cost is relatively minor in her case. For some, that refusal will mean not attending college – simply defund the activity of the crazies – because it’s either refusal now, or refusal later, for these people will not stop until they are either confronted, or acquire the power to confront, and at that stage, the demands will be total: abandon all tradition, or pay a costly prince. If that seems extreme, then ask yourself if it is worth the financial cost to send yourself, or your children, to these fraudulent indoctrination centers.

Or, to put it more bluntly: violence to language and free speech today will be violence to people tomorrow.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: Westphalia, Soft Power, And New…[Part 2]

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 29, 2017

Yesterday I began this two part blog on the following important article that many here sent me: the speech of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the military academy of the Russian General Staff:

Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

As I noted yesterday, Mr. Lavrov placed his remarks about the Peace of Westphalia ‘front and center ‘, toward the very beginning of his speech to the academy, and this, I argued, was a strong clue about Russia ‘s long term agenda. One might summarize that agenda in the form of two propositions:

(1) if there is to be a ‘global world order’ then to ensure it does not become a tyranny, it must be based on some ‘congress ‘ system or mutual recognition of the sovereignty of states, coupled with (2) the notion that such states are to be wholly secular, with no one religion dominating, or conversely, excluded. From the standpoint of domestic policy, this is a logical road for Russia to pursue, for though its religious-cultural heritage is Eastern Orthodox, it has significant populations of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and so on. And this ‘Westphalian’ approach has been stressed by Mr. Putin repeatedly in his remarks.

But Mr. Lavrov goes on to mention, in this context, something else quite important: the ‘soft power ‘ or ‘culture power ‘ card, and he does so, notably, immediately after mentioning the Peace of Westphalia: Of course, it takes more than just the size of a country’s territory for it to be considered “big and strong” in today’s world. There is also the economy, culture, traditions, public ethics and, of course, the ability to ensure one’s own security and the security of the citizens under any circumstances.

Recently, the term “soft power” has gained currency. However, this is power as well. In other words, the power factor in its broad sense is still important in international relations. Its role has even increased amid aggravated political, social, and economic contradictions and greater instability in the international political and economic system. We take full account of this fact in our foreign policy planning. (Emphasis added)

What does this mean, or rather, how does this translate into action and policy? A couple of years ago I had a private discussion with a friend who is in the ‘financial and investment counseling ‘ profession. I told him that one would have to watch future Russian foreign policy statements very carefully, because all the signals I was seeing at that time pointed to a massive increase of Russian use of the ‘soft power/culture power ‘ card. At the time, I was basing this observation on the way Russia was handling the GMO issue by calling (and later implementing) a complete ban, while calling for genuine long-term studies on its cost-to-benefit aspects, environmental and human health risks and benefits, and so on. At the same time, Mr. Putin was openly speaking against the GMO issue, and from time to time was commenting on the health risks of western vaccine products. In other words, he was not responding to the issues but rather, aligning Russia with the domestic opposition within the West . Or, to be even more blunt about it: he was playing to the growing sense of many in the West that their concerns were simply not being allowed in the media, in the halls of power, or even being allowed a level playing field and representation. That was just a few years ago.

Now that program has expanded to represent the cultural concerns across the board: the collapse of morality, the assaults on the Christian basis of western culture, the so-called ‘war on terrorism ‘ and the covert support by western intelligence agencies of terrorist groups… all of it has come under review by Mr. Putin in recent remarks; consider only his Christmas Eve message. In a certain sense, he was speaking for what many in the west have been calling ‘populism ‘, but I believe a more accurate term or phrase might be ‘traditional culturism ‘. And he does raise a valid point: many in the west, this author among them, have grown tired of the shell game being played out in the so-called political parties: there are parties of the ‘hard ‘ left, the Dummycrooks, Labour, the Social Democrats, and there are parties of the ‘right ‘ – the ‘fake opposition ‘ parties – that are really ‘soft ‘ left: the Republithugs, the Tories, the Christian Democrats, and so on. Both ‘sides ‘ are infested with globalists, that is to say, with crony crapitalism and with corporate socialists. And that has produced the frustration that, if one pays close attention, Mr. Putin has been addressing in some of his recent remarks.

To put this as plainly as possible: in playing the soft power/culture power card, Mr. Putin has been positioning Russia as ‘the voice of the opposition ‘, unique among the powers that can be considered ‘western ‘. It ‘s a decidedly clever strategy, for it accounts for the growing popularity of Russian media among the West, particularly from the disenfranchised ‘populists ‘ or ‘traditional culturists ‘, and the response of the oligarchs of the West is very ‘non-western ‘: to attempt to shut down that media and continue to demonize Russia and anyone paying attention to it or its media. And this too has occasionally brought forth a comment or two from Mr. Putin. It is this strategy of becoming ‘the voice of the opposition ‘ that I submit might be the real motivation for all the ‘Russian interference in the election ‘ stories one sees in the USA, and even a few trial balloons on that score in Germany. It ‘s an attempt, and a very weak one at that, to break and combat this Russian strategy. Inevitably, matters in the article turn towards defense and security matters, as Russia is, of course, with the USA, one of the world ‘s two premier thermonuclear powers, and by some lights, the premier one, with modern updated delivery systems and by some counts, just slightly more deliverable warheads. But that will have to wait part three, tomorrow…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

The Political Movie Projected On The Screen Of The Subconscious

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 28, 2017

This article has to do with people who pick a political side or candidate and refuse to budge an inch, no matter how much troubling evidence is presented to them.

Their filter is firmly in place.

They have a vague impression of a politician—but vagueness is not an indicator of weakness. In this case, vague is mighty and powerful and immovable.

Such people feel an attachment, which they adore. The politician reflects back to them a belief they already hold. That belief, too, is vague. For example, “We must be kind to everyone.” But again, the vagueness is not a weakness. It is unshakable. Can the believer consider evidence that, in a particular situation, kindness is inappropriate or wrong? No. Never.

Based on a vague impression of a politician, and a vague belief, the person will go to his grave and beyond, gripping his attachment to both politician and belief. The entire power of the universe, focused on him, wouldn’t alter his stance.

“But you see, your candidate was instrumental in launching an unnecessary war that killed a hundred thousand people and turned a country into a hell hole, and here are the specifics…”

“Doesn’t matter. A few mistakes may have been made along the way…”

It’s vague, it’s forever, it’s adoration, it’s love. Or a perfect imitation.

“Do you see that giant rock sitting on top of the hill above our village? It’s getting ready to fall. Let me show you some video and measurements.”

“I always loved that rock. It looks like a heart. Have you ever noticed? Don’t you dare try to split it in half or disturb it! When I was a child, I used to sing a song about The Granite King. We’d sit around the fire and roast marshmallows…”

It’s as if the person’s eyesight is becoming hazier as time passes, and yet his belief and attachment are gaining in strength.

“I’ve got my perception-filter, and I’m seeing everything through it, and I never put the filter aside and look at things as they are. Now, what was it you wanted to discuss?”

Of course, most politicians and their handlers capitalize on this hazy crazy psychological condition. Their prime goal is to impart a vague impression to the constituency. Why bother to strive for more?

George Bush the Elder spoke of a “kinder, gentler” society. Bill Clinton said, “I feel your pain.” These are rational political positions in the same way that the Rockefellers are, first and foremost, philanthropists.

Once a person’s perception-filter is fixed in place, he can be whipsawed without let-up. His candidate is good and glorious, and the other candidate is a monster. No facts necessary.

Evidence? Never heard of it.

One side endlessly good; the other side endlessly evil.

Even if that proposition were true, it wouldn’t matter. What matters is how perception can be managed.

Now we’re talking about real triggering. Actual Pavlovian stimulus-response. The mere mention of the “monster’s” name or a cartoon of his face or a quote from him about the weather is sufficient to set off a foaming drool of rage.

Is this externally induced programming? Yes. But at a deeper level, the person is shaping his own response. He’s the author. He’s installing the conditioning.

And at a high enough perch of power, the opportunities are abundant. “We can set both sides against each other and provoke warfare. We can make the most ridiculous claims and feed them to the rabid dogs…”

Again, the degree to which one politician or the other is a monster or a proponent of virtuous progress is irrelevant. The divide-and-provoke-and-conquer operation is all that matters to controllers who are running the op.

Then there is this factor: the all-important initiation of an adrenaline reaction.

When people become tuned to that feeling, they seek it out. This is what they want. If a situation isn’t fight or flight, they’re not interested. They yawn and turn away.

“Where’s the action? I need the action.”

“I don’t want to see a movie. I want to see a movie with fifty titanic explosions and bodies strewn on the street and buildings collapsing. And there’d better be athletic sex, too. And the hero has to experience at least ten close calls. I’m talking imminent death.”

Linking adrenaline surges to politics is vital.

“Supporting my candidate has to feel like love dangerously poised on the edge of a cliff, and the other candidate has to have a live nuclear bomb in his hand. That’s the movie I want to watch. I want to be inside that movie…”

The mere suggestion that one candidate might have a small flaw, while the other candidate is not quite Satan incarnate in every aspect, ruins the show. It dampens the hormonal rush.

“Who wrote that script? Give me my money back.”

Politics must be a movie projected on the screen of the subconscious. It must enter that territory unimpeded. Once there, it must take root and give birth to uncontrollable impulses.

Movie studios and high-level political manipulators are looking for this sweet spot. It’s cash and psychological payoffs and lines around the block.

“Look, we want love versus hate in this script. But it has to be ramped up to a fever pitch. No holds barred. We have to make the evil feel like EVIL, and the good feel like GOOD. At the same time, the hero and villain have to seem real. The audience has to experience being in their shoes and pants and underwear. We’re spending three hundred million on this piece of dreck, and it has to work…”

If the movie-studio gods can make half the audience root for the hero and the other half root for the villain, that’s pure gold. If they can provoke serious animosity between viewers, THEY CAN DEGRADE THE WHOLE NATURE OF THE ENTERPRISE and, when we’re talking about politics, that’s exactly what they’re shooting for.

“We can pit people against people and create a stalemate, where very little gets done—except the provocation of conflict. Then we’re home. Everyone sinks lower into a stimulation-response universe. We own that universe. We built it.”

Yes, they did, and they do. Ushering people into it makes it easier to control both sides and ultimately lower an apolitical boom on their heads. Otherwise known as erasing freedom.

“Political policy? Ideals? We don’t have that kind of agenda. The only agenda we have is installing chains around the mind.”

Achieving this goal, in the current American political landscape, only requires a quick inventory of: ratings. Where was the real heat? Where were the real numbers? Why, of course, it was during the campaign leading up to the election. Everybody was tuned in. Therefore, the campaign must never end. We must return to that time. Trump must never be president, and Hillary must never go away. Her shadowy presence and symbolic value—and surrogates—must persist. Thus, the endless challenge to Trump’s legitimacy. He didn’t win. The election was fixed. Perfect. That throws us into the furnace. Again.

Let us return to those days of yore, when families split apart, when the dire flow of energy and desire and vague impression and eternal attachment were King. That’s where we have to build the flames. That’s the subconscious target.

That’s the bulls-eye.

The mind.

Issues and scandals are gasoline pumped into the conflagration.

THIS person’s subconscious will veer THAT way, and THAT person’s subconscious will veer THIS way.

Those people who can see and argue actual evidence will be swallowed up in the noise and the roar.

The movie is called Degradation.

The box office is sensational.

It’s surround-sound and holographic.

Move past partisan payoffs to understand such a strategy. Even move past divide and conquer. The purpose, intent, and objective is eventual mental, emotional, hormonal, and energetic exhaustion.

The whole movie is a trap. The ending, if it ever comes, creates profound passivity in the mind.

Therefore, stepping outside the theater is an absolute necessity.

It’s the first move toward clarity.

And actual choice.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

	13 Great Reasons To… on Book Review: A Different Kind…
	13 Great Reasons To… on How A Generation Lost Its Comm…
	13 Great Reasons To… on The Catastrophic Decline Of Pu…
	Richard Dolan – A Br… on Richard Dolan – A Breaka…
	A Breakaway Civiliza… on Richard Dolan – A Breaka…