First of all, I apologize if this has been brought up before. I've kind of tried searching for it but it's kind of a complicated idea and I didn't
come up with much. I realized a compact term is needed to "package" this idea in a bite sized chunk. Maybe (likely) such a term exists and I just
don't know it. Hopefully, someone here knows?
I have noticed a recurrent trend in the media. It's very subtle but what they seem to be doing is taking something and demonizing it by creating a
bloated caricature of it. But this isn't just a cartoon drawing. It appears to be being done with real people and events which I think are sometimes
(if not often) staged. For example, the recent incident with the Republican talking about how gays are sick people.
Such a statement will obviously be appealing to some but will probably be highly offensive to such a liberal society as the one we live in. So.
Unless this man is completely stupid, what is he trying to do? It would seem that he is trying to help maintain the public perception of the
Republican party as the bad guys. The mean old homophobes.
This seems to be happening over and over. Sometimes it's a racial issue. Sometimes it's religious. But it always has the same pattern. The person
will say or do something outrageously unpopular and the repercussions are obvious.
For example. I heard something just yesterday about a Fox News person saying to punch democrat voters. Now why on earth would someone say something
like that on TV? It's obviously going to really upset a lot of people and the calls for censorship cannot be far behind.
The logic here is that such a person would know better than to say it even if they think it. They would realize the damage they're doing to their own
Essentially, I am saying that I think they may be planting people whose job is to do or say something blatantly offensive or bad or whatever in order
to demonize a person, a group or an idea (or any other thing they're trying to weaken)
Anyway, this concept needs a name because if I'm right, they're getting away with it right and left.
I hope I have done an adequate job of describing what I mean. I have a reasonably good fix on what I'm trying to say in my mind but it's kind of
hard to put it into words.
edit on 25-5-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)
False prophets preach heresy. Propaganda is used to incite fear and irrationality to promote an agenda in opposition to, or in addition to core moral
codes. The act of doing so is referred to as heresy and is not limited to religious beliefs, but rather encompasses any opposition to an established
moral code by society. It is important to note that moral direction evolves and flows in step with humanity. Any who seek to put out the light are
considered heretics. Often, false prophets will accuse the righteous and moral of being heretics, and therein lies the hypocrisy and undermining of
Just my opinion. I Hope that helps you to identify what you seek.
To me it's just good old propaganda. Yes it comes in different guises and has become slicker over the years in some people opinion but it exists to
achieve the goal of making people believe in a particular aspect of an entity or being which may not necessarily be the case.
well buddy, welcome to the 'real' world!
anything fox news,cnn,or msnbc is all nicely packaged and marketed for you viewing entertainment!
their 'non-news' stories are so blown out of proportion that it makes one think twice about going to a movie,
because their version of 'real' life is so much more exciting!
my mom watches that stupid jodie arias trial on tv ( )
there was two reporters talking with each other via sattalite. one was in arizona at jodie's trial,the other at O.J.'s trial.
unfortunately while they were talking via 'sattalite', you could see in the background the exact same town bus drive by them both,with about a 1
what a bunch of lying crap!!!
i think jon stewart had that screw up on his show.
if they lie about little stupid stuff like that,just imagine what they do with the real important things!
i guess the bottom line is,if you wanna be sheeple,then keep buying into the false life they tell you is truth!
This would probably be cultural polarization. We have gotten to the point where conservatives and liberals simply don't mingle anymore. The viewpoints
you are seeing on Fox news about gays are the viewpoints that all conservatives pretty much share - they actually believe it is the mainstream view,
just as much as you believe the mainstream view is the opposite.
What really NEEDS to happen is the polarization NEEDS to stop in order to bring balance. People need to start mingling in real life and having more
viewpoints than just two.
edit on 25-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
Thanks to all (so far) who have responded. I hope there will be more responses.
In response to the point that this is propaganda. Yes, I do tend to refer to it loosely as propaganda. But the level of propaganda that is being
produced today seems to be highly sophisticated. It is literally so subtle that many people live their lives without ever realizing it's there.
Anyway, I think concepts such as the one I described are very difficult to get your mind around and it's unwieldy to try and make people understand
what you're trying to say. It can even be difficult on a forum such as ATS. When you're talking to people who are less inclined to be into the
conspiracy chat, you need simple and familiar terminology that doesn't sound too "tin foil hatty" (for lack of a better term).
It's simple enough to just say it's propaganda but I don't think the average person would think about that long enough to figure out what you
mean. And of course, a lot of it is incredulity that anyone would bother to stage a public incident simply to influence the public. It obviously
happens every day but people are so blind to it.
If you watch the show Pawn Stars on History, I've even seen medical propaganda on there.
Anyhow, thanks for the comment on the avatar.
To the poster who suggested that liberals and conservatives should mingle more, I really don't know if that would help much. I'm pretty strongly
libertarian. I mingle with both conservatives and liberals in my online travels. The nature of the mingling ranges from bewilderment to downright
hostility. I haven't received much open hostility from conservatives but I've been pummeled by liberals just about everywhere.
Of course I'm usually not too friendly with them. I can't really help it. I'm not very diplomatic.
[A] I have noticed a recurrent trend in the media.
[B] Unless this man is completely stupid, what is he trying to do?
[C] This seems to be happening over and over. Sometimes it's a racial issue. Sometimes it's religious. But it always has the same pattern. The
person will say or do something outrageously unpopular and the repercussions are obvious.
[D] It's obviously going to really upset a lot of people and the calls for censorship cannot be far behind.
[E] The logic here is that such a person would know better than to say it even if they think it. They would realize the damage they're doing to their
[F] Anyway, this concept needs a name because if I'm right, they're getting away with it right and left.
To answer directly:
In my opinion, this is a very lucid observation... and unless some would beg to differ it does in fact have a name.
It's called "social engineering" and no social engineer in his or her right mind would ever openly admit to doing it.
While social engineering is a concept which can be applied to both security and political science. The definitions you find seem oddly insufficient
to encompass the obvious notion behind it's practice and application. It's all about control. Morality, ethics, and codes of behavior would all
reject the result as patently theater; and it's use via popular media is a disturbing trend which many fear could be a harbinger of a dystopian
future (especially when you add the paradigm of never-ending power lust the federal government appears to embrace.)
To answer some specific points:
[A] - It is not recent actually, it started in the mid 20th century... near or about the time between World War I and II. I commend you on being
sensitive to the manipulation, which most are apparently oblivious to; finding greater personal satisfaction in the entertainment continuum than in
political reality. Even political reality is mutated by the media into an entertainment production.
You might be interested in reviewing the freely available (unless I'm mistaken) video entitled "Manufacturing Consent" based upon a book of the
same title by Noam Chomsky (very long run time). While not an avid fan of his, it is telling work; although - as usual - the intellectual elite tend
to be unduly clinical about the effect of making "the masses" conform to a predetermined script. They rarely find themselves subjugated by
manufactured opinions as the rest of humanity often is.
If you have the endurance for that you may find the next very enlightening as well:
The story of Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays... and how he applied practical techniques of media manipulation to make many industrialists very
(very) rich. Another long on.... "The Century of the Self"
(This ought to give you an idea of how old this practice is)
[B] Politics is theater. Effective political control is achieved through the segregation of constituencies, using the passion of their differences
to drive their willingness to surrender control to someone with whom they believe "they agree." The agreement is theater... political expedience is
the only currency that matters. If you'll notice something recent for example, as the stringent gun control people are infuriated by the apparent
difficulties they are having achieving their aims, those most like to be happy about that are equally upset about their apparent inability to get the
government to clamp down on illegal immigrations.... tit for tat...
Balance is the key. The directors direct the actors, the producers provide the public platform... no-one seems very inclined to address the writers
of the script... if we can ever figure out who they are... we'll have won half the struggle to understand.
[C] This "issue" is entirely a matter of opportunity. And yes - as far as social engineers are concerned - manufacturing opportunities is fair
[D] Censorship is never going to happen... It hasn't worked in ANY successful social model... ever. This is not to say that a voice can't be
silenced, but most likely, censorship is a threat to keep people from questioning the world.
[E] Such damage you may perceive is actually not as damaging as it is polarizing. Social repugnance is like bad press... there isn't any as long as
someone is audience to the theater.
[F] "Left and right...." The irony is not lost on me.
How about: caricaturization? Sometimes painting a group or person in a specific light has an agenda that is propaganda, when done out of personal
belief it is ignorance not from a place of respectfully disagreeing... being unsure which of the two this falls under when someone does this does seem
to require a blanket term.
Sometimes I think when done out of ignorance it is one person standing alone; but know others think the same out there somewhere so it is a nod of
approval for continuing to bare such ignorance. When it suddenly arises out of no where in many varied places, either it's propaganda or you've just
started paying attention like saying whens the last time you saw a Corvette? Then it seems you start seeing one everywhere... I suppose to know if it
is a true propaganda is to see if the agenda in it's use matches when you see it.
Hmmm. It just occurred to me that this could be described as a political false flag. Of course it will obviously be ridiculed if you use that term.
Nevertheless, it's kind of interesting how versatile this term can be when you're trying to get a mental grip on what's going on with TPTB.
(And again, thanks for all the responses so far. I'm still digesting them)
edit on 26-5-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.