+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: Felipe_solarmining_chile
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7221
Total Topics: 215
Most Online Today: 18
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 24
Total: 24

Author Topic: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda  (Read 1613 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2015, 05:15:24 pm »
Top Ten List of Big Lies perpetuated by America's Corporate Masters and their Mass Media.

1. America is the land of opportunity where anyone who works hard and makes good decisions can get ahead and have a better life.

False. In the energy-rich years after WWII Americans got used to a life where anybody who was willing to punch a clock and show up for work could make a middle class income. Now all the jobs that pay well require brains, technical expertise, and more hours for less pay. People who grew up here are so lazy, most of those jobs are being claimed by immigrants and their children, who are still hungry and willing.


2. America is involved in geopolitics to promote democracy everywhere and help developing nations improve their standard of living.

False. America has a long tradition of corporate imperialism, based on same the extractive models of earlier systems, like the Dutch East India Company and the British Raj. We have a long history of meddling in the sovereign affairs of other countries to set up weak vassal states that are controlled by dictators like Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein.

3. Bigger is better. Big Business, Big Agriculture, Big Cities, Big Cars and Big Box Stores make our lives better, by making goods and services more affordable and of higher quality than why they would be otherwise.

False. The trade-off is for quantity over quality, in food, and for uniformity and homogenization in goods and services. Now we have cheap food that poisons us, and every town in the country has an identical mall selling the identical items of every other mall in the nation. It didn't used to be that way. Meanwhile, the loss of local business has killed our small towns and communities.

4. The key to success in life is to get a college education.

False. Colleges and universities have morphed from academically centered institutions run by teachers and run for students, into profit making businesses dominated by a parasitic layer of mid-level executive management that drains off the money, making college cost more each and every year and delivering less and less, in terms of classical education,technical training, and critical thinking skills.

5. Characters on television shows are an accurate representation of real life.

False.  TV teaches our kids to think the world is full of Dr. Huxtables, but the reality is more like the world is full of Bill Cosbys. War is not like MASH. Life in the Great Depression wasn't like The Waltons. Since I don't watch TV anymore, forgive me if all my examples are a bit dated. I've never seen the Kardashians.

6. You can be happier if you just manage to buy a new car every three years and use the right deodorant.

False.  Now car loans are for six years, and your deodorant probably causes swelling in your axillary lymph nodes.

7. America's experiments in social engineering can solve issues of race and gender inequality and create a tolerant diverse society.

False.  After fifty years of court ordered social justice, we have a bigger racial divide than ever, and every possible class of people who can claim minority status is clamoring for more consideration from the rest of us. Those who point out that the current strategy isn't working are labeled racist, sexist bastards who need to be sent to re-indoctrination camps.

8. Free market capitalism is the American business model.

False. Crony capitalism, corporate control of government, and laws made by the rich and for the rich are what we have. All our markets are rigged.

9. Globalization and so-called Free Trade has made life better for Americans.

False.  The only jobs left in this country are at Burger King, Starbucks, and Home Depot. The days of union pay scale and employer paid health benefits are a distant memory. The corporates have gotten so greedy they have forgotten what Henry Ford knew...that the best customers are your own decently paid employees.



10. Patriotism can be measured by how many yellow ribbon stickers you have on your car and how much you support the troops and thank our military veterans for their "sacrifice".

False. This egregious behavior is promoted by the Deep State, who want us to be good sheep who wrap ourselves in the flag and send our children off to get maimed in the interest of Big Oil and the perpetuation of foreign child labor. If we don't "Support the Troops"tm we must not be loyal Americans. Bullshit.

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2016, 07:44:02 pm »
It has always been my contention that the reason northern European countries have been willing to be so heavily taxed is because they perceive that they get what they're paying for...that the government has, for most of the last half century, lived up to its promises, and a workable, fair social contract has existed.

I have also believed that this has come about, or has been possible largely because the population of those countries is ethnically homogeneous, or has been until fairly recent years.

I contrast that with the way we in the US have not done so well with universal health care, old age pensions, and disability benefits. A lot of that is a real or perceived unfairness that some people pay more than their share and others, who may not pay anything receive more from the social welfare system.

I predicted that this would happen in Sweden and Norway and Finland if they allowed immigration to create a permanent underclass with a different language and different values from the mainstream.

Guess what? I was right. I can't help but feel the slightest bit of schadenfreude, since those Nordic countries have always been so adamant about their lack of racial discrimination and their PC stance on diversity.

Welcome to our world, y'all.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-30/sweden-no-apartments-no-jobs-no-shopping-without-gun

No you weren't right. The TRUE welfare queen caused expenses that are undermining the economies of the Western world are NOT the social costs you have been propagandized to believe (along with the cleverly disguised racist notion that only ethnically homogenous populations can "support" a social safety net).

If you ever bother to compute the visible and INVISIBLE (but easily quantifiable) SUBSIDIES to VARIOUS industries (NOT just the fossil fuel industry, though they are one of the BIGGEST recipients of WELFARE from the BIGGEST welfare queen system - the USA corporate giveaways - in the world ), you would then start to see that the social safety net cost numbers are PEANUTS compared with the corporate welfare.

People like you REFUSE to see how ALL government research on almost EVERY invention out there, and the R & D needed to make them technologically and financially SUCCESSFUL, have been HANDED OFF to connected elite corporations for a song, ALWAYS bypassing we-the-people, who paid for all of this, when the time to sell the product to us arrives. 

Frankly, your ideological blinders are fascinating in their sturdiness and amazing ability to discount and discard real expenses that we-the-people are charged for. 


Good luck with your "real world".  Now I understand why MKing frequently tries to ingratiate himself with you. Scratch the surface, and under your apparently Guru inspired sympathy for the downtrodden of the world, you agree with MKing's "real world" Predators 'R' US world view.

AND, you are always looking for material to "fix the facts" in support of your ideology.

I'm going to be prick here, Eddie. I think, though I may be wrong  ;D, that I have finally figured out how you tick. You, at some point in your education, were convinced of the efficacy of game theory in human relations.

Game Theory, as you know, is what the Defense Department AND Wall Street uses to justify excluding absolutely any altruistic behavior in competitive strategies. It was created by an autistic mathematical genius IDIOT who worshipped Spencer and did not understand Darwin.

The problem with game theory in the REAL real world is that it fails to model it properly. By totally excluding altruistic behavior (except as a ploy to sucker the opponent into a position of weakness   ), it is doomed to, not just fail miserably, but to degrade the sine qua non conditions the species engaging in it requires for perpetuation.

YOU DO NOT understand that, Eddie. YOU are sold on Game Theory, as are most Capitalists, Libertarians, Wall Streeters and, of course, the Military Industrial complex.

You ALL are WRONG. But you talk a good game (theory).  ;)

Every time you fine fellows try to finger social safety nets as "welfare queenery" or "someone else's money" (Thatcher greed is good idiocy) OR "bad for the economy", while WILLFULLY ignoring the MASSIVE corporate welfare queenery, you just want brainwashed average Americans to act against their best interests, AND BE HAPPY ABOUT IT (see below).


Darwin would not be amused with Game Theory.

Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts
A psychologist probes how altruism, Darwinism and neurobiology mean that we can succeed by not being cutthroat.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kindness-emotions-psychology/

The FACT is that we, as a species, WILL NOT SUCCEED if we CONTINUE to exclude altruism (involving ALL LIFE, not just our family!) from our modus vivendi.

Have a nice day.
Yeah, AG. You have me all figured out. Not.

I actually agree with almost everything you said. I understand that we could have a much better safety net here if we didn't **** away all the money on wars and corporate welfare. But, strictly speaking, that doesn't bear here.

I am skeptical about social engineering. I have watched it fail for my whole lifetime here, Now it is failing in Europe. Fact.

I have no interest in game theory. I'm not into competition. I'm not a racist or an elitist. I'm a realist. You, on the other hand, are a dreamer. Nothing wrong with that, other than it seems to be related to your penchant for making personal attacks on me, occasionally.

Because I say that widely disparate cultures have difficulty living together in harmony, no matter what "programs" the statist central planners try to force us to participate in, pisses you off.  I can live with that. Don't get so steamed up.

I get along with MKing to some degree because I understand who he is, what his roots are, and what his values are. I've known a lot of guys like him. I'm not exactly that type, though.
I'm gong to walk a tightrope here and offend both of you.   


Far as AG's arguments, he always looks at the very worst that a Diner offers up, and then attacks that without recognizing the good parts of that Diner.  We are all mixed bags with some good aspects and some bad ones, with some Diners having more good than bad, others more bad than good.

Far as Eddie's arguments, although he has great sympathy for the downtrodden of the world, he does hold similar feelings to Moriarty that if you just have enough gumption and intelligence you can bootstrap yourself up, and socialism/communism is anaethema to him.  He certainly doesn't like anything socialist in the world of medicine or dentistry, that is for sure!

Eddie is similar to Moriarty in his class and income, the type of vacations he takes, cars he buys and so forth.  Much in common there.  They differ in that Eddie has a conscience and understands the problems the majority of the population has, Moriarty willfully ignores it and further belittles those who suffer these problems.

It is unfortunate IMHO that AG will go on the ATTACK on so little provocation on some Diners, I don't think either Eddie or Roamer deserve some of the opprobrium that AG has heaped out on them here.  It is unfortunate also that Eddie buys the portion of Moriarty's arguments that he does, and doesn't hammer down on him harder than he does periodically, but this is a function of class and belief and not too surprising overall.

I write analysis like this so that I am certain to be hated by everybody.   


RE
It seems to me that a factor often overlooked in discussions of "overextended welfare systems" is the matter of priorities. That is apparently why God made lobbyists: to instruct Congress on what their priorities should be, and to whom to direct the boodle extracted from us "tax donkeys and debt serfs."  AG makes it quite clear with his graphs about subsidies. Doesn't seem that we need a great deal of further instruction on how the agencies charged with regulating industry have been captured by those industries via lobbying and the subsequent revolving door.

The most successful lobbying has been done by military-industrial complex, who've elevated the notion of military spending to a sanctified level of received wisdom, in service to that elusive chimera, "national security."  Underwriting the success of the European social welfare state has been the fact that, in the 60 years after the end of World War II,  defense costs for Europe have been born by the American taxpayer. And for the Pacific rim as well, especially Japan.  And our client states get churlish when we ask them to open their wallets and take on more of the burden.  Given the fact that American "military" priorities have been given over to execute political aims concocted in the fever-dreams of neocons, I would expect more rather than fewer conflicts with our vassals in the future along these lines. Israel, of course, is a special case. But then the Zionist apartheid state is always a special case. Lobbyists see to that.

But lets talk about priorities.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending
Quote
In peace time, the US government used to spend very little on defense, about one percent of GDP. But that changed after World War II when the United States found itself in a global contest against Communism. Ever since, defense spending has never been less than 3.6 percent of GDP. In wartime, of course, the United States spends as much as it can command. In World War II defense spending exceeded 41 percent of GDP in 1945.
At the start of the 20th century, defense spending averaged about one percent of GDP. Then it spiked to 22 percent at the end of World War I. Defense spending in the 1920s ran at about 1 to 2 percent of GDP and in the 1930s, 2 to 3 percent of GDP.
In World War II defense spending peaked at 41 percent of GDP, and then declined to about 10 percent during the height of the Cold War.

Currently, the FSoA spends more on military expenditures than the next 13 countries combined. Such are the costs of empire, and maintaining 1000-plus overseas bases, black sites, etc.



[And none of this counts the so-called "black budget," the off-the-books rathole that finances the Deep State.]

Quote
Defense spending declined in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War and increased in the 2000s during the War on Terror.

Of course it did.


Here's a broad overview:


site: http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

Here's another way to look at priorities. The U.S. Treasury divides all federal spending into three groups: mandatory spending, discretionary spending and interest on debt. Mandatory and discretionary spending account for more than ninety percent of all federal spending, and pay for all of the government services and programs on which we rely. Debt payment is self-evident. A snapshot:



Here's how military spending dominates all discretionary spending:


By far, the biggest category of discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and related military programs.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

And a roll-up:


Since the great majority of federal spending is "mandatory spending," the privatizers and other thieves of the commonweal have set their sights on Social Security, Medicare and the like, and are licking their chops to get their hands on that big wad of expenditure. IMO, the charts reveal that we can actually afford to do any damn thing we want if we can summon the will to reorder our priorities. A prospect about which I am not optimistic.

Now I'm going to wrap this up before RE pastes a "Captain Obvious" sticker on me.
Interesting thread.   


Nobody wants to talk about Game Theory's OBVIOUS failings. I wonder why.  ;)

Excellent points by Surly AND RE.

Howevah, I am just a bit tired of RE always wanting to categorize my rants as "attacks", while deliberately ignoring the passive aggressive style used by Eddie in defending the indefensible. Eddie is GOING ON THE ATTACK every single time he throws out a quote from Thatcher or makes a context free post like he did at the start of this thread.

Normally, I just play dead because I do not possess Surly's wordsmith skills or his patience for putting data together or a rebuttal presentation. But, I'm only human. Selective blindness, for the purpose of defending a 'greed is good' ideology disguised as fiscally responsible practicality, pis ses me off, PERIOD.   

When someone want to crow about "BEING RIGHT", it is customary for an educated gentleman or lady to clearly present all sides of the issue. I did not see that here so I stepped in with, granted      , about as much finesse as YOU, RE, use when you disagree with something or somebody.

RE, I understand your message. I will endeavor to play dead more often when I read fecal coliform filled, greed is good propaganda. Whether you wish to admit it or not, any attack on the, already too threadbare, social safety nets in the countries of the world in general, and the USA in particular, is a frontal attack on common decency and a defense of empathy deficit disordered, predatory elitism/capitalism/fascism, fu ck you buddy-ISM.

Simon and Garfunkel once said something about Christianity in one of their songs. Although that was not their intent, that phrase PEFECTLY fits in regard to a 'greed is good' ideology disguised as fiscally responsible practicality.
Laugh about it, Shout about it, When you've got to choose, Every way you look at it you lose.
They were wrong to mock Christ and Christianity. Heaven DOES hold a place for those who pray.

Howevah, they were right to mock the hypocritical "Christians" who are anything but Christian in thought, word and deed.

The common ground between 'greed is good' ideology disguised as fiscally responsible practicality and fake Christianity is HYPOCRISY used to manipulate, fool, dominate and disingenuously profit from your fellow man.

IOW, it is a VICIOUS AND HARMFUL REJECTON OF THE FOLLOWING!!!!


Have a nice day.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2016, 04:22:19 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2016, 07:21:14 pm »
Can you give me a list of common psychological biases?

Milan de Reede

Alexander van Hattem, Human, Doctor, Mental Health Professional

Oh man, so many of those. If you are really interested in the subject I can recommend you some good books.

First of all there's the 6 "biases" that Cialdini identified in his book.

•Reciprocity: We are bound to return favors, even if the favor was unsollicited. Someone hands you a rose, you feel obliged to give them something back, even if you do not want the rose at all.

•Consistency: People always want to look consistent. Simply put, offer people $50 if they will try to use less electricity, then after a few days take away the original incentive, and people will still try to be consistent with their new self-image of "energy saver".

•Social proof:
The simplest one, really. Enter an elevator where everyone has their backs turned to the door and you're likely to turn your back to the door as well. When given incomplete information people tend to just go with the group.

•Liking:
We are more likely to be influenced by people that we like. This makes sense, however this means we are more likely to agree with or buy from people that share superficial similarities with us, regardless of their relevance to the situation. Your grandmother's name is also Jessica?! Great, I should buy your car!

•Authority:
We are likely to agree to do something simply because an authority (doctor, professor) asks us to do it. This can be easily exploited by people pretending to be an authority (think actors playing a doctor in a series advertising for a new drug) or by even just looking like an authority (white lab-coat). For an interesting experiment on authority, google Milgram experiments.

•Scarcity: This is what's in play everytime you see "Only 2 of this shirt left!". In our minds something scarce has more value. If there is one jar with 2 cookies left and one with 20 cookies left, the one with 2 cookies will not only be more tempting but we'll say the cookie tasted better (simplified).

Those are, I believe, the biggest ones. There's however a whole sling of other biases we have.


•Even by mentioning something as odd as dwarves or by mentioning how lucky you are, biases come into play. For example, think of a number now. Was it 7? Mentioning dwarves (seven dwarves) and lucky (lucky number) made you more likely to pick 7, which I see as a bias. This is called priming. Priming someone by having them mention their gender before a maths test makes women perform worse than men, even if these women do not believe in the stereotype. Priming someone by having them unscramble words related to elderly people makes them want slower afterwards. Priming someone by showing them the Apple logo for a few seconds makes them more creative afterwards. There really are countless examples here, google priming.

•Anchoring bias. Do you think that when he died Abraham Lincoln was older or younger than 120 years? 120 years is a ridiculous number, but after reading this and answering the question you are likely to give a higher answer than you would if I had asked whether he was older or younger than 17 years when he died.

•Availability heuristic. If people just saw a news item on murders, they believe the murder rate is higher even though this is only 1 data point.

•Perceptual contrast. Seeing a "regular" woman after seeing a picture of a model will make that "regular" woman less attractive. This can also be used with prices.

•Gam bler's fallacy. When you're playing roulette and the ball keeps landing on red, you're bound to think the odds that it must now land on black are bigger. They aren't, they are the same everytime. People are terrible at statistics.

•Loss aversion. When given the chance to win $1000 or lose $1000, we should see this as a neutral possibility. People however are very averse to (potential) losses, meaning the loss looms larger than the gain. Some studies have shown losses loom twice as large as gains, meaning even a 50/50 bet to win $1500 or lose $1000 wouldn't be taken.

That's just a quick selection.
If you really are interested in the subject, there are a lot of interesting books on this subject. Influence by Cialdini would be a good start.

Thanks for the A2A.

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-give-me-a-list-of-common-psychological-biases

Agelbert NOTE: AS you can see, normal humans are inherently caring and cooperative. These are good traits that, rather than being labeled as "biases", should be celebrated as evidence of our inherently social, not individualistic, nature.   



HOWEVER, Game theorists, who eschew altruistic behavior or reciprocal kindness, except as a ploy to lower the guard of a competitor  , study all the above in order to manipulate, make suckers of, and profit from, humans outside their circle of Welfare Queen "Apex Predators 'R' US". 

Game Theory is and always was, a cheap rationalization for conscience free "might is right" STUPIDITY.


"Might is right" is the cornerstone of Capitalism.
Quote

The 'greed is good' worshipping advocates of this evil ISM have a complete vocabulary of terms and phrases coined for the express purpose of demonizing egalitarian social systems that protect, care for and preserve the people and the environment on behalf of present and future generations. 

In fact, all those disingenuous terms and phrases (wasteful bureaucracies, unsound social engineering, irresponsible spending of other people's money, coerced and undemocratic taxation, etc.) apply 100% to the capitalist corruption of the tax system and the government in this country (and others).

Some hair splitters will claim that's PREDATORY Capitalism, not good old patriotic American Capitalism.  "Predatory" (is a redundant adjective because there really isn't any other kind of Capitalism, regardless of what you have heard from Capitalists  ;)).



THE PATH that this empathy deficit disordered, 'greed is good', 'might is right' ISM is pushing human civilization along will, if not stopped, lead to the following future. See Below.


Whether they admit it or not, people are brainwashed to believe that a "successful predator" is one that NEVER engages in altruistic behavior.

This is wrong and it is stupid. But that's what people are brainwashed with in our "educational" system and in our business community.

Consequently, if a person is not directly being threatened, they are made to believe that the "normal" behavior of an "apex predator" (like us) is to NOT help the downtrodden, but to seek to PROFIT from their misery..

Game Theory is what the Defense Department AND Wall Street use to justify excluding absolutely any altruistic behavior in competitive strategies. It was created by an autistic mathematical genius IDIOT who worshipped Spencer and did not understand Darwin.

The problem with game theory in the REAL real world is that it fails to model it properly. By totally excluding altruistic behavior (except as a ploy to sucker the opponent into a position of weakness), it is doomed to, not just fail miserably, but to degrade the sine qua non conditions the species engaging in it requires for perpetuation.

The brainwashed DO NOT understand that. They therefore DO NOT lift a finger to help the minorities in this, or any other, country. THEY, (particularly the "conservatives") are sold on Game Theory, as are most Capitalists, Libertarians, Wall Streeters and, of course, the Military Industrial complex.

THEY ALL are WRONG. But they talk a good game (theory).

Every time those fine fellows claim they "aren't racist", even as they try to finger social safety nets as "welfare queenery" or "someone else's money" (see: Thatcher 'greed is good' idiocy) OR "bad for the economy", while WILLFULLY ignoring the MASSIVE corporate welfare queenery, they just want brainwashed average Americans to act against their best interests, AND BE HAPPY ABOUT IT (see below).

Game Theory is the cornerstone of racism AND our degraded democracy and biosphere.


Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts

A psychologist probes how altruism, Darwinism and neurobiology mean that we can succeed by not being cutthroat.

The FACT is that we, as a species, WILL NOT SUCCEED if we CONTINUE to exclude altruism (involving ALL LIFE, not just our family!) from our modus vivendi.

We ARE our brother's keeper. Our species will not survive if we don't learn AND LIVE that, not as religious principle, but as a basic tenet of Biosphere Math Successful Species Perpetuation.

Have a nice day.



 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2016, 07:51:19 pm »


Uh,oh, indeed.

Uh, oh is right.



It seems that hip boots will no longer suffice.

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2016, 10:46:24 pm »
VIDEO: Is Hillary Clinton a Progressive?    Not According to Her Policy Record

Posted on Feb 4, 2016

EXCELLENT video that tells the TRUTH!   


http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_journalists_are_failing_to_challenge_hillary_clintons_20160204

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #35 on: February 18, 2016, 04:07:26 pm »
VIDEO: Constitution Alert

http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/video_constitution_alert_20160218
Rovian trick, claim the opponent's strengths, and accuse him of your own weaknesses.  :evil4:
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2016, 03:00:15 pm »
Don’t Cry About Super Tuesday—Bernie Sanders Is Winning the Future   

Posted on Mar 2, 2016

MONEY QUOTES:

Quote
“Judging from Super Tuesday’s results, Sen. Bernie Sanders has a long row to hoe if he is going to overtake Hillary Clinton and become the Democratic nominee,” Bleifuss began. “By and large, the margins of her victories were larger than the margins of his. And as In These Times Deputy Publisher Christopher Hass reported last week, it is in the size of these margins that the Democratic standard bearer will be determined.

“But the race for the Democratic nomination is not only a contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. It is also the venue for competing ideas about how social change is made, in which two visions for the future have been offered.”


Look at how the debate over healthcare has played out. Sanders is an unabashed supporter of getting insurance corporations out of the healthcare business and establishing a single-payer, Medicare-for-all system. Clinton has campaigned to defend the Obamacare status quo, and tinker about the edges. Ditto with banking. Sanders promises he will break up banks that are too big to fail. Clinton wants to—well, she says she will hold Wall Street accountable and reduce risks, but we don’t exactly know what her agenda is, since she has refused to release the texts of speeches she gave to the bankers who have funded her. As for making college affordable, Sanders wants to provide free tuition for students who attend state institutions. Clinton wants to make community colleges free and reduce costs at public universities. The list goes on, but you get the picture. The choice is between radical change and incremental reform.

And that’s reform that 26 million Americans who still lack reliable access to health care six years after the passage of President Obama’s landmark health insurance law would be justified in seeing as no reform at all.

“Again and again,” Bleifuss continued, we get the same “measured caution” from Clinton. “Dreams are for the future. ... Enjoy the feast. Half a loaf is better than none.”

True to the interests of his constituents, Sanders “is having no truck with such a meager meal.” As the senator put it in a speech in Fort Collins, Colo., on Sunday:


I believe that if you start your campaign and run on a platform calling for a full loaf, at worst you’re gonna get a half loaf. If you start your campaign talking about a need for a half loaf, you’re going to get crumbs. And the American people today do not want, do not need crumbs. They need the whole loaf.

With Clinton measurably closer to the nomination, “it looks like we’re sitting down to a pretty lean victors banquet,” Bleifuss continued. But if Sanders does lose the nomination, he asks, “In the long-term, who is the real winner? Who has put ideas on the table that herald a future that transcends the status quo? As he has done before, on Super Tuesday, in state after state, Sanders won a majority of Democratic voters under the age of 30. Clinton may yet win the nomination, but the future of the party belongs to Sanders.”

The young people who make up a significant portion of Sanders’ movement “are not clueless dreamers. The harsh realities of employment precarity, debt, low wages, inequality, climate change, etc., have forced young Americans to reassess their circumstances in a cold, harsh light.”

If life in America is basically peachy keen, then the small-bore reforms proposed by Clinton and the neoliberal technocrats who helm the Democratic Party make a lot of sense.

If, on the other hand, the status quo is intolerable—as it is for millions of Americans—then what Sanders calls “political revolution” becomes a moral imperative.

Clinton and Sanders offered America’s millennials two futures. They made their choice.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/hillary_clinton_may_won_super_tuesday_but_bernie_sanders_20160302



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2016, 09:09:00 pm »
HUGE Victory: Senate Rejects the DARK Act

Wenonah Hauter | March 16, 2016 1:03 pm |

Today, the Senate did the right thing and did not advance a bill from Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) that can best be described as the Denying Americans the Right to Know  (DARK) Act. The bill would have prevented states from requiring labeling of genetically engineered (GMO) foods and stopped pending state laws that require labeling to go into effect.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/16/senate-rejects-dark-act-gmo-labeling/

 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2016, 09:49:31 pm »
Krugman Maliciously Attacks Senator Bernie Sanders >:(

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #39 on: April 30, 2016, 04:04:25 pm »
I'll level with you I'm not really that sad about my engineering career not working out, I frankly hated the corporate environment.  Just wish I had a little security and a place to call home.  I'm all but selling my soul out to the frackers to get a shot at buying some land and a cabin but its not exactly panning out that great either.  Not only has the pay gone to S H I T it's just goddammn boring and monotonous. MKing thinks way too highly of the drilling world.  Maybe it was different in his day but punching holes in the bakken is la cookie cutter process. Im going brain dead mwding there is not an iota of technical challenge left to the job, I'm getting paid for sleep deprivation and the ability to be a trained yes sir monkey.  The next rung up as directional driller isn't too much better either from a technical perspective.   Maybe my cabin will have to just be a cheap cube van and a tent lol..

99% of all jobs are boring and monotonous.  The nature of a "job" is that you do the same thing, day in and day out.  Neurosurgery is boring.  Spinal fusions, every day, that is the meat of the practice.  Milking cows is boring.  Driving a truck is boring.

Artists have slightly less boring jobs, but even art is monotonous.  If you're a painter, every day you paint.  What you are painting may be different one day to the next, but you're still dipping a brush in paint, over and over.

Why do people do these boring and monotonous jobs?  To make MONEY of course.  B&M jobs are somewhat more tolerable the more money you make, although not always.  Beyond the problem of B&M, unless you are the CEO you always have some "boss" you have to please, and who also more often than not is an ass hole.

All of this serves to make the world of work quite unpleasant, and even though I did work I mostly enjoyed,  I just about always had ass hole bosses.  So I definitely do not miss the world of work, and sure am glad I got my opportunity to retire on Mailbox Money!  :icon_sunny:

However, you are quite a few years away from this unless you become disabled, which of course is not much fun itself, but on balance it is better than working!  lol.

So, let's assume you can get your college loans paid off and you put together enough money to buy a cabin, or some land you can build one on.  You didn't particularly like milking cows over the last winter, you didn't like working as an engineer, you don't like poking holes in the ground for the fracking industry...so what are you going to do for money once you do buy said cabin?  ???       If you go on the cheap with a Stealth Van, what are you going to do for money to buy gas, assuming as you do that gas will be available and cheap for some time to come?

RE
Roamer,

Selling out your soul is a bad plan. 

But I admit anyone that does that has lots of company in Amerika.


The routine selling of one's soul for the MYTH of  "personal freedom of choice" is what made Amerika a BANANA Republic run by those corporations you abhor.

Ka figured this out. I'm sure you can figure it out too.

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2016, 04:19:40 pm »
It has always been my contention that the reason northern European countries have been willing to be so heavily taxed is because they perceive that they get what they're paying for...that the government has, for most of the last half century, lived up to its promises, and a workable, fair social contract has existed.

I have also believed that this has come about, or has been possible largely because the population of those countries is ethnically homogeneous, or has been until fairly recent years.

I contrast that with the way we in the US have not done so well with universal health care, old age pensions, and disability benefits. A lot of that is a real or perceived unfairness that some people pay more than their share and others, who may not pay anything receive more from the social welfare system.

I predicted that this would happen in Sweden and Norway and Finland if they allowed immigration to create a permanent underclass with a different language and different values from the mainstream.

Guess what? I was right. I can't help but feel the slightest bit of schadenfreude, since those Nordic countries have always been so adamant about their lack of racial discrimination and their PC stance on diversity.

Welcome to our world, y'all.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-30/sweden-no-apartments-no-jobs-no-shopping-without-gun

No you weren't right. The TRUE welfare queen caused expenses that are undermining the economies of the Western world are NOT the social costs you have been propagandized to believe (along with the cleverly disguised racist notion that only ethnically homogenous populations can "support" a social safety net).

If you ever bother to compute the visible and INVISIBLE (but easily quantifiable) SUBSIDIES to VARIOUS industries (NOT just the fossil fuel industry, though they are one of the BIGGEST recipients of WELFARE from the BIGGEST welfare queen system - the USA corporate giveaways - in the world ), you would then start to see that the social safety net cost numbers are PEANUTS compared with the corporate welfare.

People like you REFUSE to see how ALL government research on almost EVERY invention out there, and the R & D needed to make them technologically and financially SUCCESSFUL, have been HANDED OFF to connected elite corporations for a song, ALWAYS bypassing we-the-people, who paid for all of this, when the time to sell the product to us arrives. 

Frankly, your ideological blinders are fascinating in their sturdiness and amazing ability to discount and discard real expenses that we-the-people are charged for. 


Good luck with your "real world".  Now I understand why MKing frequently tries to ingratiate himself with you. Scratch the surface, and under your apparently Guru inspired sympathy for the downtrodden of the world, you agree with MKing's "real world" Predators 'R' US world view.

AND, you are always looking for material to "fix the facts" in support of your ideology.

I'm going to be prick here, Eddie. I think, though I may be wrong  ;D, that I have finally figured out how you tick. You, at some point in your education, were convinced of the efficacy of game theory in human relations.

Game Theory, as you know, is what the Defense Department AND Wall Street uses to justify excluding absolutely any altruistic behavior in competitive strategies. It was created by an autistic mathematical genius IDIOT who worshipped Spencer and did not understand Darwin.

The problem with game theory in the REAL real world is that it fails to model it properly. By totally excluding altruistic behavior (except as a ploy to sucker the opponent into a position of weakness  ), it is doomed to, not just fail miserably, but to degrade the sine qua non conditions the species engaging in it requires for perpetuation.

YOU DO NOT understand that, Eddie. YOU are sold on Game Theory, as are most Capitalists, Libertarians, Wall Streeters and, of course, the Military Industrial complex.

You ALL are WRONG. But you talk a good game (theory).  ;)

Every time you fine fellows try to finger social safety nets as "welfare queenery" or "someone else's money" (Thatcher greed is good idiocy) OR "bad for the economy", while WILLFULLY ignoring the MASSIVE corporate welfare queenery, you just want brainwashed average Americans to act against their best interests, AND BE HAPPY ABOUT IT (see below).


Darwin would not be amused with Game Theory.

Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts
A psychologist probes how altruism, Darwinism and neurobiology mean that we can succeed by not being cutthroat.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kindness-emotions-psychology/

The FACT is that we, as a species, WILL NOT SUCCEED if we CONTINUE to exclude altruism (involving ALL LIFE, not just our family!) from our modus vivendi.

Have a nice day.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2016, 03:00:07 pm »
Big Ag Forces Firing of Long-Time Farm News Cartoonist  >:(

Marion Nestle, Food Politics | May 6, 2016 9:49 am

I love cartoons and was appalled when I read this tweet:


Romenesko
✔  ‎‎@romenesko 

"I am no longer the editorial cartoonist for Farm News due to the attached cartoon..." http://bit.ly/1WCSRmI

12:07 PM - 2 May 2016



Here’s the offending cartoon:


In a Facebook post the cartoonist, Rick Friday, explained:

I am no longer the Editorial Cartoonist for Farm News due to the attached cartoon which was published yesterday. Apparently a large company affiliated with one of the corporations mentioned in the cartoon was insulted and cancelled their advertisement with the paper, thus, resulting in the reprimand of my editor and cancellation of It’s Friday cartoons after 21 years of service and over 1,090 published cartoons to over 24,000 households per week in 33 counties of Iowa.

I did my research and only submitted the facts in my cartoon. 


That’s okay, hopefully my children and my grandchildren will see that this last cartoon published by Farm News out of Fort Dodge, Iowa, will shine light on how fragile our rights to free speech and free press really are in the country.

The Des Moines Register explains further:
Quote
The CEOs at the ag giants earned about $52.9 million last year, based on Morningstar data. Monsanto and DuPont, the parent of Johnston-based Pioneer, are large seed and chemical companies and Deere is a large farm equipment manufacturer.

Profits for the three companies, all with large operations across Iowa, also have declined as farm income has been squeezed. After peaking in 2013, U.S. farm income this year is projected to fall to $183 billion, its lowest level since 2002.

U.S. Uncut adds more details:

Friday received an email from his supervisor at Farm News, informing him that he would be fired, citing he was “instructed” by a superior to not accept another cartoon from Friday. The supervisor told Friday that “in the eyes of some, Big Ag  cannot be criticized or poked fun at.” 

It also published Friday’s cartoons based on his firing. Here’s one:


Friday has done other cartoons like this. It’s not surprising that he has corporate advertisers upset.   


How to help?
Consider a quick note to Farm News about how badly Americans need a free, independent press to discuss farm issues. 

Here’s the publisher’s contact information: Larry Bushman at lbushman@messengernews.net.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/06/farm-news-cartoonist-fired/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2016, 04:23:22 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Happiness equation proves that water is wet and selfish people are made, not born. Ya mean you didn't know that before you took calculus?   

This is the updated equation to predict happiness, where t is the trial number, w0 is a constant term, other weights w capture the influence of different event types, 0 < γ < 1 is a forgetting factor that makes events in more recent trials more influential than those in earlier trials, CRj is the certain reward if chosen instead of a ga mble on trial j, EVj is the average reward for the ga mble if chosen on trial j, and RPEj is the RPE (reinforcement prediction error) on trial j contingent on choice of the ga mble. The RPE is equal to the reward received minus the expectation in that trial EVj. If the CR was chosen, then EVj = 0 and RPEj = 0; if the ga mble was chosen, then CRj = 0. The variables in the equation are quantities that the neuromodulator dopamine has been associated with in previous neuroscience studies. The additional term w4 relates to advantageous inequality (guilt) when the reward received by the subject Rj exceeds the reward received by the other player Oj, and w5 relates to disadvantageous inequality (envy) when Oj exceeds Rj. Credit: Robb Rutledge, UCL


A new equation, showing how our happiness depends not only on what happens to us but also how this compares to other people, has been developed by UCL researchers funded by Wellcome

The team developed an equation to predict happiness in 2014, highlighting the importance of expectations, and the new updated equation also takes into account other people's fortunes.

The study, published in Nature Communications, found that inequality reduced happiness on average. This was true whether people were doing better or worse than another person they had just met. The subjects played gambles to try to win money and saw whether another person won or lost the same ga mbles. On average, when someone won a ga mble they were happier when their partner also won the same ga mble compared to when their partner lost. This difference could be attributed to guilt. Similarly, when people lost a ga mble they were happier when their partner also lost compared to when their partner won, a difference that could be attributed to envy.

"Our equation can predict exactly how happy people will be based not only on what happens to them but also what happens to the people around them," explains one of the study's co-lead authors, Dr Robb Rutledge (UCL Institute of Neurology and Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research). "On average we are less happy if others get more or less than us, but this varies a lot from person to person.

Interestingly, the equation allows us to predict how generous an individual will be in a separate scenario when they are asked how they would like to split a small amount of money with another person. Based on exactly how inequality affects their happiness, we can predict which individuals will be altruistic."

For the study, 47 volunteers who did not know each other completed several tasks in small groups. In one task, they were asked how they would like to anonymously split a small amount of money with another person that they had just met. In another task, they played monetary ga mbles that they could win or lose, and were told that they would see what another person received from the same ga mble. In this way, subjects could get the same or different outcome from a social partner, sometimes getting more and sometimes getting less. Throughout this experiment, participants were asked how happy they felt at regular intervals.

The results showed that people's generosity was not dependent on who the partner was or which partner they said they preferred. This suggests that people were acting according to stable personality traits rather than specific feelings about the other player. On average, people whose happiness was more affected by getting more than others, something that might relate to guilt, gave away 30% of the money. Those who were more affected by getting less than others, something that might relate to envy, gave only 10%.

"Our results suggest that generosity towards strangers relates to how our happiness is affected by the inequalities we experience in our daily life," says Archy de Berker (UCL Institute of Neurology), co-lead author of the study, "The people who gave away half of their money when they had the opportunity showed no envy when they experienced inequality in a different task but showed a lot of guilt. By contrast, those who kept all the money for themselves displayed no signs of guilt in the other task but displayed a lot of envy. This is the first time that people's generosity has been directly linked to how inequality affects their happiness. Economists have had difficulty explaining why some people are more generous than others, and our experiments offers an explanation.

The task may prove to be a useful way of measuring empathy, which could offer insight into social disorders such as borderline personality disorder. Such methods could help us better understand certain aspects of social disorders, such as indifference to the suffering of others."

 Explore further: 'Happiness gap' in the US narrows

More information: Robb B. Rutledge et al, The social contingency of momentary subjective well-being, Nature Communications (2016). DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11825

Journal reference: Nature Communications search and more info website

Provided by: University College London search and more info website

http://phys.org/news/2016-06-happiness-equation-reveals-people-fortunes.html#jCp
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2016, 07:15:09 pm »
The Modern Invention of the Medieval Executioner
 


August 21, 2016 By Medievalists.net

The Modern Invention of the Medieval Executioner

Lecture by Joel Harrington

Given at Vanderbilt University on May 7, 2015





Quote
We all know the hooded, ominous figure of the medieval hangman, but in fact that image owes much more to nineteenth-century imaginations than to any historical reality. After a brief description of a real sixteenth-century German executioner, based on his personal journal of forty-five years, this lecture will explore the legal, artistic, and literary origins of one of the modern age’s most recognizable stereotypes, as well as how this has helped distort our common understanding of the European Middle Ages. This lecture will explore this topic as told in part in Harrington’s most recent book, The Faithful Executioner: Life and Death, Honor and Shame in the Sixteenth Century (Picador, 2014).

Joel F. Harrington is Centennial Professor and Chair of the Department of History. He as published widely on various topics in social, legal, and religious history, particularly dealing with Germany during the early modern era (ca. 1450-1750). Projects currently underway include a study of the late medieval mystic Meister Eckhart and a comparison of the early modern prosecution of infanticide and witchcraft.

Professor Harrington has taught a variety of graduate and undergraduate courses at Vanderbilt since his arrival in 1989, including the history of Christian traditions, Reformation Europe, religion and the occult in early modern Europe, and early modern social history.

From 2004-2011 he served as Vanderbilt’s first senior international officer (Associate Provost for Global Strategy), a full-time administrative position, and before that, from 2000-2004, he was Director of the Center for European Studies.

http://www.medievalists.net/2016/08/21/the-modern-invention-of-the-medieval-executioner/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7051
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda
« Reply #44 on: September 11, 2016, 05:20:11 pm »
http://nypost.com/2016/09/11/hillary-clinton-has-medical-episode-at-911-ceremony/




Interesting. As a veteran of some serious syncope episodes prior to my pacemaker implantation, I wish to inform readers that they way Hillary collapsed is precisely the way you pass out from syncope. It could also be a stroke but strokes usually take minutes, not seconds, to knock you out.

In syncope, your heart just stops in its tracks. About 10 seconds later, you are unconscious. The heart starts up on its own about 15 seconds later. Syncope is NOT a heart attack.

I just wanted to add that, minutes prior to a syncope, you feel fatigued and you get paresthesia (tingling in arms and head). This is because the heart is already stopping and starting for a second or two, not enough to knock you out, but enough to reduce the oxygenation in your extremities (tingling and pin pricks).

Hillary could have started to feel woozy, taken out, and then had the main (15 seconds or more) syncope at the SUV.

UPDATE:
I just found this. This doctor seems to agree with my diagnosis.  8)

Quote

Hillary Clinton almost fainted. I’m a doctor. It’s really o.k. | Dr. Jen Gunter

10 hours ago - Hillary Clinton left early from the 9/11 commemoration in New York as ... With near syncope it is pretty easy to intervene, as Mrs. Clinton's team did, and prevent the faint. ... breath as I am pretty confident that if Mrs. Clinton did have shortness ... with symptoms consistent with vasovagal or orthostatic syncope, ...

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/hillary-clinton-almost-fainted-im-a-doctor-its-really-o-k/

Agelbert NOTE:
The vasovagal syncope is the one where the heart stops. The Orthostatic syncope is caused by low blood pressure (hypotension) from rising up quickly from a sitting or squatting position. Also, soldiers at attention in a formation sometimes lock their leg muscles inadvertently causing loss of blood pressure. They keel over and wake up embarrassed. I DOUBT whether Hillary's syncope was orthostatic.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
145 Replies
5130 Views
Last post June 16, 2017, 09:07:24 pm
by AGelbert
31 Replies
2844 Views
Last post February 09, 2017, 07:20:24 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
June 23, 2017, 10:35:08 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
June 23, 2017, 09:45:10 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
June 23, 2017, 07:33:58 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 23, 2017, 06:48:58 pm

In the Interest of Harmony Among People With Different Beliefs by AGelbert
June 23, 2017, 02:40:26 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
June 22, 2017, 10:13:03 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
June 21, 2017, 10:01:29 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 19, 2017, 04:52:20 pm

Intelligence by AGelbert
June 18, 2017, 02:23:09 pm

Money by AGelbert
June 18, 2017, 01:35:04 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial