Sunday, January 27, 2008

Whitewash

You might reasonably assume that the 9/11 Commission and other government agencies investigated September 11th, and concluded based upon the evidence that Osama Bin Laden and his group of terrorists were solely responsible for that atrocity.

Unfortunately, a quick look at the government's investigations reveals that -- not only has there never been a real investigation -- but the behavior of government representatives in willfully obstructing all attempts at investigation comprises evidence of guilt. Specifically, in all criminal trials, evasiveness, obstruction, and destruction of evidence all constitute strong circumstantial evidence that the accused is guilty or, at the very least, not to be believed. 9/11 is no different.

For example, the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission.

And the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ." 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting" Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up". The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

But let's back up and look at the 9/11 Commission in more detail. Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to "intelligence failures", so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved. The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true, who was involved in pre-9/11 intelligence briefings, and who was one of the key architects of the "pre-emptive war" doctrine. This executive director, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article). The administration then starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky, failed to provide crucial documents (and see this article also), refused to share much information with the Commission, refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly. More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration's official version of events. As stated by the State Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism, who was the point man for the U.S. government's international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration, "there were things the [9/11] commission[s] wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about." For example, the 9-11 Commission report fails to mention the CIA director's urgent warnings to top administration officials in July 2001 of an impending attack (indeed, the 9-11 Commission was briefed on these warnings, but denied they knew about them until confronted with contrary evidence). Moreover, numerous veteran national security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 commission, even though they had information directly relevant to the commission's investigation.

A very well-documented book by a distinguished professor shows that the 9-11 Commission was a whitewash. According to law professor Richard Falk of Princeton, the author of this book "establishes himself, alongside Seymour Hersh, as America's number one bearer of unpleasant, yet necessary, public truths" (Seymour Hersh, as you might know, is the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal). See a synopsis of the book here; and a summary of a portion of the book here. Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now "question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report", and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and "suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts".

Moreover, the former head of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, who is a professor of fire protection engineering, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses. He has called for a new investigation. And a leading firefighters' trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a "half-baked farce". In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center. Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings. And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House?

Or that a former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated"? Or have you heard that the FBI long ago found and analyzed the "black box" recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found?

Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times?

And amazingly, many years after the FBI stated it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11, that agency apparently still does not have hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime.

Still think the government really investigated and disclosed what happened on 9/11? Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.


0 comments

Friday, January 25, 2008

Bankrupting Our Future

Okay, here is the winning campaign slogan. Not just for any specific presidential or congressional candidate (although it would win for them also). But also for the campaigns against fascism, corruption, wars based upon lies, 9/11 coverups, voting fraud, and economic problems.

Before I tell you the slogan, though, let me remind you that the economy is now more important to people than the war in Iraq. And the subprime meltdown and other economic problems are 0bviously on peoples' minds.

In addition, right or wrong, among many Americans who believe that wealth is a sign of favor from above, "bankruptcy" is thought of as failure.

Moreover, the phrase "morally bankrupt" is one of the worst insults that can be hurled at someone. Among "values voters", ethical integrity is the most important issue. Even among the secular left, corruption is one of the ultimate negatives in a leader.

Finally, phrases like "bankruptcy" and "future" trigger all portions of a person's brain (logical, emotional, and survivalist) and so are very persuasive.

Okay, So What's the Slogan and How Do I Use It?

The slogan is, simply, "bankrupting our future".

Use it as appropriate according to the issue you are discussing. For example:
  • "Fake intelligence is bankrupting our future" (you can start with the false intelligence about Iraq and other aspects of the "war on terror", move into recent admissions by the government about the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, and then move onto broader histories of faked intelligence and false flag terror)
  • "Government corruption is bankrupting our future" (you can cite examples of how the boys are pilfering the treasury to pay their buddies, bribe everyone in sight, and line the pockets of mega-corporations)
And one of the most powerful uses of the phrase is: "Bush and Cheney are morally bankrupt . . . they are bankrupting our future". The focus on morals is very powerful because it will evoke a strong response in conservative Christian "values voters", secular liberal humanist voters, and everyone in between.

Marketing experts and political psychologists can verify the power of this phrase.

Drive Up the Cost of Fascism

In addition to using the powerful phrase "bankrupting our future" in our campaigns to save America, I recommend that we take actions that will actually make fascism more expensive.

What do I mean?

Well, even though our free market is not really a level playing field (and the government and mega-corporations manipulate the free market in ways both large and small), there still is a market, and the government still needs to pay for services it uses. If following the Constitution and the rule of law is far cheaper than implementing fascism, then the wanna-be fascists will receive feedback for their illegal behaviors: higher costs.

True, the government will probably just print another boatload of money to cover up these costs (hey -- they stopped reporting the M3 money supply -- so who cares?), but eventually all of the funny-money they print will cause such severe inflation and devaluation of the dollar that they won't be able to hide it from the American public.

How can we make fascism more expensive?

One example is to encrypt your computers (both pc and laptop), and to store the decryption software and the passwords on a portable memory drive. As thought up and explained by Michael Rivero in the context of laptops:

1. Encrypt the data on the laptop.

2. Put the decryption software AND the keys on a jump disk [i.e. portable storage device] attached to the keys of the person using the laptop. Some jump disks now have built-in encryption and fingerprint readers.

3. In order to use the data, the user has to insert the jump disk into the laptop. Like a key.

4. If the jump disk is removed, the data on the laptop becomes unreadable.

5. For a cyber-crook to get access to 600,000 records, they have to steal not only the laptop but the jump disk as well, a considerably more difficult proposition.

While Rivero was raising this as a security method to protect the information on your laptop, this method also raises the costs of fascism for the powers-that-be. Why? Because the Patriot Act gives the government the right to break and enter your home or office and look at what's on your computer, without a search warrant, and without even letting you know they've been there.

It is more expensive to try to decrypt the information on your computer (especially using Rivero's method) then to read unencrypted files. So if everyone used Rivero's security procedure, not only would it help protect your data from thieves, it would also make it more expensive for the government to ignore the Constitution and try to implement a fascist state.

There are many other things we can do to make fascism more expensive than the rule of law. If we get creative, we can drive up the cost of fascism to the point that the powers-that-be incur a real cost every time they try to do something unAmerican.

In short, we can bankrupt fascism.

So use the power-phrase "bankrupting our future" and get creative in taking myriad actions that will drive up the cost of those trying to shred the Constitution.


3 comments

Thursday, January 24, 2008

ATTENTION BLOGOSPHERE!

As of November 2006, only 26 million Americans watched any nightly news program on television (down from 52 million in 1980). And the percentage of people who believed "all or most of what news organizations say" fell dramatically between 1996 and 2006.

On the other hand, social sites like Digg, Reddit, Del.icio.us, Technorati, StumbleUpon, Propeller, Newsvine etc., and alternative news websites on both the left and the right have attracted huge numbers of eyeballs. Indeed, there are currently at least 112.8 million blogs and over 250 million pieces of tagged social media.

We are actually on the verge of becoming bigger than the audience for tv news. Don't believe me? Check out this poll, which found that nearly half of Americans turn to web for news, and almost 70% think traditional journalism is out of touch. And this poll, which shows that more people trust internet news than the traditional news media.

And we are certainly much more involved and active than the couch potatoes passively consuming the drivel coming from the MSN.

In fact, mainstream news is a misnomer. Why? Because the corporate, controlled news does not reflect the views of mainstream Americans. Instead, it reflects the views of the government and the large corporations which own or advertise on the news networks.

The blogosphere, on the other hand, runs insightful and uncensored stories. The blogsphere gives voice to, and reflects the views of, mainstream America. In other words, I would argue that the blogsphere is now the "mainstream" news source.

Attention Blogosphere . . . We are now the mainstream news.

Making News of Our Own

There are now enough of us reading and writing political and news blogs that we can affect history.

Instead of rolling our eyes at the newest inept and cowardly act of the politicians, or getting hot under the collar at the latest attempt of the White House to turn America into a monarchy, or yelling at our monitors over the latest corrupt and illegal act of our "leaders", or twitching over the latest spin by the "mainstream" media, we can -- together -- actually make some news of our own.

Like what?

Well, that's for us to decide. I'm not the spokesman or the leader, but just one member of the very large blogosphere.

But if we pretend we are just passive spectators, the inept, cowardly, fascistic and/or corrupt politicians and media are going to run our country into the ground. You know it, I know it, the entire blogosphere knows it.

The one-way model of television news -- where the talking heads talk at us and tell us what to believe -- is dead. The power of the blogosphere is that it is two-way:
  • With social networking sites, by definition the most important news stories (as determined by the users) get voted up
  • With alternative news sites, those sites which carry the important stories which the MSM censors get the most readers; that's why such sites have grown exponentially while the mainstream news is losing viewership
All of us in the blogosphere collectively have the power to change the course of events, to keep our country from plunging off of the cliff, and to restore sanity in a nutty time. If we just embrace and accept our role as active participants, rather than passive consumers of bad news, we can make things right.

Attention Blogosphere . . . The future rests in our hands.

But the [people], if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire . . . They need only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies . . .
- George Orwell, 1984

You let one ant stand up to us - then they all might stand up. Those puny little ants outnumber us a 100 to one. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life.
- Hopper (a grasshopper speaking to fellow grasshoppers in the Disney/Pixar movie A Bug's Life)

There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress.
- Howard Zinn, historian

To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
- Bruce Lee

The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them.
- George Bernard Shaw

If you don't like the news, go out and make some news of your own.
- Scoop Nisker, radio personality


1 comments

Monday, January 21, 2008

World's Largest Bond Insurers in Danger of Collapsing

The two largest bond insurers are in imminent danger of collapsing. If they collapse, it could mean a body blow to the U.S. financial system and economy, at a time when they are already getting hammered by the mortgage and stock market crashes.

See this short video for more context.




0 comments

Will the Economic Crash Wake People Up?

Preface: I am truly sorry for the suffering of those Americans who will lose their home, their job, or their life savings as a result of the economic crash. This article focuses on one potential silver lining -- an opportunity to promote truth and justice.

Will the crash wake Americans up from their comfortable slumber and make them question their government? Stalin said that dictatorships only last so long as the dictators keep their people well-fed. Americans have been strongly motivated not to question the government because they have been led to believe that if they just follow the party line, they'll get nice jobs, make a bundle of dough, buy into "the American dream". A crash has the possibility to awaken Americans from their dangerously cozy nap. It has the potential to get Americans to open their eyes and start questioning the lies they have been told about everything from the "war on terror", to "provocations by hostile foreign nations", to voting in the U.S.

On the other hand, will the financial crash will lower people on the Maslow pyramid to the point that they have no energy to think about political truth or the acts of criminal brutality and fascism of their government? Will they be so preoccupied with holding onto their house and job, their ability to keep the heat and lights on and buy food, that they just hunker down in survival mode?

Unlike the citizens of prior fascist regimes, the current politicians are the ones who caused the economic problem, so they can't pretend they will rescue us from an economic crisis caused by their predecessors. In other words, it might be harder for the Neocons to whip up a "rally around the strong leader to solve the economic crisis" dynamic.

The trick will be to link the pain people feel from economic mismanagement with the pain caused by other destructive acts by the powers-that-be.

As one example, 9/11 truth activists can link 9/11 truth with economic truth, because:

  • Neither the 9/11 murders or the economic crash occurred due to the causes the government claims
  • Neither are "no one could have foreseen it" situations
  • The government had much more control and input into both scenarios than it has admitted
  • Just as the government used 9/11 as an excuse to carry out its pre-planned anti-American agenda, we have to be on-guard that the government doesn't use the crash as an excuse to implement a "fix" which hurts the vast majority of Americans (and lines just a handful of pockets)
I'll leave it to people with a better economics background than I have to explain the real causes of the market crash. Please don't get speculative. Just stick to the basics of how the government manipulates the economy.


1 comments

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Why We'll Win

History proves that ideas are more powerful than weapons. Sure, in the short-term, those who possess the strongest military and the deadliest weapons will prevail. But powerful new ideas bring greater change over the span of a couple of hundred years than military might.

The wannabe-fascists in America, England, Israel and other countries have won in the short-term. For example, there already is soft fascism in America and England. Wars have already been launched just because America -- as sole superpower -- had the military strength to do it. The elections are already rigged, with only those hand-picked by the powers-that-be standing any chance of winning.

But people world-wide are waking up to the facts of manipulation of intelligence, false flag operations and rigged elections. This is a huge development.

Why?

Well, these things have been going on for thousands of years. These ideas -- which have never before been understood by so large a proportion of the population, are very powerful. Previously, people have believed that their form of government -- whether capitalism, or communism, or socialism, or any other ism -- would basically protect them.

But with an understanding of false flag terror and faked intelligence, people can see that the elite have been playing an entirely different game: the blame-the-enemy-for-your-own-brutal acts-of-murder game.

Once people understand that the powers-that-be in every country and every culture will wrap themselves in the nation's flag, dominant cultural expressions, and prevailing religion and then manipulate the population through the creation of boogeymen, something amazing will happen.

People will rise up and demand new forms of government that cannot be distorted through false flags, cooked intelligence and rigged votes to serve the elite at the expense of the people. Tweaks on the old forms of government, brought about by constitutional Convention (or even new forms of government) will be implemented which will prevent the abuses of the last couple of thousands of years from recurring, and which will create true democratic republics which actually embody the vision of the Founding Fathers. Because America, for example, has become so corrupted, and because anti-freedom forces sought to sabotage the Constitution from the first, the new governments will be better than the world has ever seen before.

I believe that the elites overplayed their hand. I believe that by carrying out the brutal act of cynical murder on 9/11 and by using overt forms of power to try to stifle dissent and truth, the elites have not only sewn the seeds of their own downfall from power, but have also paved the way for an awakening of humankind to the realities of how people have been manipulated by the elites for millennia.

9/11 was a brutal act of murder on innocent Americans. Nothing will ever wash the horrible taste of that treasonous act from my mouth. But I believe that we can make lemonade from the lemon -- and with the ugly truth so obviously displayed for all to see -- use the 9/11 murders to awaken humanity so that the people of the world demand true mechanisms to protect our freedom in a fashion that cannot be destroyed by games of manipulation.

The truth will out. And when the truth is known, the idea generated by that truth -- of the need for true liberty protected from the manipulation of false flag attacks and fake intelligence -- and the action generated from that idea can sweep away the tools of repression and usher in a golden age of liberty and justice better than anything before.

But that will only happen if we are committed to turning the lemons of 9/11 and the gathering clouds of fascism into the lemonade of the best system the world has had, one which comes much closer to carrying out the Founders' intent and which will actually deliver on the promises enshrined in the Constitution.

Obviously, it is difficult to create procedures than can withstand attempts at manipulation. If the demand of the people is strong enough, ingenious methods can be implemented which discourage manipulation.

Moreover, new technologies and new insights into biology, psychology, and related fields will lead to new forms of psychological warfare and manipulation by the elite.

That is why a "vigilant" public is the strongest protection because -- when the public is paying attention -- the elites know they have to behave themselves. That is why informing and waking up the population is the key to protecting freedom in the long-term.


14 comments

Monday, January 14, 2008

Secrets of Persuasion for Truth Activists

Truth activists have all the facts on our side, but how do we persuade people who stubbornly refuse to listen to those facts? I read a book recently which provides expert marketing and psychology advice for political activists1. This essay summarizes principles of persuasion for use by truth activists.

Those promoting a fascist agenda have long been using advanced marketing techniques and psychology to manipulate people.
We must understand these techniques in order to shield ourselves from manipulation.

In addition, using these tools in our work to protect our liberties, spread truth and promote justice will make us more effective.


3 Brains

The first thing to understand about persuasion is that every person actually has 3 brains. Top-notch communicators appeal to all 3 brains.

The 3 brains are:

(1) The reptilian brain, which focuses solely on survival, fight-or-flight, and getting away from pain.

(2) The mammalian brain, which handles emotions: love, indignation, compassion, envy, hope, etc.

(3) The human brain (neocortex), where we handle logic, abstract thought, words, symbols and time.

Most people incorrectly assume that if enough facts and logic are presented, people will believe the truth. In fact, psychologists, marketing experts and trial lawyers have found that facts are less persuasive for most people than emotions in reaching decisions.

Why?

The reptilian and monkey portions of our brain reach decisions based upon survival and emotion before the neocortex can make rational decisions. So facts alone won’t convince most people. Instead, stories, images and emotions are what sway most people.

For example, one political psychologist writes:
If you appeal primarily to people's reason without first getting them to feel the significance of the issue you're talking about, they're not going to be interested. From an evolutionary standpoint, our emotions play two major roles. One, our emotions appear to capture our attention, so if you don't make emotionally compelling arguments, if you don't use stories or examples to grab listeners, they won't hear important things you have to say. The other role of emotion, which is probably most crucial, is that emotions motivate us -- positive feelings pull us towards things that are generally good for us, and negative emotions move us away from things that are generally bad for us.
Framing

Associating an issue or person with an emotion is called “anchoring”.

Some words convey strong positive or negative emotions, and act as powerful anchor words. For example, Newt Gingrich pushed the following positive words for use by politicians (I have deleted the anchor words which are not appropriate to truth activism, such as "crusade"):
share... change... opportunity... legacy... challenge... control... truth... moral... courage... reform... prosperity... movement... children... family... debate... compete... active(ly)... we/us/our... candid(ly)... humane... pristine... provide...

liberty... commitment... principle(d)... unique... duty... precious... premise... care(ing)... tough... listen... learn... help... lead... vision... success... empower(ment)... citizen... activist... mobilize... conflict... light... dream... freedom...

peace... rights... pioneer... proud/pride... building... preserve... pro-(issue): flag, children, environment... reform... confident... incentive... hard work... initiative... common sense... passionate
Just using these words to describe one's position helps to persuade people towards that position. For example, for those who work to expose the fact that the 9/11 Commission did not provide a complete accounting of what happened on September 11, both "truth" and "activist" are positive anchor words, but "truther" doesn't appear on the list, and is not a good anchor. "9/11 truth activist" is a lot more powerful a phrase than "9/11 truther".

Gingrich urged the following negative words be describe one’s opponent:
decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... they/them...betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...

endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten... devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissive attitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed... ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant...

stagnation... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... status quo... shame... disgrace... punish... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse of power... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... red tape... patronage
So labeling those who apologize for those who carried out the 9/11 attacks "radical traitors who are anti-truth and anti-flag" would be very powerful.

What should we do when we come face-to-face with a negative but powerful frame promoted by the other side? The best solution is usually to reframe it. Find a better, more powerful frame which encapsulates the truth.

Primary Drive

People are driven primarily by one of two emotions:

(1) Moving away from pain. People whose primary drive is to move away from pain usually believe that the world is primarily a scary and dangerous place, and that people are basically bad

(2) Moving towards pleasure. People whose primary drive is to move toward pleasure usually believe that the world is fundamentally a fair and good place, and that people are basically good.

If someone falls into the first category, discussing how truth will help them avoid pain will be effective. For people in the second category, stressing the pleasure that truth will bring will be useful.

Of course, if you are communicating with more than one person at a time, you should mix both messages.

One piece of good news: Motivating people through a moving away from pain/fear strategy works very effectively in the short run, which is why those running the U.S. have been able to manipulate the American people so well. This is because the reptilian brain reacts first and overrides the higher thinking functions. But, over time, it stops working, and the moving away from pain strategy eventually becomes ineffective. In the long run, hope and a positive vision works better than fear.

Seeing, Hearing, Touching

Most modern people process information primarily through their visual sense. Some process information through hearing. Other process information kinesthetically (through touch and feeling).

People not living in modern societies process information primarily kinesthetically, as that is how we are biologically wired. As stated above, we are wired to make decisions largely based on feeling and emotion.

So what does this mean on a practical level?

Unless you communicate using a person's primary mode of learning (called "submodality"), you won't be speaking in his language, and so probably won't be able to persuade him.

Moreover, studies show that communications which rapidly switch back and forth between visual, auditory and kinesthetic cues best help the listener focus on the message.

Therefore, the world's top communicators will frequently and rapidly switch between "seeing", "hearing" and kinesthetic words.

Some examples of visual words and phrases are:
"I see what you mean."
"Look at what's happening."
"Can you picture that?"
"What's the big picture?"
Some examples of hearing words and phrases are:
"I hear you."
"If you listen carefully, you'll notice . . ."
"Can you hear their cries for justice?"
"That's the sound of democracy."
Some examples of kinesthetic words and phrases are:
"What would that feel like?"
"Pulled the rug out from under us."
"Tearing a hole in the Constitution"
"Getting tripped up on . . ."
"They're stabbing us in the back . . ."
An example switching submodalities could be as simple as: “I want to talk with you about the stories that we tell ourselves, the way we view the world and the way we feel as Americans.”

“You” Statements

The unconscious mind hears any statement using the word “you” as being directly at that particular listener.

Using a "you" statement when you are in a confrontational situation with someone will usually polarize the listener and destroy any possibility of influencing him.

A trick for getting around this is to use an “indirect you”; that is, speak in the third person. Here are some examples:
“[third person] was saying ...”

“He said ‘you wouldn’t believe’ . . .”

“She said ‘you can’t imagine how difficult . . .”

“He said ‘you would have to be, you know, disconnected from life to ignore . . .”

“She said ‘you’d have to be almost criminally disconnected from humanity to . . .”

“He said ‘you wouldn’t believe’ . . .”

“And I said to him, ‘you know, I agree.”

“Many people tell me that what they would like to say to [listener or listener’s group] is ‘you guys are . . . .’”
Pacing

If you shift the rhythm of your speaking or writing, or the pace of your video or movie, the listener or viewer will have pay attention to follow you. This draws him in, and forces him to pay attention (and thus be receptive to your message). If you listen to a world-class speaker, they will pause more than you might assume, and speak quieter in parts.

Pacing your presentation is important.

Future Pacing

It can be powerful to tell a story in the future, as if its happening now. Then work your way back to the present, to connect the future and the present.

Masterful speeches can work back and forth and back forth among different time frames, interweaving present, future and even past events to make one's point and give the listener a feeling of continuity in one's vision.

Switch Levels

Similar to switching between timeframes, one can switch between levels of complexity: from the individual, to the group, to the societal, to all of humankind.

Tell how something will benefit the individual and also society. Don't just get stuck on one level or another.

Avoid Negatives

The unconscious mind usually doesn't hear negatives. It hears “not” as “is” (how do you react to "I am not a crook"?). And it doesn’t hear “un” or “dis”, or even "I will stop" or "I will end" sometimes.

As summarized in an article in the Washington Post:
The psychological insights yielded by the research, which has been confirmed in a number of peer-reviewed laboratory experiments, have broad implications for public policy. The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.

This phenomenon may help explain why large numbers of Americans incorrectly think that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi. While these beliefs likely arose because Bush administration officials have repeatedly tried to connect Iraq with Sept. 11, the experiments suggest that intelligence reports and other efforts to debunk this account may in fact help keep it alive.

The Post concludes that the studies show that "rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth".

So try to avoid negatives and stick to positive statements.

Putting It All Together

Thom Hartmann summarized successful and persuasive communication as follows:
“Tell a story to capture their attention. Build into the story visual and auditory metaphors and elements, each designed to evoke emotional responses. Embed into the most emotional parts of the stories the information you want remembered. And pace the story so that listeners and viewers move to your beat . . . .”
Throw in some indirect you statements, future pacing and level-switching, frame the issue in your own, positive way, and use strong anchor words, and you're on your way to becoming a highly effective truth activist.

1 The book is Cracking the Code by Thom Hartmann. While I disagree with Hartmann's assessment of conservatives and liberals, I respect his knowledge of communications and marketing. Indeed, Hartmann studied with one of the leading experts in this field, and taught advertising agencies some of their modern tricks of persuasion.

This summary cannot provide a full taste of how to apply these methods. I highly recommend that everyone read
Cracking the Code to learn more about these persuasion techniques.

If you have any ethical reservations about using these techniques, please note that I am only advocating using them to promote the truth. I am completely opposed to using psychology or marketing techniques to spread disinformation.


1 comments

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Will the Iranian "Provocation" Ruse Be Allowed to Succeed?

The navy showed a tape of what they claimed were Iranian speedboats "harassing" a U.S. warship, along with audio of foreign-sounding bad guys making very threatening statements.

However, after a blogger pointed out that the accents of the supposed speed boat passengers could not have been Iranian, the government changed its story:
"the spokesperson for the U.S. admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet clarified to ABC News that the threat may have come from the Iranian boats, or it may have come from somewhere else.

'We're saying that we cannot make a direct connection to the boats there,' said the spokesperson. 'It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by. However, it happened in the middle of all the very unusual activity, so as we assess the information and situation, we still put it in the total aggregate of what happened Sunday morning. I guess we're not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we're not saying it absolutely didn't.'"

In other words, the audio could have come from anywhere. It could even have been a pre-recorded message played from a U.S. war ship!

Iran released its own version of the audio for the incident, wherein the speed boats properly identify themselves, saying "Coalition warship No. 73 this is an Iranian navy patrol boat". I don't know if this is authentic, but its more likely than the U.S. version of the incident.

Especially given that it has now been definitely admitted by the U.S. government that "US officials faked an incident to escalate the war" in Vietnam, will the U.S. get away with using the less-than-credible Iranian speedboat tape to create a pretext for war with Iran?

The media has shown over hundreds of years that it will support the false claims of the government to justify war. Will the media act truthfully this time?


3 comments

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Military and Intelligence Officers: Your Country Needs You!

If you are a current or former military or intelligence officer, you just may be able to save your country.

Blowing the whistle on a false flag attack is obviously crucial (and see this).

But there's something else you can do to save the country.

What?

Meeting with as many state troopers, marshals, police captains, national guardsmen, soldiers and other folks who would actually be tasked with implementing martial law if and when the powers-that-be decide that velvet-gloved "soft fascism" is no longer working or moving their plans along fast enough.

Many police officers, guardsmen and military personnel are good people who simply don't know what's really going on in America.

As former officers, it is possible that they will respect and look up to you. If you educate them with the most well-documented facts about our country's descent into fascism, then you will be planting vital seeds of truth.

One day, the people you talk to (and those they speak with) just might say "no" if they are asked to carry out illegal orders to imprison, kill or torture Americans simply for exercising their lawful, constitutional rights to criticize the government.

Who knows? By talking to them with respect and truth, they may one day even help to expose the crimes or arrest those criminals who are using their positions within the U.S. government or the defense industry to destroy the nation and line their own pockets (for example, these guys).


1 comments

Monday, January 07, 2008

Fascism Is Over ... If We Want It

Many times, when I explain to people what's going on in our country today, they at first argue that things aren't really that bad, and that America could never go fascist.

After a couple of examples about what's been happening recently, and a brief overview of what fascism actually means, they get it.

But then they shrug their shoulders and say "there's nothing I can do", hoping that that's the end of discussion.

Are they right? Is there nothing we can do about fascism? Should we just hunker down and try to survive it?

Well, first of all, there is something we can do to break free of the fascist concrete which has been poured over America, before it really hardens.

Here is just one example:
  • 2 million Americans could all peacefully surround the White House and Capitol Hill, and hold signs saying "we're not leaving until the Constitution and the rule of law are restored".
1 million people surround the White House. 1 million more surround Capitol Hill. Everyone wears red, white and blue to show that we are pro-America (and because it will be such a sight to see that the news cameras will be attracted like flies to honey).

If that happened, the spell of fascism would be broken, things would start to get done, and America would be freed. Says who?

Well, its happened repeatedly throughout history whenever people have been willing to stand up. The Ukranian people stood up to tyranny and won. The East German people stood up to tyranny and won. The people of the Philippines, Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Indonesia and other countries around the world have won against tyranny whenever ordinary people have poured into the streets in massive numbers and demanded freedom.

And here in the U.S., even though Nixon said he didn't care what the American people thought, he backed off on dropping a nuclear bomb on Vietnam when hundreds of thousands of people turned out to protest an escalation of the war (and see this).

But, but . . .

Now you might raise all sorts of potential problems with this option. I'll get to that in a minute. However, I want to stress that if 2 million people did this, it would work, and the fact that we're not doing it is only proof that we're too lazy or lack the commitment to do anything.

Okay, here are some possible objections and rebuttals to the objections . . .

1. There has never been that large a protest. We can't organize that many people.

With the web, we can do it.

2. If we use the web to organize, it would be infiltrated.

Well, with government already spying on our web usage, emails and phones, of course it would be infiltrated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

3. Police might try to disrupt the protest.

Yes, they probably will try. That's why everyone should bring cellphone cameras or videocams. If police turn violent or use agents provocateur to incite violence, we film it all, and broadcast it worldwide on the web. That would make the government look really, really bad. Also, everyone should sign paper pledges in advance to be peaceful and not use any violence under any circumstance. And if you see anyone trying to incite violence, have a group of people escort them away from the protest.

4. Too busy, don't have the time off from work, or don't have the money to participate.


Yes, we might have to call in sick to work, spend some scarce funds, rearrange or cancel some commitments. It might be a sacrifice, but we could do it if we really wanted to.

There are many other possible objections, but there are responses to all of them. In short, it is doable and would be effective.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that it is not true that we are powerless or that there is nothing we can do to prevent fascism from consolidating its hold on the United States.

The option of surrounding the White House and Capitol Hill with millions of peaceful protesters is only one of many options which would turn things around. If we are not implementing such options, it is because we don't really care, or don't want to be bothered, or are not really committed to saving our country. It is not because there is nothing we can do.


12 comments

9/11 Stress Increased Risk of Heart Problems

A new study says that stress from the 9/11 attacks increased the risk of heart problems, even if they had no personal connection to the events.

A class action lawyer could file suit on behalf of Americans who have suffered heart disease as a result of the government's failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. A lawsuit would allow subpoenas and discovery into what really happened on 9/11.


0 comments

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

CIA Tape Investigation: Another Whitewash in the Making

After the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission said that the CIA (and the White House) "obstructed our investigation", attorney general Mukasey appointed a prosecutor to conduct a criminal probe.

Sounds good, right?

Well, the prosecutor:
  • "will not serve as a special prosecutor such as Patrick Fitzgerald, who operated autonomously" (AP)
  • There's nothing really "outside" about [prosecutor] John Dunham. He's a career DOJ prosecutor, the number two official in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Connecticut. . . ." (former DOJ official Marty Lederman, )
  • The prosecutor "will report to the deputy attorney general", acting Deputy attorney general Craig Morford (Washington Post)
  • The prosecutor will lack independence, contrary to the Justice Department's own regulations:
"While I certainly agree that these matters warrant an immediate criminal investigation, it is disappointing that the Attorney General has stepped outside the Justice Department's own regulations and declined to appoint a more independent special counsel in this matter. . . .

The Justice Department's record over the past seven years of sweeping the administration's misconduct under the rug has left the American public with little confidence in the administration's ability to investigate itself. Nothing less than a special counsel with a full investigative mandate will meet the tests of independence, transparency and completeness. Appointment of a special counsel will allow our nation to begin to restore our credibility and moral standing on these issues." (House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers)

Bottom line: Just another whitewash.

Note: Hat tip to Salon for its many useful updates.


2 comments