Saturday, December 29, 2007

New Strategies for Challenging the Propaganda Machine

Two ideas have surfaced today about how to stand up to the mainstream media companies which censor real news and solely act as cheerleaders for the powers-that-be:
  • Buy put options or short-sell stock -- that is, bet that the stock will go down -- of the offending companiess (just call a stockbroker and say you want to buy put options)
Both of these tactics come from Ron Paul supporters as a way to challenge Fox News' decision to exclude Dr. Paul from its presidential debate. However, these tactics can be used by anyone who is frustrated that the giant news corporations (owned by neocons, defense contractors, and others who do not share the interests of the American people) are censoring the truth and instead acting as the lapdogs and stenographers to the powers-that-be. Don't just target Fox news, but all of the media companies suppressing truth.

Of course, people can also boycott the sponsors of the offending media. For example, here is a list of Fox News' sponsors. And more ideas for boycotts are here.

And for those who already own shares of stock in an MSM company, another option is simply to sell them. If enough people sell, that will drive the price down and hit the MSM in its bottom line.


Blogger Syr Modryd said...

Boycotts are something I've been calling for for a while now. Glad to see a bigger voice agrees. The people have more power than they think.

They can boycott just about anyone and history shows this gets results even in modern times.

They can also set up their own collective economic safety nets, a way of pooling resources so that the group can provide for the individual the things the system tries to deprive them of: health insurance, education, loans, etc.

The people can use the law to sue Governmental and non Governmental institutions over 911, so that information can be forced out. After lawsuits have forced out the crucial facts, then the inquisitions will begin against the real perpetrators of 911. Some are already pursuing this to an extent.

And last but not least, the people can marshall their legal wherewithal to bring legal challenge to unConstitutional police st6ate laws and take it all the way to the Supreme Court if need be.

There is NO impedement.

12:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what Ron Paul has to do with the suggestion. Ron Paul is a trojan horse for the Reagan / Stockman / von Mises gang. He's not for the average guy, not even close. Ron Paul is a sucker hole. He's a tourist trap. He's the Reverend Jim Jones revived for purposes of further destroying America.

Ron Paul = Very Bad Idea.

Boycotts? Of little to no utility, as the average American has insufficient consumer buying power to influence any corporate policy.

In today's business world, the demand is created, and the people respond. When the people act contrary to the created demand, the businesses in issue simply create a newer demand with a new spin. They're not hurt by "boycotts."

Not even close.

This is a big departure from the usually wise observations found here, Mr Washington.

7:52 AM  
Blogger Psychomikeo said...

Great ideas!!! & Happy New Years!

11:01 AM  
Blogger Syr Modryd said...

Reebok was persuaded by boycotts to get it's act together after many in the public became dissatisfied with Reebok's South Africa dealings. Reebok conformed to some degree and even put out advertisements virtually begging people to stop the boycott.

Boycotts are an important tool that mustn't be thrown away, due to their usefulness and ethicalness. Ethical because even if your tiny dollar couldn't affect the big company, you stil should be more than reluctant to have that tiny dollar support a cause that is unjust in your own eyes.

2:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Syr Modryd,

How long ago did Reebok "clean up its act"?

What exactly comprised the "clean up its act" and how did it show that they'd actually cleaned up anything?

In what country did it do these things?

Based on pressure from what nation's citizens?

And how was the pressure applied, how did Reebok know that the sales declines were due to boycott, rather than changing attitudes about Reebok shoes for reasons other than what you say merited a boycott?

I think boycotts may have been effective maybe 20 or 30 years ago, but not today. I think the method of item sales has changed radically. There was a time, maybe 25 years ago, when items were sold in response to demand. Now that's true only for pure fad items. Regular durable goods are sold by the maker/retailer via created demand. By the time advertising campaigns are mustered and put in the public, the manufacture stage is done. Design is done. Research is done. It's all done.

How exactly are you saying that boycotts will work?

Maybe since I'm not a typical consumer I don't understand it. I don't pay attention to what's fashionable or what's advertised. I buy based on function. I don't follow the MSM, I don't even get exposed to advertisements for the most part. I have no idea what is "hot" these days, or what sold like crazy for Christmas buying this past Xmas.

I'm just having a hard time seeing how a boycott would work for any significant item made by any reprehensible government contractor. To me, a boycott would work with a custom guitar luthier, or perhaps with a tattoo artist.

But not with General Motors. Not with Bechtel. Not with Halliburton.

2:35 PM  
Blogger Syr Modryd said...


It's really not for me to go into exactly how Reebok was brought to heel, with the internet around and all. That anyone can do in their own free time...if they care about the issue. One question is interesting though. It was "how do you think boycotts work" more or less. Well, each boycott is an individual, a separate animal. Most may not work. But several have and for different reasons. Sometimes it's not the monetary repercussions so much as the negative publicity surrounding the boycott itself. Remember TEXACO? History tries to downplay the influence of Jesse Jackson in the matter, historians making note that the boycott was only a month long and did no economic damage *supposedly*. But I remember quite vividly a very horrified Texaco CEO on live national television practically trying to beg his way out of what was ABOUT to transpire, ie: the real boycott probably hadnt even begun and Texaco backed down quickly before it did.

You can spin the Texaco story anyway you please.

However, I'll believe my lying eyes first.

Remember, that even though America is being outsourced to death, the American CONSUMER is still the one with the BUYING POWER, not the factory workers in Taiwan, Calcutta, or Mexico.

10:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Syr Modryd,

I don't understand your response. Your tone is defensive, almost attacking. You point to a vague example. You say that "what with the Internet and all," that the effectiveness of Reebok's being subjected to a boycott is relatively obvious and well beneath you.

I will tell you what I remember about the "boycott". It was simply that Reebok shoes were a fad shoe of about 3 or 4 years. People stopped buying them because they were stupid disco shoes and the stupid disco era ended. Boycott shmoycott.

You seem to think I have an agenda and it seems quite clear that the agenda you IMAGINE is one that disturbs you and provokes you to such derisive writing.

That tells me you don't know how boycotts work and you are caught having painted yourself into a corner.

The Texaco example is vague and it is nonsense. No refiner ever has been hurt by a citizen boycott. You obviously do not understand the oil and gasoline businesses very well. You think that you can muster enough boycotters to really put a dent in a Texaco's business? Really?

Fanciful thinking.

Like I said, boycott your local luthier, you may see someone go out of business.

Boycott General Motors? No such luck. Not going to happen. You are assuming that most Americans are not unapologetic materialist consumers and happy players in the consumer capitalist system. It would be great if things weren't that way, but they are. It annoys the crap out of me that they are, but they are so. The entrenched power of large corporate businesses is well beyond what you are imagining by your thoughts on the effectiveness of boycotts.

I am not saying there are no reasons to boycott. Far from it.

I am saying that boycotts won't change things.

10:28 AM  
Blogger question said...

Open minded, that's the way we should be and that's the way we've been to understand 911, so if the wendigo wants to elaborate on his Ron Paul comments ... ?

8:37 AM  
Blogger Syr Modryd said...


Let's not bother trying to psychoanalyze the next blogger/commentator through cyberspace. It's a waste of precious mental resources and talent. Let's stick to Reebok.

I remember Reebok taking out ads that denied rumors about their business with the South African regime. Ads cost money. Maybe my recollections are too subjective for you. Here's something a little more excerpt from Google books that records history as Reebok spending much money and going well out of its way to avoid a boycott. Read page 95.'s+denials+south+africa+ads&source=web&ots=vVC6NM6WB1&sig=HEadtubFtJFsMHfb3mAtYX4diLQ#PPA95,M1

In this excerpt, which tells us part of the possible history of the Reebok boycott, we see that Reebok actually feared the public.

1:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In what way should I "elaborate" on them? On what particular aspect of Ron Paul's fraudulent posturing would you like to learn something?

Nobody should have to teach you that Ron Paul is a fraud. The evidence delivers a solid roundhouse punch to your awareness if you are willing to read it in an objective manner, rather than in an "I Worship Ron Paul" manner.

The average Ron Paul fan worships him as any devoted follower of any religion worships its godhead. Unquestioningly, faithfully, blindly.

Ron Paul is Ronald Reagan Redux. If you can't see this, you aren't examining his (1) foreign policy views, informed by Michael Scheuer; (2) economic views, informed by David Stockman via Ludwig von Mises; (3) legal and judicial views, informed by Anne Gorsuch Burford, James Watt, Ayn Rand.

He relies on unreliable fantasists.

That type of person shouldnt' be leading anything more than his own fantasies, and he shouldn't be leading them anwyhere but in his own mind.

Of course the drooling Paulie will say that he's powerful, he's individual, and he's against the Iraq War. Yeah sure. He's so "against it" that he hasn't once filibustered on the legislation that supports it.

He's a liar and a charlatan.

7:30 AM  
Blogger question said...

Ok wendigo, I take note of your comments, and I'm willing to learn ... So, what do you propose now, what is your plan ?
You have to come up with some positive inputs somewhere ... ?

9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My comments are wholly positive. Ignore Ron Paul and your life is improved. Ignore the Paulies' lies on Paul's behalf, your life is improved.

TRUTH and REALITY improve your life. They are positive things.

Seek the truth. Question politicians. Examine their influences. Read the writings of their advisors.

These are positive things. You can choose to see them as negative, but the only way you can maintain that allegation is to imagine I'm mistaken or trying to deceive or confound you. You are aiming your criticism at the wrong person.

I didn't offer Ron Paul as a "positive" development. I think he is a NEGATIVE one and I think it is positive to find the reasons why he should be avoided.

9:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home