Farage Attacks Bilderberg EU President As “Quiet Assassin” Of Nation States

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 25, 2010

Courageous British MEP Nigel Farage savaged Bilderberg member and global governance proponent Herman van Rompuy during a speech in front of the EU parliament, labeling the EU President “the quiet assassin of European nation states,” while van Rompuy sat and squirmed.

UK Independence Party leader Farage took the opportunity of van Rompuy’s first appearance in Parliament to harangue the EU President for his open contempt for national sovereignty.

Van Rompuy announced 2009 as the “first year of global governance” when he was appointed to be President back in November, just days after he called for a Europe-wide tax that would be paid directly to Brussels at a Bilderberg Group dinner in Brussels on November 15th.

Van Rompuy, addressing the EU Parliament in French, repeated the call for global governance during his speech yesterday.

“It is thanks to the EU that the G20 was born; We took the initiative to create this embryo of world governance,” stated the unelected EU President.

Farage said van Rompuy had “the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk” before outing him as the perfect figurehead for EU authoritarianism.

“The question that I want to ask and that we are all going to ask is: who are you? I had never heard of you; nobody in Europe had ever heard of you. I would like to ask you, Mr President: who voted for you? And what mechanism – I know democracy is not popular with you lot – what mechanism do the peoples of Europe have to remove you? Is this European democracy?” asked Farage.

“Sir, you have no legitimacy in this job at all, and I can say with confidence that I can speak on behalf of the majority of the British people in saying: we do not know you, we do not want you, and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better,” said Farage as he was heckled by other Parliament members.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  

Farage labeled van Rompuy “capable, competent, and dangerous,” before continuing, “I have no doubt that it is your intention to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of the European nation states. You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states; perhaps that is because you come from Belgium, which of course is pretty much a non-country.

Farage now faces an official reprimand next week from Jerzy Buzek, the Parliament President, and Socialist leaders, furious that Farage has found an avenue through which to repeatedly highlight dictatorial nature of the EU, are calling for his resignation.

However, despite the corporate media attacking Farage for his “rude” personal attack on van Rompuy, similar rhetoric was not directed towards EU members who have called Farage a Nazi or a “monkey in a tree,” revealing a clear double standard where critics of the EU are made examples of while proponents are protected.

As we previously reported, shortly after the announcement of van Rompuy as EU President, Farage made headlines when he exposed the fact that the EU is an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by unelected bureaucrats to the detriment of national sovereignty.

Farage slammed the EU for its aggressive and dictatorial tactics, stating, “It’s taken you eight and a half years of bullying, of lying, of ignoring democratic referendums to get this treaty through (referring to the Lisbon Treaty)”.

During the same speech, Farage identified van Rompuy as little more than a puppet for the real EU power base headed by “post-industrial revolution” advocate and European Commission President, Manuel Barroso.

As we have highlighted in the past, despite accusations by EU Parliamentarians that Farage is “opening the door to fascism” by merely being critical of the EU, in actual fact Nazism and the EU have some very disturbing parallels. Indeed, the two are fundamentally intertwined and the origins of the EU can be traced directly back to the Nazis.

The fact that the EU was a brainchild of top Nazi economists and industrialists, formulated as a means of preserving dictatorial power and then implemented by a former Nazi working under the auspices of the Bilderberg Group in 1955, proves that the entire European Union system is poisoned with a legacy and a raison d’être of totalitarianism.

This is becoming increasingly obvious in the 21st century as popular social movements across Europe rise up to oppose the blatant power grab being undertaken by the EU via the Lisbon Treaty, which was forced through in Ireland last year despite the population having already rejected it in a previous national referendum.

Watch the clip below.

Unplug the Signal: The Truth Will Not Be Televised

Nathan Janes
Pupaganda
February 24, 2010

A flow of information is constantly streaming from the television set; a bombardment of words and pictures.  The speed at which this information is communicated makes it easy for the signal to take control, switching the viewer’s brain to stand-by as information is absorbed without analysis or question. Today the television’s constant signal shapes the conclusions of the masses and produces the collective norm.  The signal prescribes what is news and what is truth through the words of so-called experts and authorities, gelding the consciousness and independent thoughts of those subjected to it. Through television, the masses can be made to accept the most monstrous distortions of reality. The signal is a chill wind of continuous oppression over the minds of the masses. It controls the management of society and culture, creating uniformity across all subjects.

Predictive programming is a tool used by the establishment to acclimate the public to new ideas, trends, beliefs, and threats.

The fuel for this vehicle of mass deception is a technique known as perception management where an array of psychological techniques are used to alter the truth, leading the viewer to a desired conclusion. Some call this spin or propaganda while others know it as lying.  According to Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for Adolph Hitler, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it… It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Most of what can be found on the nightly news is nothing but advertisements selling more government and a false reality that benefits only those in control. Television is the dictator of information; newspaper and radio are the whisper campaign of the television’s message.

It is expected that Americans will consistently prescribe to the doctrine of the television. It is subtly communicated that one should stay within the collective and never challenge the message, for doing so may be considered an aggression towards culture. The message is, “Be a good consumer; always obey authority; you know nothing; listen only to experts; be content and never question or express new ideas.” This signal is being broadcast across millions of screens, indoctrinating the unconscious minds of those who choose this as their only reality. Self-censorship occurs when these individuals become so deeply indoctrinated that they are afraid to discuss any information outside the paradigm of television-created culture; they police their thoughts to ensure they won’t conflict with this culture. Sadly, many people’s reality today does not allow any outside information to process, instead it is written off as conspiracy or blatant lies. Our consciousness has been destroyed so much that fiction has become reality. An entire lifestyle of poisonous foods, pharmaceuticals, and fluoridated water are accepted as safe and sold to us at the cost of our health and well being.

Those of the establishment are using the incredibly powerful weapon of mass psychology as a method of controlling the minds of the masses and altering the behavior of individuals. Edward Bernays, a pioneer in the field of public relations in the 20th century, applied Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis to manipulate the masses by engineering consent. According to Bernays, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” Advertisers and psychologists of the billion dollar culture creation industry manufacture trends through the proliferation of insecurities; and manipulating desires and emotions. These concepts are also employed to control how individuals think about politics, as well as the possibilities and limitations within society.  Those welding power within our streams of mass communication market their plans into each generation as individuals adopt specific ways of thinking and never suspect that all the major events and trends within their lifetime are actually planned by an elite few before they are even born. In our society today, culture is created from the top down. Virtually all forms of culture are created by the ruling class to build a false sense of reality, ensure social compliance, and control the future course of cultural evolution.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  

Predictive programming is a tool used by the establishment to acclimate the public to new ideas, trends, beliefs, and threats. It is used through television by including certain situations or ideas within the plots of many fictional shows, familiarizing the viewer with these concepts no matter what they may be watching.  When similar situations occur or like ideas are circulated in the world we think that these particular things are quite natural for we have unknowingly been made familiar with them through television. By viewing nearly any popular show on television, one can see the same propaganda that will be aired on the nightly news. Propaganda on a wide array of subjects has been interwoven into a great number of television shows. Just a few of these subjects include global warming, vaccinations, torture, terrorism, national security, the militarization of police, and the degradation of the family unit. Through predictive programming, television shapes culture and prevents individuals from asking questions.

Crisis’ are created on a daily basis and broadcast across the airwaves to keep individuals in a state of panic and fear. Whether it be the threat of a pandemic or terrorism, the constant state of crisis has created a form of mental illness as we are slowly acclimated into an age of crisis. By using Hegelian dialectic, the television promotes the problem, guides our reaction, and presents the solution. The problem of terrorism was exclaimed, a strong emotional response was evoked, and it was stated that our rights need be sacrificed in order to protect us from the threat. We’ve lost personal sovereignty under the guise of terrorism; we’re stopped and searched; we’re watched by cameras as we go about our lives; and we’re encouraged to spy on our neighbors.  We have been trained to accept the life of a prisoner.

America is in a state of enlightened despotism where most individuals live only to satisfy selfish inner desires and remain ignorant of the state of the world around them. In most public places one can find a television transmitting propaganda around the clock ensuring the masses remain focused on trivial matters. From birth we take the world as it’s presented on television.  We don’t question it and any serious criticism of TV is becoming psychologically impossible in society. Who would suspect getting born into a world where everything around you is a continuous lie? The youth of today are convinced that the experts and personalities on television are the authority of credible information while parents and older generations are foolish with dated ideas.  Children are conditioned to disconnect from what is truly important to their well being and instead focus on mindless trivia, sports, celebrity gossip, and buying an array of material things. They invest their psychological worth in fantasy characters on television while ignoring or even scorning individuals contributing to the betterment of humanity. They are discouraged from getting involved in their local community and often lack the ability to think independently or to resist corruption. As their children’s minds are molded by television, there is barely a murmur from the public.

For over half a century, our society has lived under this signal of mental programming and conditioning. The message is clear: don’t be a leader, don’t engage in critical thinking, and don’t care about the people in your life. Until individuals become aware of the current information war, our standard of living and our liberties will continue to be degraded and we will continue to lose communities and meaningful relationships between people. Currently, pockets of resistance are beginning to spring up everywhere as some unplug the signal and regain control of their own thoughts. Informed individuals are canceling their cable and satellite subscriptions and instead spending time with their families and children while participating in meaningful experiences. They are seeking alternative news sources. They are reading about those who weld incredible influence over culture like Edward Bernays, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Charles Galton Darwin, Plato, Bertrand Russell, and Aldous Huxley. However, it is a continuous battle to educate the masses for the television remains our greatest threat to individual sovereignty and the largest obstacle to becoming a truly informed individual. Fortunately, unplugging from the signal is easy. The television can simply be turned off. Through doing so, you may realize nearly our entire world is now a hoax; things once known as truth are fake. We have been trained like dogs to be obedient to our television; our master has had our minds on a tight leash. Let us never forget the truth will not be televised.

McCain’s Dietary Supplement Bill: An Attempt to Implement Codex Alimentarius

Brandon Turbeville
Infowars.com
February 24, 2010

A bill recently introduced to the U.S. Senate, the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 (S. 3002), by Senators John McCain and Byron Dorgan is possibly the most direct assault on natural health freedom we have seen for some time. If passed into law, this bill would require all dietary supplement manufacturers, distributors, and holders all the way down to the retail store level to be comprehensively registered. It would also allow for the arbitrary banning of nutritional supplements by the FDA and the introduction of deceitful reporting of adverse events related to them.

The legislation effectively gives the FDA carte blanche to do whatever it wishes in regards to natural supplements.

The cover for this legislation is that it is designed to prevent both intentional and unintentional steroid adulteration of dietary supplements. The trigger, according to McCain, was six NFL players who were accused of doping with supplements tainted with steroids. Even with this being the case, however, the FDA already has the authority to regulate synthetic anabolic steroids via the Anabolic Control Act of 2004 which permits them to do just that. Nevertheless, under the guise of the behavior of six NFL players, an entire market that has been proven not only very safe but very healthy will be essentially regulated out of business. (NHF)

The Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 would require registration of any “business or operation engaged in manufacturing, packaging, holding, distributing, labeling, or licensing a dietary supplement for consumption in the United States,” definitions which could possibly include even retail stores that sell herbal and nutritional products. (DSSA p.2) Currently, under the Dietary Supplements and Non-Prescription Consumer Protection Act, small retailers are not required to register. This, however, will change with the passage of McCain-Dorgan’s bill. (NHF)

The switch from the current practices of Serious Adverse Event Reporting to that of simply Adverse Event Reporting is of concern as well. Existing law requires the reporting of serious adverse events related to the supplement in question to be reported for regulatory and recall purposes. The McCain-Dorgan bill, however, removes the language “Serious Adverse Event” and replaces it with the term “adverse event,” opening up the floodgates for the most ridiculous possible claims of adverse events such as bad taste or even dislike of packaging. This “report everything possible” stance is will vastly increase the numbers of complaints that will hence be used to add credence to the arguments for banning supplements in the future. Not only that, but more government bureaucracies will have to be created in order to organize and sort through all of the incoming “adverse event reports.” (NHF)

Yet the most frightening aspect of this bill is the immediate effects it would have on natural supplements. Currently, due to the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), all supplements on the market prior to October 15, 1994 can lawfully be sold in the United States. However, the legislation being proposed completely reverses this and defines a “new dietary supplement” as one that “is not included on the list of ‘Accepted Dietary Ingredients’, to be prepared, published, and maintained by the Secretary” (DSSA p.5-6). This seemingly slight change in language actually removes the grandfathering in of supplements on the market prior to 1994. These new dietary supplements will also be considered “adulterated” unless “there is a history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the dietary ingredient when used under the conditions recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary supplement….” (DSSA p.5) The registrants are then required to create and maintain a “scientifically reasonable substantiation file” which is to be made available for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to inspect at his/her whim. These products are to be registered at least 75 days prior to market. (NSF)

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  

As quoted above, the bill also mandates that an “Accepted Dietary Ingredients” list should be created by the Secretary of HHS which will replace the current guidelines. Such a list effectively gives the FDA carte blanche to do whatever it wishes in regards to natural supplements. The FDA is given absolute authority to determine what supplements are allowed on the “Accepted Dietary Ingredients” list, thereby granting it the authority to ban any supplement without due process, scientific merit, or even a hearing simply by refusing to place it on the ADI list. (NSF) The FDA will also be able to remove supplements from market even after it has allowed it to be included on its’ list. As the bill states,

“If the Secretary finds there is a reasonable probability that a dietary supplement or a product marketed or sold as a dietary supplement would cause serious, adverse, health consequences or death, or is adulterated or misbranded, the Secretary shall issue a cease distribution and notification order requiring the person named in the order to immediately – cease distribution of such dietary supplement or a product marketed or sold as a dietary supplement; notify distributors, importers, retailers, and consumers of the order; and instruct those distributors, importers, retailers, and consumers to cease distributing, importing, selling, and using the dietary supplement.”(DSSA p.9)

The cost of the recall, of course, will be absorbed by the retailer. (DSSA p.11)

While the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 is an egregious attack on Americans’ freedom of choice, it is also a symptom of an even larger problem. The McCain-Dorgan bill is not just another silly attempt by corrupt politicians to demonstrate that they still have some value to their constituents, but an attempt to implement Codex Alimentarius at the national level and move the United States away from our Common Law heritage. The European Union has already passed similar legislation in the European Union Food Supplements Directive which has decimated open access to natural dietary supplements. Canada has passed laws to the same effect in recent weeks as well.

Works Cited

“Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010.” February 2, 2010. http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=2fe2fa5d-636b-4705-97df-8318a24f718f

“Bullet Points on McCain’s Anti-Supplement Bill S.3002.” National Health Federation. http://www.thenhf.com/press_releases/pr_19_feb_2010.html

“McCain Anti-DSHEA Bill a Clear and Present Threat to Health Freedom.” http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=4608

EPA Head: No Warming Since 1995 Doesn’t Mean Warming Isn’t Occurring

 

The science is settled, give us more money

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, Feb 24th, 2010

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson engaged in doublespeak of the highest degree today as she told reporters that no statistically significant increase in global temperatures since 1995 does not mean that there has not been human induced global warming.

“The science regarding climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming,” Jackson said, adding that the EPA needs more funding to ensure climate change legislation is passed.

Jackson was asked if she agreed with recent statements by Phil Jones, the lead scientist at the centre of the climategate scandal that there had been no statistically significant global warming for fifteen years.

Earlier this month, Jones reversed his stance and admitted there had been no recent temperature increase and that his data was “probably not as good as it should be”.

Jones also told the BBC that he does not think the debate on climate change is over.

The EPA’s Jackson stated: “I believe all the new information we have doesn’t lead to any different conclusion than what we reached in the Endangerment Finding,” referring to the agency’s classification of Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant.

“…climate is changing and that mankind is responsible in part for that change, and that we need to move aggressively.” Jackson added, alluding to cap and trade legislation.

“We need to move clean energy legislation,” Jackson said. “We need to move to addressing carbon and putting a price on carbon emissions.”

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xdnz8zQu2G

On Tuesday Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe called for a full criminal investigation into the climategate affair, issuing a staff report that included a request for the EPA to re-examine the classification of Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant.

“The EPA accepted the IPCC’s erroneous claims wholesale, without doing its own independent review,” Inhofe said about the EPA’s decision to rely on information from the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change.

“So EPA’s endangerment finding rests on bad science,” he added.

An overturning of the EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding would decimate moves by the Obama Administration to regulate carbon emissions and introduce carbon taxes.

Inhofe described the manipulation of climate science to support anthropogenic global warming theory part of “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation”.

Prison Planet.tv Members Can Watch Fall Of The Republic Right Now Online – Don’t Miss Out! Get Your Subscription Today!

Alex Jones on School Webcam Spying Scandal in Philadelphia

Russia Today
Wednesday, February 24, 2010

A student in the US city of Philadelphia is suing his local school district for spying on him using his school-issued laptop. Radio Host Alex Jones told RT said that software is available for all kinds of abuse.

Ron Paul Grills Bernanke On Watergate, Saddam Hussein and the Federal Reserve

Sudeep Reddy
Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), the chief critic of the Federal Reserve on Capitol Hill, used his five minutes at a House Financial Services Committee hearing this morning to explore the central bank’s role in Saddam Hussein’s reign and Watergate.

That’s right — Watergate and Saddam Hussein. Rep. Paul was airing allegations that the Federal Reserve has been used to funnel money for various nefarious causes. That’s why the Fed needs wider audits by Congress, Mr. Paul said.

His bill to audit the central bank’s monetary policy — a measure the Fed opposes — would include a lag of six months. Today, he sought to win a commitment to audit the Fed after 10 or 15 years. “Why couldn’t we open the books up 10 years back and find out the truth of these matters?” Mr. Paul asked.

Full story here.

Washington Times Questions 9/11 Collapses

Jennifer Harper
Washington Times
Feb 24, 2010

A lingering technical question about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks still haunts some, and it has political implications: How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.

“In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially, exploded outwards,” says Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Mr. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, managed to persuade more than 1,000 of his peers to sign a new petition requesting a formal inquiry.

“The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction. We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials,” Mr. Gage adds.

Full article here

How to Reach A Larger Audience

Washington’s Blog
Feb 24, 2010

Stop preaching to the choir!

Start reaching a larger audience!

The people you talk with and the websites which publish what you write might think you’re great, but the vast majority of people out there aren’t hearing it.

You’re Reaching a Very Small Audience

Communications experts like George Lakoff (who I recently interviewed) and Frank Luntz say that most people don’t make political decisions based on fact and logic. Instead, they make decisions based on their ideas of morality and pre-existing “frames” of reference.

So if you are just reciting facts, you are not going to persuade anyone except the minority of people who reason and make decisions based on logic. (You may say “but all of the websites I read and people I talk to make decisions based on logic”. Okay, but that only means that you don’t read the overwhelming majority of websites or talk to the overwhelming majority of people who make decisions based on other factors. See this and this).

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, in 1995, Newt Gingrich pushed the following positive words for use by politicians:

share… change… opportunity… legacy… challenge… control… truth… moral… courage… reform… prosperity… crusade… 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… workfare… eliminate good-time in prison… strength… choice/choose… fair… protect… confident… incentive… hard work… initiative… common sense… passionate

“National security” is also, obviously, a very powerful anchor. Just using these some of these words to describe one’s position helps to persuade people towards that position.

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… liberal… they/them… unionized bureaucracy… “compassion” is not enough… 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… welfare… corrupt… selfish… insensitive… status quo… mandate(s)… taxes… spend(ing)… shame… disgrace… punish (poor…)… bizarre… cynicism… cheat… steal… abuse of power… machine… bosses… obsolete… criminal rights… red tape… patronage

(Gingrich’s buzzwords came from Luntz)

Lakoff and Luntz periodically release updated lists of anchors and frames concerning specific issues. For example, Lakoff writes today that Democrats promoting health care reform should use the words “freedom” and “life”. And Luntz recently wrote that those fighting financial reform should focus on phrases such as “lobbyist loopholes”, “agent of change”, “government accountability”, “bloated government bureaucracy”. (Lakoff is on the left, and Luntz on the right. But everyone should look beyond their partisan biases to their scientific communications insights. They are, after all, two of the leading experts in field of communication).
Let’s take the example of economic policy. You can write about the bailouts, credit default swaps and oligarchy until the cows come home. But you won’t reach anyone who doesn’t already know about those issues.

Instead, start out by framing the issue in terms the majority can understand. For example:

Obama’s economic advisors – just like Bush’s – are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They rewarded the greed which caused the big banks to fail and brought on the collapse last year  and the decay of the whole economy. We need real reform and real change, not the hypocrisy of rewarding the banksters with more bailouts. The crisis will not end until we give some some tough love to the banks to really rein in their radical corruption.

(I’m not an expert at framing, so you might be able to do better.)

Note: 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.

The Religion Frame
The overwhelming majority – 75% – of all Americans consider themselves to be Christian. It is irrelevant for this discussion on reaching a larger audience whether or not those 75% are all living up to their values, whether every word of the Bible is true, whether Christianity is a detrimental force undermining democracy and reason, or whether all organized religion is a con.

What is important is that most Americans are Christian, and so you can’t reach a wider audience unless you speak in language meaningful to Christians.
Let’s take an example. The facts are that governments from around the world have admitted that they carry out false flag terror for political ends. But rounding up the confessions and facts won’t persuade anyone except the small minority of people who think rationally and make decisions based on facts.

To reach a wider audience, I have to invoke Christian values, morality and the frames which are meaningful for people of faith.

For example:

• “Punish the sinners”

• Expose the “wolves in sheep’s clothing”

• “Root out evil”

• “Protect national security”

You could say something like:

Traitors in Washington have – for a long time – committed sins against our country which are threatening our national security. Instead of using the world’s greatest military to fight bad guys, there are sinners who have hijacked our defense apparatus for their own evil purposes.

 

If you think that this is beneath you, you are mistaken. Specifically, the first step is to climb up from the fog of unreason to logic. Congratulations, you’ve done that.

But the second step is to translate that logic into language that the majority can understand. If you don’t do that, you have failed as a communicator.

For example, good science writers don’t use a bunch of technical jargon. They translate that jargon into plain English that everyone can understand, and use everyday images that people will get. The same is true for any communication.

(And if you are an atheist and speaking in religious language seems dishonest, think of this as speaking a little Spanish when you travel to Mexico or a little French when you go to Paris: you’re trying to converse a little in the “local language”. Even if your accent is horrible, you’ll get credit for trying.)

3 Brains Are Better than One

If you want to reach a larger audience, you also have to stop talking to only one out of three brains.

Yup, every person actually has 3 brains. Top-notch communicators appeal to all 3 brains.

The 3 brains are:

• (1) The human brain (neocortex), where we handle logic, abstract thought, words, symbols and time. This is the one you’ve been preaching to and reaching only a small audience.

• (2) The reptilian brain, which focuses solely on survival, fight-or-flight, and getting away from pain. This is, largely, what fearmongering politicians try to stir up.

• (3) The mammalian brain, which handles emotions: love, indignation, compassion, envy, hope, etc. This is what, largely, what Obama’s “hope” politics has focused on.

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.

 

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. Conservative political advisors typically try to manipulate this emotion.

• (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. Liberal political advisors typically try to manipulate this emotion.

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.

These illustrations brilliantly illustrate how those in power can manipulate these two emotions.

Motivating people through a moving away from pain/fear strategy works very effectively in the short run. 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. The fact that we went from Bush to Obama make sense in this light.

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.

As a neuroscientist points out:

Smells and tactile stimuli are routed immediately through the amygdala the emotional seat of the brain most responsible for the fear response. To give you a simplified explanation, this means that smells and touch can evoke much more vivid memories and emotional responses than sights or sounds.

Sights and sounds are shunted first to the thalamus. The thalamus deconstructs your vision into basic chunks of information: shape, size and color. Audio signals are similarly reduced to information about volume and dissonance. Only after this has happened does the signal get passed to the amygdala and the frontal cortex. As a consequence of this slightly more circuitous route, visual and auditory cues often trigger emotions that feel less intense than those of smell and feel.

Reading books and browsing the internet are exercises in very visual mediums that are only rarely accompanied by sound, touch or smell. If you’re trying to communicate through either of these mediums, you are immediately handicapped out of three senses.

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.”

Obviously, multimedia is necessary for a website. Pictures which convey other senses are also effective. For example, photos of people smelling things will trigger the olfactory part of your readers’ brain.

“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.

Summary

There is alot of information conveyed above. You will probably need to re-read this essay to get all of the fine points.

But if you’re short on time, Thom Hartmann summarizes some of the most important elements of successful and persuasive communication based on modern discoveries into how people actually make decisions:

“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
…”

Note: 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.

‘Impeach Obama’ sign pops up on U.S. 41

.E. Espino and Andy Thompson
Gannett Wisconsin Media
Feb 24, 2010

OSHKOSH — Along the most heavily traveled highway in northeastern Wisconsin, giant bold, red letters stretch across two-thirds of a 14-by-48-foot sign that juts some 15 feet in the air.

“IMPEACH OBAMA,” the letters spell out, with a photo of a fluttering American flag to the left and the words “America’s Small Businesses Are Failing. Help Us Spread the Message.” in black stacked in two decks underneath.

It’s hard to miss.

Full article here

Glenn Beck Supporters, Not 9/11 Truthers, Are Advocating Violence