Saturday, October 30, 2010
'Problem' 'Reaction', 'Solution' - A Musical Propaganda Primer That Explains Why Americans Blindly Support The 'War On Terror'[tm]
"Of course we aren't trying to overthrow EVERYTHING.... but certain specific things. Business POLITICS Poverty And Oppression" ~~Herbert Marcuse
No matter who you vote for, no matter the "party", they'll NEVER mention that they and their "Friend$" ARE the problem.
There was an average of FOUR MILLION DOLLARS spent for every Senate and House seat up for grabs in this election...
Why SHOULD they care what YOU need?
Boeing (for instance) has facilities in all 50 states.
Produced by: NufffRespect @ YouTube
David Icke's explanation how wars are created.
It explains the concept of Problem reaction solution also known as Thesis, synthesis, antithesis developed by philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (albeit he never used the phrase). This concept has been used in many wars including WWII.
Hitler also used this phenomenon to control the minds of the Germans.
Also see this article, "The Rhetoric of Terrorism" by Paul Wolf:
Simplifying the debate, and using dogmatic exhortation, meant that the administration exaggerated the magnitude of the terrorist threat and the "action" necessary to counter that threat. Contrary to the claims of the Reagan administration, international terrorism was neither new nor unprecedented.  It was also, in and of itself, not a severe physical threat to American or international security.  Yet, because the administration characterized terrorism as so large a problem, the solution required was of similarly large proportions. Specifically, the zero sum game assumed that America needed to totally win -- "or else."
Such exaggeration distracted public attention from other, more pressing foreign policy problems. In a 1987 Roper poll a majority of Americans indicated that terrorism was the number one foreign policy problem faced by the United States. Yet Laqueur, writing about the same time, was persuasive as he emphatically disagreed.Compared with the truly important problems of our time (the potential dangers of modern technologies, global debt, hunger in the Third World, overpopulation, certain new and incurable diseases -- terrorism [is], after all, a sideshow. Exaggerating the physical threat of terrorism itself also obscured the major threat of terrorism, for example, to the democratic functioning of the system. According to scholars like Paul Wilkinson and Walter Laqueur, the greater threat of terrorism is that a conflict begun by terrorism might escalate, both internally and externally. An internal escalation would threaten civil liberties, while an external escalation could lead to war between established states.  In both instances, the threat is from the response to terrorism, not from terrorism itself... [In Full]
Visitors To Auntie Imperial's News & Blog Review
Thanks For Stopping By