the real world does not fit their preconceptions

 

Thomas Sowell Quotes

@ThomasSowell

·

20h

The fundamental problem of the political Left seems to be that the real world does not fit their preconceptions. Therefore they see the real world as what is wrong, and what needs to be changed, since apparently their preconceptions cannot be wrong.

Italy's PM explains rational policy

The solution is not to take the Africans and bring them to Europe.

The solution is to free Africa from certain Europeans who exploit it.

https://x.com/DrEliDavid/status/1839634587774755224 

Democrats teaching their kids to hate

Democrats are teaching their kids to hate because of TDS. Just like the Palestinians teach their kids to hate Jews.

https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1839363629780754627

Charlie Kirk

@charliekirk11

·

20h

Democrats are brainwashing their kids to hate Trump supporters. Insane clip.

Collin Rugg

@CollinRugg

NEW: CNN finds that Democrat-leaning children are *9 times* more likely to have extreme political opinions than Republican-leaning children. Gee, I wonder why. Democrat Child 1: Donald Trump, he did bad things, he's like H*tler. Democrat Child 2: He only wanted to be president so he could just control everybody. Democrat Child 3: Trump is supporting J6 now... they thought Trump was like a god. One officer died.

Bernays

 https://x.com/BrianRoemmele/status/1839014523342323977

"Books and Theories: Bernays wrote several books, including "Propaganda" (1928) and "Crystallizing Public Opinion" (1923). In these works, he argued that the manipulation of public opinion was necessary in a democratic society where large-scale manipulation was required to sway voters. He believed that the masses were largely irrational and that their decisions needed to be guided by a small, rational elite who could use propaganda to manage society in ways that were beneficial to all."

Mark Gresham

@EarRelevant

I just asked Grok to essay upon the relationships between the theories and techniques of Edward Bernays and commentary I see from

@ScottAdamsSays

posted here on X concerning persuasion (and his book Win Bigly), and here is the long answer I got: Scott Adams, known for his work on "Dilbert" and his insights into persuasion, often discusses techniques that can be related back to the foundational work of Edward Bernays, widely recognized as the father of public relations. Here's how Adams's writings and X posts might align with or reflect Bernays's theories: 1. **Engineering of Consent**: Bernays coined the term "engineering of consent," which involves shaping public opinion through strategic communication and psychological insights. Scott Adams frequently discusses how narratives are crafted, which can be seen as modern-day engineering of consent. For instance, Adams's mentions of how certain phrases or frames are used by media and politicians to sway public perception echo Bernays's idea of using symbols, slogans, and controlled narratives to influence the masses. 2. **The Invisible Government**: Bernays spoke of an "invisible government" which manipulates public opinion. Adams often critiques how narratives are controlled or manipulated, especially through media, which can be seen as a direct commentary on this concept. Adams's emphasis on how certain narratives become dominant, like his discussions on media hoaxes, aligns with Bernays's observation about the power structures behind public opinion. 3. **Group Psychology and Propaganda**: Bernays utilized Freudian psychology to understand group dynamics, suggesting that masses can be swayed by appealing to their unconscious desires rather than reason. Adams's concept of "mental shelf space" where filling the mind with positive or negative thoughts can influence behavior, touches on similar psychology. He also highlights how collective activity or collective narratives (like his suggestion for neighborhood walks) can unify or divide groups, reflecting Bernays's insights into group psychology. 4. **Techniques of Persuasion**: Bernays was known for using events, symbols, and associating products or ideas with broader societal values or movements. Adams's X posts often dissect how modern persuasion techniques work, like his analysis of political slogans or the use of specific phrases to evoke particular reactions. This mirrors Bernays's strategy of creating associations in the public's mind to sway opinions or behaviors. 5. **Ethical Implications and Awareness**: While Bernays's work was groundbreaking, it also raised ethical questions about manipulation. Adams often brings up the ethical considerations of persuasion, especially in politics, where he critiques how truth can be obscured for political gain. His discussions might not directly criticize Bernays but certainly explore the consequences of such persuasive techniques in today's context, urging awareness and skepticism towards persuasive narratives. 6. **The Role of Media**: Bernays understood the power of media in shaping public opinion. Adams's frequent critiques of mainstream media narratives align with this understanding, emphasizing how media can be used (or misused) to engineer consent or manipulate perceptions, which is a direct application of Bernays's principles in the digital age. In essence, while Adams's writings and X posts might not directly reference Bernays, they often delve into the practical application and critique of techniques that Bernays theorized about. Adams's work provides a modern lens through which Bernays's theories can be seen in action, especially in the realms of politics, media, and public behavior. Both figures highlight the pervasive influence of persuasion techniques on society, albeit from different eras and with different focuses. (What do you think Scott? Is any of this on target?)

Run-out-the-clock campaign

 

Well said.

Victor Davis Hanson

@VDHanson

Is Kamala’s Running-Out-the-Clock Campaign Running Out? Everyone knows Kamala Harris is not really a presidential candidate. She will not do normal network interviews, town-halls, or press conferences. Nor will she review or defend in any detail her proposed agendas. Nor will she explain why as an incumbent Vice-President—serving an absentee near-senile President—she has not implemented any of her “way forward” policies.  She could have done so in the six months that remained on her term since her coronation. Nor will she outline as a self-described joy and change candidate what exactly went wrong the last four Biden-Harris years that she would apparently like to undo. Nor will she review how and why in a matter of hours she reinvented herself from being the most radical Vice President in memory (with the hardest left voting record in the 100-person Senate) to good ol’ Kamala, the centrist pragmatist, who grew up struggling in Oakland. So, the campaign was always about whether she could pull off these artifices, delusions and stonewalling for her aborted 90-day candidacy—and thus run out the clock. All that is the logical finish to a two-time presidential candidate who has never entered much less won a single primary or a single delegate by voting. The last two weeks’ events suggest the ruse may not last—as even historically warped polls show that she is ever so slowly starting to fade in the swing states. Harris’s last two T-ball interviews—deliberately given off network primetime—one with three sympathetic reporters from the National Association of Black Journalists, and the other with an embarrassingly obsequious Oprah, were still word-salad disasters. Both the hosts and Harris left the embarrassments seemingly miffed. And to the extent her sappy Kindergarten replies entered the public domain, they helped to explain why her prior “win” in the debate slowly eroded post facto into a likely loss. Harris just skipped out of the Al Smith Dinner, the first time a presidential candidate had refused in 40 years—since the last Democrat and 1984 losing candidate Walter Mondale was also a no-show. That absence from the New York City Catholic Diocese charity-sponsored event did enter the news—only as still more public confirmation that she will not do any venues where there is a slight possibility of even brief impromptu remarks. Her September incumbent surprises were too transparent—whether the Fed’s “timely” cutting the interest rate, or, more blatantly, flying in Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky on a military transport to a munitions factory in swing-state and likely election-deciding Pennsylvania—all timed roughly to the beginning of the state’s early and mail-in voting. The election-interfering Zelensky no sooner hit the ground than he dove into the U.S. election by crudely trashing Harris's opponents. Zelensky essentially labeled Trump clueless and Vance explicitly “dangerous” and “radical”—just a few days after a pro-Ukrainian would-be assassin tried to murder Trump, in part over his supposed reluctance to support blank-check aid to Ukraine. Somehow the more Zelensky jabbered on in interviews and addresses, the more he managed to damage both the Harris and Ukraine cause. Meanwhile, slowly but steadily, videos of Harris’s past performance-art radical activism now appear near daily. The latest was the erstwhile border czar’s prior juvenile shouting at a 2018 open-border Los Angeles protest, in the company of the soon to be exposed fraud Jussie Smollett. Both were leading demonstrations to stop deportations (“Down, down with deportation!”). The image of Smollett-Harris also reminds of her past shoot-from-the-hip defense of that utter fraud and racial huckster in a tweet—one that is still proudly up: “This was an attempted modern-day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.” Stuff adds up, insidiously so: the newfound border-security advocate Harris now has been exposed in past videos calling for the de facto abolishment of the border patrol, mass amnesties, no deportations, no wall, and free health care for illegal immigrants. So far, she had stayed even due to a huge lead in corporate, tech, and entertainment billionaire giving, her fusion with the fawning media, the power of the Biden-Harris administration to give away free stuff, drain the strategic petroleum reserve, cancel more student loan debt, lower interest rates, etc.— and the abbreviated campaign season. Still, Harris wears badly and rapidly. And if she loses? The leftwing rah-rah, celebratory narratives of how a supposedly ruthless Pelosi deposed the primary-elected nominee and incumbent President Joe Biden with tough threats to leave the easy way or face a hard-way exit—while quashing any idea of an open convention— may be rebranded as an enormous blunder. Whereas a non-compos-mentis Biden could be squirrelled away out of sight given his age and busybody Jill’s surrogate roles, Harris is young, supposedly dynamic and neither has a 2020 Covid-19 quarantine cover nor any age-related excuse for her current stealth campaign—other than her growing paranoia about opening her mouth without a prepared script designed to deceive who she is and what she will do. All this is a textbook case how “democracy dies in darkness” and so reminds us that the Left is for once right: democracy really is on the ballot in November.

1:20 PM · Sep 25, 2024

·

114.1K

Views