Television & Parasites

[Flanders]

There will never be another American president who preserves, protects, and defends the Constitution, and, by extension, preserves, protects, and defends the physical country in every instance. Protecting the country after an enemy launches a military attack is the only thing left. That last stand is slowly being washed away. The growth and influence of the parasite class combined with television guarantees the erosion will continue.

Once again, let me say that parasites destroyed every country, every empire, every culture there ever was. America’s original form of government, the only one of its kind in the history of governments, did the most to keep the parasites in check. Nevertheless, parasites gnawed away at the Constitution until they made their way to the public purse through the XVI Amendment. Having digested the Constitution parasites are now chewing on the country; i.e., the physical country must go the way of the Constitution.

Bottom line: Open borders, amnesty for wave after wave of illegal aliens, and a global government administered by the United Nations are assaults on the physical country. Assaults on the Constitution like giving taxing authority to the UN in treaties, integrating non-existent International law into our judicial system, etc. are secondary.

Television and parasites

Television changed everything for all time. Parasites could not have taken control of the government without television.

My point: After America falls, television will forever prevent individual liberties from emerging. At no time in history did parasites have a tool that gave them so much power and protection, not to mention eternal tenure at the public trough. Neither the pulpit nor the printing press smothered freedom as effectively as does television.

Television was instrumental in tearing down America and the West from within. Think about the evil it will do when it proselytizes those peoples who are yet to come under television’s influence.

Finally, Al Gore —— THE ENVIRONMENTALIST —— was laughed at and criticized for selling his Current TV to oil money. Gore is such a clown few Americans noticed that he gave Al Jazeera legitimacy after the sale. Go to the link and scroll down for videos. I only watched a bit of part one. If you have a strong stomach you can watch all three parts. Note that when all is said and done Jon Stewart is more a creature of television than is Al Gore:

Jon Stewart Grills Al Gore On ‘Odd Move’ Selling Current TV To Network ‘Backed By Fossil Fuel Money’
by Meenal Vamburkar | 10:45 am, January 31st, 2013

Jon Stewart Grills Al Gore On ?Odd Move? Selling Current TV To Network ?Backed By Fossil Fuel Money? | Mediaite

 

[Mr. H.]

After America falls?

 

[editec]

I certainly agree with you that television can and is being used as a mass propaganda device.


Those of you who are still addicted to that tube might try and take a month or tw off and see if your overall outlook becomes more positive.

I guessing it might.

And if you take that time formerly devoted to TV and start reading some real books about the subjects you so obviously care about, you might find yourselves marveling at how much you've been lead to believe (thansk to TV) that is basically misleading or outright wrong.

TV is brain poison, folks.

 

[Flanders]

I certainly agree with you that television can and is being used as a mass propaganda device.


Those of you who are still addicted to that tube might try and take a month or tw off and see if your overall outlook becomes more positive.

I guessing it might.

And if you take that time formerly devoted to TV and start reading some real books about the subjects you so obviously care about, you might find yourselves marveling at how much you've been lead to believe (thansk to TV) that is basically misleading or outright wrong.

TV is brain poison, folks.

To editec: I’ve always thought of TV as a disease. I hated it from the day my parents got their first set sometime around 1947-1948.

For many years I did not watch TV at all. In recent decades I only watched so I could analyze the government’s lies rather than not watch. You can’t cure a disease until you understand the symptoms.

Incidentally, before I fully understood the disease I made the mistake of thinking that new technologies would make television obsolete. Was I wrong on that one. Television is only just beginning in a large part of the world.

I was right when I suggested schools should teach young children how to watch television. That is spot the lies, the propaganda, etc. I pointed out that material for homework assignments is unlimited. Homework would include watching a news or entertainment show and identifying at least three serious lies. Environmental garbage alone would keep the kids busy. By the time they were in highschool they would be inoculated for life against the ravages of TVD (Television Disease).

 

[Pogo]

There will never be another American president who preserves, protects, and defends the Constitution, and, by extension, preserves, protects, and defends the physical country in every instance. Protecting the country after an enemy launches a military attack is the only thing left. That last stand is slowly being washed away. The growth and influence of the parasite class combined with television guarantees the erosion will continue.

Once again, let me say that parasites destroyed every country, every empire, every culture there ever was. America’s original form of government, the only one of its kind in the history of governments, did the most to keep the parasites in check. Nevertheless, parasites gnawed away at the Constitution until they made their way to the public purse through the XVI Amendment. Having digested the Constitution parasites are now chewing on the country; i.e., the physical country must go the way of the Constitution.

Bottom line: Open borders, amnesty for wave after wave of illegal aliens, and a global government administered by the United Nations are assaults on the physical country. Assaults on the Constitution like giving taxing authority to the UN in treaties, integrating non-existent International law into our judicial system, etc. are secondary.

Television and parasites

Television changed everything for all time. Parasites could not have taken control of the government without television.

My point: After America falls, television will forever prevent individual liberties from emerging. At no time in history did parasites have a tool that gave them so much power and protection, not to mention eternal tenure at the public trough. Neither the pulpit nor the printing press smothered freedom as effectively as does television.

Television was instrumental in tearing down America and the West from within. Think about the evil it will do when it proselytizes those peoples who are yet to come under television’s influence.

Finally, Al Gore —— THE ENVIRONMENTALIST —— was laughed at and criticized for selling his Current TV to oil money. Gore is such a clown few Americans noticed that he gave Al Jazeera legitimacy after the sale. Go to the link and scroll down for videos. I only watched a bit of part one. If you have a strong stomach you can watch all three parts. Note that when all is said and done Jon Stewart is more a creature of television than is Al Gore:

Jon Stewart Grills Al Gore On ‘Odd Move’ Selling Current TV To Network ‘Backed By Fossil Fuel Money’
by Meenal Vamburkar | 10:45 am, January 31st, 2013

Jon Stewart Grills Al Gore On ?Odd Move? Selling Current TV To Network ?Backed By Fossil Fuel Money? | Mediaite

I doubt you'll find anyone to defend television. We all seem to agree it's a vast wasteland, and that's not new (the term "vast wasteland" was coined in 1961 so as philosopher Frank Zappa notes, "I have existed for years but very little has changed"). Yet many say that and then go right back to it. TV is a hypnotist that zombifies the mind and pours in all kinds of sludge, overtly and covertly.

I would like to see you dispense with the bold font though until it's time to emphasize something. It's both hard to read, and presumptuous.

I'm not sure it's ever been said better than this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HyTP9sP_aI]I'm the slime BY: Frank Zappa - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Flanders]

I doubt you'll find anyone to defend television. We all seem to agree it's a vast wasteland, and that's not new (the term "vast wasteland" was coined in 1961 so as philosopher Frank Zappa notes, "I have existed for years but very little has changed"). Yet many say that and then go right back to it. TV is a hypnotist that zombifies the mind and pours in all kinds of sludge, overtly and covertly.

I would like to see you dispense with the bold font though until it's time to emphasize something. It's both hard to read, and presumptuous.

I'm not sure it's ever been said better than this:
I'm the slime BY: Frank Zappa - YouTube

To Pogo: Good Zap.

And you’re right. You won’t find anyone defending television any more than you’ll find addicts defending their suppliers.

Many like my bold format; elderly folks find it easy to read. You don’t like it. I’ll stick with the format I have used for years on different message boards.

Btw, if the bold is too much for you, simply hit the quote button and read the message without the bold text.

As to the vast wasteland:

“When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite you each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there for a day without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.”

While some applauded his "vast wasteland" assault on commercial television as a welcome criticism of excessive violence and frivolity, others criticized it as an elitist, snobbish attack on programming that many viewers enjoyed and as government interference with private enterprise. The S. S. Minnow of the 1964–1967 television show "Gilligan's Island" was sarcastically named for him to express displeasure with his assessment of the quality of television.

Newton N. Minow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mr. Minow was referring to commercial programming at the time. The violence is far more pervasive today; not only does violence dominate dramatic cop-shows, the violence spawned autopsy shows; first kill ‘em then chop ‘em up. Mr. Minow should be pleased because today’s fictional TV shows blended entertainment with propaganda.

Entertainment aside, I wonder what Mr. Minow thinks about television’s talking heads thriving in the vast wasteland of big government propaganda?

Fifty years ago, who knew there would be several 24-7 news networks, not to mention the increased length of network news shows. Everything from newspeak to scare tactics is standard fare. Commercials for the liberal agenda are disguised as news; press releases and polls are top stories, and, of course, violent crimes from all over the world are reported as though the perps live down the street.

I also wonder what the elderly Mr. Minow thinks about the FCC eliminating analog TV, while imposing digital TV on the public? That move was designed to stampede the public into buying subscription TV of one kind or another. Creating hundreds of new platforms for the same old garbage is bad enough, but tricking TV watchers into paying for the privilege of being brainwashed adds insult to financial injury.

The real issue in the vast wasteland is free speech not the quality of TV shows. This is from reference 8 in the above Wikipedia link:

In her essay "Man's Rights" (1963), Ayn Rand denounced him personally for having a perverted understanding of freedom of speech and censorship.

This excerpt nails it:

The process consists of ascribing to private citizens the specific violations constitutionally forbidden to the government (which private citizens have no power to commit) and thus freeing the government from all restrictions. The switch is becoming progressively more obvious in the field of free speech. For years, the collectivists have been propagating the notion that a private individual’s refusal to finance an opponent is a violation of the opponent’s right of free speech and an act of “censorship.”

It is “censorship,” they claim, if a newspaper refuses to employ or publish writers whose ideas are diametrically opposed to its policy.

It is “censorship,” they claim, if businessmen refuse to advertise in a magazine that denounces, insults and smears them.

It is “censorship,” they claim, if a TV sponsor objects to some outrage perpetrated on a program he is financing—such as the incident of Alger Hiss being invited to denounce former Vice-President Nixon.

And then there is [Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission] Newton N. Minow who declares: “There is censorship by ratings, by advertisers, by networks, by affiliates which reject programming offered to their areas.” It is the same Mr. Minow who threatens to revoke the license of any station that does not comply with his views on programming-and who claims that that is not censorship.

"Man's Rights" by Ayn Rand - The Ayn Rand Institute

Right now, big government liberals control television’s content —— news and entertainment. I would not deny them their Right of free speech. I can only pray that they will respect everyone else’s Right when the pendulum swings the other way.

Television does have one saving grace; you can turn it off.

 

[Pogo]

I'll just say this starting out: putting your own words in bold is not just eyestrain; it implies you think your words are more important than the rest of ours. So if I equalize by putting my reply in bold or larger font, you do the same escalation and pretty soon we're all writing like this. I don't think that's desirable and I do think it's counterproductive and dilutes your points. And btw these eyes are very elderly and I think bold makes it worse, not better. Now I'm going to unbold your quote so I can read it, although I shouldn't be the one to have to do that. IOW it's the same reason we don't write in ALL CAPS.

I doubt you'll find anyone to defend television. We all seem to agree it's a vast wasteland, and that's not new (the term "vast wasteland" was coined in 1961 so as philosopher Frank Zappa notes, "I have existed for years but very little has changed"). Yet many say that and then go right back to it. TV is a hypnotist that zombifies the mind and pours in all kinds of sludge, overtly and covertly.

I'm not sure it's ever been said better than this:
I'm the slime BY: Frank Zappa - YouTube

To Pogo: Good Zap.

And you’re right. You won’t find anyone defending television any more than you’ll find addicts defending their suppliers. << That's an excellent and appropriate metaphor.

>snip/addressed above<

As to the vast wasteland:

“When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite you each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there for a day without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.”

While some applauded his "vast wasteland" assault on commercial television as a welcome criticism of excessive violence and frivolity, others criticized it as an elitist, snobbish attack on programming that many viewers enjoyed and as government interference with private enterprise. The S. S. Minnow of the 1964–1967 television show "Gilligan's Island" was sarcastically named for him to express displeasure with his assessment of the quality of television.

Newton N. Minow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mr. Minow was referring to commercial programming at the time. The violence is far more pervasive today; not only does violence dominate dramatic cop-shows, the violence spawned autopsy shows; first kill ‘em then chop ‘em up. Mr. Minow should be pleased because today’s fictional TV shows blended entertainment with propaganda.

I'm not sure what that last sentence means, but yes, Minow was referring to commercial television because at the time that's all there was. I fully agree about the contemporary violence factor and have been making that point as an illustration of "gun culture" in threads about that.

As for what Newton Minow thinks about today, we can glean a glimmer from this op-ed from 2012, though it centres on political debates:

Sadly, the marriage of television and politics in our country has been mostly a history of disappointment. In 1952, television stations — which are licensed by the F.C.C. to serve the public interest — began selling commercials to political campaigns. Other democracies have rejected this idea, and instead provide public service time to candidates during campaign periods. Over the next 60 years, more and more political commercials flooded the airwaves, forcing candidates to raise more and more money. Many of the slurs and slogans in these commercials — which are often truth-free — are now paid for by “super PACs” and secretive 501(c)(4) groups. I believe it is unconscionable that candidates for public office have to buy access to the airwaves — which the public itself owns — to talk to the public.

I can't agree with Minow's 1961 opening line about "when television is good" though. Perhaps it wasn't yet clear in 1961 but in a sense television is never good; it simply doesn't have the capacity to convey whole information. It dumps scenes of two dimensions (in both senses) into the brain on emotional irrational levels and cannot handle nuance at all.

Fifty years ago, who knew there would be several 24-7 news networks, not to mention the increased length of network news shows. Everything from newspeak to scare tactics is standard fare. Commercials for the liberal agenda are disguised as news; press releases and polls are top stories, and, of course, violent crimes from all over the world are reported as though the perps live down the street.

Yup, well that's an inherent flaw of the medium itself; sensationalism sells; rationality does not. "If it bleeds it leads", regardless of the relevance. Part of the reason that television is worthless and IMO unrehabilitatable.

I also wonder what the elderly Mr. Minow thinks about the FCC eliminating analog TV, while imposing digital TV on the public? That move was designed to stampede the public into buying subscription TV of one kind or another. Creating hundreds of new platforms for the same old garbage is bad enough, but tricking TV watchers into paying for the privilege of being brainwashed adds insult to financial injury.

I'm not following this particular leap... -- digital TV is still broadcast over the airwaves; you don't need a subscription to view it. If anything its potential for more channels from the same station would seem to lessen the need for subscription TV because it gives more "choices" -- although you're still left with nothing more than TV.

The real issue in the vast wasteland is free speech not the quality of TV shows. This is from reference 8 in the above Wikipedia link:

In her essay "Man's Rights" (1963), Ayn Rand denounced him personally for having a perverted understanding of freedom of speech and censorship.

This excerpt nails it:

The process consists of ascribing to private citizens the specific violations constitutionally forbidden to the government (which private citizens have no power to commit) and thus freeing the government from all restrictions. The switch is becoming progressively more obvious in the field of free speech. For years, the collectivists have been propagating the notion that a private individual’s refusal to finance an opponent is a violation of the opponent’s right of free speech and an act of “censorship.”

It is “censorship,” they claim, if a newspaper refuses to employ or publish writers whose ideas are diametrically opposed to its policy.

It is “censorship,” they claim, if businessmen refuse to advertise in a magazine that denounces, insults and smears them.

It is “censorship,” they claim, if a TV sponsor objects to some outrage perpetrated on a program he is financing—such as the incident of Alger Hiss being invited to denounce former Vice-President Nixon.

And then there is [Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission] Newton N. Minow who declares: “There is censorship by ratings, by advertisers, by networks, by affiliates which reject programming offered to their areas.” It is the same Mr. Minow who threatens to revoke the license of any station that does not comply with his views on programming-and who claims that that is not censorship.

"Man's Rights" by Ayn Rand - The Ayn Rand Institute

You've gradually completely lost me here. I see an Ayn Rand quote of indeterminate length without accompanying context to tell us what it means. I don't know where the quote ends or exactly what point is being made. And Newton Minow, who hasn't been with the FCC since 1963, never had any power to influence programming, because the FCC never had any such power. But if you'd care to clarify the 'censorship' point, please do.

Right now, big government liberals control television’s content —— news and entertainment. I would not deny them their Right of free speech. I can only pray that they will respect everyone else’s Right when the pendulum swings the other way.

Television does have one saving grace; you can turn it off.

Again, what "controls television's content" is not big government but Big Media -- which is by nature conservative.

I welcome a reply but please knock off the bold so I can read it without being clouted over the head Perhaps we could also parcel posts into one sub-issue at a time, as there seems to be a lot going on here.

 

[Flanders]

I'll just say this starting out: putting your own words in bold is not just eyestrain; it implies you think your words are more important than the rest of ours. So if I equalize by putting my reply in bold or larger font, you do the same escalation and pretty soon we're all writing like this. I don't think that's desirable and I do think it's counterproductive and dilutes your points. And btw these eyes are very elderly and I think bold makes it worse, not better. Now I'm going to unbold your quote so I can read it, although I shouldn't be the one to have to do that.

To Pogo: Give it up. I’m not changing my format for you. Don’t read my messages if my format bothers you so much.

IOW it's the same reason we don't write in ALL CAPS.

To Pogo: I assume you have a tapeworm.

Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we." Mark Twain

I'm not following this particular leap... -- digital TV is still broadcast over the airwaves; you don't need a subscription to view it.

To Pogo: Programming on non-subscription TV was deliberately allowed to deteriorate in the hopes every addict would purchase subscription TV thinking they would get something better. Creating more advertising platforms was part of the plan.

If anything its potential for more channels from the same station would seem to lessen the need for subscription TV because it gives more "choices" --

To Pogo: If a hundred people in a market of one million viewers watched the “choices” they were given after analogue was eliminated that would be a lot. The same is true of most of the channels you get with subscription TV.

NOTE: Basic subscription packages are just as bad as non-subscription TV. In some cases they are worse. Example: The same “entertainment” shows are run over and over again month after month. Is there one subscription TV viewer left in this country that has not seen every M*A*S*H, every Seinfeld, every Cheers, every Law & Order, every NCIS, every House, every Bones, and so on, yet they keep running them so the suckers will upgrade their package.

although you're still left with nothing more than TV.

To Pogo: The changeover was designed to stampede millions and millions of TV viewers into paying for something they previously got for free on analogue television.

You've gradually completely lost me here. I see an Ayn Rand quote of indeterminate length without accompanying context to tell us what it means. I don't know where the quote ends or exactly what point is being made. And Newton Minow, who hasn't been with the FCC since 1963, never had any power to influence programming, because the FCC never had any such power.

To Pogo: Go to the link I provided.

But if you'd care to clarify the 'censorship' point, please do.

To Pogo: It is self-explanatory.

Again, what "controls television's content" is not big government but Big Media --

To Pogo: Big government and big media are one and the same.

which is by nature conservative.

To Pogo: The MSM’s liberal bias is no longer in doubt. Liberals even admit to it.

And how is promoting the welfare state, International law, global government, environmental crapola, socialized medicine, and all the rest of liberalism’s sick ideology conservative?

I welcome a reply but please knock off the bold so I can read it without being clouted over the head Perhaps we could also parcel posts into one sub-issue at a time, as there seems to be a lot going on here.

To Pogo: We again? You must have one helluva tapeworm.

You not only want to dictate my format you want to tell me to parcel my posts to please you. Get real. Improve your reading comprehension skills if you can’t keep up, or stop reading my messages.

 

[Pogo]

I'll just say this starting out: putting your own words in bold is not just eyestrain; it implies you think your words are more important than the rest of ours. So if I equalize by putting my reply in bold or larger font, you do the same escalation and pretty soon we're all writing like this. I don't think that's desirable and I do think it's counterproductive and dilutes your points. And btw these eyes are very elderly and I think bold makes it worse, not better. Now I'm going to unbold your quote so I can read it, although I shouldn't be the one to have to do that.

To Pogo: Give it up. I’m not changing my format for you. Don’t read my messages if my format bothers you so much.

IOW it's the same reason we don't write in ALL CAPS.

To Pogo: I assume you have a tapeworm.





To Pogo: Programming on non-subscription TV was deliberately allowed to deteriorate in the hopes every addict would purchase subscription TV thinking they would get something better. Creating more advertising platforms was part of the plan.



To Pogo: If a hundred people in a market of one million viewers watched the “choices” they were given after analogue was eliminated that would be a lot. The same is true of most of the channels you get with subscription TV.

NOTE: Basic subscription packages are just as bad as non-subscription TV. In some cases they are worse. Example: The same “entertainment” shows are run over and over again month after month. Is there one subscription TV viewer left in this country that has not seen every M*A*S*H, every Seinfeld, every Cheers, every Law & Order, every NCIS, every House, every Bones, and so on, yet they keep running them so the suckers will upgrade their package.



To Pogo: The changeover was designed to stampede millions and millions of TV viewers into paying for something they previously got for free on analogue television.




To Pogo: Go to the link I provided.



To Pogo: It is self-explanatory.



To Pogo: Big government and big media are one and the same.

which is by nature conservative.

To Pogo: The MSM’s liberal bias is no longer in doubt. Liberals even admit to it.

And how is promoting the welfare state, International law, global government, environmental crapola, socialized medicine, and all the rest of liberalism’s sick ideology conservative?

I welcome a reply but please knock off the bold so I can read it without being clouted over the head Perhaps we could also parcel posts into one sub-issue at a time, as there seems to be a lot going on here.

To Pogo: We again? You must have one helluva tapeworm.

You not only want to dictate my format you want to tell me to parcel my posts to please you. Get real. Improve your reading comprehension skills if you can’t keep up, or stop reading my messages.

OK Asshole, if you can't figure out any better argument that "tapeworm" whatever that is, and you have no sense of simple netiquette, then you have no point to make, and no, I damn sure won't waste my time; I'll go back to the grownups. Have fun now that you lost your entire audience.