Electronic Addictions

[Flanders]

Luca Gattoni-Celli over at the American Spectator takes Senator Feinstein to task:

Now, after taking shots at the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, she has set her sights on the First. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, never say Di.

Sen. Feinstein Threatens Press Freedom
By Luca Gattoni-Celli on 8.16.13 @ 6:07AM
No politician should be allowed to decide who is a “real journalist.”?

The American Spectator : Sen. Feinstein Threatens Press Freedom

As good as Gattoni-Celli’s analysis of Di Fi is it does not go to the heart of her objective; abolish freedom of speech on the Internet. See this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/307246-lying-is-absolute.html

Interpret Feinstein’s proposed amendment to the Media Shield Law correctly and it is clear that she wants to strengthen the press while weakening freedom of speech on the Internet. Her reason is obvious; the press is an instrument of government.

Di Fi is not alone. Liberals are attacking freedom of speech on the Internet from all sides. Bill O’Reilly goes so far as to say the Internet is an addiction:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_0R4RXAAkc&feature=player_embedded]Bill O'Reilly Talking Points - Are You Addicted to the Internet? - 8/15/2013 - YouTube[/ame]​

O’Reilly fails to mention that television is the most destructive electronic addiction ever sold to the public by government drug pushers.

NOTE: Most of radio programming before television came along was music, sports, entertainment shows, and five minute news broadcasts at the top and bottom of the hour. Americans often turned on the radio as background; i.e., Americans did not have to sit down and focus on the radio the way they do with television. It was pictures that turned TV into the carrier of propaganda far beyond anything radio could achieve. Put it this way. Pictures alone cannot brainwash anyone; hence, people don’t watch television they listen to it.

O’Reilly graciously admits that the Internet can be used for good. Here’s some news for Bill. The same thing was said about television after it did nothing but harm. In fact, television’s inventor, Philo T. Farnsworth (1906 - 1971), would not have a television in his home:

'There's nothing on it worthwhile, and we're not going to watch it in this household, and I don't want it in your intellectual diet.' "

Philo T. Farnsworth: The Father of Television

This is what really ticks off O’Reilly and the rest of them. Americans are not watching television when they are on the Net. To be more precise they are not getting the government’s message.

Here’s a comparison to make my case. Nothing on the Internet is going to brainwash O’Reilly’s addicts; especially not the written word. Can O’Reilly say the same about television addicts?

NOTE: The Internet is also hitting ticket sales for theatrical movies. A lot of Americans would rather be on the Internet than sitting in a dark theater with strangers. In time, only the loneliest, most malleable, person will escape into movies. That eventuality puts two parts of the government’s propaganda machinery at risk right now.

Interestingly, O’Reilly trots out the children to make his case for Internet addiction just as every good little liberal invokes the children when they want something from the government. In one sense he is correct. Television is losing the children. That’s a blessing not a sin. Hell, the Internet might even teach children to think for themselves; an outcome television and the education industry fear more than anything else. The government’s message is simple. Think only those thoughts we teach you.

Finally, it has been my experience that Lefties who oppose someone else’s opinion deceive themselves into believing that their own view is a universal truth rather than opinion based upon their own personal bias. The fun begins when idiots express their opinions. An idiot’s opinion remains the opinion of an idiot; it does not take on weight because it is said on television or in cyberspace.

 

[Pogo]

Luca Gattoni-Celli over at the American Spectator takes Senator Feinstein to task:

Now, after taking shots at the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, she has set her sights on the First. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, never say Di.

Sen. Feinstein Threatens Press Freedom
By Luca Gattoni-Celli on 8.16.13 @ 6:07AM
No politician should be allowed to decide who is a “real journalist.”?

The American Spectator : Sen. Feinstein Threatens Press Freedom

As good as Gattoni-Celli’s analysis of Di Fi is it does not go to the heart of her objective; abolish freedom of speech on the Internet. See this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/307246-lying-is-absolute.html

Interpret Feinstein’s proposed amendment to the Media Shield Law correctly and it is clear that she wants to strengthen the press while weakening freedom of speech on the Internet. Her reason is obvious; the press is an instrument of government.

Di Fi is not alone. Liberals are attacking freedom of speech on the Internet from all sides. Bill O’Reilly goes so far as to say the Internet is an addiction:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_0R4RXAAkc&feature=player_embedded]Bill O'Reilly Talking Points - Are You Addicted to the Internet? - 8/15/2013 - YouTube[/ame]​

O’Reilly fails to mention that television is the most destructive electronic addiction ever sold to the public by government drug pushers.

NOTE: Most of radio programming before television came along was music, sports, entertainment shows, and five minute news broadcasts at the top and bottom of the hour. Americans often turned on the radio as background; i.e., Americans did not have to sit down and focus on the radio the way they do with television. It was pictures that turned TV into the carrier of propaganda far beyond anything radio could achieve. Put it this way. Pictures alone cannot brainwash anyone; hence, people don’t watch television they listen to it.

O’Reilly graciously admits that the Internet can be used for good. Here’s some news for Bill. The same thing was said about television after it did nothing but harm. In fact, television’s inventor, Philo T. Farnsworth (1906 - 1971), would not have a television in his home:

'There's nothing on it worthwhile, and we're not going to watch it in this household, and I don't want it in your intellectual diet.' "

Philo T. Farnsworth: The Father of Television

This is what really ticks off O’Reilly and the rest of them. Americans are not watching television when they are on the Net. To be more precise they are not getting the government’s message.

Here’s a comparison to make my case. Nothing on the Internet is going to brainwash O’Reilly’s addicts; especially not the written word. Can O’Reilly say the same about television addicts?

NOTE: The Internet is also hitting ticket sales for theatrical movies. A lot of Americans would rather be on the Internet than sitting in a dark theater with strangers. In time, only the loneliest, most malleable, person will escape into movies. That eventuality puts two parts of the government’s propaganda machinery at risk right now.

Interestingly, O’Reilly trots out the children to make his case for Internet addiction just as every good little liberal invokes the children when they want something from the government. In one sense he is correct. Television is losing the children. That’s a blessing not a sin. Hell, the Internet might even teach children to think for themselves; an outcome television and the education industry fear more than anything else. The government’s message is simple. Think only those thoughts we teach you.

Finally, it has been my experience that Lefties who oppose someone else’s opinion deceive themselves into believing that their own view is a universal truth rather than opinion based upon their own personal bias. The fun begins when idiots express their opinions. An idiot’s opinion remains the opinion of an idiot; it does not take on weight because it is said on television or in cyberspace.

While I think you're off with who the players are (da gummint/da left), the assessment of TV as addictive propaganda tool is spot on. That's the whole glaring insidious flaw in the medium, though in no way limited to "Americans". The comparison to radio is instructive; since you don't watch radio you're free to ingest it and still carry on other unrelated activities. With TV there's no activity at all, you're a sponge soaking up anything the box tells you. And I'd take issue with the idea that "pictures alone cannot brainwash"-- oh yes they can. Ever hear of subliminal advertising for a start?

I use this example frequently: walk into a room where people are watching TV and instead of following the instinct to see what they're watching, try this: watch the faces of the TV watchers. What do you see? Passive bodies with glazed eyes, doing nothing, saying nothing, obediently soaking up whatever's on the box, because what's on the box literally IS what's happening, even though we all know it's not real. Those images are imprinted on those docile eyes, whether they want them or not. And images have consequences.

At base the function of TV is to soften the mind in this way so that it's malleable and wide open to the power of suggestion, which paves the way for advertising, which is defined as selling you stuff you don't need (if you need it, it doesn't need to be advertised). As one ClearChannel TV executive defined the commercial approach to broadcasting: "Programming is the shit we run between commercials".

In our system of commercially-based media (i.e. centred on advertising and commerce), that's how this insidious propaganda tool is primarily used. If we had a government-based media, then it could be used as a tool for that kind of propaganda, provided the "shit we run between commercials" was addicting enough to set up the message. As it is though, the only secondary propaganda on the box (below the primary advertising) is a relentless affirmation of societal status-quo and nudges of the culture via the sitcom and the talk show, all done to preserve the prime directive of advertising.

In this sense we can see the nature of conglomerate TV programmers as "conservative" in nature -- because it doesn't serve the prime directive to stir things up. The last thing the purveyors of shit-between-commercials want in their viewers is activism. They want a docile, quiet, passive audience that goes out and buys what it's ordered to. They want an submissive audience to stay right where it is.

They're really not interested in a propaganda of political ideology, except as far as it's useful as a manipulation tool in the shit-between-commercials to attract the flies. Where polarization works to that end, they'll do that, and you have Fox News and MSNBC. Or in a general approach they'll pit two "teams", one red and one blue, against each other in a vast politics game (because games sell too), but make no mistake, the propaganda tool is the game itself-- not the players. It's all to keep the flies amused so that when Flo comes on to sell you Progressive Insurance, you're a sitting duck.

A perfect example of this deliberate deception is the posters who come to this forum armed with ratings numbers for whatever cable news outlet they wish to promote or defame-- as if they represent the "score" in the game. They've bought the pretext and actually see it as real game with real teams, rather than the puppet show it is. They think the players are the point, rather than the game itself. But like the canned laughter on the sitcom, like the angst on the scandal TV show, like the fake wrestling moves, the politics game is just one more manipulation tool to draw the flies.


("never say Di" -- clever turn of phrase. )