I watched a little bit of the Communism Channel (CNBC) yesterday. I noticed some propaganda tricks that I hadn’t noticed before. Here is a link to the video, on CNBC’s website. (It’s awful to watch video on mainstream media websites, because their player doesn’t work with dwhelper.)
They had a “debate” between two people. The question was “Should people lose confidence in the US financial system?” Obviously, the “debate” was rigged to have the conclusion “no”.
The person arguing “yes” (Andrew Stoltmann) was a lawyer who represented shareholders in class action lawsuits. Shareholder lawsuits are a waste of time and money. The only people who make money off them are lawyers.
The person arguing “no” (Tim Ryan) was a lawyer who works as a State regulator and as a lobbyist for insiders.
Obviously, both people are members of the parasite class. The “yes” lawyer was somewhat intelligent. The “no” lawyer was a pretty hardcore parasite/psychopath. He was obviously evil.
Here’s one trick. The “yes” lawyer was remote, via a feed. The “no” lawyer was present in the studio. What does that matter? The “yes” lawyer can be cut off at any time. When he asked a question or confronted the “no” lawyer, his mic was cut off. This enabled the “no” lawyer to spread his lies without interruption.
Also, the “no” lawyer was given more than 75% of the speaking time. It was a “fair” debate, because both sides were represented. It isn’t fair when one side is given the vast majority of the speaking time. It isn’t fair when one side gets his mic cut off, to prevent him from explaining his viewpoint.
The “no” lawyer said “You are a lawyer who files wasteful class action lawsuits. Therefore, you are biased and wrong.” The correct response is “You are a lawyer who works for the government and for insiders. Therefore, you are biased.”, although that was not mentioned.
The “no” lawyer also went ad hominem. He said “My opponent is evil. Therefore he is wrong.” The evil person was the only one who accused his debate opponent of being evil! From the viewpoint of a parasite or psychopath, an honest and intelligent person is evil. The “no” lawyer probably sincerely believed that the other person was evil, because he was even slightly hinting at bankster corruption.
One question was “Should any banksters have been indicted?” The “yes” lawyer mentioned Lehman Brothers. I was disappointed that he didn’t mention Jon Corzine. The “no” lawyer gave a weaselly non-answer. He said “I don’t have full details on Lehman Brothers. I don’t know if they should be indicted or not. The Justice Department decided to not indict. Therefore, they didn’t commit a crime. I trust the Justice Department’s judgement, regarding who should be indicted.”
Lehman Brothers committed Repo 105 accounting fraud leading up to their bankruptcy. It should have been a slam-dunk Sarbanes-Oxley conviction. Banksters own the government. There was no indictment.
“No banksters were indicted. Therefore, they didn’t commit any crimes.” That’s invalid reasoning. That would only matter if government were functioning properly. It is more accurate to say “Banksters control the government.” rather than “Government prevents bankers from stealing.”
It also was amusing to see the CNBC anchors at the end. Notice the look of mild disappointment. They knew they were lying, and were somewhat ashamed to be part of the farce. Watch when Maria Bartiromo says “a democracy”.
That was a fake debate, regarding “Should people lose confidence in the financial system.” There were many interesting propaganda tricks in that video, including some I hadn’t noticed before. The person arguing the non-favored viewpoint gave a weak criticism. If a weak criticism is presented as a counter-argument, that’s actually an argument in favor of the opposition. The “no” lawyer was a sincere critic of bankster corruption, but had only gone a little bit down the rabbit hole, making him a useful idiot. One guest was in the studio and the other was remote, enabling producers to cut off the other person’s microphone. One guest was given much more speaking time than the other, plus the ability to interrupt his debate opponent. Ironically, the evil speaker went ad hominem, calling out his debate opponent as evil. They pretended to be impartial, by having two people, but it was obviously a rigged debate.
I don’t normally watch the Communism Channel, because it’s nearly complete propaganda. Sometimes, it’s educational to see the propaganda tricks. As I gain greater awareness, I’m noticing more. These are probably standard tools, known by everyone in the lying industry. The propaganda is too well-coordinated. I’m getting better at noticing and observing these dirty tricks. Hopefully, when I explain them, it’ll help other people become more resistant.