More Propaganda Tricks – Andrew Stoltmann And Tim Ryan On CNBC

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.

6 Responses to More Propaganda Tricks – Andrew Stoltmann And Tim Ryan On CNBC

  1. Anonymous Coward August 7, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    > Lehman Brothers committed Repo 105 accounting fraud leading up to their bankruptcy.

    I vaguely remember something about this being discussed on The Keiser Report.

    I’m not sure whether this relates to Lehmans, but the law is different between the USA and the UK. Repo fraud (peek-a-boo accounting, hiding debt during the public accounting periods and then bringing it back, pushing debt to other banks temporarily) is legal in the UK. So Lehmans may have done their dirty laundry in the City of London where it is legal.

    A friend of mine mentioned Lehmans moved money outside the UK just before they went broke. Is this legal? Should Plod be feeling some collars?

  2. Anonymous Coward August 7, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Apologies to MK, but I think FSK is being too hard on Lehmans.

    Without fraud there would be no economy in the City of London.

    “If you won’t stop the corruption, can I at least have a cut of the pie.”

    • Lehman asked a bunch of different lawyers for an opinion letter, saying that the “Repo 105″ trick was legal. A whole bunch refused, until they finally found a lawyer who said it was OK.

      • Anonymous Coward August 7, 2012 at 8:29 pm

        The USA lawyers said no. Lehmans had to ask United Kingdom lawyers to sign off on the dirty stuff.

        Don’t begrudge the UK its financial fraud. Without the fraud there would be no UK economy!

        But just think of all the tax revenue bank fraud creates for the UK government!

        Do you think fraud and theft could be a good thing!

      • Anonymous Coward August 8, 2012 at 8:17 am

        It was a UK lawyer that said it was OK.

        Perhaps I should explain UK law to you as you seem confused.

        Several months ago there were riots in the UK.

        The judges cracked down hard. People were sent to prison for small crimes such as stealing a bottle of water and trying on some clothes a flatmate had brought home. Yes, trying on clothes in your own home someone else had independently dumped there is now criminal!

        Yet if you are a banker and steal billions and trillions you are let off.

        I’ll let Max express our disgust.

        http://maxkeiser.com/2011/11/06/stfu-cameron/

        It seems our police had their search warrants declared illegal when they raided the premises of Vincent Tchenguiz involved in the crash of the Icelandic banks. See

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19062414

        It must be nice to have the high court agree with you. It must be nice to have so much money.

        Vincent Tchenguiz borrowed £100m from Kaupthing bank bank shortly before its collapse in 2008.

        Yet steal a bottle of water and the UK courts will hit you very hard.

        Take up a part-time job paying a small irregular income of about 300 UK pounds a month and the judges will jail you in the UK over housing benefit fraud.

        Yet taking 100 million pounds is perfectly fine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>