|
|
Tags for This Article:
Media (3292) People (1934) Truth (1660) Propaganda (1182) Spin (598) 9 11 WTC Attack (509) 911 Truth (466) Conspiracy (452) Spin (419) 9 11 Truth (352) 911 (315) 911 (257) Language (214) Disinformation (136) Brain (133) Deception (125) Talking Truth (106)
|
(more...)
(less...)
Add to My Group
The language of deception is used against us every day and most of us don’t even realize it has been done to us or realize the devastating effect it has on us. My task here is to expose some of the subtle deceptions hidden within the terminology we in the 9/11 truth movement use every day. My goal is to shine a light on the subtle deceptions that pass under our radar every day and to counter those deceptions with the language of truth. First we have to consider how we in the 9/11 truth movement describe what happened to the World Trade Center (WTC)? The question is, should we say that WTC 1, 2, and 7 “collapsed” or should we say they were “demolished” and does it really matter all that much? At first glance it may not seem to be a particularly important question as to which word we use. I will expose however that it is, in fact, very important which word we use. Furthermore I want to reveal how and why the debate has been framed from the beginning by our opponents with the endlessly repeated use of just one simple word, “collapsed”. To illustrate the problem let’s take a brief look at the definition for each of the two words that are commonly used to describe what happened to the WTC on 9/11. Using the dictionary found at http://www.refdesk.com/ we can compare the definition for collapse to the definition of demolish. Take a close look at the two definitions and note the subtle but important differences between them. col·lapse 1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in. de-mol-ish 1. To tear down completely; raze. Consider for a moment the difference between something that has “fallen down” (collapsed) and something that has been “torn down” (demolished). It is obvious, once we look closely, that the two words really mean two completely different things. We should take note that the word “collapsed” was not chosen by the US Propaganda Ministry by accident. When applied to what happened to the WTC buildings, collapsed means the WTC buildings fell down, while demolished means they were torn down. One term implies the buildings “fell” or “caved in” as a result of weakening from fire and damage while the other term implies the towers were “torn down” or “razed” with pre-positioned explosives. Obviously the word you use to describe the demise of the WTC buildings will depend on your perspective of what happened right? Not necessarily if the debate has been framed in advance and we have been carefully conditioned through endless repetition in the corpstream media. If we have been “framed” we will see both ourselves and our adversaries using the term “collapsed” on a regular basis. Take a moment to think about how marketing firms sell products to you. Do they ask you to buy their product? No they don’t. Do you even notice what they actually say in commercials and advertisements? Do they affect you subliminally? Advertisers tell you why you need their product, they tell you to buy it like a parent tells a child to brush his teeth. They don’t ask you anything. Watch a few commercials and see for yourself the technique in action, write down what they actually say so you can see it in print. Test it yourself see if you can find one professional print ad or commercial where the customer is asked to buy the product rather then told to buy it or one where the customer is asked his opinion of the product rather then told what his opinion should be. Politicians and their allies at the Disinformation Ministry use these techniques all day, every day to distort the truth and “frame” the debate on all kinds of issues. You can bet your bottom dollar they use these techniques to their fullest when talking about 9/11. Marketing firms regularly work on political campaigns and even take the lead in designing huge propaganda efforts such as the now infamous baby incubator story. In that instance Hill and Knowlton, a large US marketing firm, trained the Kuwaiti Ambassadors daughter to come before Congress and lie about how Iraqi soldiers had taken babies out of their incubators and left them on the cold floor to die. How many people still don’t know that this story was a lie to this very day? How many don’t even realize they were tricked into supporting Desert Storm by a marketing firm and an aspiring young Kuwaiti actress? Wag the Dog anyone? http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/kelly/what.htm Propaganda tactics like these have a very powerful effect on people and we have to understand how they work if we are going to have any hope of winning the information war. As 9/11 truth advocates we need to think carefully about how “framing the debate” is accomplished, how effective it is, and how to combat it effectively. Consider this excerpt from Commondreams http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0912-20.htm Take the term “tax relief,” for example. The phrase started appearing in White House press releases on the day President Bush took office, and it has been repeated over and over ever since. But it’s what is behind the words — the mental structure known as a “frame” — that matters as much as the words themselves. For there to be “relief” there must be an affliction, an afflicted party harmed by the affliction, and a reliever who takes the affliction away and is therefore a hero. And if anybody tries to stop the reliever, he’s a villain wanting the suffering to go on. Add “tax” to the mix and you have a metaphorical frame: Taxation as an affliction, the taxpayer as the afflicted party, the president as the hero, and the Democrats as the villains. Every time you hear the term, those subliminal meanings resonate. Once the campaign repeats the words day after day, they end up in every newspaper and on every TV and radio station, and the term becomes the way TV commentators and journalists talk about taxes. And pretty soon the Democrats are forced to talk about their own brand of “tax relief,” for the middle class. But by adopting the Republicans’ language, they have adopted one of the GOP’s central ideas. Every time they use the words, they reinforce the idea.
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
