The Five Rules of Propaganda and transgender compared
By Baldmichael Theresoluteprotector’sson
I came across these five rules which help explain what is going on today let alone what has gone on for millennia.
They are from this link.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/five-basic-rules-propaganda-identifying-learning-how-mysliwiec/
It says they can be found in ‘Europe: A History’ by Norman Davies (1996, Oxford University Press) and they are as follows:
The Five Rules of Propaganda
1. The rule of simplification – reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
2. The rule of disfiguration – discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
3. The rule of transfusion – manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
4. The rule of unanimity – presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure , and by ‘psychological contagion’.
5. The rule of orchestration – endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.
The author of the Linkedin piece, a Pawel Mysliwiec, who I believe from his profile, was educated in Belgium for a while as he apparently went to the Université de Namur, a Jesuit private university.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universit%C3%A9_de_Namur
He asks what to do about the propaganda.
Well, identifying when you are a target of propaganda is the first step. We live in an increasingly complex and interconnected world, where human, social, cultural, technological, and environmental dimensions present a puzzle that no one can control or fully understand.
Thus, in a presence of someone who presents a binary statement opposing two discreet realities my senses are already alerted about the potential of propaganda (see rule 1).
Binary statements abound: east vs west, left vs right, man vs woman, white vs black, Christians vs Muslims, agile vs waterfall, managers vs resources etc. Portrayed as oppositions, they reinforce a belief that they are separate realities, camps looking for recruits, and tap into our subconscious human need for belonging in one or the other camp.
He doesn’t define east vs west, left vs right, man vs woman etc. but overall he seems to be in organisation management speak mode which is what his training has been in.
That is, a lot of gobbledygook, which makes people like him able to con organisations into employing them for a fee.
Nevertheless It is true that we apply meanings to certain terms and east and west are presumably meant to mean cultural values as much as anything.
But to assume man vs woman is somehow a bad binary statement is misleading at best, foolish at worst. We all as human beings belong to one group of two groups, and we act differently whether we are a man or a woman whilst still being one human race, a shared humanity if you prefer.
Thus there are overlaps, and finding those overlaps is what unites us but to suggest that there are no absolute differences is plain silly.
This sort of muddled thinking has arisen from evolutionary theory suggesting that things are not ultimately ordered but chaotic and random which is patently not so.
The world is basically ordered but with chaotic elements which in many places has resulted in what we might say was complete chaos although this is never true in the absolute sense.
Anyway he goes onto say
I was awestruck about Mr. Obama’s statement on the thoughtful compromise. As a child, Mr. Obama’s mother insisted on him always searching an alternative opinion to any absolute statement.
Awestruck eh? Hmm…
This early habit helped Mr. Obama develop a keen sense of compromise, which helped him a lot in many challenging calls a US President must make during his (or, hopefully one day, her) mandate.
Pardon?? So Mr Obama is going to hopefully one day become a ‘her’???
And shouldn’t it be ‘itdate’, not mandate, otherwise that is an absolute statement, man vs. woman.
But then it date is neuter and being absolutist. Are you confused?
Moving on
For each absolute opinion there is an absolute counter-opinion – and reaching out to hear both opinions is one of the ways to revealing mechanisms at play (however uncomfortable to hear these two opinions might be).
Mr. Obama speaks about the need to recognize value and make opposites cohabit, accepting that there is no absolute right or wrong and both can have intrinsic value on some level of analysis.
So Pawel has himself fallen into the propaganda trap as the propaganda rule of simplification is Obama saying there is no right or wrong.
Whilst there are many situations where choices can be between different ‘goods’ or indeed ‘bads’, there will usually be a situation where something is better. Choosing the better way over the less good way is clearly an absolute otherwise nothing matters.
Of course if the way is not clear then there may be an equally good choice.
There is the same with ‘bads’ or evils where there is the lesser of two evils to select.
In any event it is no wonder many people think Obama was bad for the USA and how his promotion of the LGBTQi+ activist agenda has increased the chaos that can be seen today. Here are some links on the issues.
See Obama’s 20-Year Evolution on LGBT Rights APRIL 10, 2015
https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/
Pride Month Marked by ‘Unprecedented’ Backlash
Jun 28, 2023
https://www.newsweek.com/pride-month-marked-unprecedented-backlash-1809380
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA
Posted by focus | Jan 2, 2018
As regards Pawel Mysliwiec I see his name can anagram to:
– We silly AEC wimp
– We simple wily AC
– Spew wily malice
– Piece swim wally
These might be part of his problem!
As for Obama I haven’t done a post on him but I see this anagram of his full name Barack Hussein Obama is
– aka anarchism buboes
Buboes is a type of plague. This might start to explain things about the man.
Let’s move on to the other part of my post where I set out what I see as the Five Rules of transgender.
The Five Rules of transgender
1. The rule of complication – making all data thoroughly confusing, calling bad good, good bad, sane insane, insane sane, ugly beautiful, beautiful ugly etc. Special attention is given to plural pronouns for the individual who is hereafter a ‘we’ and a ‘they’/’them’.
In a crowd they will be indistinguishable from them, the rest of the crowd that is. In a crowd of such transgender people this has the effect of at least doubling the number present in their minds.
Although whether the ‘their’ is the individual concerned or all present is not clear. This is the whole point of course, to cause maximum confusion whilst the ultra-wealthy continue to steal everybody else’s wealth when they, the crowd (and the transgendered ‘they’) are distracted.
2. The rule of disfiguration – making oneself as ugly as possible, perhaps by putting on a flowery dress 2 sizes too small, a bra full of padding and a wig. The men do this too of course.
3. The rule of transconfusion – being thoroughly confused as to whether one is male, female, or Royal Mail; an it, a bit or a shit; binary, non-binary or canary, wharf or otherwise. In fact if you can think of it, then you can be it until you feel different which may be today, tomorrow or indeed yesterday, but not necessarily in that order. If you are confused, well again that is the whole point.
4. The rule of insanity – presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were unanimous opinion of all left-thinking people, i.e. all the right thinking people have left the left-thinking loony people to their own devices.
These may well be their mobile phones telling them they can be what they like, including of course a mobile phone. ‘They’ again may be singular or plural.
5. a. The rule of ‘or chest ration’ – removing the chests, i.e. the breasts of women.
b. The rule of ‘or castration’ – removing the testicles of men.
Summary and final thoughts
I hope that was instructive and perhaps also amusing. If it was confusing are you surprised. It will hopefully give you food for thought and something with which to fight back against the nonsense afflicting society.
In looking up Obama to remind myself of his full name I found this link from today’s Daily Mail (not a transgender version I understand).
Harvard board stands by chief and ex-Obama cabinet member Penny Pritzker after Claudine Gay’s disastrous resignation – despite growing calls for HER to quit too
4 January 2024
So I gather Claudine Gay, the Harvard university president, resigned on Tuesday 2nd January this year.
HARVARD PRESIDENT CLAUDINE GAY RESIGNS, SHORTEST TENURE IN UNIVERSITY HISTORY Updated January 2, 2024
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/3/claudine-gay-resign-harvard/
The mere fact that her surname is Gay amuses me. A Gay president who is not gay (homosexual) resigns but not for being gay (which would be gayist!), but for being incompetent.
This was because she stuck to a relativism of not condemning the vitriolic attacks on Jewish people.
When asked by Congresswoman Elise Stefanik if a hypothetical call for the genocide of Jewish people would qualify as a violation of Harvard’s code of conduct, Gay responded, “It can be, depending on the context.”
The matter is complicated by the fact that all this is trying to make Israel look like only the victim in the Gaza war against Hamas, but the point is this is where relativism without proper discernment gets us.
I checked her anagrams. Her name includes:
– Decay lingua – her language has decayed due to relativism
– lay guidance – in other words her guidance is unprofessional
– eg aid lunacy – which says it all
As regards reference to Penny Pritzer, she is a member of the Pritzer Jewish mafia clan which includes Jay ‘Wide boy’ Pritzker (wide in various senses) and James ‘call me Jennifer’ Pritzker.
The picture is James ‘call me Jennifer’ Pritzker not Jay in case you wondered.
So rather bizarrely Penny Pritzer who is Jewish appoints a Gay President who is not gay but seems not to be standing up for the Jewish staff and students on campus.
But then as I say there are Jews who say they are Jews but are not but are of the synagogue of Satan.
What their trans-agenda is, well perhaps another article is required.
P.S. I have done a post on Jay Pritzker here.
And on transgender definitions here.
When the guy on LinkedIn used "agile vs waterfall, managers vs resources" as his examples of binaries I immediately knew the type we are dealing with! It's a shame, cos he seemed to be on point about other stuff.
Re the non-binaries: the rule is to still be a singular 'I' and to use singular verbs with their name but not their pronoun, e.g. "Karen is non-binary, they are also very annoying". Maximum confusion!
Isn't Gay a lesbian?
If you study the Qumran communities, which were at the beginning of things Jewish not 800 years after as according to claims that don't stack up, you'll see that there was always intended to be 4 classes. With maybe another one hidden. The old guy or gal of lower origins had little or no say and was stuck at the back of the meeting room (remember them?). The Pritzkers would have had the pew at front.