FIST: IN KEEPING WITH LEFTWING MEMES, ABC KEEPS WITH LEFTWING MEMES

ABC provides a network hour of advertising to the Barack Obama/Democrats’ political goals of nationalized healthcare (more about that farther along here), ABC refuses to allow any advertisements in that hour of Obama advertising that represent any contrary or questioning position that might shake the Obama/Democrats’ political goals, ABC is confronted about all of that and what does ABC do? ABC retorts by confirming and affirming everything they’re accused of.

“CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS BLAST ABC, ABC FIRES BACK”

And that nancy-headline is from, of all places, who’d have guessed, ABC.

ABC President, David Westin’s “fire back” retort to being nailed as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party was to brag about being a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

Read it yourself, Westin brayed (”fire[ed] back“) that his version of a network IS, indeed, a vehicle by which marginalized political goals are being given undivided adulation and exposure and the badmanrightwingrepublicans should never question that, their armaments, because it’s important business to be a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party (the terms, “Democratic Party” and “Obama” are used in this post of mine as interchangeable, since the political goals are intermingled, especially as to the hour-long advertisement by ABC for the Democrats’ “healthcare plan”).

And, let no one (my best hope) allow this ongoing misuse of words (”just words“) to reference that which they are not defined by, because that’s the essential nature of what propaganda is: use words — in any and all languages, they have definitions that are defined in near-absolutes, by the use of other words to do so — use words in contexts that redefine what their definitions are to nearly always redefine to direct toward the opposite of what the original word means.

And, applying the threat of force (severe reprimand), as in, implying that there’s a federal government “behind it” (the provider) therein implies that there’s the threat of some bad or detrimental thing to follow if the new definition/s and phrases are not accepted to replace the “old”. That is how offensive political groups, efforts and individuals both conceal their offensive intents and goals and also corral populations into accepting the offensive as the “new”.

If that’s confusing, allow me to rephrase:

You say, “health care” is your objective, but underlying the use of that word is your political goal of lack of care, reducing and withholding care while instead including care that is generally offensive if not objectionable altogether for many people (commonly offensive to many).

You then say, “my health care plan does not represent nationalized health care.”

But your goal under that defining (redefining) phrase is that you omit to acknowledge that any federal involvement in creating, administering and thereby coercing behaviors IS, indeed, how “national health care” is defined, and, thus, you persist in using the term, “health care” and that secondary phrase (”my health care plan does not represent nationalized health care”) to mean exactly the opposite of what reasonably astute people mean by use of the same term and phrase.

You create propaganda by reassociating words, terms and phrases that are popularly acceptable to that which is not popularly acceptable. People think they’re buying “new” when they’re buying “old” or “used” and they think they’re buying “health care” when they’re actually being enrolled in a grim system of denial of care without individual options to control any outcome.

More of a problem, however, is when media of any kind jumps onto that redefining propaganda safari, because, it’s mostly still the common definition that “media” represents or is defined, generally, by “journalism” in any reportage sense:

You read wire service articles, you turn on a national “news” broadcast, you are engaged in, generally, the understanding that what you’ll read and hear and see is not a function of a partisan political perspective, but one of a reasonable bystander with reasonable and inquiring questions about information being exposed. There’s an expectation that if it’s in print or on the screen, there’s some level of ethics-of-inquiry (which is why we’re all easily swayed by films, for example, into “suspending disbelief” as to the reality before us).

Today, however, most of us with some degree of life experience (we’ve been fooled and deceived before by false information or misled and manipulated, so we effort to maintain some degree of separation from information we can’t verify ourselves, especially when it may be or is life-affecting), most of us don’t approach media in that same, previously-trusting sense.

Contrary to the days of print and screen only, the internet has allowed a quicker exchange of information among individuals, so, blogs and other authors on the internet constitute the majority of sources who are engaged in actual questioning and inquiring. And this is because of just such foolish, nonsensical actions as ABC displayed in this latest of their brays from atop the Obama/Democratic Party’s safari wagon: they prove their product untrustworthy, as do other networks like ABC engaged in this very same degree of “redefining the terms” or political and social propaganda: it works to secure the sources of propaganda and it rewards the arms of that propaganda.

In a Marxist government process, that’s why media is nationalized, as are most if not all producers of resources: Capitalism revolves around the individual rewarding good products by their purchase of them while Marxism revolves around removing individual opportunity and rewarding other variances that also so suppress individual opportunity and the Marxist source profits instead.

ABC, as with other networks of late like them (CBS, NBC, CNN) — their ratings are floundering, their popularity is dismal, they are not relied upon by many today for reliable information and so their advertisers also suffer from lack of exposure, or, worse, from bad exposure in associating with unpopular networks — profits no longer by individual patronage but profits, instead, by promoting the Marxist source: their hope for profiteering rests not in Capitalism, by popular support, but in a Marxist governmental process that secures their existence without consideration of individual consumers (and, therein, their product which no longer meets expected standards among individual consumers).

So no wonder ABC is quite so enthusiastic about Obama and the Democrats’ political goals — Marxism, the eradication of Capitalism — as with CBS, NBC and CNN: they’re eager to secure the source that’ll reward them and that isn’t consumers.

Buy a lemon from someone once, the reasonable person doesn’t go back for another purchase with any expectation of buying something not lemony, in other words. Worse, ABC’s not selling lemonade. They’re selling the aroma of a lemon and expecting the consumer’s thirst to be satisfied.