This story is interesting. Allegedly, the "Tea Party" is very unpopular.
Is the "Tea Party" unpopular because it's evil? Is the "Tea Party" unpopular due to a massive State propaganda campaign?
It almost seems like a tautology. "This group of people has been heavily slandered by the mainstream media. A new poll says this group of people is very unpopular."
Most people associate the Tea Party with racism. If you're against the Welfare State and big government, then you're a racist. I never understood that "logic".
The mainstream media shows the guy holding the racist sign, rather than the guy complaining about high taxes. (The guy with the racist sign may be a planted disinformation agent.) Many politicians sincerely believe that the Tea Party is a group of racists and terrorists. That label enables politicians to dismiss their concerns.
You can really hear the hatred in some people's voices, when then denounce the "Tea Party".
Also, logically contradictory beliefs are promoted. They show the guy with a sign "Keep government out of my Medicare!", rather than people complaining that government is way too big.
As a grassroots Internet-enabled movement, there is no "Tea Party" leader. The mainstream media anoints pro-State trolls and fruitcakes as "Tea Party" leaders, and then draws the conclusion that everyone opposed to big government is evil.
The mainstream media has done a pretty thorough job of smearing the "Tea Party". I can sense the fear, with the large volume of propaganda denouncing the "Tea Party". The "Tea Party" label has been mostly ruined by mainstream media. There still are plenty of people angry at big government. That isn't going to change.
I suspect that a new label other than "Tea Party" may start being popular. The idea "Government is way too big!" is continuing to spread. That isn't going to change, even if the "Tea Party" label stops being used.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
State Vs. "Tea Party"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
steamroller says:
The first order of business in any Statist Elite platform is to villify those who pose the greatest threat to our control. The efficient deception is using the "strawman" principle. Statist thugs say: "You must remove this menace from our noble effort-it's up to you if you want freedom."
The other mind-control method is the Delphi Technique. Look it up if you are unaware of it-and you will recognize the symptoms if you have ever been in a contentious "Business Meeting."
Always Neutralize your opponent whenever possible....but never interfere with your opponent while he is destroying himself.
I was talking to a Libertarian recently, and suddenly they started launching into a rant about how stupid the Tea Party is.
It's interesting to see how irrational their attack was. They complained, "The Tea Partist's are Anarchist's. Why don't they just come out and say it." The problem of the Tea Party is that they're not Anarchist's.
The Tea Party has done a good job in spreading interest about reducing government, but has so far accomplished almost nothing. However, as you mentioned, although you haven't actually been operating an Agorist businesses, you have been educating people. The same for Ron Paul. The Tea Party is at least better than Obama.
That people are attacking the Tea Party is a sign of progress, as you mentioned. The claims that the 93 members of Congress that are Tea Partist's could control the Congress is ludicrous. I don't know of anyone who actually believes the Tea Party are literally terrorists.
Bachmann is evil, but I at least don't think she's not as evil as someone like Romney. As you point out, though, it's hard to know what someone without meeting them in person. Still, watching the candidate's on TV, Bachmann seems less evil than any other candidate other than Paul.
Bachmann bought four thousand votes in the Iowa Straw Poll. That shows that you can be one of the least evil people in Congress, and still be evil. While Ron Paul may seem great by comparison, I wonder how he would seem if the Congress wasn't so stupid.
Post a Comment