|MEDIA MANIPULATION for MASS CONTROL:|
|a lecture from Dr. EURO|
This article appeared in the August 2002 issue of Sovereignty.
It's the 2016 General Election. The consciousness of the people is rising. A new movement looks set to take Britain out the EU, and that spells bad news for Dr Euro -- the man with the white cat on his lap -- who owns UKLtd.com the country formerly known as "the United Kingdom". Dr Euro has called an emergency meeting of all the editors of his media monopoly, the British Brainwashing Corporation. But while Dr Euro addresses his minions, his words are being secretly recorded, and the tape is passed to Sovereignty.
Alistair McConnachie (left) considers it his duty to transcribe it for the benefit of "Queen (-in-exile) and (former) Country".
Gentlemen, for hundreds of years the basic principles for manipulating the masses have been the same, but it seems, with the rise of my enemies, you are required to learn them anew.
You will have noticed recently that these troublesome people are beginning to think, and say, and support ideas, and vote for parties, of which I certainly do not approve.
Up until now, my money and my media conferred upon me vast powers of mind-control... and muscle, when I needed it.
But it seems my powers of mind-control are slipping because you fools -- I mean, my loyal servants -- are not doing your jobs properly.
Need I remind you, that if my enemies succeed, I risk losing everything, my wealth, my power, my world -- my cat, even.
Oh, how I find it irritating to refresh your memory on these basic points... My dear editors, remember them well because I do not like repeating myself. As you know, my pet piranhas have a taste for foolish editors.
Firstly, if we are to guide the people my way, then I must.....
CONTROL THE POLITICAL DEBATE
Remember, I create the political reality in this land. I provide the platform for political debate in this country. It is my national media system of newspaper, TV and radio which represents the national political stage in this country. I put my puppets -- I mean, my politicians -- on my stage, so the people can watch my show and vote for their favourite actor.
We, here in this room, write the script. We decide the boundaries for what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable, to be said and heard on my political stage.
If I am to continue to control and direct the political process in this country then I must continue to control this political debate, and you must help me.
If we lose control of this political debate -- if people start thinking and saying and doing things which we cannot influence and control, then woe betide me -- I mean, us.
Ideally, we must train the people to police themselves. They must learn not to stray outside my limits of permissible dissent, which I have set up for my own interests.
So, when faced with the rise of these people, remember the Five Fundamentals necessary to control the political debate.....
THE FIVE FUNDAMENTALS
2- CREATE A CLIMATE OF INTIMIDATION
And if they dare to speak out they should always first apologise for themselves, and they should stay on the defensive.
For example, they should preface everything they say with the phrase, "I'm not anti-EU ...but..." Or, "Some of my best friends are Europeans...." And they must be afraid to give their names.
We must keep them afraid to raise their hand, voice or pen in support of my enemies. We do this if we.....
3- MAKE IT A "MORAL" ISSUE
These people take their cue from what they perceive everybody else to be thinking and saying. That is, they take their cue from my media system.
I step in, and tell them what to think. I tell them what is "right" and what is "wrong", what's "good" and what's "bad".
I tell them they are good people if they attack my enemies, and support my cause, and that they are bad people if they support my enemies and tick the wrong box.
Indeed, they must consider it fundamentally "shameful", "unacceptable" and "repulsive" to support those of whom I disapprove.
4- KEEP CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE-CLASS
Just as I can control some people by manipulating their natural desire to be "good" so I can control some people by manipulating their natural desire to be "respectable". Some middle-class people would rather die, quite literally, than be considered "not respectable" by my national mass media, in which they invest such authority.
So, I can keep many in the middle-class away from the ideas of my enemies by associating these ideas with people who are "not respectable", who are uncouth, or drink too much, or have poor grooming, or come from the wrong part of town.
I can keep them fixated on seeking the "respectability" which my media system, and my ideas alone, confer.
If the middle-class ever lose their fear of being branded "not respectable" by me, and start to define "respectability" in their own terms -- then, I am done for. Essential to this strategy is to.....
5- KEEP THE MIDDLE-CLASS AND WORKING-CLASS APART
TECHNIQUES TO CONTROL THE POLITICAL DEBATE
However, I define these terms. I define "democracy." I decide what "democracy" should mean, just as I define what is "good" and what is "bad".
If it works to my advantage it is "democratic". If it promotes my interests it is "democratic". If it helps to maintain the dominance of my ideas, and my power over the minds of the people, then it is "in the best interests of democracy".
However, if it works against my interests, it is "undemocratic".
Even though it is my supporters who are intolerant, who protest election results, who impose sanctions, who threaten others, and who assassinate my political enemies -- nevertheless, it is my enemies who must be portrayed as a "threat to democracy".
Remember, "democracy" is my word. It means what I want it to mean. No one else must be allowed to define its meaning.
Don't be too obvious about it, though. Be careful and don't get carried away. Don't let the mask slip or I'll be in trouble.
A good example of how not to do it was given in one of my newspapers recently when the editor -- wondering why my enemies were gaining in votes -- questioned, and I quote, "the system of democracy that has let this happen".
He was just a little too candid for his own good, and revealed just what I really consider to be the true purpose of "democracy" -- that is, keeping my own people in power.
The silly editor fluffed it again when he claimed that there were "too many choices" on the ballot paper. Now, now, now. Really! Most people think that "choice" is a good thing, and the "essence of democracy", so we should be careful not to reveal our objection to "choice" so blatantly in future.
Anyway, gentlemen, that editor is now an ex-editor, and a very tasty one at that, according to my pet piranhas.
SUPPRESS FAVOURABLE ARGUMENTS AND IMAGES
We must have no pictures of their supporters happily rejoicing. All the pictures should be of my puppets -- I mean, my supporters -- demonstrating against my enemies.
PROJECT NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS AND IMAGES
If we have video footage of any of them falling down drunk, kicking a dog, or otherwise compromised, then let's see it. Keep showing it, over and over.
Stress their "criminal records" no matter how minor.
The aim is to suggest that the people who support these ideas are clearly not people with whom anybody in their right mind would want to be associated.
However, when you interview my supporters, portray only young, articulate, good looking, happy, successful, dynamic professional sorts... the type everybody wants to emulate. Suppress all inconvenient details about their private lives.
USE NEGATIVE ASSOCIATION
Another technique is to "link" them to something or someone undesirable, regardless of how long the chain.
MISREPRESENT THEIR CONCERNS
For example, portray their desire to leave the EU as a secret desire to bash foreigners.
BIAS THE CONTEXT OF EVERY ARTICLE AND BROADCAST
For example, frame it within the context of "How could this happen?", "What has gone wrong?", "Has the world gone mad?", "Are these people really stupid, or just misguided? You decide!"
Never, never, ever, give the impression that they are serious, intelligent people, who have a "legitimate" point of view. Only my agenda is legitimate.
REFUSE TO DEBATE
ANALYSE OPPONENTS AS MENTALLY DEFECTIVE
For example, describe them as having been "conned" or "hoodwinked" by my enemies, and suggest that they will soon regret the mistake which they have made.
If that doesn't work, then try suggesting that they are motivated by negative emotions, or suffering from character weaknesses. For example, try saying something like, "These normally decent people have been swamped by feelings of fear, inadequacy and insecurity."
If you are feeling especially generous you can say, "These are essentially good people, just like you and me, but they have fallen under the spell of the politics of resentment."
Some other good stock words and phrases to describe such people: "plagued by fear", "lost in nostalgic yearning", "bitter", "alienated", "envious", "selfish", "confused", "backward looking", and -- a special favourite of mine -- "fearful of the unknown".
We certainly do not want to report that they are emotionally stable people who have positive reasons for supporting my enemies, and who made a rational and sensible decision so to do.
Instead, we want to suggest that they have made "an honest mistake" or are suffering from emotional instability, character weaknesses or psychological problems. Nobody likes to be thought of as nuts.
Anyway, if they don't agree with my wonderful ideas then they must obviously be nuts, right!
IF ALL ELSE FAILS
Agree that, "Yes, we must talk about this" -- which, as you know, means you, the media class, must "talk about needing to talk about this" -- endlessly filling article after article about "the need to talk about talking", while knowing perfectly well that we're never going to suggest we actually do anything!
If we can keep this up for long enough we may fool enough people into thinking that things are going to change, and thereby reduce the threat.
IF THEY WIN A VICTORY, PORTRAY IT AS OUR VICTORY
ULTIMATELY... DEMONISE AND DEHUMANISE TO DEATH
Call them "haters" and "extremists". Of course, in reality, gentlemen, you know it's I who do extreme things like drop bombs on people, send sons off to die in foreign lands for foreign causes, centralise capital in my single EU bank, and destroy borders, nations and peoples.
And, you know, if we're not careful, some of the people might just wake-up to that fact!
So, we mustn't allow them to realise that my system, which they live under, and suffer under, is extreme.
We must make them believe that it is the people who want to change all my works, who are the real extremists.
If we keep the demonisation going long enough, then enough of my useful idiots -- I mean, my supporters -- may think that they are doing the world a favour by assassinating my enemies.
And the mass of people will cheer and understand it as "justice" and "what they deserved". And as for the assassins, well, absolution is available... from me and my media, of course.
... Now, gentlemen, I don't expect to tell you that again... so off you go, and do the job I pay you for!