The 2016 election showed that much of themainstream media, both left and right, are simply propaganda organs for the interests of the elites. If it were not so then the election of Trump would not have surprised any of them because they would have known there was a large body of people who were not happy with both establishment Republicans or Democrats. But beyond presidential politics, the media, particularly that on the left has been keen to push narratives upon the population in a way to shape opinion towards (or against) certain ways of thinking they have deemed "problematic".
In NLP (Neuro-linguistic Programming) It is taught that you can essentially plant ideas in people's heads by speaking to them in a particular manner. One way of doing this is by speaking in ways that
limits perceived options. The trick works because of the way the brain generally works. If you tell someone the sky is red even though it is not, the brain first accepts the statement as true and THEN evaluates the statement. So for a split second (or longer if you're not too bright) you believe the sky is red. Now a "red sky" statement is easy to dismiss but when it comes to things we are either already predisposed to disbelieve or *to believe* the process of negating a statement becomes much harder and generally takes much longer.
A person who is aware that he may be being programmed trains themselves to always ask "who, whom, what and why". The things journalists are supposed to do for a living but don't. The recognize choice limiting statements for what they are. Which brings us to USA Today.
Here's USA Today on the
shooting in Texas:
Jack Wilson is a hero alright. It took him only six seconds to kill a gunman at a Texas church, saving countless lives.
Unfortunately, that kind of split-second heroism has been turned into a PR tool by gun advocates.
The reality of Wilson's heroism is a lot more complex. He wasn’t just an ordinary parishioner, as gun advocates may want you to believe. The church’s volunteer security team member is a firearms instructor, gun range owner and former reserve deputy with a local sheriff’s department, according to a New York Times detailed account.
In other words, he’s exactly the kind of man you want around with a firearm. But we know nothing about the at least six other parishioners who also appeared to draw their handguns at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas.
And that's terrifying. [My underlines]
Note how this "opinion" writer is telling you that people armed for self-defense is "terrifying".
For those susceptible to feel fear whenever a gun is mentioned, this serves as a reinforcement. For those who aren't there yet, this is a strong suggestion that is taken by them as truth:
I should be terrified of people I don't know having guns.
Why?
The writer could have easily written the piece in such a way to
not invoke fear in their audience. They chose to program rather than inform.
Then the writer brings in an argument that has never been made:
But have we really reached a point when each of us need to carry a firearm anywhere we go? Gun advocates certainly think so. They point to Wilson and the new Texas law that allows him and others to carry firearms inside the church.
Gun advocates make no such claim that "each of us *need*" to carry anything. Gun advocates point out that the supreme legal document of the land states that the right of people to bear arms, "if they so choose", shall not be infringed. That is each of us has a right, derived from nature and *protected* by law to defend ourselves with arms which includes things OTHER than guns. If you an individual choose to not do so, you don't have to. But you don't get to choose whether someone else can be armed.
Then there is the Big Lie:
But have we really reached a point when each of us need to carry a firearm anywhere we go? Gun advocates certainly think so. They point to Wilson and the new Texas law that allows him and others to carry firearms inside the church.
This is demonstrably false. For example, felons are prohibited by law to have firearms. They can only get one by breaking the law. Anyone can "get" a firearm if they are willing to commit a crime to get one. But by that argument, anyone can be a murderer too. All you have to do is kill someone. The law-abiding usually have to get permits, take classes, pass background checks and wait a specified amount of time before obtaining a firearm. Crooks don't go through all that. Perhaps that's the problem.
So here's a tip for those who are interested: If you see a "news" piece that says that you should [insert negative emotional state] by events that have nothing to do with you, you should consider that message a psyop on you. No one who really wants to inform you will try to instill a state of negative emotions on you about an event or thing that doesn't immediately affect you.
