The anatomy of a smear: demonise then merchandise

How it’s done from an expert. This is the text of what she said:

Pelosi: It’s called the wrap-up smear. . . . You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest and then you merchandise it.

And then you [the media] write it, and they’ll say, see it’s reported in the press – that this, this, this and this – so they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it’s called a ‘wrap-up smear.’ And now I’m going to merchandize the press’s report on the smear that we made.

Here, for example, are more than enough reasons to understand Christine Ford was not playing straight with the truth, none of which was pointed out in the media that was merchandising all the falsehoods the Democrats could conjure:

She refused to hand over the results of her polygraph

She refused to hand over her 2012 therapist’s notes

She said she was afraid to fly, but has flown dozens of times. 

Since she did in fact fly, she offered no other reason for the delay

She said she wanted anonymity but contacted [the Washington Post] multiple times

Said she got advice from “beach friends” but didn’t mention that the primary one was a former FBI lawyer, Monica McLean, who worked for Preet Bharara, a man Trump fired.

She also failed to mention, when talking of her Beach friends at the hearing, that Monica was sitting right behind her. 

She had a perfect memory of 1982 but couldn’t remember basic things from the previous 10 weeks

She’d been drinking. 

She changed the year of the alleged attack

She named 4 people, but had no backers

She couldn’t remember how she got home even though her story had her escaping the house far from home, pre-cell phone.

She gave no location or any details that could be researched for verification.

She never told anyone and never claimed PTSD prior to Kavanaugh’s name circulating 30 years later.

She said that she put the 2nd door on her house because of PTSD, but evidence shows it was to get around zoning laws to create a rentable apartment.

She said she didn’t know that Grassley offered to come to her, even though it was broadcast nationally.

She feigned no knowledge of polygraphs even though her ex’s sworn statement said she’d coached Monica McLean how to beat it in the 1990s, and in any case her profession should have at least well acquainted her with it.

She co-authored a paper on repressed memory creation years before she claimed to have one

Nothing is known of her pharmacology, but given her past alcoholism, her visits to a therapist and her general presentation, odds are high that it’s extensive.

She scrubbed her social media. We know from a pussy hat photo that she was rabidly anti-Trump. 

She had zero family or friends with her, not from the 80s nor from today. She was surrounded only by Democrat Party handlers.

Constant cries of bravery & “nothing to gain” vs a $700,000 GoFundMe and a career boosted a la Anita Hill

Literally all there is her word vs all of the above. Not a shred of evidence.

All that is different this time is that you have seen it before your eyes. The parties of the left in cahoots with the media warp your perceptions of what is in reality taking place.

Agit prop and the agent provocateur Bowdlerised edition

Given some of the comments on a previous post let me give you a Bowdlerised version. Says the same thing as before but perhaps not quite as pointed. For myself, reading some of the reactions to what I wrote I can see there are quite a few, even amongst those who come here, who have no idea what the problem we are dealing with is nor what needs to be done. Anyway, see what you make of this.

The one blessing about being brought up in a communist household is that you understand the left a good deal better than most. It also brings an added measure of concern when I see how easily a public unused to lying as a tactic is influenced by these manoeuvres which are standard practice on the left. My Dad was an expert in agit prop and I grew up understanding the role of the agent provocateur only too well. These are not well-meaning individuals who wish to investigate the truth. They are individuals whose only interest is to disrupt the communications among those on the other side through whatever lies they might find convenient and they hope persuasive.

The example I am going to use is my post Remember Michelle Fields? It is simply undeniable that Fields told a story that was intended to harm Donald Trump’s run for president but was thoroughly discredited by the videos that showed everything she said, and the Washington Post initially said, were lies. The point of the post was to remind us that the media will lie without any hesitation if they can see some political advantage for the left’s political agenda. That is also the message of this post, and it is one that can never be repeated often enough. You will be lied to by the left to the furthest extent they believe they can get away with. That there is not an instantaneous scepticism amongst us on this side of politics from any unverified political story carried by a mainstream media organisation fills me with dread since most of us are so middle class that we find it hard to believe others will lie, distort, or withhold relevant information without the slightest hesitation if it serves their ends. The attitude you need to take when reading anything from an MSM report is the same attitude you might take when buying a used car. Do not trust a thing you are told and make sure you verify everything you can from a separate source.

Dishonesty is the trade mark of the left, not that they have a monopoly, but it is a specific tactic aimed at the fair minded who are seldom as aware as they need to be of the practice, and seldom think of the need to guard against the premeditated lies they tell. You would have to be pretty thick not to know that Michelle Fields was a liar and that her aim was deliberate and strictly political. The interesting part is that for the left to succeed, they can only achieve their ends by lying. For the right, what you hear people say is almost invariably what they believe. The left often mimics the same concerns but it is tactical and never substantive unless for a change good policy overlaps what they see as tactical advantage.

The one valuable part of being on this side of the fence is that with so many out there on the left who will swarm around any genuine falsehood stated by someone on the right, the standard of probity is higher. This is part of the reason why sex scandals, to just name the issue in relation to Roy Moore, are not as common on the right as on the left. Except that when they are caught out – such as with Bill Clinton – it is no longer a scandal and is put to bed as soon as it is practical to do so. They never mean it. It is not hypocrisy, it is a policy of deceit. They are perfectly aware they are lying and just take the rest of us for fools.

Oh by the way, have you caught up with the CNN story about Trump feeding the fish in Japan.

You cannot believe a word they say. Why is this even controversial?

Remember Michelle Fields?

What’s your view on whether Michelle Field was pulled to the ground by Trump’s Chief of Staff?

This is the truth. The entire story was a fabrication, a complete and absolute lie wholly made up with malicious intent. It was not an error nor an exaggeration. It was not a mis-recollection of the facts nor a misperception of an event. It was a premeditated and calculated lie told repeatedly by both Democrats and Republicans, inside the media and out, with no other intention than to manufacture a scandal around Donald Trump to prevent him from becoming president. And it would have gone on and on, and you would be hearing about it to this day, except there were videos taken and so the lie was revealed and could no longer serve the purpose it was designed to serve. And when the facts came out, they did not apologise, nor show contrition, nor exhibit the slightest remorse. They just shut up about this and went and found other lies that were not as obvious and blatant and as easy to expose. They have no conscience or moral scruples or give the slightest indication of wishing to deal fairly and honestly. They will do whatever it takes and count on the deceit and connivance of everyone on their side, along with the stone cold imbecility and ridiculous naivete of so many, too many, on the side of the Republicans.

Which brings me to: President Donald Trump all but endorsed embattled Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore on Tuesday.

Trump didn’t explicitly say he was endorsing Moore, but he said with emphasis, “We don’t need a liberal person in there. … We don’t need somebody who’s soft on crime like Jones.”

He also noted that the allegations came from behavior alleged to have happened decades ago.

“Forty years is a long time,” Trump said, questioning why it took so long for Moore’s accusers to come forward.

That is, if this had happened why has she never mentioned it before to anyone at any time during the seven previous times Moore had run for office? Why did the forged signature carry the intials “DA” which did not mean “District Attorney” but were the initials of his assistant who wrote her initials next to the stamped signature of her boss on this very woman’s divorce decree which Moore presided over without her saying a word or asking for a different judge. But senior Republicans, including his daughter, have ended up in the ads being run by the Democrat.

Jones began airing a new ad Monday that features statements made by Sessions, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby and first daughter Ivanka Trump responding to the allegations against Moore.

Shelby, a fellow Republican, said he will “absolutely not” vote for Moore. Ivanka Trump said there’s “a special place in hell” for people who prey on children.

“I’ve yet to see a valid explanation, and I have no reason to doubt the victims’ accounts,” Ivanka Trump told the AP last week.

The one certainty I have that in six months time, Al Franken will still be the Democratic Senator from Minnesota. The great uncertainty I have is who will be elected to the Senate from Alabama in December.

It really is a swamp. How Trump remains so sure-footed in amongst it is one of the political wonders of the age. PDT must despair at the people who surround him and on whose support he depends.

Would you buy a used car from this man?

obamacare cartoon

In politics you have little to trade with other than your word and your ability to bring others along with you. You can be the smartest guy in the room but if no one wants to follow where you want to lead than you are, politically speaking, a failure. But if your word cannot be trusted even by people on your own side, specially by people on your own side, then you are utterly done for, washed up and a cipher. The disintegration of Barack Obama’s presidency continues.

It of course does not matter that I and others like me do not trust the American president. That distrust goes back to virtually the day I first learned anything about him. But it has taken a while for the American electorate in general to even begin to have an inkling of just how dangerous to their own future health and welfare having elected Obama as president has been. And it has been the lies he told to get his most important single piece of legislation through Congress that is doing him in. With his friends in the media, there is no reason to be certain that this will remain a problem into the longer term but it is a problem for now.

A quite remarkable assessment has been offered by Marc Thiessen who was a speech writer in the GWB White House. The article is titled quietly enough, A dishonest presidency but it truly brings home just how much damage Obama has brought upon himself.

It’s not easy to get a lie into a presidential speech. Every draft address is circulated to the White House senior staff and key Cabinet officials in something called the ‘staffing process.’ Every line is reviewed by dozens of senior officials, who offer comments and factual corrections. During this process, it turns out, some of Obama’s policy advisers objected to the ‘you can keep your plan’ pledge, pointing out that it was untrue. But it stayed in the speech. That does not happen by accident. It requires a willful intent to deceive.

A willful intent to deceive is a lie. You cannot trust Obama on anything. He is a flimflam man, con artist, a flake and two-bit hustler. You may think such lies are common in politics but they are in fact quite rare. Gillard never overcame her false promise that there would never be a carbon tax under a government she led just as George Bush Snr never outlived, “read my lips, no new taxes”.

But what does Obama care? His constituency is made up of the lofo voters, the one’s who are made dependent on the state and for whom nothing matters but the free stuff that must continue to flow.