This is what YouTube, Twitter and Facebook and some other so called „public squares“ do and have been doing for a while now. Of course they will always claim they are open platforms of free speech, that they will only censor and kick off the worst of the worst, because it’s part of their playbook. The trick was, and it was recognized by many only in the last few years, that they began as a honest public platform, practically invited anyone to participate, with very very few exceptions. This is how they gained public trust and political clout, as well as a special law for them to be held unaccountable for illegal content. It is called section 230 in the USA, but is implicitly accepted all over the world (except for countries which installed an effective internet border, like China, North Korea, Iran, etc.).
How do they manufacture consent? They will only promote messages from “creators” who fall in line with the socialist, progressive agenda. They demote any opposing thoughts as much as possible. They cancel anyone who is actually good in arguing against the progressive agenda. In this way, they appear just as the so called mainstream media. Anyone you see or hear or read on ‘social media’ arguing against the ‘progressives’ is either a doofus or some milquetoast actor, so that the first glance impression of the regular user is: The people against progressiveness are lame ducks and idiots. The strong voices of the opposition are either already canceled or deeply buried under the algorithms that make them very hard to find.
In effect, the typical user of social media gets only reinforcing messages about the eternal goodness of progressivism. The only diversity is the messaging directed to specific classes or IQ-levels of the population. The actors speaking to the ‘barely finished high school graduates’ are more rough types. The actors for the bachelor and master graduates are professors and scholars of some repute in the progressive arena. To the unaware user, and most use social media mainly for entertainment, the world consists of a.) brave truth tellers, highly regarded scholars, and b.) a bunch of renegade, stupid, back-country morons, who can’t get along with the modern world.
You keep them stupid and I’ll keep them poor said the king to the pope.
A critical thing that many don’t realize is, that brand management, focus groups, marketing basics for products coincide with the same issues in political branding, focus and marketing. The basics are derived from Freud’s psychology, even though Freud didn’t know this then. His nephew Edward Bernays wrote some scholarly work about it, but one of the first practitioners was Ernest Dichter, an Austrian Jew who emigrated to the USA in 1938 (smart move). Even though Dichter didn’t make any scholarly advances, he became probably the most successful marketing professional of all times. Many companies changed their approach to advertising because of him. It’s interesting that not a scholar, but a journalist sparked the idea of the government being the propaganda machine to direct public opinion in democracies (1922) – it was Walter Lippmann (another Jew of German origin).
In depth interviews with so called ‘focus groups’ was a Dichter invention and is still used today. And Bernays used the same methods to make cigarette smoking more attractive for women. The science behind their methods is still disputed, but they were rather amoral and used their experiments for social engineering. And they were very good at that.
As I had mainly positive experiences with Jews, I don’t subscribe to the general Jew hatred among the so called ‘Right’. But fuck me, if there weren’t a lot of Germans involved in the leading ideas about public manipulation and propaganda. I remain deeply suspicious about democracy, because of these issues. It’s just too easy to manipulate if you got enough advertising dollars.
So, what the social media companies do is, they apply the same principles for product advertising to political advertising. And these principles always work, until they are disrupted. That’s what Trump did, as he understands this principle deeply. You could say he is the modern day marketing icon. A master of branding, as it became clear while defeating his opponents in the presidential race 2016.
A bit of a backstory
I came early, but a bit late into computer programming. In the late 70’s I used data base systems to build a factory manufacturing system, in my teens, but SAP rolled that market up. Some of that ‘community’ (there weren’t that many in the early 80’s) looked at how to commercialize internet use, databases and some kind of interoperability. Mind you, that the WWW was invented in 1989/1990 and we didn’t have a clue (only dreams) about this 5-10 years earlier. We thought that the only way to make money with this, was to approach big companies and sell them ads or sponsor us. To the Lefties we were at that age (early 20’s), this seemed disgusting. Barely anyone wanted to get involved. That’s why I’m just a millionaire today instead of a billionaire. Pitty me 😉
I went into hardware integration into computer nets, and ignored the coming internet for quite some time. Can’t complain too much about my personal achievements, but that’s how it went. Enough about me.
My message
To reinforce the message I’m trying to convey here, the current social media giants are designed to disadvantage and manipulate the typical user. They focus on selling you stuff, not only goods and services, but also political opinions. It’s more or less the same thing for Google, Facebook, Twitter etc., to advertise for Nike or for the Democrat Party. As I said before, neoliberal-socialism wants to have the maximum amount of potential buyers and a limited amount of producers. Mind you that this is the basic principle that the so called elites are following today. As soon as you realize this, you understand why the ‘consumer base’ needs to be expanded (by immigration, trade deals or else), and why the Covidianism, great reset, etc. are used to eliminate small and medium business.
If you adopt this logic, suddenly all makes sense. Doesn’t it? You need to eat and drink, clothing etc. right? It doesn’t make much of a difference to the big distributors, if you do that at home, or in a public venue (restaurant, shop). Internet based distributors like Amazon have a much better profit margin than any mom and pop shop. They will always win in the long run.
I was many times in the US and Canada. Strip malls look 80+% the same. Here in the Philippines as well. The same chain stores. The same chain restaurants. Largely even the same grocery stores. And during the COVID regime, most of the individual, independent stores went bankrupt. The longer this goes on, the lower their chance to recover or start anew.
How does this work for the big internet companies? It’s kind of obvious if you followed me until here. It takes 80% as much effort (Manpower) to make an internet marketing strategy for a small company as for a large company. The returns for a large company are way way higher as for a small company. What do you think they will focus on? It’s called ‘economies of scale’. As a big buyer/distributor, you can pressure you suppliers into contracts they don’t like, but they don’t have an alternative anymore.
You as a consumer are unable to resist the psychological marketing strategies of the big companies,as well as the dominant parties. That’s just the way it is. Whatcha gonna do? Burn it all down like BLM and ANTIFA? Good luck with that. Maybe we really need a reset, not the ‘great reset’ though…..
To end on a lighter note: More than 2 pronouns cause climate change!
luisman's blog 
Reblogged this on Nicht-Linke Blogs.
LikeLike