portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

media criticism | political theory

Tips on Effective Propaganda

propaganda public relations propaganda journalism media campaign propaganda framing news
Tips on effective Propaganda & Public Relations
Images in Their Heads
author: your mom e-mail:e-mail:  thehistory@mahost.org

This guide is intended to be the most functional, reference and introduction to propaganda. I intend to cover as much ground in the shortest form possible; so you could call it utilitarian. While no hands are held- if you have any experience with the media, lying to your parents, or reading into shit you should be able to use this as a very valuable guidepost on your way to mindFucking freedom.

Tips on Effective Propaganda AKA 'Public Relations':

author: mr. sparkle e-mail:  thehistory@mutualaid.org

Updated 2010, copyright 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010

Recession edition-

*Now with 50% more Bushisms free!*

Tips on Effective Propaganda AKA 'Public Relations': Or Mind Control in a Democratic Society

This guide is intended to be the most functional, reference and introduction to propaganda. I intend to cover as much ground in the shortest form possible; so you could call it utilitarian. While no hands are held- if you have any experience with the media, lying to your parents, or reading into shit you should be able to use this as a very valuable guidepost on your way to mindFucking freedom.

Tips on Effective Propaganda AKA 'Public Relations':

_______________-A primer-__________________

' :By: '



W/ some thanks to the Freddies, and even more thanks to PDX,

you know who you are. PS: Save the Fucking Trees!

V. 1.3 ; 2010

Cascadia Copyright / Feel free | encouraged to use, and distribute freely as long as document remains intact and proper credit goes to me. Quote as necessary / fair use. Just so long as no profit is gained! (This means you MicroCosm)

Disclaimer/Preface: This is a zine that's a long time coming.

Starting with a desire to beat the media masters at their own game on their own turf. After years of competing for middle america's attention and frustrated trying to reach an audience already held captive by media elite I decided to join that elite and catch my share. I finally went all the way to University to learn the tricks of the trade so that they could be brought back to you dear reader. I intend to cover as much ground in the shortest form possible; so you could call it utilitarian. Although this may contain new terms to you, it should be comprehensive enough to give you all you need, and google the rest.

Enjoy. And drink responsibly.




Now politely referred to as 'Public Relations' I prefer to call it as it is, was, and always will be, propaganda. The official definition or function rather of PR is to "Adjust an organization to its environment, and more specifically [as my professor chuckles] to adjust an environment to its organization". This Zine draws from roughly 100 years of knowledge gathered from the most tested, tried and true sources. Many should be able to find use in this including those wishing to write better press releases for their band and hopefully future versions including more in-depth knowledge and a broader scope. And to those involved with the pioneering of said knowledge:

Edward Bernays & Ivy Lee, Walter Lippman, Eichmann, Mien Kampf; Hill & Knowlton (think gulf war); Pavlov & Frued, & Modern Psychologists; What more can I say than- see you in hell. Special Thanks to Noam Chomsky & Ralph Nadar & Marshal McLuhan for free thought and seatbelts.

Walter Lippman was an influential journalist and thinker that came to shape the field radically. Although many of his theories have since been scientifically disproven their legacy lives on. Shameful theories on the publics lack of sense, have not only been disproven but simultaneously have become somewhat self-prophetic. This view of the "irrational public" has been shaping legislators decisions for last hundred years and is still a popular theory of thought today. It has led to a dramatic decrease in funding for public education, as well as an equally large surge of funding has gone towards manipulative advertising and thought persuasion. The theory endorses the idea that the 'public' is irrational as body and does not engage in rational thought. Nor does the public have a set of consistent values or beliefs but is merely ruled by prevailing slogans and hearsay of the time. The idea actually stretches at least as far back as ancient Rome, and the idea of filius familias. This has led to the idea that since the public is too dumb to fend for itself the rulers of society must make the most prudent decisions for everyone as a whole, and simply convince the public this was best course; after the decision has been already made. Modern political theory has found through the science of polling (Gallup in particular deserves credit for the development of this field), that the body public is in fact NOT IRRATIONAL but is merely subject to SHIFTING REFERENTS. In other words, the public does have a firm set of beliefs it makes its judgments on, merely its perception of the world changes and therefor its stance on certain situations may change along with their interpretation of it. The core beliefs people base their decisions on does not change, and therefore the body public is NOT irrational.

The problem with this is credit. The ruling class gives no 'credit' to anyone who is not a member of their fraternity and are subsequently treated as dogs, cruel not to feed them yes, but undeserving of a seat at the table. In their own decisions, and the decisions made for society they are left out. Critical thought is not taught in schools, but a Prussian based system of military style order and discipline. Free and critical thought is reserved only for the children of the ruling one percent: their theory is anything more would be wasted. The rest are simply taught to obey and follow orders, yes livestock are valuable, only so long as they are complacent and trained. A dog is no good that bites his master. Ergo, Here comes Public Relations to save (or ruin) the day. A tool for the elite to 'relate' with the 'public'. To convince them their goals are the same, the means necessary, the ends justifiable. And of course we are ALL human, so corruptible. The elite act in their own interests (as is human nature), and society, no longer truly democratic or representative is become a club house for the one-per centers, corrupt, self-serving. Sound familiar? The issue is that at the core of modern American & Western thought is that it is still far better to rule a public with some outlet for grievances, and some illusion of input than rule by the club and sword. It is far easier to clean up, and much nicer looking. Truly as the cigarette slogan says, we've come a long way baby. This is why public relations or propaganda has become so critical. It is the battlefield upon which most modern battles are fought, not with sword and steam but with pen and mind. PR is the force which shapes modern society. It is critical!

"We don't believe in planners and decider's making the decisions on behalf of Americans." - GW Bush

Authors note:

[( Mind you is there really such a thing as a public? Since it is made up of individuals, it contains the same laggards as does genii of society and cannot be equally condemned as thoughtless, as it is wise). Like many abusive or oppressive procedures, I find it merely a justification for abusive rule in society.]

"Influenced by the writings of Sigmund Freud, Lippmann came to feel that humanity, ill-informed and subject to partiality, is driven by irrational impulses. His most influential book Public Opinion (1922) consolidated these ideas into an analysis said by Edward Bernays to have launched the profession of public relations. The Phantom Public (1925) was even more pessimistic." Answer's.com, Biographies


- Tools of the Trade

- Rules for effective propaganda

- Media Relations

- Meeting the Press

- Tips on Framing issues

- PR Example



Like any trade, propaganda has its own tools. Corporations and PR firms have traditionally used things such as press conferences and releases with a large degree of success to communicate their message along with paid advertisements. However they are limited (although sometimes marginally) to the means by which they do so. Extra-legally they have [some] standards they have to uphold [only when someone is watching, seriously] and the degree to which people will find their message credible. Many groups will find that these standards do not apply to them or that you may even get a great deal more mileage out of the creative employment of less traditional / a-synchronous communication (Guerrilla Media). So keep this in mind as while I won't encourage any abhorrent behavior I wouldn't suggest you do anything less either. Remember, all's fair in war and capitalism so long as no-one's watching. And it should be noted some of the first acts of PR 100 years ago involved setting up funds/trusts/foundations for people said corporation hurt so as to give an impression of care and take heat off an issue where there is truly little compassion. - i.e. McDonald's setting up the 'healthy bodies' foundation or some bullshit, use your imagination, sky's the limit.

Press releases: Broadcast & Print


>Use the 'Hard News' format

>Most important info first, then in descending order of importance additional information should be written.

As far as Press Releases go, I've seen a lot and most are awful. Keep in mind media outlets receive hundreds upon hundreds a day. Your best bet is to keep it SHORT and simple. 5-8 lines for an event should be PLENTY. You should also be wise to note press times for said outlets (see notes on newsworthiness).

-=- Be sure to include at the top: -=-

- One contact person, (This is important; if you have several people working as contacts, several version of the 'story' may come out. This isn't necessarily a good thing, especially when doing damage control)

- Date/Time for release (immediately is popular), & The date published.

If your event is on a Saturday... well good luck on getting it on the local Sat. night news. Because most towns don't have a Sat. news program. You'd be surprised at how many people overlook these details. Deadlines for Newspapers and TV are similar. Call for specifics but 12-2 the day of for broadcast media; and 4pm the previous day for print media is a handy rule of thumb.



Send along with a press release, in what is called a press kit.

- Key background info

- History

- Charts / graphs / video

Think like the journalist who may be covering your story. If they choose to follow it based on your press release they may not have much time to research your topic to the extent you already know about. Remember their job is just to tell the story, not research it or become experts on it. Once you have gotten their ATTENTION with your press release you can include all the pertinent facts, as well as video footage or something they can show to the audience. This may additionally influence a journalists coverage of a story. Because if your press release includes a whole report and some video, they can fill their nightly story quota (of lets pretend four stories); easily by running 'your story' because they will already have the research they need to put together a good piece. Versus having to go out and do the research themselves. Hey it's harder than it looks!

Video News Releases:


Like a press release a VNR is where you film your own story and submit it to a television station in hopes they run it for you [free advertising!!]. There are several important things to remember however. A VNR - MUST - look, and feel just like the other programming it is running with; otherwise there is no way a program manager will run something that is shoddy looking. For example something where the 'newscaster' doesn't fit in with the normal look. Something that isn't written in the proper grammatical style, Something that isn't lit with a light meter. You get the idea. This is also where it comes in very handy to know / or have slept with some of the local newscasters so you already have a friend on the inside, so to speak.

One way around this is to have a public relations event that will coax the newscasters out, and film your event for you. Think balloons, circus animals, licensed explosions; something really catchy that is competitive with everything else on TV.

Additionally you might choose to employ:

-Public Service Announcement's
-Collateral Publications (Newsletters, Brochures, Posters)
-Articles / 'Editorials'

The most effective reference is when it's used once or twice in a whole article where it is the actual subject. If you write a two page article on the joys of gardening, you may include one sentence at the very end that mentions how specific brands of domestic fertilizer contain large amounts of heavy metals. This way it will seem like a tip from an expert rather than a rant against a specific brand and is likely to garner you more support, than if you seem fanatical.

Remember to talk at cross-purposes, it is difficult in theory to criticize something you aren't 'talking about'. For example if you are turning a landfill into a park and set the dialog at -park-, anyone against it would be criticizing a park (who does that?) not a landfill. I know this is vague but I think you get the drift. Additionally this can be turned to your advantage if you are well positioned and have a confident speaker; in terms of exposing a 'lie'. Beware, if not done deftly & gracefully it will certainly backfire on you and destroy your credibility.

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." - GW Bush, again. I'm not sure if he's a great PR man or the worst one. Some of the great masters have always been contradictory & enigmatic, eh reader?

Speakers, Presentations, Street Theater:

-Speakers Bureau's. Have a list of public speakers at the ready, the longer the better, (why not). Make sure they are well trained however, and make certain they are also skilled at 'staying on message'. They can be farmed out to morning talk shows and the like as 'experts' on the topic. It may be important to have some distance from your speakers in case they fuck up. This is why we call them experts and not spokespeople. If they damage something it will be their own credibility; not yours at stake.

Rules for effective propaganda:

-Always portray yours as a life & death struggle (help convey urgency)

-Always address your message exclusively to the masses:

Don't give the impression their is a specialized group of concerned, but the impression that all are concerned

-The 'intelligentsia' need not propaganda but instruction

-Anyone who wishes to concern themselves will need to seek out information piece by piece so they may put it together themselves. This greatly increases the credibility of the information as it is not gleaned from one source. It also acts strongly to make information internalized as the target is lead to build the forgone conclusion themselves

-Posters primary/only role should be to convey the 'subjects' significance. It is not meant to be entertaining or artistic at the messages expense. It's job is to simply draw attention to your idea or cause. That is all.

-If done well you should be calling the masses attention to certain:




Whose significance is then, for the first time, placed in their field of vision.

*There is also a guideline used in business to assess the stages of 'readiness' of the public. Used to focus your message more effectively, this can be extremely useful. Simply put, it goes:

-Awareness of your cause's existence
Use posters, advertisements, 'events' to draw awareness

-Awareness, coupled with a stance on your cause/issue
Public is aware, has a stance, if negative stance adjust accordingly to change that negative interpretation into a positive one. If a positive opinion exists, move to next step.

-Their willingness to believe your message /+/ & take action on it
Positive interpretation of your goal/cause/group. Use this, 'capitalize' on feeling of goodwill by asking people to: donate money, 'get involved', convince two friends, etc.

*{Modified from 'Consumer's Stages of Readiness' - ""The buyer's stage regarding readiness to buy a certain product or service. At any time, people are in different stages: unaware, aware, informed, interested, predisposed to buying, and intending to buy."" }

You should ideally using these guidelines to assess what stage your target is in (you may well have people in all varying stages). And focus specific messages at those targets taking them smoothly from one stage to the next.

-The 'art' in PR consists of doing this so skillfully everyone will be CONVINCED:
-The fact is real
-The process is necessary
-The necessity correct

-One of the propagandists roles is to get attention, NOT to educate

Education is usually best left to: discussion groups, public speakers, etc.

[Quite contrary to popular belief educating the public is so totally an auxiliary function]

-Aimed solely at EMOTIONS, propaganda should be very limited to the mind, focused on peoples emotions instead.

Whatever media you are using you should be trying to stir/steer peoples, hatred, love, anger, concern, frustration towards your ends. As I said, not speak truth to power.

-All propaganda MUST be popular

-Shoot for the lowest common intellectual denominator

Put broad appeal before intellectual appeal, and avoid excessive mental demands

*You must understand the EMOTIONAL IDEAS of the masses*

It is important to really understand where the majority of people are 'coming from' and appreciate those emotions. Otherwise you will be unable to connect with them and any communications you employ will be lost.

*Keep the campaign very limited to a few points
-You must harp on these in slogans until everyone knows them.

Bush Jr. said it best: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.""

-Make your arguments psychologically sound and 'preserve' for failure. [Prepare psychologically in an optimistic, yet aggressive way]

In other words, don't make your claims so outrageous that your audience finds them untrue and discredits you. When this tact is employed it can be effective in increasing allegiance by reinforcing beliefs.

One outlandish example would be to show giraffes eating leaves for example with a voice over stating "giraffes natural habitat, calm, serene, but there is more under the surface, giraffes are carnivores, they only eat leaves when they need help to digest... human babies."

You can link realistic behavior with your disgusting message so when people see giraffes eating leaves at the zoo they will have a different interpretation of the event. This works so long as no one finds out giraffes don't eat babies. Technically this would be an example of an unsound message, however amusing. If it were less dramatic it could be used effectively towards other means.

(For example recent drug ads linking real behavior with unrealistic actions.)


-Inclusive statements about potentially divisive events can be useful:

"Anarchists thought it was cool, yuppies thought it was a pain in the ass, but everyone found it necessary."

* Giving certain impressions to the impressionable you are actively creating the publics reality.

This is also known as framing an issue. One of the single most important things to do. Every side has a story, and in every story there is good v. bad. Framing tells your story in a way that makes you the good and 'them' the bad or villian of your story.

-Fire and impassion their hearts until they are ready to die
-Set 'them' up and prepare them psychologically for obstacles
-Take an unflinching, one sided attitude towards everything
-Public Relations is a function of communication management
-The ideal occurs when an organization is recognized and that recognition is interpreted positively

-There are two types of information:
Controlled (ads, speakers, etc)
Uncontrolled (Press conferences, News releases)

Media Relations:

-Elements of Newsworthiness (The criteria used to judge what will and won't go on that nights news)

-> Consequence:

Educates, informs, important to a lifestyle

-> Public interest:
Unusual, Entertaining, Arousing

-> Timeliness:
Current, Trendy

-> Proximity:
Involves famous people, local significance, events

*Everything is always on record. No matter what someone tells you. (Thx Ms. Chung)

Meeting the Press:

-Always answer phone calls

-Set up ground rules:
I can/will only talk about XYZ

-Set an agenda and stick to it

-Background info (rare)

-Don't assume expertise:
Of yourself, your audience, or the reporters.

-Presume innocence (don't act ashamed!)

-Set context
-Talk in sound bites!

Short sentences that stand on their own. If done properly no matter how the communications are 'spun' or edited your message will get out, and it will not be misinterpretable. In other words, make your speech a collection of your 'points' said over and over again in different ways. So no matter what portion of the speech is used for example it says the same thing. The craft is in making not sound like a collection of quotes but rather an actual speech.

*Note press deadlines and release times

-Don't intimidate the press! (They are your 'friends!')
-Never rush, guess, or dodge questions
-Follow up by phone

Tips on Framing issues:

This cannot be stressed enough!!!

The basic idea of framing an issue is that every argument is a story, and naturally every story has a good side, and an evil side. Your 'job' is to make you out to be the good side and the other side the evil one, of the story.

-Let there be a SPECIFIC call to action
-Reduce perceived costs of making change
-Make innovation easier to understand
-Increase perceived value of new idea
-Make issues less complex
-Reduce fear -- Unless you are connecting it with a solution


Below is US Federal news release that includes many of the above mentioned strategies such as "reducing perceived costs of making change", as well as many instances of good framing. It is an excellent example and will be annotated with a key at the end.

"US Unveils New Driver's License Rules" [1]

WASHINGTON - Americans born after Dec. 1, 1964, will have to get more secure [2] driver's licenses [3] in the next six years under ambitious post-9/11 security rules to be unveiled Friday by federal officials.

Federal Government has spent years crafting [4] the final regulations for the new driver's license designed to make it harder for terrorists [5], illegal immigrants and con artists to get government-issued identification. The effort once envisioned to take effect in 2008 has been pushed back in the hopes of winning over skeptical state officials [6].

Federal effort still faces stiff opposition from civil liberties groups [7].

To address some of those concerns, the government now plans to phase in a secure ID initiative that Congress passed into law in 2005. Now, DHS plans a key deadline in 2011 - when federal authorities hope all states will be in compliance [8] - and then further measures to be enacted three years later, according to congressional staffers who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because an announcement had not yet been made. DHS officials briefed legislative aides on the details late Thursday.

Michael Chertoff promoted the new rules Thursday with a council. "We worked very closely with the states in terms of developing a plan that I think will be inexpensive, reasonable [9] to implement and produce the results," he said. "This is a win-win. As long as people use driver's licenses [10] to identify themselves for whatever reason there's no reason for those licenses to be easily counterfeited [11] or tampered with."

In order to make the plan more appealing to cost-conscious [12] states, federal authorities drastically reduced the expected cost from $14.6 billion to $3.9 billion, a 73 percent [13] decline, according to Homeland Security officials familiar with the plan.

The American Civil Liberties Union has fiercely objected to the effort, particularly the sharing of personal data among government agencies. The DHS and other officials say the only way to make sure an ID is safe is to check it against secure government data; critics like the ACLU say that creates a system that is more likely to be infiltrated and have its personal data pilfered.

In its written objection to the law, the ACLU claims REAL [14] ID amounts to the "first-ever national identity card system," which "would irreparably damage the fabric of American life."

The Sept. 11 attacks were the main motivation for the changes. [15]

The hijacker-pilot who flew into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had a total of four driver's licenses and ID cards from three states. The DHS, which was created in response to the attacks, has created a slogan for REAL ID: "One driver, one license."

By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a REAL ID-compliant driver's license, with the notable exception of those more than 50 years old.

The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone new licenses, and officials say the risk of someone in that age group being a terrorist, illegal immigrant or con artist is much less. By 2017, even those over 50 must have a REAL ID-compliant card to board a plane.

The photograph would be taken at the beginning of the application instead of the end so that should someone be rejected the applicant's photo would be kept on file and checked in the future if that person attempted to apply again.

The cards will have other security measures but will not contain microchips as some had expected. States will be able to choose from a menu which security measures they will put in their cards.

Most states currently check Social Security numbers and about half check immigration status. Some, like New York, Virginia, North Carolina and California, already have implemented many of the security measures envisioned in REAL ID. In California officials expect the only big change would be to take the photograph at the beginning of the application process instead of the end.

The State Department will check with other states to ensure an applicant doesn't have more than one license.

A handful of states have already passed legislation or resolutions objecting to the plan, often based on concerns about the extra cost [16].



Note: The proposed change only affects those born after 1964, one could imagine because the government realizing it had people "at different stages" allowed for an exception for those who would likely be its fiercest critics.

[1] Framing the issue, done throughout the release. Notice the language used. As Marshal McLuhan said "the medium is the message". It frames the issue of national citizen database as "driver license rules". A far less controversial topic.

[2] Again 'good' framing, it calls a national citizen info database, "more secure" as if to say current standards are not secure (ie. You are in danger!) Note: "Do not increase fear-> UNLESS connecting it with a solution. There ya' go.

[3] "driver license" not National database

[4] Notice the language or 'qualifier' used, crafting as if to say "to make or produce with care, skill, or ingenuity"; not design, for example which would be to say "used execute, or construct according to plan. To conceive and plan <he designed the perfect crime>. To have as a purpose. To devise for a specific function or end. {Webster's dictionary} Much more sinister, although accurate.

[5] More framing, it is all in the language, when you are framing an argument you are essentially writing the story, the fiction of our lives. It is a competing story however most usually. As most all stories have a "good guy" and a "villain". The language used indicates the villain in this story is "terrorists" and "hijackers" those opposed to the political ends of the new world government {G.H.W. BUSH}. As to be different from war-criminals which the language uses to indicate in this case as the "good-guys".

[6] More framing, in this case the opponents are "state officials" and no one likes fat bureacrats right? In this case (used twice in this article) the Feds are saving us from "fat bureacrats". Isn't it ironic? Don't cha' think? A little too ironic, yeah I really do think. Notice no - where in the article does it mention ANY opposition by United States Citizens. In fact the article tends to portray the case that all US citizens approve of the plan; and it is only "fat cats" who have a problem with the plan. Not exactly representative democracy is it? Although to my knowledge no publicly released polling results are available I bet it is a vast majority of United States citizens that oppose the plan. Compared to only a very small minority of "State Representatives". Which would make the whole thing obviously more stinky. [sic]

[7] "Federal civil liberty groups" oppose the plan. Again no mention of private citizens. And fuck, who likes stinky hippies anyway (ACLU)? Certainly not middle America. Note how the article includes different aspects of society by using different statements with the same message, just different language throughout the article. See *6

[8] The language compliance is used, to 'frame' the idea, (fact) you have no choice. The 'law' is done. Comply, or converse implies: you are a criminal.

[9] "inexpensive... reasonable"; Reduce perceived costs of making change.

[10] The language "drivers license" is used again. Note that no where in the article, is the term National Database ID used explicitly. See above "the most effective reference is often only made once" or less. The whole article is about a National Citizen Database yet it does not explicitly mention the MAIN SUBJECT once. Very good. (The big idea being, you can't argue against something your not even talking about) Fox News does this ALL the time.

[11] Here we are talking about thwarting counterfeiters, it implies the project has nothing to do with "big brother". (it has everything to do with)

[12] Again, mentions only opposition is with "cost conscience" states. Again the issue here is costs, and states. Not citizens, not infringement of constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. If the article were explicitly about that imagine how much harder of pill this would be to swallow. Talking at cross purposes the propaganda gets you to accept something that is something else. The ol' bait'n switch. (see bait and switch)

[13] Reduce perceived costs of making change. So in the first half- the article frames the issue as being about cost. Then in the second half it says it solved the cost problem! When that's not even what it's about! (these guys are good, they obviously were good students)

[14] Language "REAL" used, in capitols. To say "your current license is fake", "unusable". The consistent problem with libertarians is the co-opt the language of the opposing sides propaganda, propagating the oppositions story. 'government good' 'citizen' = villain. It's going to be hard to get this 'story' to the forgone conclusion you want. If, throughout the story you are consistently portrayed as the "big bad wolf". Get it?

[15] Sept. 11 - Bad! Horror, & fear... aha! Don't worry they have a solution!

[16] Lies! Lies! Propaganda Hitler would be proud of. Check-it! A quick Google provided me with this information (source below). The article again, at the end re-iterates its points, or only point; cost. "keep your campaign simple and limited to only a few points. Repeat [ad naseum]". Where upon a fact check (hallmark of actual news vs. propaganda) provides the information that 33, not 17 states are in opposition (a 51% increase, typical of government accounting styles, also used when quoting number of physical protesters at events. Yet it goes unchallenged). as well as Federal Congressman (citizen representatives). And that opposition is in regard to Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. Furthermore the DHS, which is ostensibly the main proponent, has in fact rejected the proposal. Also note the time line of the entire hubris, it is done over a long period of time, from various outlets, making the outcome APPEAR inevitable.



"Real ID Revolt Spreads to 33 States", By Martin H. Bosworth, ConsumerAffairs.Com, May 9, 2007

At least 33 states are pushing for laws or resolutions blocking the program, the Senate recently held hearings on its implications for civil liberties, and the Department of Homeland Security's own privacy department gave the initiative the thumbs-down.

At Senate Judiciary Committee hearings yesterday, Jim Harper, policy analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute, testified that the program was a "dead letter." Harper criticized DHS for not providing strong federal guidelines for privacy and security for the program, leaving it to the states to handle.""

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Updated Summer 2009>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Good luck, More later, peace and love-

Go Feral!

homepage:  http://thehistory.mahost.org

wow 03.Aug.2010 13:30

Ecotopian Yeti a_cascadian@yahoo.com

Wow there are others who are awaken. I left this country some years ago .. just one of those expats that got lost during the Bush and now Obama years. I came back and started looking at leaving again. I keep telling people "none of this has to be this way. There is no reason for having the economy in this condition if you are willing to redifine what an economy is and redefine our current corporate view of a democracy. I have told people repeatedly that a revolution (socio-economic and political) could happen if we simply use the right memes and what I call the "vehicles of locomotion of ideas." I have told people repeatedly this and gave out my contact number while saying "if your interested contact me" with no response. I originally left this country after several Cascadian friends said "Cascadia is a great idea, but these people are just not ready for it"

Let me add to this list

Edward Bernays' Propaganda ..  http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html (his methods were used to enslave us in the mindsets that we are in and can be used to free us if we learn from it)

Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point .. the book can be found online even as an audiobook. here is a summary of chapters  http://www.wikisummaries.org/The_Tipping_Point

Ori Brafman's The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations .. the author was recruited by the Bush regime (I am very sure the Obama regime has retained his serve) to understand leaderless organization (they claim against "terror" but lets face it .. it was used to understand us and used as a weapon is the GreenScare) it is a crucial book for understanding how to succeed against empires (Spanish, Soviet or Corporatist). It is also easily available online or in the library ..  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starfish_and_the_Spider

Gene Sharp's From Dictatorship to Democracy .. I posted this as a pdf file in this and other forums a hundred million times and would bet three people might have read this. It is the book the CIA has used to manufacture non violent revolutions in former Soviet Georgia (the Rose Revolution), Ukraine (the Orange Revolution) and to a point the Yugoslav rebellion against Milosovic (the Bulldozer Revolution) one can download it at  http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations98ce.html

Robert Helvey's On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking About the Fundamentals .. downloadable from  http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations1c31.html

(CANVAS) Srdja Popovic, Andrej Milivojevic and Slobodan Djinovic's Nonviolent Struggle: 50 Crucial Points A Strategic Approach to Everyday Tactics ... great book with nice illustrations in color. Easy to follow tips. CANVAS was formally OTPOR the Serbian youth group that generated the democratic kiccking out of the Dictator of the Balkans. Free at  http://canvasopedia.mediaworks.rs/legacy/content/special/nvstruggle.htm or global.wisc.edu/peace/readings/cambridge-50-crucial-points.pdf

If anyone is truly interested in change I would love to get together and talk.


"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead

addition 03.Aug.2010 15:19

Ecotopian Yeti a_cascadian@yahoo.com

Just a note.. I would like to form a group of like minded individuals who would like to see Cascadia become a democratic socialist republic or ideally a bioregional cooperative commonwealth.. where corporations are dismantled and the workplace is democratized by use of having cooperatives .. a society that values and lives up to ecological rights and universal human rights which includes universal healthcare and universal education.

If you are interested contact me at  a_cascadian@yahoo.com

I do NOT want to hang out with Cascadians who think that all of Cascadia boils down to some microbrew beer or that there is some sort of ecological form of capitalism. Ideally I want to form a "think tank" where people see a future Cascadia as a contrast to structural violence and exploitation (which means we have a steep climb, but at least an honorable goal).

wow such a response 07.Aug.2010 23:14

Ecotopian Yeti

Wow all the e-mails I got.. where to begin (sarcasm). People are still too comfortable with their "beer and porn" the modern "panem et circenses" (bread and circuses). The revolution will be ignored.

okay I am sorry for the slap at microbrew beer 11.Aug.2010 00:58

Ecotopian Yeti a_cascadian@yahoo.com

I am sorry if i offended anyone who love or just dabbles in microbrew beer. Of course I doubt anyone is ready this any more.