by Project Censored

By Andrew Hobbs and Peter Phillips

Hyperreality is the inability to distinguish between what is real and what is not. Corporate media, Fox in particular, offers news that creates a hyperreality of real world problems and issues.  Consumers of corporate television news—especially those whose understandings are framed primarily from that medium alone—are embedded in a state of excited delirium and knowinglessness.

Corporate Media hasn’t acted as a cohesive, protective “fourth estate” in several decades, instead gilding lilies such as the Iraq war, torture and the true extent of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation. Contemporary corporate news is best seen in a post-modern context of hyperreality. The news from US networks is based on the presentations of partially factual stories framed inside socio-emotional story lines that juxtapose “evil” with patriotism and Christian fervor. There are multiple examples of this, but we will examine two distinct cases.

The bias towards hyperreality inherent in modern media is so rampant, consumers only need turn on the TV to be exposed to the spin. Two notorious, controversial modern figures will be examined here to explain what we mean by a hyperreality of knowinglessness.  News coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and right-wing radio personality Rush Limbaugh are unique examples, primarily because of their perceived opposing views and their unapparent similarities.  But they are similar in that both should have little operable relevance to American policy, at least domestically, as one is an entertainer and the other is the leader of another country. They both are media personalities as well: Limbaugh claims an audience of 20 million a week,1 while Chavez hosts a telecast every Sunday through which he speaks to millions of people of Venezuela. Further, they are both strongly ideological in their pursuit of their beliefs, which seem diametrically opposed to each other.

Unfortunately, they both have ill-gotten relevance, ironically at least partially gleaned from the massive amount of attention turned to them by their press adversaries. Thisallows an opportunity for analysis: what is the public consequence of attention, be it positive or negative?

The Evilness of Hugo Chavez

Big business would be foolish to ignore the threat posed to their supply side paradigm in Venezuela, since the longer reaches of Chavez’s influence may well extend to far wealthier economies. Should the people’s revolution in Venezuela gain footholds elsewhere, it will be difficult for those same economic models to be argued against here in the US.  If a country with resources like Venezuela’s is able to offer programs and facilities of a certain quality, why can’t the US, with it’s greater resource pool, repeat the success here? Since Chavez’s social advances for the people in Venezuela run so drastically contrary to those avowed to the captains of industry in the US, any action Chavez takes is systematically vilified by the US corporate media.

Fox News has been the epicenter for demonizing Chavez. Fox is one of the largest media outlets in the US. The station features such luminaries as Glen Beck, who once called Cindy Sheehan a “tragedy slut” and discussed murdering Michael Moore2 on his program. Fox attack pieces on Chavez are uniform and systematic to the point of redundancy. In examining transcripts from Fox news regarding Chavez, we find a continued use of emotionally negative descriptive terms like authoritarian, strongman, socialist, cruel, sinister, radical, militant, and dictator.  Chavez has repeatedly over the past decade been democratically elected by a vast majority of the people in Venezuela. However, the US corporate slant on Chavez is always the same predictable negative opposition filled with emotional slanders.

After Chavez used licensing laws to shut down RCTV in Caracas, possibly because the RCTV directors were heavily involved in the conspiracy to overthrow Chavez during the coup of 2002, Fox covered the incident as if censorship had been his motivation, pushing headlines such as “Protests in Venezuela Turn Ugly.”3 The first sections of Fox’s coverage were full of rubber bullets and tear gas; as the story dwindled, Fox continued to report unsubstantiated estimates of mass protesters and increasing authoritarianism. This is the essential structure to most any news on Chavez found in the US corporate media.

Unfortunately, Fox’s coverage never really examines the origins of the protests—as in, who are the people participating?  Are they the same individuals who so violently opposed Chavez a few years prior? A poll in Venezuela conducted after the closing of RCTV actually indicated a broad ambivalence towards the closing, with some 70 percent of those polled opposed to shutting down the station; however, most people indicated it was because their favorite soap operas and other programming were being cancelled.4

Fox News and Glen Beck seem adamant about tying Obama’s administration to socialism. Chavez provides a convenient straw man through which to beat up on progressivism, socialism, and President Obama as well. In a February, 2009 in a TV piece entitled “Would You Vote for Hugo Chavez?,”5 Beck claimed that the US is “on a highway to socialism” as a result of our move to “nationali[ze] our banks.” He then proposed that, with one more bank bailout, America could be ready for a Chavez presidency. Chavez has become, for Fox, a symbol of evil. The resulting emotional knowinglessness is being used to undermine the Obama presidency.  Fox completely ignores the facts of the enormous bailouts—which had been supported by the previous Bush administration—such as those for Bear Stearns and AIG. It uses hyperreal slander to describe Chavez, linking these feelings to Obama in a purely emotional manner without using logic or facts.

Led by President Hugo Chavez, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) gained over one and half million voters in the most recent elections November 23, 2008.  Before the election of Hugo Chavez as president in 1998, college attendance was primarily for the rich in Venezuela. Today, over 1,800,000 students attend college, three times the rate ten years ago.

For the lowest-income two thirds of people in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez means health care, jobs, food, and security in neighborhoods where in many cases nothing but absolute poverty existed ten years ago. With unemployment below a US level, sharing the wealth has taken real meaning in Venezuela. Despite a 50 percent increase in the prices of food last year, local Mercals offer government subsidized cooking oil, corn meal, meat, and powered milk at 30 to 50 percent discount. Additionally, there are now 3,500 local communal banks with a $1.6 billion dollar budget offering neighborhood-based micro-financing loans for home improvements, small businesses, and personal emergencies.

In Venezuela, the corporate media are still owned by the elites. The five major TV networks, and nine of ten of the major newspapers, maintain an effort to undermine Chavez and the socialist revolution. Despite the corporate media bias and the continuing financial support to anti-Chavez opposition institutions from USAID and National Endowment for Democracy ($20 million annually, paid for by US taxpayers), two-thirds of the people in Venezuela continue to support President Hugo Chavez and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela.

Fox has no bounds to it’s obsession with Chavez. They have run stories about his rocky divorce and child custody struggles as well as his vocal contribution to an album by artists “engaged in the Bolivarian Revolution.” Barack Obama’s greeting of Chavez at the Organization of American States meeting, and its potential diplomatic consequences, warranted Fox commentary from Karl Rove, John Bolton, Former US Ambassador to the UN, and Beck.6

There is an abundant source of negative Chavez news found on the Associated Press (AP) wires as well. AP’s stories are often close to Fox’s assertion that Venezuela is a socialist petro-fiefdom.

Chavez isn’’t without political moves;, as any leader democratically elected multiple times would have to be heavy-handed to some degree. Unfortunately, only half the story is reported in the US.  The best example of partial reporting is the coverage of Chavez’s not renewing the broadcast license of RCTV in 2006, by exercising the Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television. US reporting on this was completely myopic in nature.7 Had producers and executives of an American media outlet conspired against the US Government, they most certainly would have been dealt with in far stricter terms than those applied at RCTV.  RCTV was allowed to broadcast for the remainde[??1]r of their licensing period.

After the Constitutional Reforms of 2007, US corporate media outlets began claiming Chavez had inserted language into the constitution that could make him “President for life.” Again, this was a case of the truth being stretched. The changes had only included a reform that would have allowed a possible third term for Chavez. Other nations that do not have term limits at all include Germany, the UK, and Australia, yet none of these are labeled in the US media as “dictatorships.” That 2007 reform was ironically defeated, but a newer bill, removing term limits altogether, was passed in February of 2009.

The US corporate media doesn’t likely pose much difficulty to Chavez and his democratically elected agenda—he’s been winning elections since 1998. Moreover, what Chavez does in Venezuela has very little impact on policies and circumstances in the US. But the ongoing demonization of Chavez allows for the perpetuation of a deeply embedded emotional hyperreality inside American public consciousness. A hyperreal Chavez is continually available for comparison with other contemporary issues.

US corporate media ignores many contemporary dictators. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who sits on the throne of an autocratic dictatorship under which women have essentially no rights, holds a perennial place on the “Parade’s World’s Worst Dictator” list,8 as does Hu Jintao, China’s President. Searches for each leader on Fox’s website returns a total of 806 and 888 results, respectively, from their entire database. The same search for Chavez—the democratically elected leader of a country with just three million more people than Saudi Arabia, but a fraction of China’s population—yields 2,743 pages. Saudi Arabia, home of Osama Bin Laden and fifteen of the alleged nineteen 9/11 hijackers, is portrayed as an ally to the US.

The Glory of Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh has found himself in a position of far more influence than anybody except himself could ever believe. Anointed “boss” by both the press and the right-wing lawmakers who apologize to him after contradicting his ideology, Limbaugh has taken his continued popularity as mandate and continues to push his agenda.

Limbaugh has sharpened his attack since the 2008 election, as seen during a June 4, 2009 interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity.9 Hannity treated Limbaugh as something of a moral and constitutional authority, allowing him to conduct himself in an almost pastoral way, delivering dogmatic sermons an Americanism. Limbaugh maintained the position that Barack Obama’s efforts to restore the bruised economy are tantamount to socialism and fascism. Limbaugh joked, “Fidel Castro and I (Hugo Chavez), If we’re not careful, are going to end up to the right of Obama” in reference (though the context was not related) to General Motors becoming “Government Motors.” Limbaugh went on to say, “You can keep a chart here of who’s nationalizing more, Obama or Chavez . . . it’s probably neck and neck.”

Rush Limbaugh was in the middle of a storm of exchanges between the Democrat and Republican leadership during the early spring of 2009. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel10 claimed that the radio host is “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.” Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.” “My intent was not to go after Rush—I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. . . . There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

Crooner Pat Boone11 waxes poetic in a tribute piece: “Rush Limbaugh is a patriot. Pure and simple, a patriot. I see him in the select company of other patriots like Paul Revere, Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin. Thankfully, he hasn’’t been asked to make a dying proclamation like Nathan Hale—“‘I regret that I have but one life to give for my country’—but I suspect he would, if it came to that.”

Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly12 further holds Rush to be a model citizen: “One secret to Limbaugh’’s success is that he is not intimidated into appeasing the organized pressure groups that frighten so many others into platitudinous mush. He takes them all on: the radical feminists, the wacky environmentalists, the open-borders crowd, and even President George W. Bush’’s deviation from conservatism.”

Rush Limbaugh is a man of Christian values—although which congregation he attends remains a question—and believes that America is nation founded upon Christian principals.

Born in 1951 to a prominent Missouri family, young Rush was a Boy Scout but never earned a single merit badge. Perhaps to placate his parents, Limbaugh enrolled for two semesters and a summer at Southern Missouri State University; His mother told biographer Paul Colford that he had “flunked everything,”13 unable to pass even a modern ballroom dancing class. His career during the 1970’s was primarily spent as a music station DJ, moving from station to station before taking a stint as director of promotions for the Kansas City Royals in 1979. Returning to the airwaves in 1984, it wasn’t until the Reagan administration repealed the fairness doctrine that Rush was able to hit his full stride.

How and when was it that he has gained this fluency, which he purports to possess, and how does it display itself? Consider Limbaugh’s May 14, 2008 commentary from his radio program concerning the Great Depression and his choice of adversaries to defame.14 The Straw Man, a favorite tactic of Rush’s, is deployed. He Google searches some terms trying to uncover popular hits explaining the Great Depression; his search yields, predictably, an academic paper titled “The Main Causes of the Great Depression” published in 1996. Rush systematically disassembles the paper like an angry professor, not so much refuting it as ridiculing it, finally concluding that it should be checked for plagiarism against the works of Karl Marx. He goes on to claim the author, Paul Gusmorino, is “exactly wrong” after saying, “I didn’’t end up in college and have my mind polluted and brainwashed by a bunch of Marxist professors.” Unfortunately for Rush, neither had the piece’s author Gusmorino. Gusmorino, who is currently a Program Manager for Microsoft, was in tenth grade when he wrote the piece in 1996—hardly a Marxist political economy professor.

Rush Limbaugh inside the corporate media is a caricature of patriotism and Christian values. That he lacks factual understandings of socio-political circumstances doesn’t matter in a hyperreal corporate media system. Just the fact that he is openly discussed by both political parties sets forth a emotionally-based parody of specific issues and creates an excited delirium of knowinglessness.

What’s the Score Here?

Michael Savage found himself banned from the UK15 after his tone was “allegedly fostering extremism or hatred,” citing his claim that the “Qur’an . . . is a ‘book of hate.’” Yet in the US there are no such challenges of hate speakers like Limbaugh in the corporate media. The US as a society has seen an undeniable upswing in domestic extremism since the change of administrations.  Individuals associated with right-wing groups or following traditionally right-leaning causes, such as gun control or abortion, have emerged in patterns of hate-based excited deliriums.

On the night of Obama’s inauguration, “self-proclaimed white supremacist” Keith Luke was arrested following an apparent multiple rape-homicide, which left two dead and a third severely injured and raped; all his victims were black. He had been planning to end the spree with a massacre at a local synagogue’s “Bingo Night.”

Three Pittsburgh Police officers paid with their lives for Richard Poplawski’s paranoid fear that the Obama administration was going to take his guns.

Dr. George Tiller, survivor of multiple attempts on his life already, was gunned down in his own church, serving as an usher for the Sunday, May 31, 2009 service.

Just ten days later, eighty-eight-year old white supremacist, James von Brunn, took the life of a security guard and injured others after he opened fire at the US Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. These are but the outliers that reflect a disturbing trend. Already, some are questioning the role the media may be playing.16 Perhaps it is not fair to blame corporate media for right-wing extremism, but an expanding knowinglessness is undoubtedly a contributing factor.

Without a context of factual understanding, Glenn Beck is able to say on national Fox television news that the shooting at the Holocaust Museum was openly supported by 9/11 truth people. Beck claimed17 that 9/11 truth proponents see James von Brunn as a “hero.” Beck’s statement is completely without factual merit and represents a hyperreal emotional slamming of a group already slanderously pre-labeled by the corporate media as conspiracy theorists. Beck continued his diatribe by further equating 9/11 truth with white supremacy and Al Qaeda, claiming that they all want to “destroy the country” (See Chapter Ten for an update on 9/11 issues).

Our cultural decline will continue as long as the spin that incites it is present.  The consumer body itself will eventually decide that these messages are meaningless. The ongoing decline of confidence in US corporate media is already evidence of such a reversal of belief. This becomes apparent when news—as entertainment media—follows the same paradigm as any media, which is highly cyclical and repetitious in nature: it loses appeal and the carrier eventually fails.

Meanwhile, many Americans are deeply imbedded in a state of excited delirium of knowinglessness.  Reversing this tendency is a vital part of building media democracy. Only a vibrant independent news media based in rational factually-researched news can alleviate our crisis of hyperreality.

Andrew Hobbs is a Philosophy major at Sonoma State University. Research assistance on this chapter was provided by SSU students Ian Marlowe and Kevin Gonzalez.


1 “Limbaugh’s Audience Size? It’s Largely Up in the Air,” The Washington Post, March 7, 2009.

2 The Glenn Beck Program, August 15, 2005 and May 17, 2005, respectively.

3 See,2933,275912,00.html

4 “Venezuela replaces opposition TV with state network,” Reuters, May 28, 2007.

5 See,2933,494065,00.html

6 Fox News Contributors, “By Greeting Hugo Chavez, Is President Obama slighting US allies?” April 21, 2009.

7 “Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs,” FAIR, May 25, 2007.

8 See

9 Fox News, “Rush Limbaugh on Hannity,” June 4, 2009.

10 “Steele to Rush: I’m Sorry,” Politico, March 2, 2009.

11 See

12 See

13 Paul D. Colford, The Rush Limbaugh Story: Talent On Loan From God: An Unauthorized Biography (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993).

14 See

15 See

16 Errol Louis, “Connect the dots of hatred . . .” New York Daily News, June 14, 2009.

17 See

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Phil E. Drifter
Phil E. Drifter
12 years ago

I suggest anyone who reads this also read by Michael Ruppert which explains how the CIA owns Wall Street, illegal drug profits run the world economy, and drug cartels loan money at better interest rates than banks which also allows them to launder their money back into the system; and which explains how 3 generations of the Bush family have profited immensely from financing other countries before the US decides to invade and destroy them (“From Hitler to Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden: The Best Enemies Money Can Buy”)

And if you have under $20 to spare, order a copy of “Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil” from, also by Michael Ruppert.

12 years ago


This is one of the best propaganda pieces I’ve ever read!

To any objective observer, Chavez is a socialist with aspirations of a dictatorship. He’s very effective at socializing Venezuela, and some people applaud that. Many of his actions would violate the U.S. Constitution (remember that?) but he does not hesitate to quell disagreement.

Your comments on Beck, Limbaugh, etc. are confusing and inconsistent when compared to your comments on Venezuela,

Be proud of your Socialism. You do not need to cherry-pick sound bites or spout irrelevant insinuations about someone’s intelligence (guess what? Intelligence has nothing to do with how much time you spent in school.).

Successful progressives throughout history have used SIMPLE messages to show how bad any opposing or resistant people are. Do not leave any room for debate and remember that religion, race and class can always be used to isolate anyone you disagree with.


12 years ago


“knowinglessness” is not an English word.

Again, keep it simple and use a spell/grammar checker 🙂

12 years ago

To: Phil E. Drifter


This supposedly took place in 1999.

The Clinton administration couldn’t keep secret who the President “knew” and Bush’s administration couldn’t keep the NSA and FBI antics secret even AFTER 9/11.

This is supposed to be credible? Puulease.

12 years ago

Can you say propaganda?

hehehehe, what a bunch of bull.

12 years ago


12 years ago

“knowinglessness” what is it about pseudo-liberals that make them want to change the meaning of words, and completely make up new ones?

If it were up to people like you and Sean Penn, we would be imprisoned for criticizing Hugo. I suppose Che was really a nice guy too huh?

12 years ago

Fact….. Chavez was democratically elected by his people since 1998,.

Fact….More people have come out of poverty under Chavez

Fact….More children have graduated from Collage then at any other point in Venezuela history.

It’s not a matter of socialism ….it’s a matter of people doing better across the board. Something the US can never except.


12 years ago

I gather that both of the authors of this article, have spent much time in Venezuela and are experts on “the Hyperreality of a Failing Corporate Media System. Fox, NBC (GE) etc. You don’t like corporate news, Wow, It’s called “freedom of the press”, just as your article is BS some people think the same of “Fox”,NBC, CBS etc. They have the right to their opinions, just as you have the right to yours
I am married to Wonderful Woman from Venezuela, have been to that wonderful country much time there, before and now during Chavez. We have a home there, we have seen the “CHANGE” sound fimiliar. It is no for the good. People are not doing better across the board, crime is up all over the country. So unless you have been there and really knows what is going on don’t tell us how well Venezuela is fairing.

12 years ago

I am Venezuelan and I just want to remark on this statement: “Before the election of Hugo Chavez as president in 1998, college attendance was primarily for the rich in Venezuela. Today, over 1,800,000 students attend college, three times the rate ten years ago.”

There has been public (free) universities in Venezuela for the last 50 years, even more in the case of some of them. My mum’s family was poor during the 50s and 60s, yet out of 7 siblings, 4 went to college. On my dad’s side, a bit better off because my grand father was an office clerk, all three children went to public universities and became professionals. During the 80’s and 90s, my siblings, cousins and I also went to public universities -including the one considered to be the best of the country, Simon Bolivar University, in the case of some of them.

University towns and cities are littered with low-priced “student inns” and second-hand text book stores and stalls and, albeit with difficulty, even the poorest student, if she or he puts her/his mind to it and finds family/church/and government support, has always been able to attend college. Education has been the greatest social movilizer in Venezuela in the last 50 years, well before the arrival of Hugo Chavez.. In fact, public universities offer such a good education, that rich kids try to get in them too.

If there is a class proble in the situation, is that privately educated high-schoolers would have better chance at passing admisssion test; so there may be an unfair situation in that sense. That said, a great number of publically educated high-schoolers (myself included) have passed the test and have been admitted to public universities and a good number or privately educated kids have not cut it, and have been sent to private universities, which until recently, where viewed as a less desirable option, since many felt that education was compromised by the economical power parent could hold over the university.

While I would not dispute the number of new graduate produced by the government of Chavez, the quality of such education is patchy, to say the least. Many of them belong to what its called the “Third-Age University”, aimed to over 50s, many of whom, although grateful at the opportunity of learning and the scholarship that comes with it, have little or no interest of truly changing careers (It’s notoriously difficult to get a new job in Venezuela after the age of 40, let alone to get one in which you have no previous experience.)

Additionally, university education in Venezuela is a five-year commitment; Chavez’s graduates are getting a degree in half that time, and if you would explore “chavistas'” forums, you would find many of them complaining, because, once graduated, not even the government wants to employ them.

Thomas Mallon
Thomas Mallon
11 years ago

Interesting article, but obviously—when subject to deep political analysis—showing a connection to (if not entirely written for) the Israeli Lobby.

Melissia Gaymon
11 years ago

Have you had problems with spammers? I also use Blog Engine and I have some good anti-spam practices; please Email me if you happen to be interested in an exchange of ideas.

Paul Edwards
Paul Edwards
11 years ago

Inventing a word, like “knowinglessness” to give color in a single work is a time honored tradition. Ever heard of “jabberwocky”? Now when a president, like Bushie the 2nd (or “Sparky” as I call him) uses nonsensical words or the wrong words (like nucular instead of nuclear) that is incorrect. Or when someone who gets their “information” from corporate-owned news tries to lecture us about the world, that is incorrect. Steve, who posts above, trying to use three-syllable words who’s meaning he doesn’t understand, is incorrect. The writer of this article is, on the other hand, quite correct–“knowinglessness” is a good word to describe the Fox educated mind. “Willfull Ignorance” I beleive is the correct technical term for American conservatism, but I like knowinglessness better. Let’s put it in the dictionary.

Big Al
Big Al
11 years ago

“This becomes apparent when news—as entertainment media—follows the same paradigm as any media, which is highly cyclical and repetitious in nature: it loses appeal and the carrier eventually fails.”

For me, this can’t happen fast enough. Waste of bandwidth.


Now I get it.
Thanks very much for this.
Thanks also to Karmen for the “street reporting”. : )

I got learned up, but good. 🙂

11 years ago

really, how can you call this piece propaganda.. what, propaganda for socialism!! GASP!!! If you ready about Chavez and what he has done for his people he almost sounds like a saint. Chavez (seems) to take the best parts of multiple theoretics and blends them into a pot of democratic socialism. Giving back to the poor? wow.. that’s just a horrible idea. What, education for the poor! GASP!! I think the only thing Chavez needs to work on is monogamy. If only Obama had nuts like this guy we could actually have some real reform. Rush is a direct indication of american intellect as a whole.. as Glenn Beck, and (just threw up in my mouth) O’Riley Factor. It’s really sad Americans take this bull spewed on the airways as factual informative dialogue. Who controls the information controls the people.
Great piece!! thank you!

11 years ago

Oxy Limbaugh is a corporate ass-sucking imperialist. And Beck is a bipolar talking rectum. But don’t get me wrong their both good Christians.

Marlena Heidenreich
11 years ago

Overall this is an excellent piece to make people think how a Truman Show can be created around someone who is “born” into a media system owned by basically one corporate organ, Time and it’s spawn, Disney, etc.

So the American mind is indeed manufactured with a goal of milking, guiding and mesmerizing, obvious.

The fact that 33% or more Americans and 50% more Germans, for example, have come to doubt the official 911 conspiracy theory from the government, shows that the Internet’s effect of decentralizing research from the mainstream media is effective, and even if it took 10 years, the monopoly on the American and global mind ebbs back daily, to the point half of America and 90% of Germany believe the US government lied concerning 911.

The media mind control of the Truman Show has given glimpses of itself, by trying so hard to continue telling the same surreal and absurd lies, as if the more they trow it on the mental wall of an American, it will eventually stick, when in fact for some, it just further exposes the futility of lying period.

One lie leads to many more, now the US government is buried in them, to the point of being an international story of the blatantly ridiculous, actually tragically comical, sociopathic liars that they ARE.

Once you see through the Us Truman Show, it never works on you again, NEVER trust a liar, EVER. And LOL, never trust a banker with your money. Another new adage we can glean from this American “dream” turned into what it has been for everyone else in our victim pool, a nightmare of global proportions yet unraveling. (But NOT in Bill O’Reilly’s world)


10 years ago

This is the reality that people in general allow to unfold because people are not willing to inform themselves and act as sheep. Even a stubborn mule will stop when beaten one too many times.

Kirk Cobain
11 years ago

The Nuts and Bolts of Propaganda Architecture:

Though propaganda itself, it explains the basic formulas with examples.

When you read it, you will never view a commercial or listen to a politician the same ever again, the are as blatant at this form of BS juxtapositioning as ever. Total emotional and behavior baiting technology of words.

10 years ago

This is the reality that people in general allow to unfold because people are not willing to inform themselves and act as sheep. Even a stubborn mule will stop when beaten one too many times.