Sunday, 2 November 2014

Leading questions

There is a neutral grammatical formula which creates the impression of offering options, but the user actually knows they are leading you to only either choose between the exact options they present, or worse still only the one.

I say neutral, as a hypnotherapist we are taught this formula to help our subjects, as we only present options to them which make them feel better, thus deliberately excluding their original negative reactions, all done fully with their consent. Outside this area, if it is being used you can be pretty sure the user is cheating. Here are some examples of all its various forms, taught in business courses to sell things to people they don't want, or policies.

In law it is void to do so and as a result you will barely ever come across it as the barrister knows this and won't waste their time asking the witness "When exactly did you stop beating your wife/having sex with the goat/shoplifting" as it is simply putting words into their mouth, and indirectly accusing them of a crime in doing so.

In politics, especially under UN Agenda 21, they simply either offer you the two choices where you want neither, like Pepsi or Coke, or none at all "What should we do to reduce our carbon footprints?", "What measures should we take for traffic calming in Walthamstow" etc, which all presume the concept has already been voted on and accepted, when in fact they are forcing it on you whether you want it or not, as James Delingpole puts it, the UN IPCC spend all their time debating how much dog mess should they put in our yogurt (a nice big lump or just a trace) rather than even having an option of having none at all, and that means the only result is your yogurt has shit in it. Do you really care whether it's just a little or visibly floating in it?

LBC just provided a typical propaganda formula, by tweeting "How should gay rights be taught in schools?"

Now that is pretty blatant even for the media, especially as LBC are only a radio station and not officially promoting any agenda, unlike the known constant stream of UN propaganda emanating from the BBC. Since when was it responsible or reasonable journalism to ask such a question, which in normal media or life would read (How) "Should gay rights be taught in schools?".

They provided a perfect example for me, but sadly showed the state the media and politics has fallen to. But you don't have to take it, you still have the same range of choices you always did, whatever the authorities try and make you think. You just have to keep one step ahead of them or they'll stitch you up.

No comments:

Post a Comment