Days of Change

Stonewalled | October 28, 2014

The traditional definition of conspiracy is when more than one person coordinate efforts to do something bad without letting others know. A “global conspiracy” is a contradiction in terms because it throws the concept of secrecy out the window. When the numbers are large enough with enough collective influence, groupthink is a play. Groupthink as a condition was explored first in the 70’s, although you can see the use of it in George Orwell’s 1984 and find an example of it from history. The Salem Witch Trials come to mind for me.

When Sharyl Attkisson was blocked by her bosses at CBS and hacked by the federal government, they didn’t have meetings coordinating these actions. They had an inherent sense of what was “good” for their world view and Attkisson’s reporting wasn’t it. Groupthink is much more dangerous than a conspiracy because the perpetrators lose their sense of right and wrong.

The pieces were in place for some time, but I think the trigger for this amoral ideology started in the year 2000. Democrats lost the presidential election to a man who was not considered a serious contender, did not have a great campaign and ran on his faith which the Democrats tried to destroy just days before the election. Aside from the intellectual sting, one factor that hurt them was the split between Democrats and the Green Party, which took votes from Al Gore. The pain turned to anger as they decided that the election was stolen because the media tried, and failed, to call the election for Gore and the votes in Florida had to be counted in a state where George W. Bush’s brother was governor.

Democrats, leftists and liberals fell into a spiral where they felt that Republicans were cheating to succeed and therefore cheating and lying was morally justified. Every action since that election can be seen through that prism. Commit election fraud? Blame Republicans for hacking voting machines first. Elect a half-wit community organizer who condones violating every personal liberty of Americans? Justify that his existence allows some of your agenda to succeed. Besides, if you’re in a position of power, there are economic perks for going with the Obama agenda. Justify that you deserve it because you are on the “right” side.

This is the trap that almost destroyed Attkisson. Her pursuit of a story became increasingly focused on Obama because his White House was increasingly in the wrong. Instead of ignoring it, her employer and the White House saw her as being in the wrong and decided to protect their ideology at the expense of traditional ethics. After seeing what happened to Attkisson, other reporters won’t have to be threatened. They have their own groupthink of knowing what happens when you mess with the group.

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized

1 Comment

  1. a half-wit community organizer

    Superlative!
    ___________________________
    other reporters won’t have to be threatened…. knowing what happens when you mess with the group.

    Mass moral cowardice so becomes the age of obama. One need only think of John Roberts fall upon rationalizing obamacare.

    In case you didn’t see what Rush has to say about obama’s upcoming post-midterms tyranny:

    http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/rush-issues-dire-warning-about-obama-after-election/

    Seems I remember you poining out months ago how much damage obama could do before the end of his second term

    Comment by Mary — October 29, 2014 @ 2:09 am


    2016 Polls

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 16 other followers

%d bloggers like this: