Employing Inverted Messages in Politics
The employment of inverted messages in the 2016 American presidential campaign may represent the current high-water mark in the technique as applied to politics. In 2015 and 2016, we saw a concerted media effort to utilize negative advertising of a product to produce a positive market response, and positive advertising of a product to produce a negative market response. Aware that consumers held an overwhelmingly negative view of aging media companies ("the media"), the media deluged their detractors with denunciations of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, saying, respectively, that Trump was a staunch nationalist and Sanders a staunch communist: both policy perspectives which would, if enacted, destroy the loathsome state apparatus and its pet media (or vice versa, as you prefer) that consumers were known to hate. As Trump's election victory was planned, the media/party apparatus was able to engineer Hillary Clinton's victory in her party's primary, concentrating all the useful anti-establishment market sentiment around Trump. Sanders' primary appearance, and his subsequent complicit defeat and desire to aim his supporters toward the openly pro-corporate Clinton, had to occur in order to make the contest appear viable, given how the Democrats, like the Republicans, had no other potential candidates who were not already affected by the widespread loathing of the establishment they represented.
While the reviled establishment and media lavished praise on Trump by critiquing his policies as actually nationalist--policies that, the planners knew, were never to be enacted, but which, like their earlier critique of Obama for supposedly wanting to nationalize health care, the planners knew the target American audience actually wanted--they were busy dooming Hillary's faux-campaign by praising her. If it wasn't obvious to potential American consumers at the time, it should be obvious now that we've seen the passage of several Terran months, which should've helped clear up the associated passions and temporal dissonance pertaining to that yearnful contest. The mainstream media angrily and repeatedly accused Trump of being biased toward Americans, which was clearly a message meant to be taken favorably by American consumers. Simultaneously, the mainstream media angrily and repeatedly discussed how Clinton's health problems weren't significant, how her influence peddling was ordinary and should be ignored, and how her husband's sexual escapades were immaterial. As clearly as Trump's campaign was meant to be helped by the media, Clinton's was meant to be hindered.
This technique, having proven so successful during the chariot race itself, has continued into Trump's presidency, helping to defray any potential backlash--unlikely from the mass dregs of American anyway, but avoiding it is still good business practice--from the people who might still believe that Trump really was the anti-globalist hero for whom the West was waiting. By maintaining a chorus of accusations that Trump is too extremely anti-immigrant, too focused on American citizens and American business, and overly obsessed with saving American money and getting better deals for America, the media has turned Obama's third term--or Dubya's fifth, Slick Willie's seventh, or FDR's twenty-first, as you prefer--Fed and DACA and Syria included, into a defensible position for target consumers. Having ordered the porterhouse and been served shit spread on an old boot-heel, the market retroactively rationalizes its choice, smiling through each fecal mouthful in an attempt to upset the vegetarian protesters chanting outside. The steakhouse is, of course, paying those very protesters, but the illusion of defiance is so thrilling that no one remembers nor cares any longer what beef tastes like.
Historical Communication Controls
The capitalist/communist takeover of the means of communication is a significant subject, its modern form beginning with the conquest and patenting of language by the Nicean church of child sacrifice. The divine ecstasy of restraining, abusing, and playing at sacrifice with Isaac, Jesus, and then everyone else, fostered a Church that, once it had taken Turkey and Italy, took possession of Turkic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and many other known and unknown languages, prior to restricting language instruction to church branch offices and forestalling communication outside of the normative contexts established thereby. Ironically, advanced stages of the destruction of Europe now provide us with a window into the past, wherein "indigenous" cultures see their written languages (if they ever had any, which they often did not) and spoken languages replaced by Abbreviated Coastal English. The power of the Church then, and of its continuations now, prevents us from accurately ascertaining the full extent of the written and spoken languages employed in Europe prior to occupation.
The Catholic Church's lengthy repression of knowledge and inquiry remains somewhat well-known by virtue of the attempt to repress and demean anything viewed as "European." The permissibility of this perspective, though, is fading, for it now may become again, hundreds of years later, acceptable to acknowledge the vast repression of knowledge engaged in by the third form of Judaism, Islam. Fantasies of early Islamic Renaissances, dreamt up in western scholarship in preparation for and acceptance of the many great intra-European wars, are slowly beginning to crumble, as scholars gain permission to correlate the Dark Ages--the Heinleinian retreat to blind authority, the clannish bloodlust and the castles--with the actions of the Semitic pirates sparked north by various Torah addenda. This process is by no means complete nor formally permissible, but even should it develop, it will be guided to do so alongside a revitalization of congratulatory scholarship regarding the positive effects which the Catholic Church, and its European-marketed Torah addenda, supposedly had on science and culture. These sorts of arguments are facetious at best, given that they view proprietary ownership and de facto control of copies and artifacts as indicia of origination or encouragement, much as if one tried to argue that Pope Julius II had painted the Sistine Chapel, or that Barack Obama had defeated Obama bin Laden in hand-to-hand combat. Nonetheless, they shall be made, and they shall be believed.
The control that the Church exercised over surgery, medicine, archaeology, anthropology, other physical sciences, Latin, linguistics, inter-court ("international") communications, and the control that its secular cousins exerted over letters of credit and world financial transactions, was profound as well as wholly new to Europe, and to the world at large. The Semitic model of cousin-marrying kinship groups having all permissible group actions mediated through a central patriarch could not be duplicated on a large scale until it had reached the sizable population and comparative stability of Europe. Only then could the modern styles of mediacraft see their genesis.
News as Advertising
The transformation of news into advertising began with the control of Europe by the Church. What had been imposed by mass murder and forced conversion was maintained by communally-monitored forced pep rallies, coerced confession at confession (sic), the practice of separating children from parents for educating children about informing on non-believing relatives, and the social ritual of disclosing not only sin, but successes, and tithing or buying indulgences commensurate with one's perceived worldly success. It is of particular humor in the Terran 20th and 21st centuries that self-professed "Christians" often phrase their resistance to communism and/or globalism in anti-Christian terms, in particular by arguing against modern priests: the academics in ivory towers, often childless, who are alone authorized to interpret historical wisdom and pontificate upon general morality. Christian westerners who are rightly worried about communists brainwashing children to inform on their freethinking acquaintances seem to be engaged in a time-delayed form of projection. It is as though they are made to suffer, for their ancestors' submission to the Carolingians' desert god, by sending their own children to school to learn about how evil great grandpa was for not sharing his bus seat with negroes.
Terra's 2017 concerns about "spying" and "privacy" take on an old, familiar light when compared to the fourth century invasion of the universalist church. All of the dystopian elements were there, in Catholic-occupied Europe: the mass executions; the secret agents; the rationing of food; the banning of books and trade; the mandatory appearance at government reeducation camps; the confessional interrogations; the state destruction of marriage and family via paperwork and educational requirements; the junior anti-sex leagues; and, a two-tiered justice system of untouchable pedophiles sacrificing dissidents. Our primary concern here, though, is the transmogrification of news into advertising, whereby news began to become less about objectively significant information, and more about opportunities to illustrate the proper ways to think and spend. Part of this was founded in mundane greed, whereby advertisements of piety and charity became opportunities to upgrade priestly floorplans, furniture, and retirement packages, while an equally significant component of the extraction scheme involved humanitarian warfare: advertising the impiety of southern peoples who needed to be saved, and then, once Iraq had been invaded again, screaming that our troops needed body armor, ergo increasing taxes and donations.
In many ways, the vicious cycle never ended, particularly as regards the need to proselytize followed by the need to protect the proselytizers, followed by the need to further uplift and proselytize, ad infinitum. For purposes of evaluating historical trends in advertising specifically, we see in the Church the way that "the news of the day" became concerned not with physical, real happenings to people and communities, but to the hypothetical need to become global citizens of
Whether or not one agrees with the Judaic, "Catholic," and/or "Protestant" goals of mandatory and inevitable communal diversity; whether or not one believes that the process of invading and inviting the non-European world produced negative or positive results for the European peoples, the trend in advertising is easy to spot. What began as the Church's "death, or bow to the Son of Yahweh, the Chosen savior of the Jewish people" advertising campaign became the "send your gold and sons to Jerusalem or else" news, either replacing all other events of significance, or writing events of unavoidable local significance into the context of the grand struggle between Christ and Satan, now expressed as diversely anti-European democracy versus Satan. This trend seems perhaps too blandly nefarious to believe for those unacquainted with the history of Europe during the early invasion (Europe besieged by Semites in crypsis or Hellenistic Semites, then proto-Marranos, then European Christian converts, and finally, the blessedly honest jihadis), but it continues to the present day, tracing a long and steady line of advertising that both dictates and adapts to the contours of communications technology. The Church initially killed the owners of books and other works of art or science, burned massive quantities of now-unknowable old European works as heresy, and replaced the less-memorable ones by endless recitations of David's plagiarized battle against a metaphorical representation of Titans and other strongmen of old, Moses' composite journey through various trying lands, et cetera. Similar to Monsanto taking over the produce section of the local supermarket decades ago, everything began to taste a little off, a little less alive, but so deceptively so that people forgot. Generations of humans today grow up in the West not knowing what a real tomato or a real strawberry tastes like; the rarity of having farming relatives who managed to isolate a few scraps of land from the spreading darkness, and offer you an innocent taste of old-world food, is such that the most gloriously asinine organic bistro today cannot recover the experience. In much the same way, the heroes of old are so condensed into Jenomic forms that it is difficult to imagine anyone plausibly recapturing them.
The chronicle of Judeo-Catholic-based advertising became quite fully expressed during the great communo-capitalist twentieth century United States. Catholicism's offshoots in the twenty-first century have ultimately married Catholicism, for the Pope is now more solicitous and forgiving toward divorcing murderers and wife-beating boy-rapers who publicly claim other faiths than ever before. Ergo Catholicism has proven itself to be the handmaid of Unitarian Universalism, as when the pontiff washes the feet of Muslims and scolds Europeans for banning child marriage. The Catholic Church has reached its apotheosis by spawning, then uniting with, its own empty subsidiaries. It was in this way that the Church-assisted perversion of news into advertising reached its honest apex earlier, in the twentieth century. The demeaning of local communities, and the facilitation of international trade, required the lubrication of the Church's early pundits.
Consider the fuller expressions of late-twentieth-century and early-twenty-first-century advertising that you may have seen. "Schlock Deodorant is the best deodorant, using the purest ingredients, and if you don't use it, you're a smelly piece of garbage!" "Madame Sucky-Suck Vacuums are guaranteed to get every stain!" This is pure puffery, long-accepted by consumers, and moderns often have trouble understanding how people who expect honesty in a society would have been fooled by it. This blunt, bragging-style of advertising, in which advertisements were framed in such a way that the advertiser could potentially believe what he was saying, eventually transitioned into insult-style advertising: "Are you lithe and graceful enough to use Schlock Ladies' Deodorant?" "Are you rugged enough to add a $3,500 4x4 option onto your Hammerhead Crew Cab truck?" These types of advertisements may be rude challenges to the consumer, but they still imply that the product itself is of very high quality, and that the company has confidence in it. Notice the shift in message, though: bragging-style advertising mimics a person who believes something saying what they believe. Insult-style advertising only implies that the advertiser believes in the quality of the product.
Through the years, society has changed to permit us to accept that lying and exaggerating is acceptable, since not only does everyone do it, everyone expects everyone else to do it, so it is the only honest way to speak. A corollary of this trend has been that, despite what everyone says to themselves inside about "little white lies" and "mere puffery" and "showmanship," the intrinsic harm of lying has caused them to stop believing everyone they were pretending to be joining for the in-joke of exaggeration. Which is to say, all of our chuckling about having adapted to overblown ads and double-dealing politicians was fake, and we were actually crushing ourselves by participating; we were not, as we preferred to pretend, merely "playing along." Journalists, politicians, clergypersons, and other professional marketers were not all tainted at the outset, but like the problem-tiger's proverbial developed taste for human flesh, system participants developed immunity to outdated moralities, and evolved their inner characters to conform to their outward actions.
Rekindling Methods of Belief
The jaded collective of post-industrial society, which is to say high-mendacist society, has learned to survive in a lie-rich environment, swimming in an ocean of mistruths, inefficiency, and ritualized deception for so long that it often calls for justified surprise when a corporate or government employee acts "human" by skipping a mandatory institutional step and solving a problem. More importantly from a political perspective, it is amazing--indeed, almost inconceivable--that a political leader might keep a commitment.
This environment contributed to what we saw in the American presidential election, as discussed above: so many people expected the media to lie that the media boorishly argued for the opposite of what it wanted to occur, thereby creating a climate where Americans, having been irrevocably wedded to notions of self- and world-reforming since the Antifa globalists invaded France, were able to plausibly elect what they took to be an anti-globalist. The tired, The lady doth protest too much, methinks, along with many other more ancient and recent illustrations, should have theoretically guarded consumers against what the media's agents have been able to accomplish with Trump. But our narrative and historical awareness was in permanent relapse, and the trick, disseminated via so many infotainment megacorps and online personae, worked: we defied the teevee by choosing the teevee host, and we offended the teevee by mocking the sick old lady who scolded us. So pitifully obvious, that setup. Yet the illusion had power, in no small part because of the climate of mistrust carefully nurtured over those many years. We were certain that we should do the opposite of what they said. So very, very, very predictably certain.
From Whence Negative Positives?
The 2016 American elections, combined with the early reception of Trump's globalist agenda, may have represented the pinnacle of political advertising by express misdirection. Since the late twentieth century, it had been growing increasingly difficult for the Bank/media/System/etc. to create plausible episodes of Who Wants to be a President, with available slots to take a fall coveted by an endless succession of saber-rattling traitors with long records that were unpleasant even by media standards. Even more than that, saber-rattling traitors with cripplingly humorous, widely-known personal defects, like Viagra spokesperson Bob Dole, tank-cartwheeling Dukakis, or the oil-tycoon-environmentalist Gore. Despite the implausibility of these fixed fights, Americans' desire to feel powerful by choosing the most idiotic candidate had made even the staged contests fall apart, requiring election tampering in 2000 and 2004 to create the appearance of a viable alternative party. The Connecticut Cowboy's dyslexic mess, though it could only be accomplished by vote fraud so egregious that many Americans noticed, served to make Obama's 2008 victory over Grandpa Sinaloa Zion seem like less of a staged contest. After all, Obama was running against "the incumbent's Party."
The idea that a flatline, standard-intelligent human could be even a regional political leader had long been dead in America. Consider 1939's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as a too-late requiem for a dream never realized. That victory in American policy, like the victory of an army of full-time mercenaries over a freemen's militia, had been long settled. But people were getting too jaded, too accustomed to the new system, and they were beginning to grow bored with the fixed fights. Not bored in a "revolution" or "physical" way--this is still occupied European stock we're discussing--but bored in a "mehh, why bother?" way, which reduces consumption and labor output, and, more importantly, the sociological pretense of a functioning society that forestalls smaller percentages of committed actors from seizing power.
The "black" president whose homosexuality was technically a "secret," and the "white" president whose genetic Semitism was similarly "unknown," helped a great deal. More importantly, the media's decision to flatter their unintended, and scorn their beloved, created the appearance of a defiant populace overcoming a barrier. It was a heady chariot race, where Lex Luthor appeared to win for a while, guaranteed to set up an exciting comeback by a later hero(ine?) that would drive bystanders to the theater to vote for their favorite undiscovered vocalist.
Yet it was not the first time that the media had employed this technique to achieve great success. In 2016, the pretense that the media disapproved of the womanizing gothamite with the private jet, and preferred seizure-wife of intern-groper, made chariot races exciting again. During the twentieth century, another vast arm of the corporate world was suffering from a similar downturn in popular interest and believability, and it took a Trump-like ruse, coordinated across multiple levels of media and government, to train consumers to again show interest: the phony battle against cigarettes.
Drugging human livestock to make occupation more profitable has long been a staple of Bank behavior. In Inside the Cartel, we briefly touched on the shared history of world banking and the drug/political business. The world's biggest nominally private banks, still extant, and the central bank(s) they spawned once Jenomic agents had begun to bleed Europe through colonialism, have been an ongoing necessity in order to mystify finance enough to cause people to believe that imaginary super-money appears due to economists helping ordinary folk invest their savings, rather than as giant blinking signs saying, "Here's where the cartels are keeping it!" To the extent that thinking humans may survive into the centuries ahead, the panoply of this historical time period could be retrospectively viewed as the rule of a drug cartel, more characterized by the control and distribution of pharmaceutical resources than by energy, finance, genetics, or any other subsidiary factor. That isn't necessarily my view, but the objective history, which will be much easier to acknowledge from a more distant perspective, may well reasonably conclude that mass control of chemical distribution represents as great a turning point in local human history as the development of agriculture.
The Semitic religions' keen interest in the control of alcohol and ritualized diets is part of this picture, but for modern media purposes, we focus here on cigarettes, specifically, the chemical-drenched tobacco-based product that had become one of the world's most important consumer drugs. Like alcohol, the requirements of producing tobacco for personal or communal use were such that most people couldn't do it alone; unlike coca, cannabis, Psilocybin mushrooms, and other drugs that could be easily and independently produced, tobacco legality was no threat to the cartels. Human consumers in the planned future of land rented from the government, occupying smaller spaces and prevented by fiscal, physical, or licensing constraints from developing a competing product, could have made most pharmaceutical products irrelevant through taking small doses from their window-box garden, thereby eliminating the cartel's interests in more complex drugs. As a healthy community eliminates the desire for a nightclub, consumers growing their own stuff eliminates the need for drug dealers, both formally legal and non. Ergo in response to this threat, the Bank's media and governments acted to protect their turf, banning numerous simple crops in near-unison throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Tobacco was one of the ones that remained. And, like the replacement politics that had destroyed the old ways of managing private affairs, tobacco began to suffer a decrease in public interest among future potential consumers: people began to notice that, despite all the advertising, the chemical-dipped factory-rolls that cigarette companies were selling were not only a terribly poor imitation of the old, free stress-relievers, they were also damned deadly in comparison. After decades of trying to pretend otherwise, the Bank--its unified governments, subsidiary banks, media companies, and product producers--saw the end approaching. Everyone had figured out that the television, the newspapers, the magazines, the tenured professors of medicine, et cetera, were lying about the new factory cigarettes being good for you. Enough low-level physicians, end-users, and other outsiders had accidentally noticed correlations.
It was suggested that hand-rolling natural tobacco was safer than megacorporations cauterizing their tobacco with the pre-SSRI toxins which later, due to tobacco-specific restrictions, had to be rebranded as oral anxiety tablets. Even worse, it was suggested that, since the tobacco companies were known to be such foul liars, working in concert with all other aspects of the banks, academies, governments, media, et cetera, the earlier media hysteria over consumer-producible drugs might've been lies. Even doubleplus worser, this latter realization threatened to create conditions whereby the fundamental integrity of the Bank was called into question. Should the media and the politicians, the smoking professors of medicine, the crusaders against any chemicals simple enough for poor people to prepare at home in a small space, the bankers and their heirs, greet the noose, and should the world retake itself?
As Trump's phony challenge to the establishment helped save America for the Bank, the tobacco verdicts, specifically the way they were designed, helped save tobacco. An American overview:
When the first reports* emerged linking cigarettes to cancer emerged (sic) in the 1950s, plaintiffs began suing cigarette manufacturers. Plaintiffs in these early cases -- usually smokers with lung cancer -- typically employed several legal theories in their lawsuits:*"The first reports." As they say, LMFAO. "The first reports," written by an educated researcher regarding 1950s tobacco litigation. This is the American mind in full, disgusting display. Even devoid of all other cultural references and research, the lawsuits in question which the author discusses include accusations that "coffin nails" had been known to be deadly for decades. The cigarette companies themselves sometimes used the defense that everyone already knew, just like eating too much butter made you fat, and that smokers had therefore assumed liability knowingly.
negligent manufacture - the tobacco companies failed to act with reasonable care in making and marketing cigarettes
product liability - the tobacco companies made and marketed a product that was unfit to use
negligent advertising - the tobacco companies failed to warn consumers of the risks of smoking cigarettes
violation of state consumer protection statutes (most of which prohibit unfair and deceptive business practices).
Tobacco manufacturers responded in full force, fighting each lawsuit and refusing to settle out of court. They relied on several defense strategies, arguing that: Tobacco was not harmful to smokers. Smokers' cancer was caused by other factors. Smokers assumed the risk of cancer when they decided to smoke. The tobacco companies prevailed in all of these early lawsuits.
In the 1980s, a new wave of lawsuits emerged. In the landmark case of that time, Cipollone v. Liggett, the plaintiff and her family alleged that cigarette manufacturers knew -- but did not warn consumers -- that smoking caused lung cancer and that cigarettes were addictive. Although Rose Cipollone's husband was awarded $400,000, an appellate court reversed the decision. Other plaintiffs also sued, claiming that tobacco companies knew cigarettes were addictive and caused cancer...In the 1990s, plaintiffs began to have limited success in tobacco lawsuits, partly because some cigarette company documents were leaked showing the companies were aware of the addictive nature of tobacco. The first big win for plaintiffs in a tobacco lawsuit occurred in February 2000, when a California jury ordered Philip Morris to pay $51.5 million to a California smoker with inoperable lung cancer.To the average media-acculturated consumer, this history appears to show a pattern of defeat for tobacco companies. And at the beginning, it does actually show that. Once jury awards start to get bigger, though, the Bank immediately steps in to protect its own: the "government" portions of the Bank move swiftly to consolidate all anti-tobacco litigation under their own control. By leading the crusade "against" its business partners, government agents stymie future human plaintiffs and put the control of tobacco lawsuits, and tobacco payoffs, with the government, meaning with the Bank, meaning with tobacco companies. Wealth transfer from the Inner Party to the Proletariat is changed to wealth transfer from Inner Party to Inner Party. Read it over again if you need to, do some separate browsing about the earlier decades of tobacco lawsuits, and notice how government used judicial trickery to block or reverse lawsuit outcomes for decades, until public anger made it untenable for even appellate judges to protect cigarette distribution. At that point, right when the tide was turning, judges and other lawyers nationwide worked together to create a "Master Settlement Agreement" protecting the companies.
Around this time, more than 40 states sued the tobacco companies under state consumer protection and antitrust laws. These states argued that cigarettes contributed to health problems that triggered significant costs for public health systems. In these lawsuits, the tobacco companies could not use the defense that had proven so successful in lawsuits brought by individuals -- that the smoker was aware of the risks and decided to smoke anyway.
In November 1998, the attorneys general of 46 states and four of the largest tobacco companies agreed to settle the state cases. Terms of the settlement are referred to as the Master Settlement Agreement. Highlights include:
Tobacco companies agreed to refrain from engaging in certain advertising practices, particularly ad campaigns that marketed cigarettes towards kids.
Tobacco companies agreed to pay annual sums of money to the states to compensate them for health-care costs related to smoking (a minimum of $206 billion over the first twenty-five years).
The settlement created and funded the National Public Education Foundation, dedicated to reducing youth smoking and preventing diseases associated with smoking.
Tobacco companies dissolved three of the biggest tobacco industry organizations.
(If you're tempted to feel sorry for companies selling a product that everyone knew is dangerous anyway, or to be aggravated at emo juries who granted feelings-based liability awards, remember that these are the companies that required violent socialism in order to be established and operated in the first place. There is nothing "capitalism" about the ways that government-corporate bureaucracy [sic] worked together to forcibly prevent the sale of competing products, or to use government regulation to crush small farmers and take control of land, distribution, and retail placement, on behalf of government-favored tobacco firms. Big tobacco was the crumbling Venezuela of company cartels, even its own corrupt special-snowflake business model unable to sustain it, and when it was falling, the American politburo stepped in to protect it with tax dollars and new even-specialer-snowflake laws. Western "metrosexuality" and soft-male-ism were born from the early dipped-tobacco ad campaigns in the nascent Fed/FDR era, where distinguished closet-queer playboys fellated smooth factory cigarettes on plush settees.)
Lawsuits now ceased to be dangers to the tobacco companies. Given Bank control of finance (sic), individual plaintiffs who get money and then buy structured settlements, real estate, stocks, bonds, et cetera, are already returning the money anyway, less perhaps a few drywall mansions and luxury cars. The biggest settlements go to different branches of government, which promptly put them to use advertising cigarettes to children. A defeat turns into a victory, and the twentieth and twenty-first centuries' longstanding ad campaigns "against" cigarettes reveal themselves as a way of subverting popular wrath by making smoking a defiant bad boy.
To a great extent, the retrospective "failure" of decades of anti-tobacco litigation has been discussed elsewhere. After all of these supposedly punitive government actions, how do tobacco companies still exist? How has a failing product line revitalized itself for new generations, becoming cool and daring, and how is an
The employment of the technique herein discussed--commanding the subject to exhibit a negative response in order to produce, from the subject, a positive response--saw its most significant pre-election marketplace expression in these "tobacco settlements." As with deporting rapists rather than hanging them, the lawsuits themselves were an abjectly ridiculous response: indeed, in the same century that saw the health-based marketing of psychoanalysis, antidepressants, artificial sweeteners, trans fats, elective surgeries, and diets centered around the complex-carbohydrate, the notion that poisoned-tobacco cigarettes should have been singled out for government-approved punishment is patently absurd. As with Trump's candidacy, the government's growing systematic acceptance of the lawsuits indicates that the lawsuits were employed expressly to redirect consumer dissatisfaction: away from socialized tobacco and its corrupt regulations.
(Respecting the entertainment media component, John Grisham's ad hoc involvement in the cultural narrative, via The Runaway Jury, adds a Tom-Clancy-esque quantity of weight toward the hypothesis of tobacco trials as coordinated Bank action.)
It is, by now, boring old news that anti-tobacco ads have, rather than being effective (in the way that they were claimed to supposed to have been), accomplished precisely the opposite. Consider, in light of the American 2016 election, the ways that this consumer-tested technique translated from buying to voting. An anti-tobacco ad--legal to target at young children thanks to the government's settlement agreements with itself, whereas prior to the lawsuits it had been becoming unacceptable for tobacco subdivisions of the Federal Reserve to continue to target children--might be designed to communicate the following:
"Don't smoke tobacco, because if you do, you're a ruthless rebel who doesn't play by anyone's rules!"It might also say:
"Don't smoke tobacco, or you might die early and miss out on playing canasta and bingo in a nursing home! Preserve your health so you can be wrinkled and un-sexy as long as possible!"The consistent message of "anti" tobacco ads throughout the twentieth century, as controlled by an older generation of marketers, was, "Don't resist the system; it's hip to be square!" The government's settlement agreements permitted these ads, which had already proven themselves effective at creating new smokers, to now reach future smokers at a younger age. Even more importantly, they turned tobacco advertising, which had previously been viewed as hateful and systematic, into an icon of (false) rebellion. People were told, "You're a bad boy, you're a rebel, you just don't care about being the healthiest person in the retirement home 'cause you live too fast and too hard!" Accordingly, the collapse of factory cigarettes was averted. Advertising--nice, deductible, "charitable" and "educational" and public-school-friendly cigarette advertising--exploded, and the public perception of boring old coffin nails pushed by rich bastards was replaced by the beleaguered rebel smoker who resisted government intrusion into personal choice.
Marketers, politicians, and tobacco companies had known for a long time that negative advertising worked. "Warning: this product is too extreme!" Less dangerous products now offer similar warnings, as when you buy a fountain soda on a warm day and read, "Warning, this product is ice cold!" or when the TV show review warns, "This show is dangerously addictive!"
The proper response to tobacco companies would have been the proper response to the Bank or its agents at any point in history. We see here, again, the ways in which accepting the "lesser evil" in any transaction is actually to create the greater evil. By compromising on lawsuits against fictional entities (corporations) rather than hanging people who lied about selling poison, by voting for "less evil" (or "less globalist") or "more realistic" candidates, we are creating evil, perpetuating evil, and ensuring the recurrence of future evils. Our willingness to dishonor ourselves exacts a heavy price.