One of my pet peeve words – out of many – that is often heard on the mainstream media is “links”.
You hear it frequently out of the mouths of people who are attempting to deceive you. So you hear it alot from the political, media and military leadership class. That is, the Military-Industrial-Media-Political complex.
Vice President Cheney used the word alot when drumming up support for America’s unprovoked military attack and take over of the sovereign nation of Iraq.
“There were links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quada…” or words similar to that would often spew out from Cheney’s upper most orrifice. At other times, you will hear “links” being used by any of the hundreds of senior American or British military and political figures who happen to be violently occupying this country or that. Or aiming their drones at innocent people due to “links.”
I have heard ordinary people use the same word frequently as well. They learn to say it from their daily indoctrination sessions by the Wall St media.
What powerful elites are trying to convince you of, when they say there are “links” between ISIS and a car bombing last week, is that the car bombing was caused by ISIS. Which may or may not be true, and it probably isn’t true, as if it were true, they would have most assuredly said so in very definite terms.
When you hear this word used incorrectly so frequently by so many people, you end up permanently incorrectly identifying the meaning of the word, which all goes to help the elites spread their propaganda messages. These messages help to block off original thinking in people.
All the elites and their media have to say or claim is that there were “links” between party A and event B, and automatically, all listeners will conclude that party A caused event B. Even the tiniest or silliest “links” will do the job. Whole races, ethnicities and religions can be tarred and feathered with the spouting of a single word, repeated frequently enough.
The nonsense that is inherent in this faulty logic and non-thinking type of behaviour can be identified by highlighting the “links” between obviously silly eamples, say bread and domestic violence. One day you might find yourself listening to a media report along the following lines,
“BREAKING NEWS : We can now reveal that multiple studies have shown that there are clear links between bread and domestic violence. One independent think tank has reported that in over 98% of cases of domestic violence, bread had either been earlier consumed by the perpetraitor of the assault or was proven to be present at the location of the incident.
One university expert, who didn’t want to be identifed due to them not being authorized to comment, confirmed that bread and domestic violence have long been associated and they feel it is time to speak out about this irrefutable linkage.
“From our years of field research, we have proven conclusively that nearly all initiators of domestic violence are habitual bread eaters. Bread is commonly available in most residential locations and so violent offenders have no problems securing it. It is time we looked at this serious social issue and decide if bread should continue to be so commonly available.”
Does this sound completely farcical? Well, just substitute “bread” with Saddam Hussein and “domestic violence” with Al-Quada and there you are. Equally causative cases. That is – zero.
It is not necessary to prove anything these days, and especially not in the media or political circles. Just hire yourself a Public Relations company (see earlier post) who will put together an expert campaign of lies, innuendo, half truths and wild exaggerations, and, hey presto! you’re in business with whatever agenda you have in mind, no matter how outrageous. Regime change, claims of genocide, foreign invasions, stealing oil, WMDs……
“Links” solve everything.