{"id":3839,"date":"2020-06-01T07:32:48","date_gmt":"2020-06-01T07:32:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bretthouston.com\/creations\/?p=3839"},"modified":"2020-06-01T07:35:22","modified_gmt":"2020-06-01T07:35:22","slug":"the-craft-of-legalese-and-propaganda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/bretthouston.com\/creations\/the-craft-of-legalese-and-propaganda\/","title":{"rendered":"The craft of Legalese and propaganda"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
\n<\/a><\/div>\n

If more people understood the actual meaning and intent of words, it would be helpful…<\/p>\n

Everything in this reality requires your “consent”, whether that is obtained by by hook or crook is of little consequence. Caveat Redemptor.<\/p>\n

Legalese is a form of the craft after all. A \u201cspell\u201d. Using words as a mechanism of control.
\nWitchcraft is the manipulation, domination, or intimidation of anything or anyone for the sake of working one\u2019s own will.<\/b>
\nJust like science… More on that? https:\/\/krakahead.blogspot.com\/2019\/05\/she-blinded-me-with-science.html<\/a><\/p>\n

\n<\/a><\/div>\n

It’s deliberate and intentional…<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Unless you are fluent in “legalese” reading a law may lead one to a different perception…
\nMany “Legal” words do not have the same meaning.<\/p>\n

You can read the Patriot Act and think you are being “saved”, meanwhile it’s the new updated terms of your enslavement…
\n
\nIt doesn’t matter if one failed to understand the terms of the
\ncontract they signed, or “User Agreement” they “approved”. One is
\nstill bound by the terms…
\n<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/a>
\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/b>
\nLegalese is a mofo. <\/span><\/span>Here’s a fine example.<\/span><\/span><\/b>
\nThe repeal of the Smith Mundt Act<\/span><\/b> in 2012 effectively legalized propaganda<\/b><\/span><\/span> and the creation of “events” to influence <\/span>domestic<\/b><\/span> audiences<\/b><\/span><\/span>.
\nIn other words, “it is said that” they can create a scenario and
\nbroadcast it as “news” to influence people to support certain action or
\nlegislation. For example, it would be legal to produce a school
\nshooting scenario to influence domestic audiences to support gun control
\nlegislation, despite it being purely a fictional event… as long as
\nit was “intended” for foreign audiences.
\n<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Here it is in black and white. We will break down the legalese to clearly see the intent and purpose.<\/p>\n

\n<\/a><\/div>\n
\n<\/a><\/div>\n

On the surface level this appears to be a bill to protect Americans
\nfrom “Fake News”. Only the reality is that it actually legalized it. To
\ndiscern, you must comprehend the fine art of legalese and etymology.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/b><\/span>
\nIt is intended to deceive. there are multiple levels of “meaning” and a perception is fostered. The core of a CON<\/b><\/span><\/span>tract<\/span>. You are being conned. There’s a reason they do not teach this in school… One is easier to CON<\/span>trol<\/b> if they are ignorant of the rules of the game. Knowledge IS power. That’s why “Everything you are told is a lie”.<\/p>\n

Anyway…<\/p>\n

A few fine highlights to note. (You will need to read the document first for this breakdown to make sense.)
\nhttps:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/112th-congress\/house-bill\/5736\/text<\/a><\/p>\n

First line<\/p>\n

“To amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States<\/b> intended<\/span><\/span> primarily for foreign audiences, and for other purposes<\/b>.”<\/p>\n

“authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States” <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Regardless of “intent”<\/span> <\/b>for foreign audiences, domestic dissemination of information is authorized.<\/b><\/p>\n

Previously, due to the Smith Mundt Act it was illegal for foreign created propaganda to be disseminated to domestic audiences.<\/p>\n

\u201c(C) to ensure that the persons seeking release of such material have secured and paid for necessary United States rights and licenses<\/b>.”<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

One does not need “US rights and license” if distribution is not intended<\/span> for US markets. <\/b><\/span>
\nThey only would need license for the territory where the propaganda is being published…
\nA BIG giveaway here.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c(b) Rule of construction.\u2014Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit<\/b><\/span> the <\/b><\/span>Department of State<\/span><\/b> or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging<\/span><\/b> in<\/b><\/span> any medium or form of communication<\/span><\/b>, either directly or indirectly, because <\/span>a United States domestic audience is <\/span><\/b>or may be thereby exposed to program material<\/span><\/b>, or based on a presumption of such exposure. Such material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate,<\/span><\/b><\/span>
\npursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and
\nEducational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1462 and 1437), except
\nthat nothing in this section may be construed to authorize the
\nDepartment of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors to
\ndisseminate within the United States any program material prepared for
\ndissemination abroad on or before the effective date of the Smith-Mundt
\nModernization Act of 2012.\u201d<\/p>\n

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the<\/span>“……  <\/b>“State”……<\/span><\/b>   <\/b>“from engaging”…..<\/span><\/b><\/b>    “because <\/span><\/span>a United States domestic audience is <\/span><\/b>or may be thereby exposed to program material.”<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

This clearly removes laws and obstructions related to disseminating propaganda to domestic audiences. <\/b><\/p>\n

While
\non the surface fostering perceptions and claims to prevent American
\naudiences from being influenced… it does NOT prohibit.<\/b><\/p>\n

This sums it all up… “S<\/span><\/b><\/span>uch material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate…”<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Bottom line, (I will repeat this because it is essential), the repeal of the Smith Mundt Act<\/span><\/b> in 2012 effectively legalized propaganda<\/b><\/span> and the creation of “events” to influence <\/span>domestic<\/b><\/span> audiences<\/b><\/span>.
\nIn other words, “it is said that” they can create a scenario and
\nbroadcast it as “news” to influence people to support certain action or
\nlegislation. For example, it would be legal to produce a Measles epidemic scenario to influence domestic audiences to support mandatory vaccination legislation, despite it being purely a fictional event… as long as
\nit was “intended” for foreign audiences.<\/p>\n

In doubt, refresh yourself with the \u201c(b) Rule of construction. above^^^”\u2014Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit”…
\nNothing… to prohibit them from doing whatever they want.<\/span><\/b><\/span>
\n
\n<\/b><\/span>
\n<\/a>
\n<\/b><\/span>
\n<\/b><\/span>
\nBen Swann has a nice report covering some other angles including the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016<\/b>. https:\/\/youtu.be\/xdQDuhsk3CE<\/a><\/p>\n