It's Pavlovian not political at this point and that's what we're going into with the 2020 election

[ck4829]

I don't think a lot of people, that 30% especially, don't really think about the things they are told or even say.

Look at it; they say "socialism", the "good American" is supposed to boo and hiss, they say "politically correct", the "good American" is supposed to boo and hiss, they say "liberal", the "good American" is supposed to boo and hiss, they say "feminist", the "good American" is supposed to boo and hiss, they say "open borders", the "good American" is supposed to boo and hiss, and so on and so forth.

We can fight back against this though, we should be encouraging extinction of this conditioning.

Flood the dialogue with their boo-and-hiss words, make it ridiculous. We need to topple this conditioning.

[empedocles]

1. The Pelosi process, hearing exposures, court decisions, trump exposure is penetrating

somewhat - with the strongest and best to come. We need FDR like patience and steadfastness.

[Newest Reality]

2. It is the Spectacle!

I guess responding in kind, a spectacle for the Spectacle may be in order. Reality TV as government is media driven and a low point in our system. However, it is not really new, it's just coming to a full fruition. It is very dangerous in regards to notions of any kind of consensual democracy.

However, you can see how a P. T. Barnum figured head could float on the top of the septic tank of the Simulation, (as Baudrillard would call it). Oh, and Bernays was the manipulation demon behind the manufacture of consent, thanks to Freud. For further understanding see the BBC documentary, The Century of the Self, and you will be up-to-speed.

Spectacle (critical theory)

The spectacle is a central notion in the Situationist theory, developed by Guy Debord in his 1967 book, The Society of the Spectacle. In its limited sense, spectacle means the mass media, which are "its most glaring superficial manifestation."[1] However, in the general sense, the spectacle refers to "the autocratic reign of the market economy which had acceded to an irresponsible sovereignty, and the totality of new techniques of government which accompanied this reign."[2] Debord said that the society of the spectacle came to existence in the late 1920s.[3][2]

The critique of the spectacle is a development and application of Karl Marx's concept of fetishism of commodities, reification and alienation,[4] and the way it was reprised by György Lukács in 1923. In the society of the spectacle, the commodities rule the workers and the consumers, instead of being ruled by them, are passive subjects that contemplate the reified spectacle.

<SNIP>

Debord claims that in its limited sense, spectacle means the mass media, which are "its most glaring superficial manifestation.".[1] However T. J. Clark regards this as a journalistic cliché. Clark argues that the spectacle came to dominate Paris during the Second Empire thanks to Haussmann's renovation of Paris. Debord, however, said that the society of the spectacle came to existence in the late 1920s.[3][2] This is the period in which modern advertising and public relations were introduced, most significantly with the innovative techniques developed by Edward Bernays in his campaigns for the tobacco industry.[5] In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays theorized the "conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses."[6] The critique of the society of the spectacle shares many assumptions and arguments with the critique of the culture industry made by Adorno and Horkheimer in 1944.[7][8][9][10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectacle_(critical_theory)