Page 66

Paragraph 1

Obama is even taking away your ability to rationally judge and scrutinize what he is putting into your subconscious.

This accomplishes two things...

1. Skewing the middle. If you must compensate for a bias towards the authors opponent, said compensation would be a bias in the direction of the author's position.

2. Destabilization. If you are uncertain of your own judgement, you have less of a foundation by which to determine your course. Furthermore, if there is no way you can trust your mind, you will have to cling to your "rescuer"... blindly.

One must wonder the true nature of a person who is willing to literally hypnotize us like children

This is a non sequiteur; neither children or adults are any more or less suceptible to persuasion and media communications whatsoever. It's like saying "hypnotize us like puppies" - it doesn't make any sense.

My hypotheosis as to what is going on is the attempt to create a conditioned association between the author's target, and outrage at the injustices remaining from society's mistreatment of children.

Standard behavioralist association. What is undeniable, though, is that the author wants us to identify with... children... and wants us to feel that we are overpowered.

Obama is effectively saying, the voter cannot be trusted to make this a logical decision, I will decide for them.

This man of straw is an interesting thing.

Obama, of course, never said that. The author would love it if Obama had said that, but could not literally claim it.

So, the author did the next best thing - they provided an explanatory narrative which tells us that "if Obama has made a hand gesture in his life, he has instead made a completely offensive statement."

If the author manages to slip that by, they've got a free ride. One can just look up a completely-unconnected fact, and draw a conclusion unsupported from the evidence. This is the power of the logical fallacy known as "equivocation," and there are several steps thereof here.

Unfortunately for the author, Obama never said that. Luckily, the author has found their way around such things as facts.

This is a frightening character trait suggestive of someone who almost believes he is some type of Messiah.

Well, they've successfully tried to create the unfounded association of the concepts of "Obama" with... "the antichrist."

You'd think that'd be a little to blatant and desperate attempt to pull off with a straight face, wouldn't you?

Obamas hyper-confidence alone is frightening.

Here the author is trying to link the concepts of Obama and George W. Bush.

Obamas aura almost suggests he believes himself to be Messianic, and his right to the Presidency long overdue and unquestionable.

Those would be offensive things - if Obama had said them.

However, it's very interesting to stop and note that he hasn't said that the people don't get a vote, or that he is in fact the antichrist. Nor did the author point to any statements or actions which would put these uncomfortable words in Obama's mouth.

Instead, the author sees "auras." That is the basis on which these offensive statements were associated with the concept of Obama.

It is questionable what type of psychological g-d complex or other abnormality would make Obama look down upon a former President as annoying.

The concept of "god complex" reanchors the incessant associations with the antichrist, while the image of "abnormality" is an aversive stimulus to deformity - check out rotten.com for "abnormality" and its aversive conditioning effects. You could probably make a stop-smoking program with that site...

More unconscionable is the appeal to authority; looking at a minor former president as some sort of unquestionable "father figure," and shame on the victim of their abuse for not being happy to be abused, is somewhat... antithetical to democracy, and somewhat nonsensical.

The average US citizen knows that viewing elected officials as "special," let alone "not-to-be-questioned," is not how we do things around here... but if the premise is Obama's blaspemy in arrogance, then the conclusion might be that daring to have a facial expression which was less than "smiling negro" in the face of criticism would be unconscionable - even if the "conclusion" of this would be rejected as itself.

Paragraph 2

Obamas insulting hand gestures provide more insight into his disturbing true nature

Ever wonder how much shorter this sentence would be without the prejudicial language?

his disturbing true nature that he successfully hides 99% of the time

Another explanatory narrative. If you agree with the author, you agree on Obama's "disturbing true nature." If you disagree with the author, Obama "successfully hides" his true nature.

Note that the author is "right" in his own narrative whether the predicitions of his hypotheosis are observed to be true or false. Generally speaking, this is probably the single largest giant red flag in persuasive discourse.

What kind of person presumes that they have the right to hypnotize Americans like children

The author appears to have an irrational fixation with children.

He also anchors the concepts of "hypnosis" with "children," and turns it into a "pervert cult leader" meme a little ways down the page.

Congratulations. I think the author devoted this page to calling Obama a pedophile.

But even more amazingly, what type of person runs for President
of the United States with such behavior?

Personally, I read this as the "uppity negro" theme.

Either way, however, it's projecting the hubris of the author (and hence, the agreeing reader) onto its victim... in the United States, where anyone, of any behavior, is as free to run for president as the next person.

Lending catharasis to a complicit audience can be a motivator for irrational or unethical behavior.

the obscene hand gestures towards his opponents again and again. Obamas actions present the frightening picture of a genuinely perverted man,

We notice how the "obscene/pervert" meme is continued across unrelated sentences.

an egomaniac hypnotist with a g-d complex grown from his ability to get millions to eat out of his hand.

...and now, turned into "pervert cult leader."

I have no idea why the "sexually obsessed/deviant charismatic head of a religious cult" is such a damned overused meme. There's probably really something to be said about the neurotic psychology of a society which can't get over it - if I had to take a guess without analysis, it's probably because we're all a bunch of sexually obsessed deviants (thank God), and the "mind control" aspect allows us to indulge our sexual desires without taking the "blame" for it - but only if we transfer it to the "perverted cult leader" who "made" us do it.

Nonetheless, hack psychology aside... Obama has just been called a "sexually perverted head of a cult." Film (hopefully?) at 11 - god knows it would beat Lindsay's tame site. ;)

Paragraph 3

One must also wonder what would happen to this country if Obama won

Well... coming off the "pervert cult leader" meme like that, I'd guess a nation of rampant sexual deviancy.

Oh, the humanity.

and only afterwards was it uncovered how he used hypnosis to gain the Presidency.

Why, that sounds like the US-specific meme of "ordinary citizens winning an asymmetric war against the government which committed the final shocking outrage" meme.

What I can't figure out for the life of me is whether that's what the author's trying to set up, or of they're just trying to call on the heroic emotion surrounding the narrative.

Paragraph 4

The media may avoid this story for a number of reasons.

Innoculatory narrative explaining away why no one gives a fuck and no one believes it.

The author engages in those a lot.

Maybe it is too complicated for them, doesnt fit a sound byte mold, or maybe cannot be delivered in a 60 second news story before moving on.

Note : it's the media's fault the author is full of crap.

Then again, it
may be the most watched news story from now until the election. This story must break. People must know what is happening and those who help spread this word may be looked back on as heroic defenders of democracy. Lets learn from history, not learn that we can repeat it. Our democracy is on the line.

Note : you wouldn't be an underemployed, overweight loser if you could just be a hero.

It's that root appeal to emotion coupled with the idea of "no matter the outcome, it's explained that I'm right" that's really the mark of some disturbing propaganda written by the ethically-unhealthy. Frankly, I'm starting to enjoy this - it's basically exactly like discussing with the antis, in terms of the foreign methodology, but the topic of conversation is not my continued survival. Nice.