The politics of limiting your choices in corporate media/political polls to guarantee the 'right result'

Polls have been used in the lamestream media for a long time. Pre-internet & mobile phones, people were asked to 'ring in' with their analogue phones, or were called by people conducting opinion polls which gave the 'public's opinion' about a range of serious topics.

Many moons ago, i worked for a market research company called Quadrant, who at the time, performed surveys on behalf of the Herald-Sun. In a room full of people performing the same menial task, i would have a list of phone numbers & would ring them in turn and ask a series of questions.

These questions were designed to elicit a particular response, before, we asked the question that would be published in the paper. Most questions that i asked were never published in the paper.

This two minute, seventeen seconds clip from the brilliant English tv series, 'Yes Prime-Minister' illustrates the method of governing peoples opinions in polls rather magnificently. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&feature=player_embedded
 

Yesterday, whilst reading a story that i intend to share on 'Mikiverse Law', entitled "Detaining drivers a human rights' breach: lawyer" in the Canberra Times, i came across a poll that was using the logic of limiting your choices in order to get public opinion to a pre-arranged destination.

Notice that all of the questions presume that the police have the right to detain you. The poll is debating the issue of the circumstances that govern this police detention of an innocent man, and for how long this detention. Not, whether or not a detention should be taking place.

It is also worth noting that the positioning of the poll immediately after the story, as opposed to above, in the middle or to the side is not accidental.

It is my opinion that the logic that underpins a poll like this is that because, apart from the article itself, there are no 'primer' questions to shepherd you to pre-arranged conclusion, different tools have to be employed to try to ensure success. 

Therefore, the article, coupled with the limitations enforced by the poll question itself, is the employed method of generating 'public opinion' on this particular issue.

USING THE REFERENDUM TO GUARANTEE A POLITICAL OUTCOME.

In 1999, war-mongering terrorist, Prime-Minister, John Coward, proposed a referendum on the issue of whether or not Australia should be a republic.

Coward, a staunch monarchist, didn't want Australia to become a republic to become a republic, unless it was on his terms, so, being the devious criminal that he is, successfully sought to pervert the referendum process itself.

He did this by, instead of asking a direct & simple question such as:

Do you support Australia becoming a republic?

Instead, Coward had the temerity to ask: 

"A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.1"

It is in fact a proposal for the continuation of the same cistern, with the Monarch/Governor-General being retitled a 'President' and being appointed by politicians as opposed to 'we the people'.

The most significant change is in fact the change in appointment of the Governor-General/President from the Prime-Minister/Cabinet to both Houses of Parliament.

Naturally enough, no mention was made in the referendum to the question of the existing ownership of the land by the various Originie nations.

The second question was more devious.

"Electors were also asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum which asked whether they approved of:
A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.2"

The people said NO. 

The Constitution ALREADY HAD A PREAMBLE in it, so why ask people if the government could insert something that already exists.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

This is an important point to get your head around because these are particular employments of a dangerous political instrument called the 'Hegelian Dialectic', whereby, the media/government et al uses the generated 'public opinion' to demand that the government engage in particular behaviour.

Many of you are familiar with its employment after false flag op's like 9/11, but, not so familiar with the fact that this tool is rudimentally employed by corporate media, government etc to give you a false impression about what 'public opinion' is on a myriad of topics that seeks to influence or govern, not just your view but, your activities relative to perceived authority.

It is my opinion that it is in all of our interests to be as aware as we can about all of the tools that these vipers employ against us individually and collectively so they can live of our collected energy.

Anything we can do to prevent this is in all of our interests.

FOOTNOTE

1. http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_Referendum_Reports_Statistics/1999.htm
2. http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_Referendum_Reports_Statistics/1999.htm 

mikiversepolitics 18 Feb 2014