Propaganda operation, what is targeted to the head of the state is the most effective propaganda

The Statue of liberty

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When the propaganda is targetted to the members of the parliament or head of the state, it will get more effect than targetting it against the ordinary people. When we are talking about the propaganda, we are talking about one way to terrorize the people. And as Vladimir Lenin realized, the purpose of the terror is influent to the people, who make decisions in the state.


The most effective way to terrorize the people is to send them the email, where they were stamped as the hookers or homosexuals. When we are looking for the texts, what is written in Wikipedia, we must say, that many times the sexual behavior has risen as the main role in those writings, what consider the persons like Gerald Bull, the man who created the Saddam Hussein's "super cannon".


Then this man was shot in Belgium, the main role of his life was mentioned the homosexuality. The purpose of that thing should give the audience the thing, how they can yell to the person's who are talking about the work of this man. The role of the lead propagandist is to show the targets for another team, what of course loses their email addresses. Those other persons will get trouble for misuse their emails. And this is the problem in those operations. The "active group" cannot use their gmails and other stuff that is connected to those accounts, and they might get prosecutions about the emails, what they have sent.


When this kind of operation will be done, the one of the team will be working as the "lead propagandist", who shows the target for another person, who will send the emails to the targeted person. The purpose of that kind of operation just causes the need for censorship for the media and limits to the use of the Internet. The persons who will send those letters or texts to the targetted persons are of course using their own e-mail addresses, and those addresses might be shut down if there are marks for misuse.


Of course, the use of the language is not very good, but when those threats like "I will hit you with the baseball-stick" with "greetings from the shooting range" are uncovered in the television, the thing would get more efficient in the people eyes, and of course the marks of that person's automobile or sexual behavior is very nice thing to get effect for own writings. Of course, those persons have only one solution for the different opinions. It is violence. And never this kind of propagandist doesn't forget to mention how many police officers and security guards have interested your political movement. If somebody has different opinions than those persons, would this cause that this rebellious person would left alone.


And every time when somebody doesn't like the writings what that propagandist makes, this kind of writings are made in false-media.  For those propagandists, every person, who has the different opinions is rebellious.  The use of the propaganda works like in the "Panama case", where the leaders of the European Union tax-avoiding firms were uncovered. The purpose of those uncovers were given the reason for starting the censorship on the Internet.


The use of the propaganda is the most effective weapon in the world. In those operations the undemocratic forces will stand behind the "freedom of speech" and actually their way to work is always threat "outsiders" with the violence. There were the opinions that "real leaders" must not stand those things, that someone is digging their dirty secrets, and that's why the real leaders might have guts to censor the Internet. And this is, of course, the way to close the mouth of the oppositions in many countries, there the freedom of speech is something else what it is in the western world.


Sources

Picture 1

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Statue_of_Liberty_-_4621961395.jpg/1200px-Statue_of_Liberty_-_4621961395.jpg

About the articulation and terminology of the feedback

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When we are talking about the possibility of cutting the working relationship, I must say that if some person wants to kick me off, must that person first give me the job. Second what the people do their work is the thing, what must handle in that working community where the breaking of the rules will happen. Third, my working hours are my own business, and if somebody has something to say about them, they are free to call my boss if they want. And I have constitutional right to write what I want if I don't be racist or agitate to make the crimes.


There is always the people, whose mission is to follow how the other people spend their working time and this is the very sad thing. When we are talking about the things that other people think be some kind of nice thing, I must say that if the people don't dare to write on the Internet about those things, what they actually think themselves, will the Internet become the boring place. In the real world is no need to shame, that people have their own thinking and opinions about all the things. But when we are talking about the writings, we probably mean the texts what we make ourselves.

The writing doesn't mean making the sketchbook by some lifestyle magazines. When are we writing our own thoughts to the net, why we can't publish them right after writing? When we think that we will face the bullying in the net, we must say that those people, who bully another person, will normally touch the one world. Those harassers will never see all the text, what is written.

They will take only one specific world, what makes the writer seem like stupid. In some newspapers have been the writings about the social media, and there were high profile cases, where the employees have given kicks to the worker because of the writings in the social media, and that is the very sad thing. The reason for those writings was actually to show people, that they should be quiet for the things what they face in the work life. But in the real world, there is no need to be quiet.


Those harassers ever quit their actions. I ever heard that those firms ever give jobs to those persons, who are harassed in the work and the boss ever says nothing for that. There are workers who have worked all their working life in the fixed-period working relationships, and they ever even offered the full-time job in any company. So why those people should be quiet? Does some employer give their normal work if they are quiet? In some working offices is the policy, that the workers should not use the social media because it makes their opportunity to be selected for jobs more difficult.


But if that person goes to the hundredth interview, what ends in the laughing, I will think would I be quiet about that thing. Or if those firms personnel don't even talk to me or they will act like I'm the furniture, I will as what they care about my writings? If I'm some kind of unnecessary trouble, I will ask is that the job what I want? Why must people be quiet about the things, what is ever convicted by even the own boss?  Is it nice to read that person's opinion of those workmates, whoever says "hi", when you go in the workplace?

When some bosses want to deny the social media, they will afraid, that their families or the friends hear what they really are. And when somebody tells the media, that this person got a job, because he or she doesn't use social media, should we ask. how many times would the leader of the company offer you the job, if you will shut down your social media?

When we are writing about the texts, we can say, that we are thinking with our own brains. I don't copy any guitar magazine photos or some other star's texts on my wall, so the things what I write are my own. This is the thing what I want to tell you, my dear friends. The world is not the nice place, and maybe somebody doesn't like what I write, but this the way how I see those things.