本页主题: The fine line between actors and politicians 打印 | 加为IE收藏 | 复制链接 | 收藏主题 | 上一主题 | 下一主题

top
级别: 新手上路


精华: 0
发帖: 33
威望: 43 点
红花: 330 朵
贡献值: 0 点
在线时间:0(小时)
注册时间:2017-09-08
最后登录:2019-03-29

 The fine line between actors and politicians

Some people go to the news for information but theyre more likely to be mislead than anything else.

Politicians are like actors. They are brought into a production to play a specific role. They're not the ones who make it all happen. Actors are chosen by the director, and producers, not the other way around. The ones who actuallly make things happen are the producers, directors, and writers. Before the actor even enters the stage, the story is already written. The direction of the show has already been completed. The real leaders already have an idea of how they want to movie to be without ever consulting the actor. The reason why I mention this is because the media frequently dupes us into thinking that politicians actually choose the direction politics goes in. The truth is, politicians don't, just as actors can't just change a script, or story line. Actors are simply brought in to play the character in a convincing way. They are not the character, just like Arnold Schwarzeneger isn't really a terminator. Again, I say this because the media frequently misleads people into thinking that presidents or prime ministers can decide what direction their countries go in. Some may argue that presidents aren't even actors, they are simply figure heads, because as we know, presidential aids are doing most of the work. Presidents simply show up at places, make some speeches, go home, and go to sleep. When presidents meet with other presidents, these presidents are simply reading word for word what their aids have prepared for them.
It's a joke to think that Trump came up with any ideas, and made any major decisions without first consulting the ruling class elite, aka the real leaders. It's an even bigger joke to think that presidents are actually elected by ordinary people. They're not.


I am watching a Chinese news show here talking about how Japan's Anbei wants to take Japan down a militaristic road, and while this may be true, he is certainly not his own master. He was hired to play a militaristic leader, but this is not by any means, his own making. If you saw the media, you would think this was all his own idea. The Chinese media also makes it sound like Anbei is trying to convince the west to go along with his master plan. This does not sound believable. What sounds more believable is that Anbei is a tool of the west to complete their plan of wiping China off the map. Once again, Anbei is the pawn, he is not the king or queen. The king or queen is the west. However, you would not get this impression from the Chinese media, and would be mislead into thinking that Anbei is trying to talk the west into going along with his imperialist plan. If we look at the big picture, we can see the one with the imperialist plan is the west. It is much more likely that the Chinese media is afraid of offending its western masters by accusing the west of being imperialists.

What is also likely is that the Chinese are also in on the imperialist plan themselves, and merely want to be an actor themselves for this theatrical production. If we've looked at China's role in the past 40yrs, they are a supporting actor. They're not any reasonable resistance to western imperialism. In fact, it's the opposite. They accomodate imperialism. What kind of opponent to imperialism would lend trillions of dollars to imperialists? Send millions of students to imperialist countries to study? Send millions of tourists to imperialist countries, giving billions, and billions of dollars to imperialists along the way? Allow their own people to be exploited by imperialist corporations.

Based on what the Chinese media leaked to the world in the 60's, we can gather that the chief imperialists are located in the west, not Japan, and it is not logical that Japan has the ability to influence the west, nor would the west allow it. As I mentioned, Japan is the actor. The script has already been written. Anbei, is an actor that can be replaced, just as either Michael Keaton, or Val Kilmer could play bat man. It is unlikely that Anbei can make any major decisions without first consulting the west.

The news similar misleading reports in the same way on how Taiwan president Cai Ying wen wants to take Taiwan down a road of independence. If Anbei is not his own master, then Cai is probably even less of her own master. She doesn't wish to do anything. In a similarly misleading way, the media says she is trying to get support from the west to satisfy her appetite for independence, but what is more likely is that the west brought her in to promote independence, and that Cai is not likely to voice any opinions unless given prior approval, and that if her western masters commanded her to drop the independence act, she would not hesitate to do it in a minute, or she would be instantly be replaced with someone who fits the role better. She is merely reading from a script. Who wants independence are probably the people behind the scences, the people with real power, not the figure heads. But even so, the term independence itself is misleading, because what we have seen from previous independence movements around the world only indicates that independence is another word for becoming a colony of the west. We saw this with Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and countless other countries. Real independence means not taking directions from the west.

But going back to Cai, or most politicians in this world. First, someone needs to promote a politician. This politician can be Obama, or Cai, or anyone really. The media, and internet hypes the politician up, and storms up popular support. But let's stop for a minute and think. Why would the ruling class (directors, producers, and writers) spend all this money and time to hype up a politician? Of course there would be something in it for the ruling class. And if you have the media, and internet at your disposal, there is little you can't do. So, if the ruling class is going to prop you up, then obviously, you're going to play the role they want you to play. Politicians certainly are in no position to make demands, or try to actually lead, because the ones who pull the levers of the internet, and media will simply discredit any disobedient politicians through their many chanels. On the other hand, politicians generally do not have very much control over the media, or internet. This explains why Donald Trump has so many bad things to say about the media, because the media isn't in his pocket, and whoever controls the media, is the one who is actually in control.

Previously I have spoken about China's weakness and decline. This is somewhat connected to the media. If one examines China's media during the 60s, particularly 66, the media was much more honest, and fearless. They criticised the west for violating human rights, and exposed the crimes of the west. All of this changed in the 70s, when China took a pro western route. It is partly because of this that China lost the popular support of both the Chinese, and the people of the world. Today's China tries to dupe its audience into believing that Japan, and Taiwan are trying to take the west down an imperialist and anti Chinese route, but the truth is very different. The impression that the Chinese media gives us is that China is not only misleading its audience, but is also afraid of the west. As with any human, or animal, if you come off as being both deceptive and cowardly, then that isn't going to gain you much respect, and it is no wonder why China has very little supporters around the world today, particularly when compared to the late 60s.

Another way in which the Chinese media further discredits itself is how they make excuses for american imperialism. They claim that Trump acts this way because he's a businessman, somehow excusing his imperialist actions. What difference does it make if an imperialist is a screen actor, businessman, college profesor, or soldier? An imperialist is an imperialist, and everyone knows it. Obviously, businessmen will have greed, and selfishness at his core, but this does not mean that an artist cant be equally as selfish, or greedy. In the past, we have seen "musicians" such as Bjork play important roles for imperialism. Both Bjork, and Trump play similar roles in getting the masses behind imperialist ideas, whether it's anti Chinese, anti immigrant, or pro militarism. Trump's background is not very important, because imperialists come from a wide variety of backgrounds, but their game plan is generally the same, especially when the power does not lie in the hand of a president. When Trump was first elected, the Chinese media used some very deceptive reporting. They knew Trump was going to take a more aggressive approach, otherwise, China wouldn't have built the islands in the south China sea. However, the Chinese media played dumb. They kept saying they don't know what Trump will be like, but they knew. They were just uninterested in informing the public about Trump's tendencies. Perhaps if this was the 60s, the Chinese media would have criticised Trump for being an imperialist from the very begining, and called on the people to take action against him before he even ran for president. That's the difference between the China of yesterday, and China today. They wouldn't have played these guessing games that wastes everyone's time, and insults the peoples intelligence.
[ 此帖被top在2018-12-10 11:37重新编辑 ]
  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2018-12-09 18:02 | [楼 主]
帖子浏览记录 版块浏览记录
中国文革研究网 » CR STUDIES
 
 

Total 0.010160(s) query 3, Time now is:05-22 12:47, Gzip enabled
Powered by PHPWind v6.3.2 Certificate © http://wengewang.tk