GOP’s objective is to kill 45.000 Americans each year

According to a Harvard Medical study, since the year 2000, 45.000 Americans have been dying each year for a lack of healthcare coverage. 

After Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was signed into law on 2010, Republicans made 42 attempts to repeal the law that aims at saving the lives of these 45.000 and of 150 million Americans who are under-insured within the private healthcare regimen. 

Since the law has been approved, these Republican “patriots” did not accept to save the lives of millions so they kept trying to repeal the law with all of their forces. For 42 times. 

I think the only other organization on this planet that couldn't be more happy of repealing such a crucial lifeline for the American people, is the terrorist network known as “Al Qaeda”, whose main objective has always been to kill as many Americans as possible. 

45.000 people: 15 times the number of casualties of September the 11th. 

The GOP is being doing a better job than Osama Bin Laden himself.

How can a political party call itself  “patriotic” or even "American " whilst trying to repeal a Law that aims at saving the lives of millions of American fellow citizens?

The answer is: it can’t. 

The real paradox is that according to the Brookings Institute, under the private insurance system, the US, federal and state agencies were increasingly involved in healthcare spending, by paying about 45% of the $2.2 trillion the nation has spent on medical care, almost 10 times more of other country governments like Canada, Australia, Japan, France and Italy, which all have a government-funded healthcare. Nonetheless despite the highest spending on the planet, 40% of Americans were not able to receive healthcare assistance. 

The U.S. government spent more on healthcare than on Social Security and national defense combined, while under the Affordable Care Act the government is not only going to save trillions of dollar but probably the law will provide a new boost to the U.S economy because a study in Health Affairs concluded that under the private regulated system, half of personal bankruptcies involved medical bills. You know what that means? That under Obamacare, Americans won't have to worry of getting bankrupt because of their medical bills, they will have more money on their pocket and consequently the economy will recover much quicker.

So a natural question comes into mind: "in whose interest Republicans are acting when they try to repeal the law?" Certainly not in the government’s best interests nor in the American Taxpayer's because the U.S. Government is going to save not billions but Trillions under the new provisions. And for sure Republicans did not act in the interest of the majority of the American people who is uninsured or under-insured.

Let’s see: maybe the interests pursued by the Republican Party in repealing Obamacare is the one of the Private Insurance sector? Maybe, because under the private regimen they made more money, by squeezing the Government subsidy to cure… sorry, not to cure American citizens because of pre-existing conditions...

If that is the case, in practice the Republican Party acted like a contract killer. 

Although what’s even more incredible, is the fact that these “people” they are still considered as legitimate political representatives of the American people.  

Go figure: A bunch of Contract Killers are the Political Representatives of their own victims. They are not happy about having killed 45000 people a year since the year 2000, they want to kill more while being their own political representatives. 

These people's stated objective is to kill more Americans as possible but they want to run the country.

Sounds good.

The subsequent logical question  is: “Who is going to vote Republican at the next elections?”. 

I would really love to know one reason, that is able to explain me why in the world a registered voter would want to vote for the Republicans?  How did they manage to get a double digit result at the latest elections with a mass-killing agenda?

And even more: ”who is going to publicly affirm of being Republican from now on?”

The less dramatic aspect is that since these people have been in business the world has changed and these “people” still haven’t realized how their own situation has changed, which could  be summarized in the sentence “naked in front of a tv camera in world live”. 

In other words, being under the spotlight without being aware of it.

In today’s world, “not only the kings but the whole world is naked”, because if you steal an ice cream in Rome, Mumbai or Wichita, after one second you show up on Facebook and Twitter and every single person on the planet is going to know your name in an instant. 

On the contrary, these “scientists” keep propping up their selfish attitude, like Neanderthals in the Stone Age, without being aware that the whole world is watching them. They think they still are in the XIX century when the only media was the horse. 

However what really amazes me, is the lack of reaction towards these mass-killers. I mean what really confuses me is the fact that traditional media still consider these dregs of society like legitimate people who deserve respect. 

A weird phenomenon is occurring indeed: some independent media, actually fill their daily news stream with the latest “crazy rant” of Glen Beck, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’ Reilly, like if they were “funny”, because they're raving about social issues while hypocritically invoking religious beliefs, like Satan, the Devil, the bible etc.

This is the saddest aspect of this whole story: the fact that these people are not ditched in the garbage as the scum of society but they still preserve some public dignity because they are considered  “funny”.

It doesn’t matter if they want to kill 45.000 American citizens a year, the “liberal media” call them  “wingnuts” and each of their daily outburst is considered “a joke” and at the end of the day, they are back on track and almost considered “nice people”, or this is what some independent media want us to believe. 

Because these "people" are everything but funny. Last week after having passed the motion to repeal Obamacare for the 42nd time, they were not satisfied and approved a $40 billion food stamps cut, which is the only support of about 150 million Americans.

With 4 out of 5 U.S. Citizens struggling with poverty and joblessness, why a political party would ever want to cut the  basic support of millions of American Families?   

If you look at the general picture, it is enough clear that the real objective of this “Political Party” is not only the one of killing as many Americans as possible, but to keep them in poverty, which in today’s world means keep them in slavery. 

Why in the world a political party would ever will to keep millions of its fellow citizens in a condition of slavery? 

Maybe to exploit them in a much easier way as under-paid workers in Fast Food chains and Wal Marts?  

Just saying. Maybe this is the new economy, the economy of Slavery. 

Sounds good!

I vote Republican because I am an American Patriot!

E Pluribus Unum

Why Oliver Stone is the King of Deception

     King of Deception: Oliver Stone embraced dark figures like Government sponsored Wikileaks and the NSA 

Politics is not the art of possible said Jean Paul Sartre, and certainly politics is not for children, especially if they are incurable daydreamers like American Director Oliver Stone

I am talking about Stone's recent comment on President Obama whom he openly insulted by calling him "a snake".

The reason behind Oliver Stone's comment, relies on his frustration over his mockumentary series "The untold history of the United States" which not only was a complete bomb but led him to the desperate attempt of insulting the President of the United States. Probably Mr. Stone found inspiration from Conservative pundit Anne Coulter, a disturbed woman who called President Obama "A retard" just to attract public attention.

Certainly we did not expect Mr. Stone to reach such a low point, as he really made some amazing Presidential movies in the past, like Nixon (1995) and JFK (1992).

However it's not just the comment he made but the reason behind his indignation that deserve to be investigated. The total failure of his latest documentary series, together with his gratuitous support to ambiguous organizations like Wikileaks and dark figures like Assange and Edward Snowden, they are all clear signs that he's now an old man, whose weakness for investigative journalism led him to buy the worst form of  propaganda.

What's worst is the fact that his maverick instinct for truth and justice is well buried in his past.

First of all, we would like to examine the reasons why Mr. Stone wants us "to turn on President Obama" and what led him to insult the President:

Stone said assumed NSA leaker Edward Snowden "sacrificed himself for the good of the country" and Mr. Oliver Stone praised Russia for giving Snowden asylum: "I think (Russian President Vladimir) Putin did the right thing, and I'm proud of him for doing it," he said.

What is really amazing is Oliver Stone praising "the sacrifice" of (former?) NSA employer/leaker Edward Snowden although what is really hard to understand is what was Edward Snowden' sacrifice? Travelling to Hong Kong? Or staying in a four star hotel for more than a month?

I respect Mr. Stone's past work as screenwriter and as director of some great Hollywood movies of the past but how Mr. Stone could possibly swear that Mr. Edward Snowden is not still working for the NSA? How do you know Mr. Snowden's commitment as a leaker is not part of a larger intelligence plan? What kind of evidence you can provide Mr. Snowden is not still on duty?  

Another famous public stance of Mr. Stone is his unconditional support of Wikileaks as the new Democracy beacon which lightened up the world of secrecy. 

My question is: what's the great contribution of Wikileaks to increase world's freedom and awareness?

I want to remind you what Wikileaks contribution really did consist of: 

One of the major accomplishment of Wikileaks was to increase the UN sanctions against Iran. Indeed some of the most advertised leaks were that Iran was supplying new forms of suicide vests for Al-Qaeda and that the revolutionary guard's al Quds force were training Iraqi Shia militants on Iranian soil. This was exactly what the US government was affirming since long time but no media outlets were interested. When the cable was released by Wikileaks it was welcomed as the Gospel and acclaimed as the news of the year!

These revelations made the basis for the new sanctions to Iran by the United Nations.

Another important (Wiki)Leak, suggested that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allowed representatives of its Intelligence service to meet directly with the Taliban, implying that the Pakistani intelligence was entangled with the Talibans in Afghanistan and this is exactly what the US government was affirming since long time but no media outlets were interested in the news.

Another leaked diplomatic cable from U.S. Embassy in The Hague revealed that Dutch Oil company Shell exported oil to Iran, yet pressed for imposing broader UN trade sanctions on Iran and forcing Chinese and Russian firms to comply, so as to “level the playing field”. In practice Wikileaks helped the American Oil industry in stopping his major competitors (Shell, BP and the Chinese companies) from doing business in Iran.  

In 2009, the top U.S. diplomat in Damascus disclosed that Syria had begun delivery of ballistic missiles to Hezbollah, according to official cables leaked to and published by WikiLeaks.

One of the U.S. government cables released by WikiLeaks exposed the corruption of Tunisia's President's Ben Ali's family, its reach into business in the country, and ability to transcend the rule of law. The Wikileaks cable about Tunisia was like a spark in a storage of black powder. Indeed in the three years before the Tunisian spring, the US Mission in Tunis tried to offer greater cooperation to the Tunisians and they said they wanted it, but not shied from making plain the need for change. The US mission has been blocked by the Foreign Ministry that managed to control all its contacts in the government and many other organizations. Although when the Wikileaks cable on Tunisian President Ben Ali went public, everything changed: the Arab Spring started and for the US Embassy in Tunis was like a dream coming true.

Another well advertised (Wiki) leak was that the Italian secret serviceman Nicola Calipari got killed at the US checkpoint because his car had lights switched off. This leak just by chance confirmed the Pentagon´s official position and contributed to completely vaporize this hot diplomatic potato that put at risk once again the relations between the US and Italy. 

Also Wikileaks obtained the names of 2000 Swiss Bank account holders, whose names were eventually handed over to the IRS who seized the accounts and prosecuted the bank customers. 

From the Arab Spring to the U.N Sanctions against Iran and Syria, to the release of 2000 Swiss Bank account holders, in practice Wikileaks helped the US government in achieving all its goals in a timing that would had been impossible if Wikileaks did not help them with their Public Relations machine.

In practice it seems that the Wikileaks objectives were perfectly matching those of the State Department, the CIA and the IRS. Congratulations! Now there is another supporter of the dark bureaucratic forces: Oliver Stone. The old director completely embraced  the Wikileaks cause. Wow! this guy is a Freedom genius! 

It doesn't matter if Wikileaks dark figure is obviously a megaphone of the darker government outlets, the American director is completely blinded with the great contribution to freedom of Wikileaks and the great charisma of Julian Assange, the propaganda officer who is now running for Senate in Australia only to find a way out from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he lives like in an XIX penny dreadful. 

In the meanwhile Private "Old Shoe" Bradley Maninng goes for a sex-change operation to become Chelsea Manning. Compared to the movie Wag the Dog, the Wikileaks saga is a Greek Tragedy.  

What is really appalling is the world's audience not only got fooled by Wikileaks but it also became a huge brand for Truth, Justice and mostly credibility. No doubt about it. Wikileaks is the most credible source in the world, except for the fact that Wikileaks does not accept public solicitations for its leaks, you can't send your leaks, neither if you are an industry or government insider because they don't accept unsolicited leaks.
If Wikileaks doesn't accept unsolicited leaks, where do they get their leaks from?

The cables released by Wikileaks were just daily field intelligence reports that the Pentagon releases thousands of times a day. These cable were just boring to death reports that nobody wanted to read and no tv network would ever mention on their news headlines neither if you would pay them for. Although because the great Wikileaks organization released them, these "leaks" were able to provoke an outrageous reaction from almost any institution while saturating the media news headlines other than creating an iron alliance between The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel. In practice the world's most important media.

It's like if Wikileaks is a giant recycler of those daily field intelligence reports that otherwise won´t find their way to the audience because they´re so boring nobody would ever read it even in the john.

What is really weird is that Wikileaks with its cables, Snowden with his revelations (what revelation?) and Oliver Stone with his Untold History of the United States did not reveal any untold truth nor any relevant secret. What they did is just creating a cloud of smoke in their followers eyes. 

On September 28, 2010 six USAF retired officers including a former base commander, stated they had UFO encounters that possibly have completely compromised in more than one occasion the national nuclear defence systems of both US and UK.

After such an explosive statement, the reactions from both mainstream media, the US government and the British government was: absolutely nothing. Zero. Vice versa the week after Wikileaks published those "pentagon papers" on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on their website, the reactions from mainstream media and governments were enormous in volumes and indignation. 

Strangely, no Wikileaks cable ever mentioned nor confirmed such an explosive news, nor Edward Snowden revealed anything on this subject and there's no trace of this in Mr. Oliver Stone's "Untold history of the United States". Why? Because these people are propaganda officers whose only objective is diminishing people's awareness, spread disinformation and keep up with the truth embargo on a key issue like life in the Universe.

Snowden is defined "the greatest breach in the US security", Wikileaks is an organization whose goal is to reveal secret government information, while Oliver Stone made a documentary series called "The Untold history of the United States".

According to Dr. Steven Greer, the Director of the Disclosure Project, Life in the Universe is the most kept secret of the United States (probably the only one too) more than the Hydrogen bomb. But not Edward Snowden, not Wikileaks and nor the Untold History of U.S. by Oliver Stone ever even mentioned a single word over Life in the Universe. Why? Because they are false flag disinformation outlets, whose only objective is to deceive public opinion. My words and judgement might sound weird, conspiratorial or even crazy at this time but I warmly invite you to reflect on all this and see what's coming. I only ask you to check the facts, of the past and of the future.

In the meanwhile, if President Obama is a snake, we can affirm without the trace of a doubt that Oliver Stone is the King of Deception.

E Pluribus Unum

The Syrian Paradox or the End of the Deception Era

                                            How the Social Media Revolution is Changing the World as We Know It

What is happening in these hours on the Syrian theater cannot be defined but as a real Paradox.

Yesterday, the British Parliament has rejected a possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to deter the use of chemical weapons.

Why in the world the British Parliament rejected the military strike on Syria proposed by its greatest military ally, the United States of America?

The main theory to explain such an unexpected response, is due to the public recollection of what happened in March 2003, when then British Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies.

Blair claimed that Iraq could have launched a chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes and the Parliament's approval decision was taken upon that emotional sense of urgency.

After an investigation following the invasion, the U.S led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion.

Tony Blair lied and misled the British parliament in the build-up to the Iraq invasion, that's why in the British public imagery the words "chemical weapons" inevitably lead to the recollection of those deceiving lies.

The consequent situation created by those lies was well summarized by current British PM David Cameron: "Tony Blair 'poisoned the well' of public trust".

The War Speech made by Tony Blair back in 2003, was in fact a well originally poisoned by the Bush administration, to justify the Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Indeed the fairy tale that Tony Blair told the British Parliament on March 20, 2003 was based on the story told on February 6, 2003, by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who appeared before the UN general assembly to "prove" the urgency to engage a war with Iraq.

Although the presentation failed to convince the members of Security Council, Powell succeeded in hardening the overall tone of the United Nations towards Iraq but failed to convince Europe where there was widespread skepticism of any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

The British intelligence denied the existence of any terrorism link, given the mutual hatred between Islamists and the secular regime in Baghdad.

Now that the chemical weapons have apparently been used by the Syrian regime and we desperately need international support for an overdue air strike, we are living in a giant paradox because the US government's credibility is well gone thanks to the former Administration and because of this, no support by The United Kingdom, our greatest ally, will be provided.

Judging an history paradox is difficult because the British rejection of the military strike, or even better, the British Parliament's representation of the Syrian reality was based on the worst of all possible assumptions: that the American Administration could have lied on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime because last time they presented a similar case, (Iraq) they fabricated the whole thing and government officials of the highest ranks lied publicly in a solemn location such as the United Nations General Assembly Hall.

Some people overseas would just shrug his shoulders and say "ok what's the big deal?" but the British take these things quiet seriously and that's probably the reason why they never lost a war.

The most odd element of this whole story is the fact that what is really put in doubt here by the British parliament is not just the legitimacy of the Air strike, but the very reason for a military strike. Like if the President of the United States could lie to the British people and the whole world just to go to war! 

This is quiet unbelievable but this is exactly what is happening, thanks to the destruction of the White House reputation caused by President W Bush, who back in 2003 while he was desperately trying to convince the world that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, he exploited the Presidency reputation, its historical greatness and its intrinsic credibility only to pursuit his own happiness.

The British rejection of the American Air Strike in Syria will go down in the history as a point of no return, because for the first time in history, the United States government's credibility has been questioned by the greatest of its allies: The United Kingdom.

However I don't think that the Bush Administration by itself might have completely destroyed the U.S. government's credibility, because as General Turgidson says in Dr. Strangelove: "you cannot condemn a whole program because of a single slip up"

Indeed in the past few years we have been witnessing an increased sense of skepticism towards the government's credibility and it has been skyrocketing in the past ten years. It started with the attack of September 11 2001 and lasted for the whole duration of the Bush presidency until the Election of President Obama.

More in particular, the discussion over the government's credibility has been boosted by the coming of the Social Media technology, through which, average citizens started to interact each other over crucial issues, to question government organizations, elected officials and the former mainstream media outlets.

Ultimately the social media revolution helped in mobilizing people for their shared goals. See for example the same-sex marriage that became a law just recently both in many U.S. states and in the UK, or the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is still active thanks to their social media channels despite the fact they are not acknowledged by any political group or party. People use social media to grab the attention of authorities for wrongful convictions, like in the case of Ryan Ferguson, who thanks to his 55.000 Facebook supporters managed to obtain a further appeal hearing.

The most important aspect of how Social media affected public life both in America and in the rest of the world is that it has helped the world's citizens to put an end to government and media deception.

The traditional media labeled the interpretation of supposed government lies as "Conspiracy theories" although if these were only "theories" they would have not been able to stop such an important institution as the British Parliament from giving its consent to an air strike over a small country like Syria. The conclusion is that something is definitely changed in the audience perception and its ability to debunk deception.

I think that time has come for all the world's governments to face more in depth their credibility problem and how to cope with this new reality that allows every citizen to analyze and scrutinize every single bit of information coming from traditional media outlets or government organizations.

The major change is that in a world of Social Media, you can't hide a skeleton on your closet, not anymore! Not even a bone, or a pubic hair…. thanks to the social networks, like Facebook and Twitter, people started to exchange information in a faster and unexpected ways.

You have to see this change like an independent alternative stream of information which has been created by itself and found its way to the world's audience in a very customized fashion so that everyone on the planet has the clear perception of what's happening. This way  there is no risk for deception by propaganda outlets because they would be immediately debunked.

This stream of information, only eventually would land to the traditional media outlets which have been started struggling to keep up with the social media information flow.

According to a Survey made by the PEW Research Center, 70% of those interviewed relies on Facebook as their main news source while 36% go to Twitter.

This represents a major change in the media landscape, I would say it's a real revolution because at present Facebook, Twitter and Youtube have become the new "Mainstream media", as the majority of people do rely on these new media as their main news source and not on the traditional media such as the old tv networks.

People today choose to rely on independent and credible news sources that are not owned by giant corporations that might be entangled with Governments and whose credibility might be in doubt.

So what's happening is that governments might lose control of their public agenda if their credibility is only supported by old traditional media.

The collapse of the traditional media opened a completely new scenario where it's the people and not the government or the traditional media that controls the news and more widely the information.

In the past sixty years we have been passively suffering the corporate media message, which went on air on a one-way direction to our tv set in our living room and we were completely unable to verify the authenticity of the message, to respond or to interact with the media or to comment the news together with the other viewers.

Today things have completely changed and every message from the media is analyzed, checked, scrutinized, questioned, commented and only eventually gets labelled as authentic or discarded by the audience as a fake. In practice there is no room for deception or lying in the new media system, because average citizens have the tools to confront each other on real time on every single thing they re being told and that's an extraordinary instrument that can be defined as "real time democracy".

In fact despite the downplaying of the social media by the former mainstream media, the social media completely took over the news production machine and I am not talking about breaking news, I am talking about debunking the news propaganda operated by some news outlet which still at today think it's possible for them to present a manipulated reality instead of the objective one.

In a world made of social media, even thinking of being able to present a different manipulated reality is simply ridiculous. I just want to make you a little example about the power of Social Media:

In the past six months the Cable Network Fox News has literally fabricated a series of phony scandals to diminish the image of the U.S. President.

What they did is they have put into these fake scandals all their energy, time, money and all the human resources they had, but for the first time in history of modern communication, their attempt has completely failed and the products of their news-fabrication machine have been completely debunked and rejected by the audience and labelled as preposterous and ultimately fake.

This is something completely new in the media field: one of the largest traditional news media saw its content being not only disputed but completely dismissed by its own audience. Consequently Fox News posted its lowest ratings in the A25-54 demographic since August 2001 in both total day and prime time. (Nielsen Live + Same Day data)

 In today's world the audience doesn't buy anymore whatever the traditional media pukes out. If you are not credible or if your information doesn't match with our reality checks, you are immediately vaporized and labelled as "not credible".

In a world of social networks, people make more questions and are not satisfied with the infotainment they are offered by the traditional media but they always look for a second opinion to confirm what they learn.

The general assumption that the media in the wealthy world are simplistic, superficial, and celebrity-focused is seeing a reversal of trend and average people they are turning to social networks to exchange information about what's really happening on main street.

However the traditional media, especially those linked to the Conservative side of the political spectrum don't want to surrender to the new reality and they keep living in a state of denial. Although the only effect they are obtaining is to lose more audience every single day.

We live in a world that learned that change is possible and that has become our daily goal as a global audience. Social achievements like same sex marriage, medical marijuana and other shared goals have been reached thanks to the mobilization of people through social media.

Despite these major achievements we still have to assist to painful show of despair by those sickening people who live in a state of denial and they fear the new media like the Devil itself. People like Pat Robertson whose masochist activism is still focused on lesbians practicing witchcraft, or Rand Paul ravings against people using food stamps.

What conservative pundits still struggle to understand is that the social media revolution completely annihilated the brinkmanship strategy of those traditional media that blindly represented only corporate interests. What happened is the new mainstream media, represented by the social networks is composed of people, human beings! And this new world is completely focused on the interests of citizens first and then on corporations.

This new vision shifted our priorities towards the well being of citizens rather than the one of corporations and this is a point of No Return.

In a such a new scenario there is only one chance for all of the world's institutions and organizations: to be honest and truthful because there's no chance of reversing the situation unless you want to establish a dictatorship.

America has the unique chance of having an incumbent leadership which is enough enlightened to take advantage of this new media revolution and lead the world to an endless time of peace and prosperity.

The only way to do so is trying to level (for what is possible) all the major conflicts within our own society by wiping off all the phony issues and the meaningless positions held for example by the Conservative groups as they really have no future.

It is simply unbelievable we still reading news about people being discriminated for having a darker complexion or Republican leaders not attending the MLK march. It really makes no sense, for a civilization whose main goal is progress and advancement. Physical appearance is something that can only frighten primitive brains, or it can only be a phony excuse to keep up divisions within our own society for a primitive political purpose. But who are the voters who support such a Neanderthal's agenda? You really want their votes?

In a world of social media, these are major blows for any organization, because everybody would know  in real time what your stance is over such a crucial issue like Racism and civil rights.

The time of the phony issues is over. What reactionary forces still struggle to grab, is that people of earth will keep gathering on Facebook and Twitter and what they are forming is a single giant consciousness, that gathers the whole world in it.

We as a single consciousness are able to judge what's really going on and every lie or mystification or fake scandal would be immediately debunked because the world's consciousness is made of a combination of millions of opinions and representations that confront each other and mix and grow.

One way or the other the truth will out. Like in biology, where monoclonal antibodies tend to prevail over viruses.

So if the world's population gets everyday smarter and smarter and more united in a single giant consciousness, it becomes harder to fool them with the same old propaganda gimmicks.

At the end of the day there are two options left: 1) you make up a more sophisticated propaganda scheme with the risk of being debunked once more 2) You stop cheating.

E Pluribus Unum