Those damn people with eyes and ears!

Cause and effect is the relationship between two things when one thing makes something else happen.

Subliminal messaging is designed to send you a message that will slip past your usual mental radar and embed a different message.

Put the 2 together it can be a very powerful tool.

Now for a low IQ layman like Kevin Maguire its very easy to see through

Maguire here uses blunt force trauma to get his cause and effect message over. Immediately he embeds the message that this is a far right terrorist attack (Its not, there are no victims other than the bomber who committed suicide) I read his social media pages, apart from expressing anger toward the government not getting a grip on the migrant crisis, there is no evidence to suggest he simply hates foreigners

But then his message moves into something more subtle. Suella Braverman using the word "invasion" leads to people bombing migrant holding centres.

This is akin to saying people who play violent video games go on to be mass murderers, or at the very least, violent video games fuel a mass murderers desires. Or that rapists who have easy access to porn are fuelled to go out and commit acts of rape.

Its a lousy message, but not untypical of hack journalists like Maguire.

But for something more subtle lets take a look at left wing loony Jolyon Maughan

This is how someone from academia approaches the issue. Its little wonder that most of Maughans caseload ends in epic failure

What they both fail at (and it is a spectacular fail) is that people have eyes, ears and they are capable of reading.

The internet rages on

While I do believe that legacy media will continue to play its own part in discourse management, the internet has truly opened up Pandora's box in terms of how we not only access our news but how that plays just as big (if not bigger) a part in discourse.

In spite of how much Maguire insists on trumpeting his message, he's regularly drowned out by people with eyes and ears.

Example. The petrol bomber only killed himself as I have previously mentioned, clearly he has a mental health problem, and his attack was on the centre itself, not the people being processed inside.

Lets make further observations. Using a word like "invasion" may be considered "inflammatory" but Braverman is describing the event itself, not targeting people. Its entirely plausible that British people are more than capable of recognising that not all immigrants are hostile, in fact, common sense tells us they are not. An example of inflammatory rhetoric would be someone like Sonny Hostin, a panellist of US daytime show "The view" calling white, republican women "parasites" can you see the difference? The former is describing an act, the latter is describing a group of people

In the same manner, we know that the majority of muslims in Britain are peaceful, the vast majority of black people share British values. In fact Brits KNOW that the migrant population of Britain only seeks to live in peace and work hard to build a better society.

But this is where the warped ideology of the far left takes us. They want free speech to be censored, they want to be the single source of information and they will use any means possible.

But its those damn people with eyes and ears (and an internet connection that is the problem) If you want to continue to help shape the message flat out lying is not going to work anymore.

Its OK to admit the channel crossings are an invasion (because that is what they are) Braverman was merely pointing out a fact

Maughan is giving that message that to portray something as an invasion means lone wolves will continue to attack migrant centres. But its the wrong message. Public figures are no longer in control of the narrative. Yet they continue to double down in the same, tired old way. Not only do they get constantly exposed and ridiculed, they cannot adapt to the modern world.

And who can forget Diane Abbott in yet another stunning display of ineptitude claims that treating people like rapists means they will go out and rape.

Yes, she really typed these tweets. Like most of Abbotts thinking, it literally makes no sense. How does society treat a rapist? Well we lock them up, in fact we lock people up for all sorts of reasons. So if we lock anyone up, we shouldn't be surprised if they rape people when released is what Abbott is saying.

Why bother locking anyone up eh Di, Or if we do, why bother releasing them? Diane isn't known for her big brain thinking.

But we do need to be mindful, there is always a catch. Just because the little boy is always crying wolf, one must constantly keep a watch for the coming of the actual wolf itself.