THESE 7 UNBELIEVABLE ADS EXEMPLIFY HOW THE ADVERTISING INDUSTRY DEGRADES WOMEN AND MEN

by Nathaniel Mauka, Staff Writer, Waking Times

With all the scientific developments in neuroscience, perhaps none have been utilized so thoroughly and so effectively for social engineering as in the advertising industry.

If you thought you could get away from the influence of this machine, you’re mistaken. Nearly a century after Coca-Cola took cocaine out of its most popular beverage, neuroscientists have found that soft drinks still work like illicit drugs, as does fat, salt, and sugar on our brains – but strangely, so do the images we “consume.” Are you sure that you are motivated by your own, sovereign mind or are other forces at play?

This massive industry manufactures societal problems such as sexism, gender, race, and age division, depression, etc. by using subtle (and not so subtle) programming that is plugged directly into the brains of millions of people across the globe.

It isn’t just women who are degraded with print and media advertisements. Men are relegated to a certain patriarchal, hyper-macho role relegating them to caveman status. In this advertisement by Old Spice, the inference that man is nothing more than a mindless robot isn’t exactly subtle:

In a Calvin Klein ad, women are relegated to the role of whore, and men to the role of pimp. The imagery is a bit more subtle than in the Old Spice ad, but obvious for those who are intelligent enough to see through the propaganda machine’s façade. Notice, that the woman is a grown, thin, white woman dressed as an innocent child while her legs are open just enough to draw the eyes to her crotch, and the man depicted in the ad happens to be African-American, with one eye oddly half-closed as if he were possessed by a demon. They are also  separated by a clear visual frame, and do not interact with one another, subliminally reinforcing gender and race division.

In yet another twisted advertisement meant to desensitize us to the pervasive problem of domestic abuse, a woman is depicted sitting on a sofa with a black eye while an ominously posed man stands behind her in a position of power. To add insult to injury, quite literally, she is told to “look good” while her face is being battered in.

 

In another ad presented by Van Heusen, a woman’s place in society is clearly depicted by the power brokers who create the nonsensical world which is supposed to sway our subconscious motivations.

Some of us think we live in a democratic society, but as Edward Bernays, the self-proclaimed “Father of Public Relations,” and master-mind behind the Tobacco industry’s push of cigarettes on an unsuspecting population openly details,

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” 

To wit, look at this slick pic of a gang-rape scenario made “vogue” by Dolce & Gabbana, or the immensely degrading ad by American Apparel. In the first advertisement, there isn’t a woman expressing her sexuality freely, and being honored, but held down by force while 3 other men stand in line to abuse her.

 

In the American Apparel ad the woman posing was either extremely uncomfortable, or told to look distressed as she is photographed spread-eagle, insinuating that we should have full access to her, even without her consent…

more…

About the Author

Nathaniel Mauka is a researcher of the dark side of government and exopolitics, and a staff writer for Waking Times.

This article (These 7 Unbelievable Ads Exemplify How the Advertising Industry Degrades Women and Men) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nathaniel MaukaIt may be re-posted freely with proper attribution and author bio.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/05/17/7-unbelievable-ads-exemplify-advertising-industry-degrades-women-men/

WIKK WEB GURU

 

NEW STUDY: FDA – APPROVED DRUGS ARE DANGEROUS

by Jon Rappoport, Guest, Waking Times

It turns out every new medical drug should contain a warning: “The FDA approved this medicine. Watch out.”

Perhaps the warning should be more extreme: “If you’re taking this drug, have an emergency medical crew on stand-by.”

A new study, published in the Journal of American Medical Association, examined all 222 drugs approved by the FDA between 2001 and 2010. The finding? Years after approval, roughly a third of the medicines were then labeled with warnings about serious adverse effects; and some of those warnings indicated life-threatening complications. For example, cancer and liver damage. For example, death—which, the last time I looked, is life-threatening.

The Washington Post reports: “Among the drugs with added warnings [years after the drugs were approved, as safe, for public use]: Humira, used for arthritis and some other illnesses; Abilify, used for depression and other mental illness; and Pradaxa, a blood thinner. The withdrawn drugs [taken off the market] and the reason: Bextra, an anti-inflammatory medicine, heart problems; Raptiva, a psoriasis drug, rare nervous system illness; and Zelnorm, a bowel illness drug, heart problems.”

A pharma trade-group spokeswoman told the Post: “Even with rigorous clinical studies and regulatory review it may be impossible to detect certain safety signals until several years after approval, once the medicine is in broader use.”

No doubt. And that’s why the public is subjected to the luck of the draw, a roll of the dice, a spin of the roulette wheel.

Of course, as I never tire of pointing out, a landmark review (July 26, 2000) in the Journal of American Medical Association, by Dr. Barbara Starfield, found that, every year in the US, FDA approved drugs kill 106,000 people. Extrapolating to a decade, that would be a million deaths.

The new study confirms only a small part of the overall problem.

And the overall problem is what major media don’t want to report on—and what the federal government doesn’t want to touch with a 10-foot pole.

The new study is what intelligence agencies would call a limited hangout, which is a public admission of part of a problem or scandal that is, in fact, much bigger. The huge scandal, in this case, is the routine death-by-medicine numbers every year—which is ignored by the press and the government.

106,000 Americans killed by FDA approved medicines every year. That’s the big one. That remains hidden and unacknowledged.

NOTE: under Trump, the FDA is urged to speed up the drug-approval process. It’s good for business. For patients, it’s a disaster on top of the already existing disaster.

About the Author

Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX,

This article (New Study: FDA – Approved Drugs are Dangerous) was originally created and published by Jon Rappaport’s Blog and is re-posted here with permission.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/05/11/new-study-fda-approved-drugs-dangerous/

WIKK WEB GURU

Are You Ready to Die?

Resultado de imagem para images of are you ready to die?

image edited by Web Investigator

Paul Craig Roberts

“Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight is inevitable, you must strike first.” Vladimir Putin

In George Orwell’s 1949 dystopian novel, 1984, information that no longer is consistent with Big Brother’s explanations is chucked down the Memory Hole. In the real American dystopia in which we currently live, the information is never reported at all.

On April 26—16 days ago—Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznihir, Deputy Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces, stated at the Moscow International Security Conference that the Operations Command of the Russian General Staff has concluded that Washington is preparing a nuclear first strike on Russia.

See:

https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/ 

http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/us-forces-preparing-sudden-nuclear.html 

https://www.times-gazette.com/ap%20general%20news/2016/10/12/russia-china-to-mull-joint-response-to-us-missile-shield  

http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/04/us-forces-preparing-sudden-nuclear-strike-on-russia-moscow-security-conference/ 

The Times-Gazett in Ashland, Ohio, was the only US print media that a Google search could turn up that reported this most alarming of all announcements. A Google search turned up no reports on US TV, and none on Canadian, Australian, European, or any other media except RT and Internet sites.

I have been unable to find any report that any US Senator or Representative or any European, Canadian, or Australian politician has raised a voice of concern.

No one in Washington got on the telephone to tell Putin that this was all a mistake, that the US was not preparing a nuclear first strike on Russia, or ask Putin how this serious situation could be defused.

Americans do not even know about it, except for my readers.

I would have expected at least that the CIA would have planted the story in the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR that General Poznihir was expressing his personal opinion, nothing to be taken seriously. But apparently Americans and their European vassals are not to even know that such an accussation was made.

As I reported some time ago and more recently in my column about North Korea, the Chinese leadership has also concluded that the US intends a nuclear first strike against China.

Alone either Russia or China can destroy the US. If they act together, the destruction of the US would be redundant. What is the intelligence, if any, and morality, clearly none, of the US leadership that recklessly and irresponsibly invites Russia and China to preempt Washington’s attack on them with an attack on the US?

Surely not even insouciant Americans are so stupid as to think that Russia and China will just sit there and wait for Washington’s nuclear attack.

I lived through every stage of the Cold War. I participated in it. Never in my life have I experienced the situation where two nuclear powers were convinced that the third was going to surprise them with a nuclear attack.

I supported Trump because he, unlike Hillary, said he would normalize relations with Russia. Instead he has raised the tensions between the nuclear powers. Nothing is more irresponsible or dangerous.

We currently are in the most dangerous situation of my lifetime, and there is ZERO AWARENESS AND NO DISCUSSION!

How can this be? Putin has been issuing warnings for years. He has told the Western presstitute media on more than one occasion that they, in their dishonesty, are pushing the world to nuclear war. Putin has said over and over, “I issue warnings and no one hears.” “How do I get through to you?”

Maybe the morons will hear when mushroom clouds appear over Washington and New York, and Europe ceases to exist, as it will if Europe continues the confrontation with Russia as is required from Washington’s well-paid vassals.

Within the last several years I reported the Chinese government’s reaction to US war plans for a nuclear strike on China. The Chinese showed how their submarines would destroy the West Coast of the US and their ICBMs would finish off the rest of the country.

I reported all of this, and it produced no response. The Memory Hole wasn’t needed, as neither Washington nor the presstitutes nor the Internet noticed. This is insouciance to the thousandth degree.

In America and its subservient, crawling on their knees vassal states, the information never gets reported, so it never has to be put down the Memory Hole.

If you convince someone that you are going to kill them, they are going to kill you first. A government, such as what exists in Washington, that convinces powerful countries that they are targeted, is a government that has no respect whatsoever for the lives of its own people or the peoples of the world or for any life on planet Earth.

Such a government as Washington is evil beyond all measure, as are the media whores and European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassal states that serve Washington at the expense of their own citizens.

Despite all their efforts to believe otherwise, the Russian and Chinese leaderships have finally arrived, belatedly, at the realization that Washington is evil to the core and is the agent of Satan.

For Russia and China, the Satanic Evil that rules in the West has reduced the choice for Russia and China to them or us.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/11/are-you-ready-to-die/

WIKK WEB GURU

Go the Way Your Blood Beats: James Baldwin on Homosexuality, the Trap of Labels, and His Liberating Advice on Coming Out

Illustration from The Harvey Milk Story, a picture-book biography of the slain LGBT rights pioneer

“Loving anybody and being loved by anybody is a tremendous danger, a tremendous responsibility.”

“Every person of ordinary sex endowment has a capacity for diffuse ‘homosexual’ sex expression … according to the temperamental situation,” the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote in a visionary 1933 letter that framed human sexuality as a matter of fluid attraction to temperaments, not a fixed attraction to genders, eight decades before the modern plight for marriage equality ushered in the universal dignity of love.

This conviction made Mead the perfect conversation partner for James Baldwin (August 2, 1924–December 1, 1987) when they sat down for their remarkable dialogue about identity four decades later. By then one of the most celebrated writers and thinkers in the world, Baldwin was among the era’s handful of openly gay public intellectuals and someone whom the legendary interviewer Studs Terkel aptly described as “one of the rare men in the world who seems to know who he is today.”

No book since Virginia Woolf’s Orlando would do more to enlist art as a force of empathic insight into same-sex desire than Giovanni’s Room, which Baldwin wrote in his early thirties against enormous resistance from American publishers, at a time when the DSM — the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders, psychiatry’s Bible — classified homosexuality as a “sociopathic personality disturbance.” But although Baldwin had devoted his entire life to defending human dignity in all its guises, it was only in his final years that he addressed the question of sexuality and the dark specter of homophobia directly, thanks to Village Voice journalist Richard Goldstein — one of the generation of gay people who had found in Giovanni’s Room what Goldstein considered “an early vector of self-discovery.”

Appalled that a lengthy interview with Baldwin in the New York Times Book Review had swept its subject’s sexuality under the rug, Goldstein decided to take matters into his own hands. He persuaded the beloved writer, “a man who traced much of his acuity and pain to the nexus of racism and homophobia,” to meet with him for a conversation that would become Baldwin’s most personal interview, eventually included in James Baldwin: The Last Interview and Other Conversations (public library).

jamesbaldwin
James Baldwin

From the very beginning of the conversation, Baldwin exerts a lively resistance to all the labels within which we confine the expansiveness of human love. He tells Goldstein:

Giovanni’s Room is not really about homosexuality… It’s about what happens to you if you’re afraid to love anybody. Which is much more interesting than the question of homosexuality.

[…]

The question of human affection, of integrity, in my case, the question of trying to become a writer, are all linked with the question of sexuality. Sexuality is only a part of it. I don’t know even if it’s the most important part. But it’s indispensable.

Reflecting on what gave him the courage to release the novel in Europe despite American publishers’ vehement refusal to publish it, Baldwin considers the deepest societal seedbed of the malady of homophobia, symptoms of which we’ve begun to see anew all these decades later. Echoing Rilke’s assertion that “for one human being to love another: that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks,” he tells Goldstein:

It’s very frightening. But the so-called straight person is no safer than I am really. Loving anybody and being loved by anybody is a tremendous danger, a tremendous responsibility. Loving of children, raising of children. The terrors homosexuals go through in this society would not be so great if the society itself did not go through so many terrors which it doesn’t want to admit. The discovery of one’s sexual preference doesn’t have to be a trauma. It’s a trauma because it’s such a traumatized society…

more…

https://www.brainpickings.org/

WIKK WEB GURU

The Hypocrisy of $425 Mud Jeans Extends Far Beyond the Fake Dirt

by Tracy Moore

You work as a graphic designer in a hip office in the arts district, but you prefer to look as if you spend your spare time digging muddy trenches. Lucky for you, you can solve this sartorial conundrum with a $425 pair of jeans that come coated in fake, caked-on mud, signaling to everyone that you’re a real man who uses his body to do hard man things that get you very sweaty and dirty.

The jeans, sold at Nordstrom, are called the Barracuda Straight Leg, and are pitched as “heavily distressed medium-blue denim jeans in a comfortable straight-leg fit embody rugged, Americana workwear that’s seen some hard-working action with a crackled, caked-on muddy coating that shows you’re not afraid to get down and dirty.”

They caught the eye of Fox & Friends’ Brian Kilmeade, who said if you’re going to wear the muddy jeans you should “earn the mud.” They also stoked the wrath of working-class representative Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs, who called the abomination “further proof that our country’s war on work continues to rage in all corners of polite society,” fostering “the illusion of work. The illusion of effort.” They “aren’t pants,” he writes. “They’re not even fashion. They’re a costume for wealthy people who see work as ironic — not iconic.”

He’s not wrong about the costume part, but it’s not as if this is the first time men’s fashion has co-opted the uniform of the working man at an outrageous markup. Take raw denim. The jeans, which routinely sell for $300 and use stiff raw denim fabric (not pre-washed or pre-distressed in the factory), are almost as precious a piece of clothing as you can get: They’re sewn on vintage, postwar shuttle looms that create a closed edge on the fabric (self-edge or selvedge). They’re meant to be broken in by the wearer via their everyday life and to be seldom washed. Detailed guides for how to create a unique wear pattern without chipping away the precious indigo are mainstays of men’s fashion magazines such as GQ and Esquire.

They’re also a straight rip-off of the original Levi, designed by Levi Strauss, who sought a working man’s solution for 19th century coal miners in San Francisco that was stiff and sturdy enough to endure a backbreaking day of real labor without shredding the fabric.

Or take the lumbersexual, a flannelled and bearded hipsterized city dweller who “is bar-hopping, but he looks like he could fell from a Norway Pine,” Tom Puzak at Gear Junkie wrote of the phenomenon in 2014, coining the term. “His backpack carries a MacBook Air, but looks like it should carry a lumberjack’s axe.” The look involves rugged jeans, rugged, unkempt facial hair, and usually, RedWing work boots, just like ironworkers wore! The boots also sell for hundreds of dollars, far out of reach of the average modern construction worker who could actually use a pair.

As Puzak mocks:

He looks like a hardened outdoorsman but his flannel feels soft to the touch. He will open your beer with an omni-present Buck knife. He is a master of the retro Instagram filter. His flannel is coated with a waterproof DWR coating. His laid back style has been honed with more effort than he would like you to know.

Make no mistake: There’s a lot to ridicule here. Looking like you can chop wood when you can, at best, chop some onions, is a tad farcical for a gender whose entire identity is ordered around authentic toughness, endurance and resourcefulness. I once had a boyfriend who subscribed to this notion: He insisted on smoking Marlboro Reds, shooting guns and mixing the stiffest of cocktails, because, high on the fetishization of tough, hard-drinking literary greats, he believed that this is, after all, what real men do. (Couldn’t change a flat tire, though.)

But can we really blame men for hanging on to the look when they’ve long since lost the map? “There’s a paradigm shift occurring in our country regarding what it means to be masculine, and many men have had difficulty adjusting to that transition,” psychologist James O’Neil told the American Psychological Association in a piece about the sweeping societal changes that have threatened cherished notions of dudeness — globalization, declining manufacturing jobs and women gaining increasing power in the workplace, to name a few, all set to the same steady drumbeat that real men are still supposed to be tough, dominant and self-reliant.

Fake muddy jeans, then, though hideous (as is the matching fake muddy denim jacket), taken with their cousins raw denim and lumbersexual aesthetics, are less a war on work as Rowe put it, but more a striking visual symbol of the anxiety men feel about telegraphing old-school masculinity—even when they aren’t sure what that lived experience looks like anymore.

In my opinion, that’s a contradiction we should probably try to understand more than mock; men, stuck between old ideals and modern progress, are now, in many ways, just playing the part of the men they grew up idealizing, down to the (fake) muddy jeans.

Rowe should know this better than anyone: He isn’t actually a dirty laborer, but rather an actor and celebrity with a college degree paid handsomely to play one on television.

https://melmagazine.com/the-hypocrisy-of-425-mud-jeans-extends-far-beyond-the-fake-dirt-854e19a490a3

WIKK WEB GURU