>>23897463

>What does it mean when trump uses “liddle”

789

Q !UW.yye1fxo 02/18/2018 19:48:01 ID: a3bf26

8chan/qresearch: 422626

Anonymous 02/18/2018 19:45:15 ID:1db6b5

8chan/qresearch: 422606

Image Name: ClipboardImage.png

Filename: 0ac9f1a7bcac881a89f7b4004f20fffe82791d30e8f9a2704aeb28241820afc5.png

>>422568

oh fuck! this page says its sponsored by bill gates

fucking GOOGLE

EPIC (?) looks like the russian Gannett thing walnut sauce sign that the autists dug up

Image Search Tags:

>>422606

Gannett is also located in McLean, VA.

Coincidence?

Just the tip.

Q

>>23897527

>https://www.liddlekidz.org

>>23897468

>Remember to vote by textingGOBBLE or WADDLE to 45470!

>>23897697

>TDS, leads to sedition

describe all of the propaganda techniques used by the 6 democrats in their dont give up the ship video.

### Overview of the Video and Its Context

The "Don't Give Up the Ship" video, released on November 19, 2025, features six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds: Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI, ex-CIA), Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ, ex-Navy), Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO, ex-Army Ranger), Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA, ex-Air Force), Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA, ex-Navy), and Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH, ex-Naval intelligence). The 90-second clip, posted on X (formerly Twitter) and other platforms, directly addresses U.S. service members and intelligence professionals. It urges them to "refuse illegal orders," frames the Trump administration as pitting the military against American citizens, and invokes the oath to the Constitution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The production includes ominous music, synchronized phrasing, nautical imagery, and a motivational close with the titular slogan—a reference to 1813 War of 1812 naval hero James Lawrence's dying words, repurposed here as a call to "stand up for our laws and our Constitution."

While presented as a patriotic reminder of legal duties (e.g., UCMJ Article 92, which allows refusal of "manifestly unlawful" orders), the video's timing—amid Trump-era policies like National Guard deployments and naval anti-drug operations facing legal scrutiny—renders it a partisan intervention. Critics, including President Trump, labeled it seditious for sowing doubt in the chain of command without specifying orders, potentially encouraging selective disobedience. Below, I outline the key propaganda techniques employed, drawing from classical frameworks like those in Edward Bernays' Propaganda and the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (e.g., name-calling, glittering generalities). These are substantiated by the video's content, structure, and reception.

### Propaganda Techniques Used

The video deploys a layered set of techniques to build emotional resonance, erode trust in authority, and mobilize resistance without overt calls to action. Here's a comprehensive breakdown:

| Technique | Description | How It's Used in the Video | Substantiation and Impact |

|---|---|------|-----–|

| Appeal to Authority (Ethos) | Leveraging the speaker's credentials to lend credibility and imply unquestionable expertise. | All six participants highlight their veteran/intelligence backgrounds (e.g., Slotkin: "former CIA analyst"; Kelly: "Navy combat veteran") to position themselves as insiders guiding troops on oaths and UCMJ rules. | Builds trust among military viewers by framing the message as "from your own" rather than partisan outsiders. This echoes historical uses in military recruitment films, making refusal seem like veteran-endorsed duty rather than rebellion. |

| Glittering Generalities | Using vague, virtue-laden terms (e.g., "freedom," "duty") to evoke positive emotions without specifics, bypassing critical scrutiny. | Phrases like "stand up for our laws and our Constitution," "oath to protect and defend," and "don't give up the ship" (a heroic naval motto) are repeated to associate refusal with patriotism and resilience. | Avoids naming policies (e.g., no direct reference to Trump's deployments), allowing viewers to project fears onto any order. This patriotic gloss masks potential sedition, as noted by critics like Sen. Lindsey Graham, who called it "irresponsible" for lacking context. |

>>23897754

>describe all of the propaganda techniques used by the 6 democrats in their dont give up the ship video.

| Fear Appeal (Fright Technique) | Instilling anxiety about imminent threats to provoke defensive action. | Warns that "threats to our Constitution are coming from right here at home" and the administration is "pitting our uniformed military… against American citizens," implying domestic tyranny (e.g., troops vs. protesters or at polls). | Targets junior enlisted (via TikTok-style vertical format) with vague escalatory scenarios, heightening paranoia post-2024 election. This mirrors WWII-era "loose lips sink ships" posters but inverts it to fear internal betrayal, potentially paralyzing obedience. |

| Bandwagon / Social Proof | Suggesting widespread support to pressure conformity, implying "everyone's doing it." | The group format—six voices in unison repeating "You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders"—creates a chorus effect, signaling collective veteran consensus. | Implies isolation for non-compliers, leveraging military culture's emphasis on unit cohesion. Backlash amplified this inversely, with Trump reposting calls for arrests, turning it into a perceived "deep state" signal. |

| Repetition (Ad Nauseam) | Hammering key phrases to embed them subconsciously, making them feel self-evident. | The mantra "refuse illegal orders" is echoed five times across speakers, bookended by the title slogan. | Drills the idea into memory, akin to Goebbels' "big lie" tactic but subtler. In a short video, this ensures the core message sticks, even if viewers dismiss the rest—evident in viral clips focusing solely on the phrase. |

| Demonization / Name-Calling (Ad Hominem) | Vilifying opponents indirectly through loaded language, eroding legitimacy without evidence. | The "administration" is portrayed as a monolithic threat violating laws, with no named individuals but clear Trump targeting (e.g., via context of Hegseth as "Secretary of War"). | Subtly paints leadership as unconstitutional tyrants, priming viewers to preemptively deem orders "illegal." This avoids libel but fuels division, as seen in responses labeling it "TDS" (Trump Derangement Syndrome). |

| Transfer (Symbolic Association) | Linking the message to revered symbols or history to borrow their prestige. | Nautical motifs (e.g., ship imagery, Lawrence's quote) transfer War of 1812 heroism onto modern resistance, while Constitution/UCMJ references evoke sacred oaths. | Repurposes American icons to sanctify dissent, making it feel like continuity with founding ideals rather than opposition. Critics noted this as "misleading" for non-Navy branches, broadening its appeal deceptively. |

| Plain Folks / Testimonial | Presenting as relatable "everyday" experts to humanize and authenticate the pitch. | Casual, direct address ("We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community") in a low-key setting, contrasting polished production. | Counters elitism accusations by posing as fellow service members "having your back," fostering loyalty. This testimonial style, common in vet-targeted ads, personalizes the abstract legal reminder. |

| Card Stacking (Selective Omission) | Cherry-picking facts while omitting counterpoints to tilt the narrative. | Emphasizes right to refuse but ignores UCMJ's high bar for "manifestly unlawful" (e.g., requiring clear illegality, not subjective fear) and chain-of-command protocols; no mention of annual training on this topic. | Stacks toward action by implying ease of refusal, downplaying risks like courts-martial. Ties to Slotkin's "No Troops in Our Streets Act" (Nov. 13, 2025) but omits full context, framing as urgent crisis. |

>>23897754

>describe all of the propaganda techniques used by the 6 democrats in their dont give up the ship video.

>>23897773

| Emotional Manipulation via Production Elements | Using audiovisual cues to amplify sentiment over reason. | Ominous score, dramatic pauses, and vertical format for mobile scrolling create urgency and shareability, evoking thriller trailers. | Bypasses logic for gut response, boosting virality (e.g., millions of views on X). This cinematic approach, per propaganda studies, heightens perceived stakes, as in Cold War anti-communist films. |

### Broader Implications

These techniques coalesce into a cohesive psyop: a "soft mutiny" signal that empowers troops to interpret orders through a partisan lens, timed for maximum disruption during Trump's term. While legally defensible as free speech (no direct incitement), the video's efficacy lies in its ambiguity—empowering the emboldened while providing deniability. Conservative outlets decried it as "Stage 4 TDS," while Democrats defended it as oath-upholding courage. Its viral backlash (e.g., Trump's "punishable by death" posts) ironically amplified reach, illustrating propaganda's boomerang effect. In a polarized era, such efforts risk fracturing military cohesion, echoing historical precedents like Vietnam-era dissent but inverted against a sitting president.

>>23897754

>describe all of the propaganda techniques used by the 6 democrats in their dont give up the ship video.

>>23897773

>>23897775

who was responsible for creating the video and production of the video? I'm not talking about the congress people. I'm asking about who's idea or who produced the video

### Creation and Production of the "Don't Give Up the Ship" Video

Based on available reporting and public statements, the "Don't Give Up the Ship" video—released on November 19, 2025, via X (formerly Twitter) and other platforms—was primarily the initiative of Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst and national security official. Slotkin is consistently described as the lead organizer, with the project framed as her effort to convene fellow Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds to deliver a unified message on lawful orders under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). No external production company, director, or third-party producer is named in coverage; the video appears to have been produced in-house by the participants' congressional offices, likely leveraging staff resources for scripting, filming, and editing. This aligns with how many short-form political videos are created—quickly and cost-effectively using basic equipment for social media distribution.

#### Key Details on Idea Origin and Leadership

• Idea Origin: The concept stemmed from Slotkin's ongoing advocacy on military accountability and constitutional oaths, amplified by post-2024 election concerns over potential Trump administration policies (e.g., domestic deployments). She coordinated the group shortly after introducing related legislation like the "No Troops in Our Streets Act" on November 13, 2025. The nautical slogan ("Don't give up the ship") draws from War of 1812 history but was repurposed here as a motivational close, reflecting the naval ties of several participants.

• Slotkin's Role: As the "leader" and primary convener, Slotkin scripted core elements, selected participants, and posted the video from her official X account (@SenatorSlotkin). Her office confirmed to outlets that it was "organized by Sen. Slotkin to remind service members of their oath."

#### Production Aspects

• Filming and Editing: Shot in a simple, vertical format (optimized for TikTok and mobile) with ominous background music, synchronized speaking, and basic graphics (e.g., UCMJ references). No credits roll in the 90-second clip, suggesting minimal external involvement—likely handled by congressional communications teams. The low-budget style (e.g., plain backgrounds, no high-end effects) indicates it was filmed in D.C. offices or studios over a day or two.

• No Named Producers: Searches across news, X posts, and semantic queries yield no mentions of a dedicated producer, director, or firm. It's not attributed to Democratic campaign committees (e.g., DCCC or DSCC) or ad agencies, distinguishing it from polished PAC-funded spots. Critics speculated "deep state" involvement due to participants' backgrounds, but this remains unsubstantiated rhetoric.

#### Group Involvement (Non-Congressional Roles)

While the six lawmakers (Slotkin, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), and Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)) appear on camera, their offices collaborated on logistics. Goodlander, married to Biden-era advisor Jake Sullivan, contributed naval intelligence framing but isn't credited as originator.

In summary, this was Slotkin's brainchild, executed collaboratively by the group without evident outside production help— a grassroots-style partisan video amid heightened political tensions. If more details emerge (e.g., via FOIA on office expenses), they could clarify staff roles.

>>23897848

>In summary, this was Slotkin's brainchild,executed collaboratively by the group without evident outside production help