Friday, June 5, 2015

Who Do You Think of When I Say..."Gary Condit"? Propaganda Number One: Scandal

Chandra Levy.

Yet, he did not kill her.

This is actually a form of propaganda that is used to smear an enemy that Gary Condit foolishly brought upon himself...

by lying .

Propaganda Technique Number One:  Scandal

Propaganda is often used to destroy one's political enemies, so that the voter base can be protected, in short term gain.

Since we are coming upon the next presidential elections, and this blog is dedicated to deception detention, is there a better mix than politics and deception to be found in today's "subjective" ruling world, where logic is "hate" and feeling is "love"?  I'll save that technique for the third (3) installment.

Propaganda's techniques are often successful in that they appeal to human nature.  Thus, your understanding of human nature will dictate how you think about yourself, how you think about others, and how politicians' words will impact you.

We are divided in most general terms, into two schools:

1.  Man is born with propensity towards evil, and must be, therefore, trained to do good.  Or

2.  Man is born with propensity towards good, but when exposed to evil, is susceptible to evil.

Part 1 seeks to restrain evil, with historical "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill" rehearsed into a child's hearing, over and over, including using mnemonics, including song, as well as narrative, that is, moral stories to inspire the choosing of good.  This is done with or without religion and the follow up is that the child is taught consequence including empathy towards victim.

Part 2 says that man is basically born good, and does evil because he has been exposed to it.  This is to say that "thou shalt not steal" is not as important as making sure the child has money and opportunities for money.

 This is where a problem of poverty is seen and decisions are made based upon one of these two beliefs;

either heavy emphasis upon personal responsibility or heavy emphasis upon help.

This is the proverbial argument:

Do we give him a free fish, or do we help him buy a fishing pole?

Politicians build voter base for themselves on this simple question.

Propaganda seeks to enforce an answer.

In the case of Gary Condit, the association with the negative appealed to human nature that is born with propensity towards the negative, who thrives on ugly rumors and has to be taught to embrace goodness.

This is where scandal is used, so often, that even when not true, the "scent sticks" to the person.  In Condit's case, he lied about their relationship in the worst possible timing.

The ugliness of scandal matters less than this:

Make an ugly allegation and let people divide into two groups:

1.  He did it
2.  He did not do it

Let's choose something very ugly:  child molestation.  Put it "out there" in media that Mr. Smith, who is running for office, "may have ties to child pornography..."

It is really ugly.  For a man, it is about the worst thing (still) that can be pinned upon someone, even in today's subjective environment where one may be biologically male, but "feel" female, thus, he is.

My 13 year old son announced last night that although he appears to be biologically 13, he "feels" that within him, he is 21 and should be permitted to go to a bar and have a beer with his older brother.  

Point noted.

Subjectivity, however, will be used in deception in a different article.

Back to Propaganda Number One:  Scandal.

Float it that Mr. Smith "may" have ties to child pornography, and openly opine that he may have even acted out his fantasy and let the word spread. The nastier the allegation, the more the odor will stick to him.

People will react in all sorts of ways.

People will line up and condemn the journalism as "weak" and "unsupported."

Others will say that they had a "feeling" all along, that he was a pedophile and this will then help in the division that propaganda seeks.  Since what one "feels" is now trumps science, this will hold a lot of weight with some.

Let them argue back and forth.

Let them take sides.

Then, another group will arise and say that pedophilia is a genetic sexual attraction and that this will be our next Civil Rights category.

Greece will say, "hey, pay them to stay home as a disability.  You get to hire a whole bunch of people to accomplish this: you need government workers to collect the money, distribute the money, type up the paperwork, supervise each level, and you even need to hire some to investigate to make sure he is home, looking at child porn, but not touching children.  Lots of voter base to build here with government jobs. You don't have the money? Borrow it.  Germany will lend it to you.  If they say 'no', call them racist and threaten to send Jihadist by the score into the streets of Berlin.  They'll loan you the dough."

This group is quickly ridiculed as ridiculous, on talk radio, but then the media response is that "extremest talk radio is dangerous" and that they have "no compassion" for pedophiles is soon replaced by yet another word (and another propaganda technique of deception), "hate", and the moral high ground of the "absence of hate" is established.

Splinter groups everywhere arise, including vigilantes who want to go and execute the pedophile and then some more extreme group arises on Face Book and says...

Still another group has found photos of Mr. Smith rubbing children's heads at a soccer game, clearly "grooming them" for later abuse.

Pete Townsend was recently praised without a single contrary view in the position of asking, "What about the lives of children destroyed in the making of child pornography?"

Then, victims of childhood sexual abuse go on television and talk about their destroyed immune systems, and the hurt that is imposed upon them, and so on...Though their suffering was, and is, real, if it suits a politician's purpose to minimize, demonize or blame them, it will happen.  Every angle you can imagine will be taken.

Then another group tries to prove the allegations are false, but they are shouted down as "partisan" and "divisive" and...

It seems that everyone is talking about Mr. Smith and child molestation.


It matters little that he was innocent, or that the arguments to and fro, for and against, are clever, strong, weak, subjective, silly, or anything else:

just as long as Mr. Smith and child molestation are spoken of in the same breath, Mr. Smith's political ambition and his associations, can be defeated.

The first and major technique used in propaganda war is the Scandal technique, which has one goal:  get as many people as possible talking about the target and the Scandal together.  The less educated the audience, the better.

Gary Condit.

Just saying his name brings most of us to the name of Chandra Levy ,the murdered young woman he was involved in while in office.  When she disappeared, he lied.

How incredibly foolish and incredibly selfish!   Rather than assist police and admit the affair, he did what was best for him.

Note:  he was not someone who did not have enough money to buy food for his family at the time of his lie.  (Les Miserable)

Next Up:

The "Overly Obvious" Propaganda technique that is often highlighted in Statement Analysis, followed by "The Moral High Ground Voter Base" technique.


Anonymous said...

A false dilemma, or false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted.

Many propagandists use this to confuse their intended victims. Just wanted readership to be aware :)

trustmeigetit said...

With Chandra, I don’t think Gary personally killed her with his own hands. I think he paid someone else.

The conversation below (From Mark McClish’s page) for SA purposes always stuck out to me initially. Specifically his response do “Did you say anything or do anything that could have caused her to drop out of sight?”. The question was totally avoided. I think that was our answer. He did something that caused her to drop out of sight even if not by his own hands.

Now with Ingmar Guandique, I have not been able to find enough statements to determine if I think he did it. He could have been paid by Condit. But not sure.

The only thing I have been able to really find was the mom asked him point blank “did you kill my daughter” and he looked at her and said “No, I did not” . But that is her comment not a direct quote. But, mom and dad are not convinced he is the one that killed their daughter either.

And as a note, he has been granted a new trial. Should be interesting.

Chung: Did you have anything to do with her disappearance?

Condit: No, I didn't.

Chung: Did you say anything or do anything that could have caused her to drop out of sight?

Condit: You Know, Chandra and I never had a cross word.

Chung: Do you have any idea if there was anyone who wanted to harm her?

Condit: No.

Chung: Did you cause anyone to harm her?

Condit: No.

Chung: Did you kill Chandra Levy?

Condit: I did not

John Mc Gowan said...


Baltimore State's Attorney seeks to block release of Freddie Gray autopsy

BALTIMORE – Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order that would block the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy report and other "sensitive" documents as she prosecutes the six police officers involved in his arrest.

Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that prosecutors "have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved" and "will not be baited into litigating this case through the media."

But an attorney for one of the officers said the effort shows that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."

Read more:

trustmeigetit said...

Marilyn Mosby allowed the thugs (yes I said it) to damage property. Now she is blocking an autopsy report.

To me that says a lot. I think there must be evidence that would disprove her case.

I could be wrong, but as much of an issue this case has been, I think it needs to be shared.

Now, I doubt even if it was something that proved the cops were not a fault would those that just jumped on the bandwagon without seeking truth anyways would even believe. They would probably seek to discredit the results.

Like "hands ups". Even with 20 plus people standing around watching... most probably a their phones on them and yet not a single video of Michael with his hands up...Then many that have disputed that claim that were there... Even Michaels bestie later stated his hands were not up... Yet... many still stand by that.

trustmeigetit said...

Looks like she is also trying to block the cops attorney from inspecting Freddie's knife.

How is this legal?

I do not understand.

Anonymous said...

Awww.... poor Chandra Levy. What a beautiful girl. Gorgeous, with her billowing curly dark hair and finely chiseled lovely features, fantastic figure, AND smart. Just not smart enough to stay away from a dog-dirty married man who only wanted to play and lay with her. Gary Condit or any other man would have been fortunate to have her in his life. So gullible to his charms, she needed him like she needed another hole in her head when she could have had any man she wanted.

But, did Condit have anything to do with killing her or having her killed? That's a good one. His political career and fun fun fun was his whole world, but did he want to keep it so badly that he would toss her aside so easily and have her killed or kill her himself? Had the relationship between them become so demanding and threatening that he would have done anything to protect his selfish lifestyle, even the murder of a beautiful woman that he lured into his life and who had been so intimately close with him?

I don't think so, however, it WAS strange that Chandra seemed to have been lured out of her apartment to go on a quick run into the park (OR could she have been lured into a familiar person's car for a little quick tete-a-tete, not realizing that this would be her final undoing?) in such a hurry and without taking any of her usual paraphernalia with her. ALSO strange that she wasn't found until much later in or very near the exact spot where she was eventually discovered that had already been searched several times. Strange indeed. Questions with no answers.

Anonymous said...

TrustmeIgetit; she won't get away with it in the long run. She, ALONE, can take on entire city hall? All by her little lonesome? I don't think so. Many before her have tried to exert their authority over and above all others in getting their way and be damned with truth and evidence. It eventually didn't work for them and it want work for her either.

Who does she think she's kidding anyway, 'eh?

IMO, she keeps digging a deep hole for herself. Good luck crawling up out of it!

trustmeigetit said...

Well friend of Chandras said she was pregnant with his baby.

Now they later said she wasn't actually pregnant but imagine if she told Gary she was and expected he leave his wife and/or threatened to tell her.

I watch forensics files, dateline etc. happens all the time.

Add in the fact he's a politician and if it got out he knocked up an intern.

I think it makes perfect sense.

Anonymous said...

Is Condit retired now, or what?

He seems to have drifted off into the sunset.

Wife in denial still sticking by him, I guess?

Katprint said...

Anonymous, Gary Condit moved to Arizona where he was unsuccessful at running an ice cream store franchise but successful at getting appointed president of the "non-profit" Phoenix Institute of Desert Agriculture. He has been campaigning on behalf of his son in his old district in California.

Ingmar Guandique, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who had already been convicted and imprisoned for two other attacks on women in Rock Creek Park, was convicted for Chandra Levy's murder.

Wendy said...

What a power trip Condit was on - having a affair with a young impressionable girl; promising to marry her someday. This young woman was missing, presumed to be dead, and he refused to admit having an affair with her. I can't imagine what her family thought of him. I think the press even suggested he was involved with her disappearance.

This reminds me of the article about Liars, "one who's habitual patterned of life includes deception, as a norm, to protect, enhance, and focus upon oneself, even at the expense of truth.

Condit ruined his own career.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Katprint for your response. That's a funny one, anyone who knows anything about profitable business ventures (and I do), knows in advance that a chain of ice cream parlors won't work. God, what a struggle... Like mattress stores, how many can you (the average walk-in customer) consume in a lifetime?

Haha, and another funny one: President of the non-profit Phoenix Institute of Desert Agriculture? Pray tell, just how much agriculture can be expected to thrive in the desert? P'ss poor little, if any. Actually, none. SOOo, sitting on the board as president, ole Gary will pull in a pittance of a percentage fee for acting as its' president, but any fool should know that there won't be many donations made supporting a non workable idea, so again, he's off on a losing venture. He can charge off his auto, gasoline and related expenses, his motel, travel expenses and food while wasting time on his non-lucrative trips; to collect how much in revenue? Not much. Duh...

I'm not one to sit around wishing bad luck on someone else, but he's got it coming.

Gary Condit keeps proving what a loser he is. Interesting. Did his (also dumb) wifey have to go out and find a job herself yet? She will. Just a matter of time.

Anonymous said...

Whoops... excuse me. You said ice cream store FRANCHISE? Singular. Then that would be only ONE ice cream parlor. The only money maker there is the owner of the ground land lease for X number of years and the owner of the store lease who receives a percentage of the gross sales PLUS a fixed amount of rent. They could be one and the same or two or more separate individuals or entities, depending on who built and owns the structure.

In any case, that one (or more) won't be making much profit off the lease either as these types leases are set up to pay the owners of the leases to receive a percentage of the total receipts of all sales in addition to their fixed rent. Off an ice cream parlor? This ain't no Burger King franchise. Like The Curves exercise parlors, losers all around. MEANWHILE, ole Gary is stuck on those bankrupt leases.

Serves the sneaky b'stard right, messing with and ruining the life of a young woman who had so much going for her when he already had a wife. No lover to mourn her loss in the end, not even a decent man to claim his love for her. Only denials. Save for her family and loved ones, after giving so much of herself she left this life utterly alone. Did her lying married lover even go out and search for her?

Oh never mind. He'll get his....

John Mc Gowan said...


John Bowlen Tells Dispatcher: ‘I Swear On My Dad’s Life

GLENDALE, Colo. (CBS4) – New details emerged about the domestic violence arrest of John Bowlen, the son of ailing Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, with the release of the 911 call. The younger Bowlen, considered one of seven potential heirs to the Broncos franchise, was arrested Wednesday night after a fight with his girlfriend.
His girlfriend, 27, whose name was redacted from court documents, called 9-1-1 from Bowlen’s high rise apartment in Glendale. After relaying her location to the dispatcher, she said “Hurry, please help!” and the line was disconnected.

According to police reports, she claims Bowlen, “made comments to kill someone he had a prior conflict with” and then “became enraged” when she suggested calling for help. As she was calling 911, she claims Bowlen, 28, grabbed her shoulders and shoved her against a bathroom wall. Bowlen has been charged with misdemeanor harassment and obstruction of telephone service, both considered acts of domestic violence.
Moments later dispatchers called back and Bowlen picked up.

“This is the owner of the Denver Broncos,” Bowlen told the dispatcher. “I am sorry. K. I have a crazy girlfriend that is leaving my house right now. Nothing is wrong at all.”
“Were you guys having a verbal argument?” The dispatcher asked.
“No, no, no. She’s leaving right now,” said Bowlen. “I swear on my Dad’s life.”
Bowlen’s father, Pat, recently relinquished control of the Broncos after the family went public with his fight with Alzheimer’s disease.

“You understand that a female calling asking for help on 911 is kind of a big deal?” The dispatcher asked.
“As the bloodline of the city I’m telling you right now nothing is wrong and she is leaving my house,” said Bowlen.
She tells police they were both drinking and Bowlen was inhaling whippets.
“I am sober,” Bowlen told the dispatcher. “I am a man of my word, a man of the city, a friend of the mayor, and everyone knows exactly who I am. I’m going through a lot because I’ve been taking care of my dad.”

Then Bowlen ends the call.
“She is leaving right now, nothing is wrong,” he tells the dispatcher. “I love you guys. Thank you. Bye, Bye.”
“Don’t hang up on me,” replied the dispatcher to no avail.
Bowlen was released from the Arapahoe County jail Thursday evening on a personal recognizance bond. Monitored sobriety is a condition of his bond. He is due back in court on July 6 and has been placed on an indefinite leave from his administrative position with the Denver Broncos.
The Denver Broncos released this statement on Thursday: “We are disappointed to learn of the matter involving John Bowlen, who is a son of Owner Pat Bowlen and an administrative employee with the organization. While this is a personal issue, he is accountable to all club and league conduct policies. As such, John will be placed on an indefinite leave of absence from the organization.”

John Mc Gowan said...


WATCH: Duggar Sisters Defend Josh in 'Kelly File' Exclusive

Anonymous said...

WOW! This Bowlen character really thinks he's hot stuff! Yikes. I wouldn't want to be within ten miles of this freak. He's bad news!

I feel sorry for his dad with a son like this one. Dangerous. He needs to be locked up.

Anonymous said...

Thanks John. Unable to download any of the links you post, can't figure out why, nonetheless I did see part of the Dugger daughters interview.

I can understand them defending their brother, and maybe what they said is true or partially true since they can't speak for ALL of the girls Josh molested; however, it strikes me that he IS a pedophile inasmuch as he confessed what he was doing to his dad at least three times before JimBob took action, which tells me that Josh was unable to stop what he was doing to these little girls. (THIS delineates a pedophile, does it not?)

That right there (unable to stop) spills the beans as far as I'm concerned; also that he claims he touched the breasts and genitals of the girls through their clothes ONLY while they were sleeping... Oh yeah? The little five year old did not have any breasts to touch, neither did any of the other little girls who had not yet reached their development stage.

As a matter of fact, the one who is seventeen now would have been only five then IF the truth is being told about her age at the time, and not too young to remember what Josh did to her, which would have been very traumatic. However, since he claimed he was holding her on his lap and reading to her at the time, then this means that she was NOT sleeping in her bed and fully clothed at the time, as well as not having any breasts for him to touch. Liars.

I'm still saying and sticking by it, there is more to this story. My biggest issue with the Dugger parents is NOT whether they are hypocrites or religious freaks or God fearing people; it is in NOT getting him out of the home and keeping him out after they became aware that he was touching his little sisters.

Three separate times he confessed it to JimBob? They ALLOWED this to continue with no protection for their little girls after the first time he confessed, much less the second and third times. Sending him off to a work camp program for rehab for four months is NOT keeping him away from their daughters. They let him right back in. They cared so little for their daughters. FINALLY they installed locks on the girls bedroom doors, AFTER they say he was cured at rehab? Shame on them!

Tania Cadogan said...

If anyone has transcripts of their interview or can transcribe thir interviews it would be appreciated.

They have a good reason to minimise their role in the subsequent coverup, their actions regarding their abusive son.


Their show is currently suspended and likely to be cancelled, advertisers have pulled out, awkward questions are being asked regarding the family friend/cop who is currently in jail for child porn.

The fact they are also pissed not at the fact their son is a child molester (even though he was allegedly 14/15 at the time) rather that the story became public.
They claim to live a strict christian lifestyle and yet here we have them minimising the paedophilia which went on, we have them making the victims forgive their abuser( regardles of what they claim about it being voluntary, the obligation and familial pressure were right there)
They lied about him going to a rehab centre.
What else are they lying about?

There is also the question of him doing it to his own sisters, what about his own children?

It is all well and good saying he asked for forgiveness and got it from his victims and also god, he escaped punishment here and now.
Anyone can claim they found god when they are in deep doodoo such as serving a long sentence.
It is a get out of jail card since there are gullible folk out there who will forgive anyone anything if they think the perpetrator has found god.

He may have got away with it punishment wise due to the statute of limitations, his victims though should go for comensation, hit him in the pocket where it hurts.

Currently the family are in damage limitation mode.
it is all about money and their reputation, the 2 most important things to mom and dad.

They stand to lose everything, who is going to hire a known child molester?
Who is going to trust them?
Who will let their family hang out at their house?
Questions will be asked as to who else did the same thing and nothing was said or done?

The changes they have made are not to help the children, it is to pacify the outraged public.
They are doing now what they should have done from the get go.
It's too little too late.

Given what josh had admitted to and regardless of his age, can his wife trust him?
has she spoken to their children away from his presence to see if he has done anything to them?
Will she stay married to him,knowing what she knows?
Will her children's safety and welfare come before religious belief?
Could she live with herself if she sticks by him and later learns he abused his own children?

Are CPS involved?
If not, why not?

John Mc Gowan said...

Judge Grants Retrial In Case Of Murdered D.C. Intern Chandra Levy

A judge in Washington, D.C., has granted a new trial to the man convicted of killing 24-year-old Chandra Levy, the government intern whose 2001 disappearance and death grabbed national headlines for years, in part because of an affair with a married California congressman.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Gerald I. Fisher presided over the 2010 trial in which Ingmar Guandique, a 34-year-old undocumented immigrant from El Salvador, was convicted of having killed Levy in 2001 and was sentenced to 60 years in prison.

“Unless there is something else to be said, I would grant the motion for a new trial,” Fisher said in a Thursday hearing, The Washington Post reports.

Prosecutors stood by the verdict, but said they would not oppose a retrial.

Guandique's attorneys have been building a case for a new trial for more than a year. Attorneys have argued Guandique was convicted in his 2010 trial on the false or misleading testimony of a jailhouse snitch who said Guandique confessed to killing Levy in order to curry favor with prosecutors.

Levy's mother, Susan Levy, told the Associated Press earlier this year she always questioned whether Guandique was her daughter's killer, but noted her husband is "100 percent" convinced prosecutors got the right man. Levy told the AP that while she wants justice served and the right person convicted, there's only so much a new trial will do.

"It's not going to make a difference for me, because my daughter's dead," Susan Levy said.

Chandra Levy was an intern with the Federal Bureau of Prisons when she went missing in May 2001 while jogging in Washington's Rock Creek Park. Her family was expecting her to fly home to California for graduation from her master's program at the University of Southern California, and called D.C. authorities when they had not heard from her in days.

Levy's remains were found a year later. During her disappearance and the eight years her murder remained a cold case, much of the media scrutiny focused on Democratic Rep. Gary Condit. Investigators revealed the California representative was having an affair with Levy, his former intern, according to NPR.

Condit initially denied the affair with Levy and was ultimately ruled out as a suspect. The married congressman's affair derailed his 30-year political career, and he ultimately lost his House seat in 2002 in what had been considered an easy re-election.

Anonymous said...

Just because Guandique was convicted of the murder of Chandra Levy, or other crimes prior to this conviction, does not mean he did it. Many are falsely accused who are incarcerated while sitting innocently for years. It is irrelevant that most of them ARE guilty (so far as we know); many of them are not guilty. Guandique could be as innocent as the day is long in Chandra's murder even if he might have committed other felonies. Sometimes, things are not what they appear to be.

Consider the Anthonys, the DiPukeOs, the Bradley/Irwins, Billie Jean & Shawn, Ronald Cummings and his entire family of ner'do-wells, and all the OTHER guilty ones who walk free from their murders and abetting crimes all day long every day, unrepentant, and adjust your thinking. Our legal and justice system is a shambles and no one cares. Certaintly not enough to do something about it.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
Where is the statement analysis of the Duggar interviews?
June 6, 2015 at 10:58 AM
Post a Comment

I will answer this once more, simply due to the amount of time the editorial team has spent deleting inappropriate comments.

I did not watch the show, nor followed the case. From reading comments here , he has confessed to molestation.

The number of inappropriate and vulgar statements deleted condemning people of faith and home schooling has been quite a bit, and the google spam filter takes time to "catch up" and learn the IP address so as to reduce the comments.

If the allegation had been child molestation and the subject lying about it, and transcripts were available, I would likely have analyzed it.

Anonymous, why don't you analyze it? You can do a side by side analysis with Lena Dunham, too.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Thanks, John.

We've covered Condit over the years and people can use the search feature to pull up analysis.

HIs denials of the affair showed deception.

He lied while she was missing and this was his own doing, and brought suspicion upon his own name.


Anonymous said...

What post at 10:58 a.m., Peter. I don't see one.

Lena Dunham? She has nothing to do with the Duggar child molestation accusations.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
What post at 10:58 a.m., Peter. I don't see one.

Lena Dunham? She has nothing to do with the Duggar child molestation accusations.
June 6, 2015 at 2:16 PM

Exactly my point.


Sus said...

I vote this best post of 2015 so far.


Although Josh Duggar admitted to the molestations, there is PLENTY to analyze in the Duggar parents' interview (not to mention the daughters' interview). Their body language alone is a train wreck.

Happy Birthday Daughter said...

who do you think of when i say......"pedoclown"?