Crowd Screamed, "Crucify Him!"
It appearedmajority had spoken

Pilat could find no crime worthy of death; yet, Jesus was brought to him for just this purpose. He finally appealed to the crowd, tyranny of the majority, to determine Christ's sentence. The crowd of hundreds if not thousands seemed a legitimate sample of the people. Thus, Christ was condemned. However, today we would call this astroturfingand I see it as another means of reflexivity(Reflexivity: Legitimizing the Illegitimate).

Practice of Making the Lies Appear as
Truth as if the Peoplehad spoken

This is a very old practice. What is new is the means and prominent practice among nearly everyone who seeks to influence the People. This is really nothing more than any facet of reflexivity, technique legitimized by Mr. George Soros. Under the guise of advancing a theory {scientism} Mr. Soros took the practice of lying out of the gutter and into the boardrooms of nearly every major organization that seeks to legitimize its agenda. Rather than directly use the police and military to force the people to accept the government's viewpoint, the Fabian Society uses the gradual approach through legitimate outlets. This indirect approach enlists the opinions of the people. If the people demand some action, some law then it must be good. After all, democracy is the will of the people to determine truth from fiction, right from wrong; correct?

How the term Astroturfing came into vogue

I recently encountered this term while listening to a lecture from Sheryl Attkinsson(Astroturf and Manipulation of the Media. Youtube.). I immediately recognized it as a Reflexivity technique. A short investigation assured me that this is the fastest growing communication technique among corporations, businesses, religions and especially, government. The technique is absurdly simple. If you cannot attack the facts then you discredit those who advocate against your position. This occurs in the form of unbiasedreviews, Wikipedia, fake blogs, and especially social media pages. Thus, the usual sources most people use to determine the truthof some issue are compromised.

Not just internet marketing but
Internet information sources also

Sharyl Attkinsson's blog, Top 10 Astroturfers, shows just how pervasive this practice has become. It is not limited to liberals and socialists but crosses the political aisle, invades the boardroom and becomes the tool for nearly everyone seeking to persuade you to their worldview. Search engine positions are bought, professional web page designers insure that referrals come from other legitimate appearing web pages and bloggers tout the talking pointsline. It appears that nearly everywhere one looks the story is the same; ergo, it must be true! It must be the will of the people!

This is the dark, dirty side of democracy. Down through history no one wanted a democratic form of government. It smacked of mob rule that would degenerate into dictatorship. This was as true in America also which is why our original form of government was republican, voters were required to have skin in the gameto vote since their votes directly affective their welfare. However, quickly after the Constitution was ratified Hamilton and others used the loop holes built into the Constitution, general welfare and commerce clauses, to push for a stronger central government. The federal courts also aided the federal government to increase in power by their decisions. The Internet was herald as the means for the individual to learn the truth despite corporate and government controls. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

In the early days of the Internet the adage, everyone is considered a lie until proven true, gave searches a high degree of skepticism. Today this is not the case. Information garnered through the Internet is considered highly reliable, nearly sacrosanct. Wikipedia is a prime example. It is commonly the go to sourcefor most people. It's information must be true because it can be edited by everyone making it the perfect democratic information source. Yet, this is not how Wikipedia works. Despite what its written policy proclaims, Wikipedia's editors carefully control what information is allowed. If information is added that goes against Wikipedia's view of truth then it quickly disappears. The same holds true for Facebook and Twitter; both of which have been in the recent news for just such policies. Information control is everywhere and these people are probably well paid to insure you receive only approvedinformation.

Thus, the Internet is nothing more than a vast propaganda machine. Just as the traditional media sources, television, radio, newspaper, magazines, etc. have been coopted thus earning the moniker of fake news, so has the Internet. The Internet has access to nearly every household in America. Many homes have installed convenience devices just as Amazon's Alexia which monitor every single word spoken. These devices stand by to meet every informational need from approved sources, all with the consent of the majority of the people.