They are defending, tooth and nail, the two-faced prime ministerial candidate who goes to drug-fueled parties!
It’s beautiful to see how the liberal media is protecting the two-faced prime ministerial candidate who attends drug-fueled parties. Finally, a truly authentic point of connection.
The text you quoted is a classic smear campaign element. Let’s dissect it with a scalpel.
🔴 1️⃣ “Drug-party-going” – character assassination
📌 Technique: labeling + moral panic
No evidence is presented.
No official procedure.
No concrete case.
👉 Yet it is framed as an established fact.
The word “drug user” is not meant to start a debate — it is a moral exclusion label.
It immediately triggers emotional reactions:
- danger
- immorality
- unfitness
This is not public policy discussion.
This is character destruction.
🔴 2️⃣ “Two-faced” – identity attack
📌 Technique: credibility erosion
“Two-faced” is not a specific claim.
It does not explain:
- in what way
- when
- in which case
👉 It is a vague but powerful negative label.
The goal:
not to focus on the message,
but on the alleged personality.
🔴 3️⃣ “The liberal media protects him” – enemy construction
📌 Technique: us vs. them framing
- “liberal pundits”
- “liberal media”
This creates a collective enemy image.
It is not about whether the claim is true.
It is about the narrative:
“They have closed ranks, and we stand on the side of truth.”
This is classic base-mobilizing rhetoric.
🔴 4️⃣ “Finally a credible point of connection” – cynical framing
At this point, it is no longer even an argument.
It is mockery.
Its purpose:
- emotional outrage
- collective ridicule
- encouragement to share
Propaganda does not aim to persuade.
It aims to trigger emotional reflexes.
🎯 What is really happening here?
If there is no evidence:
- labeling remains
- moral panic remains
- the “everyone knows” atmosphere remains
This is the classic smear template.
You identified it precisely:
it is not a fact — it is a narrative.