Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts

Sunday, November 20, 2022

Political Dark Side: Propaganda, Censorship, and Calumny

 

by

Gadfly

As a concept, “politics” is neither good nor bad.  Its application, however, is either good or bad.  My favorite political philosopher, David Eastman, had a simple definition for politics: “the authoritative allocation of values.” 

Values are not the same as virtues.  Values are preferences based on desire, which can be virtuous or vicious.  Virtues are principles that promote goodness and provide guideposts for virtuous behavior.  Vices represent evil passions and effects.

Power is a value, and a vicious behavior if it is sought as an end and not a means.  On the other hand, power can represent a virtue if it manifests the authority of moral behavior to achieve goodness.  Both forms can manifest in the character of the body politic of a nation.

These distinctions were recognized and understood centuries ago in the wisdom shared by St. Paul to the Galatians in Chapter 5 of the Judeo-Christian Bible.  In this short chapter, Paul reminds his followers of the difference between the liberty of the fruits of the Holy Spirit in contrast with earthly bondage.  It is amazing how clearly this liberty versus bondage choice is recognizable in the current true life drama playing out in America.

A political dark side dominates the American body politic, and it is patently observable in the form of propaganda, censorship, and calumny. 

In his book, Mein Kampf, Adolph Hitler provided his observations about the importance of propaganda in this passage (I included this material in another previously published article Evidence Is Overwhelming but There Is an Elephant in the Room”): 

 

The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses [this is why Democrats aggressively define the opponent; see also here]. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood [and Democrats/Leftists employ calumny with no limits].

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice [i.e., the emphasis on social justice, fair share, equity, diversity & inclusion, dignity & respect, etc.]; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side [similar to progressive George Lakoff’s axiom that it is the frame that matters, and facts are only relevant if they fit the frame]. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas [e.g., racist, bigot, white privilege, misogynist, homophobe, Islamaphobe, etc.  In her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton argued that Trump followers fit into one or more of the standard progressive stereotypes.]. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion [does it not shock, let alone surprise, that Democrats/Leftists persist in their calumny against Donald Trump?]. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles [Trump dossier, impeachments, a raid on Trump’s home, etc.], but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.[1] (Text in bold, italics is my editorial insertion)

With such bold actions in the form of propaganda, why not also censor?  Just today, Jonathan Turley reported that the AP press is in full denial of widely known facts.  See here.

More disturbing because of its subtle yet sinister behavior is the combination of propaganda, censorship, and calumny by Big Tech.  Dr. Robert Epstein, a registered Democrat, provides compelling evidence here.  This can be fixed by Congress and the Courts as threats to our First Amendment Rights.  “We the people” should insist that this happens.

Friends, mainstream media platforms are an additional instrument in advancing propaganda, censorship, and calumny.  Yet, there is a growing number of alternative news sources that still pride themselves on honest journalism.

What more can be done?  First, recognize this is a spiritual contest that cannot be avoided by denying the presence of evil intentions and behaviors.  Second, be on good terms with the source of our moral authority and pray for wisdom and courage.  Third, do what we can to rebuke evil and affirm good behavior.  Not only does the soul of our nation depend upon these actions, but our very own souls are at stake as well.

My articles have recently been sparse because I am attempting to do what can be done through a nonprofit called Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc. (www.starrs.us).  I invite you to check us out, join the cause, and spread the word. 



[1] Mein Kampf citations are from the Project Gutenberg-hosted 1939 English translation by James Murphy.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Propaganda in Full Bloom

Abstract:  Frankly, the dark side of our nation has achieved great momentum in seizing the initiative, in military terms.  We are in a war—a cultural war.  According to the public narrative, the left is successfully isolating President Trump, attempting to make him completely impotent politically.  No need for impeachment.  The left is essentially diminishing him in a similar fashion that Stalin and his propaganda machine diminished his relatively more liberal nemesis, Trotsky, of the Menshevik socialist faction.  Diminishment was not enough—Trotsky was ultimately assassinated.  And now we see elements of our history being assassinated.  It would be one thing for the media to objectively point out abuses of power or other forms of corruption.  During the previous eight years, Americans were aware of abuses of power and forms of corruption; yet, the leftist press showed little to no interest.  On the other hand, we have yet to see any objective reporting; rather the left deceives the public with propaganda, as this new Gadfly article argues in a conversation between Old Gadfly, an American citizen with and inquiring mind (IM), and a seasoned combat aviator with an inquiring mind (AM).
Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, it’s been a week since the Charlottesville spectacle.  Your take?
AM:  We’re witnessing emergent propaganda in full bloom.  I say propaganda because the messaging represents the full meaning of propaganda:  “information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.”  I say emergent because there is no single, central organizing agent; yet, the messaging is concerted and consistent because of a central, self-organizing ideology called socialism.
IM:  The propagandists create and perpetuate folklore.  They want the public to believe Charlottesville was a contest between groups that are far right and left of the political center, suggesting the so called “white supremacists” and the KKK are far right-wing extremists.  Before we dig deeper, we should first examine how the stage was set.  The individual who organized the “unite the right” assembly, supposedly on behalf of the groups protesting the city’s plan to take down the General Robert E. Lee memorial, was Jason Kessler.  Kessler is an experienced agitator.  According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Kessler has experience in matters such as this, to include working with Occupy Wall Street, a left of center movement; and he apparently voted for Obama.  The SPLC is a well-left-of-center group.  They classify other groups that have different value systems as “hate groups.”  
AM:  One other question to ask:  why did the Charlottesville police, first responders, and national guardsmen—over 1,000do nothing to squelch the anarchy?  Would a life have been saved had they intervened?  For the left, letting the clashes unfold was good for the optics—they make news cycles easier and so much more visceral in advancing their propaganda.  Given how these groups are generally characterized by the left and understood by the “nice” public, Charlottesville was a setup to further demonize President Trump.  They insist he is a racist (because they cannot call him the N-word) and that white supremacists represent his base.  Although it is factual that Trump has said things used against him, they generally related to concerns about violations of the law (such as illegal aliens associated with sex and drug trafficking) and conflicts of interest (a judge refusing to recuse himself from a Trump lawsuit despite known ties to La Raza—“The term expresses ethnic or racial pride”).  The left has developed these kinds of tactics for decades.
IM:  Let me describe another example.  The media has even drudged up comments made by President Trump about General Pershing related to suppressing a Muslim insurgency in the Philippines (click here for a good history).  Although Trump’s description used during the Presidential campaign represented some enduring folklore about bullets dipped in pig’s blood, his recent tweets merely referenced General Pershing.  Here is what Trump actually said in his recent tweets within the context of terroristic assaults on our culture:  “study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. . . . There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years!”  Notice the difference.  Being caught is not the same thing as being shot.  The historical reference is to the Moro rebellion in the Philippines (an interesting history involving presidential politics demonstrating similar parallels to our most recent experience in the Middle East).  Here is a quote from Pershing’s own autobiography: 
These juramentado were materially reduced in number by a practice the army had already adopted, one that the Mohammedans held in abhorrence.  The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig.  It was not pleasant to take such measures but the prospect of going to hell instead of heaven sometimes deterred the would-be assassins.

AM:  Since there is ample evidence of propaganda, let me offer one more example.  I was alerted to this example from a recent Facebook entry where the author spoke about how our military leaders were even rebuking Commander-in Chief Trump for his insensitive Charlottesville remarks.  Unaware of this, I searched for evidence to confirm this allegation.  Sure enough, major newspapers were advancing this meme (incidentally, recall a conversation we had five years ago on memetics and politics).  Here is a quote from the Los Angeles Times:   
America's top-ranking military officers spoke out forcefully against racial bigotry and extremism, a rare public foray into domestic politics that revealed growing unease at the Pentagon with some of President Trump's policies and views.
The members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- the senior uniformed brass of the Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force -- all posted messages on their official Twitter accounts to denounce the far-right extremists behind Saturday's violence in Charlottesville, Va.
The messages did not mention Trump, who is the commander in chief, by name. But the rebuke seemed clear in several posts given the bipartisan furor over Trump's insistence Tuesday that "both sides" were at fault for the violence. 
“The Army doesn't tolerate racism, extremism, or hatred in our ranks,” Gen. Mark Milley, chief of staff of the Army, tweeted Wednesday. “It's against our Values and everything we've stood for since 1775.”
To the undiscerning eye, the Times author wants you to believe the military leaders are rebuking the President, not the extremism.  The President rebuked racism, extremism, bigotry, and hatred.  The military leaders’ statements are completely congruent with the President’s.  Notice General Milley never used the term “far-right” in his statement.  Nor did any other military leader.
 Old Gadfly:  For so many “nice” Americans, they are at the mercy of a leftist media, relying upon their reporting as settled truth.  We know the KKK spawned as a domestic terrorist group on behalf of the Democrat Party during the post-Civil War reconstruction era.  According to the left, white supremacists are supposed to represent fascists, Nazis, and neo-Nazis because historical revisionists and progressives deny that these groups spawned from socialism, which is a left of center ideology.  The left sets the rules for the creation of truth, and they define or characterize the political right.  They do this by distorting history and creating labels (racist, xenophobe, misogynist, homophobe, etc.) reminiscent of the N-word.  The hateful left wants “nice” people to think the right is hateful.  Unfortunately, the right lacks a deeper understanding of these concepts and how they actually manifested in history; thus, they silently acquiesce to the deception.  This is not new in history.  Hayek observed and documented similar developments in his seminal book, The Road to Serfdom, initially published in 1944 for a Western European audience.  Here is an excerpt from Chapter 11, “The End of Truth”:
The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends. To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants (bold italics added for emphasis; p. 171).
Predictably, Hayek’s book was roundly rebuked by the progressive left in academic, media, Hollywood, and political circles.  So, he essentially went into hiding for a few years to collect his bearings.  He resurfaced with some lectures at the University of Cairo to vet his ideas about the concept called liberty.  These lectures provided the inspiration and logic for his next seminal work, The Constitution of Liberty.  Ironically, Hayek revised the Foreword to The Road to Serfdom in 1956 for an American audience.  A year later, speaking at America’s National Press Club, Soviet communist leader Nikita Khruschev taunted Americans with this statement:  “. . . I can prophesy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.  And please do not be afraid of that.  Your grandchildren will not understand how their grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a socialist society.”
This brings me back to the dynamics of Charlottesville.  Good classical liberals mostly represent the Republican Party based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government (via a Constitutional Republic) and the rule of law, private property, a free market, and the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Pathetically, a growing number of so called Republicans betray these principles and their corruption weakens any resolve to combat the forces intent on destroying the idea of America.  See for example Ken Buck’s excellent book, Drain the Swamp:  How Washington Corruption Is Worse than You Think.  Classical liberalism is the form of liberalism that socialists in Europe, especially Germany, and the Soviet Union attacked.  Socialism is a left of center ideology.  This can and should be understood as a political axiom.  Communism is a left-wing manifestation of socialism.  Fascism and Nazism are a right-wing manifestation of socialism.  Both manifestations are left of center on the broader political spectrum.  Both are illiberal.  Yet, the left has been very successful in convincing too many “nice” people, whether American or European, that fascism and Nazism are an extreme right of center phenomenon.  This makes it easy then to appropriately demonize Nazi, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist groups and then to associate them with the Republican Party and conservatives.  Since the left claimed the liberal label, even though their concept did not even come close to representing the classical liberal principles, classic liberals then took on the label of conservative.  People forget or do not even recall what the Reagan conservative movement was all about.  He championed the conservation of classical liberal principles.
Too many “nice” Americans live in their comfort zones while being programmed to “act spontaneously” based on leftist propaganda.  Even some of my closest friends have lamented Trump’s tweets.  But when I asked if they receive them directly, they admitted they did not, which means they only know about the tweets based on how the leftist media portray them.  The left now attacks our history (whether good or bad).  It won’t be long before they attack “nice” people in their comfort zones when the left crosses the threshold of (a) realizing taxation is not enough to meet the demands of a large central government and welfare state and begin confiscating private property (like your retirement accounts that you built based on your own labor); and (b) prosecuting those who question their deceptions and actions as hate speech.
We must warn our family and friends.  There is no straddling the fence here.  One cannot claim political independence and hope others solve our problem.  The idea of America is under full assault.  The left controls the public narrative.  Americans must break out of their “nice” trance.  Become discerning.  Be outraged at “the end of truth” tactics of the left.  Be courageous.  Pick the right side:  either a truly liberal America or a socialist tyranny.  Fight for truth and justice.      

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Why the Protests?


            IM:  Gentlemen, why are there anti-Trump protests?

            AM:  Trump threatens their view of life.

            Old Gadfly:  What is it?

            AM:  Progressivism.

            Old Gadfly:  Are you saying Trump opposes progress?

            AM:  No.  He represents values that are contrary to progressivism.

Old Gadfly: Explain.

AM:   Progressivism represents the common good, which is defined by a ruling class and imposed upon the masses by the ruling class.

Old Gadfly:   If the common good is good for everyone, then why is this not something to be advanced by Americans?

AM:  It suffocates the notion of liberty and the pursuit of each individual’s idea of the American dream.  Trump and the Republican Party advance this "common purpose."

IM:  We discussed this in a conversation going into the 2012 Presidential election.  It was based on a dream I had about “dry, parched lips.”
 
AM:  I remember that conversation in Gadfly’s book, The 2012 Contest in America:  Conversations with a Gadfly.  The conversation revisited Dostoevsky’s parable about the Grand Inquisitor, who chastised Jesus Christ for dying on the cross to set people free to make their own choices, good or bad.  The Grand Inquisitor then boasted that people don’t know how to make good choices, thus they need administrators like the Grand Inquisitor to make those choices for them.

IM:  So, we watch the reaction to the Trump election and wonder what is going to happen.  Some progressive friends, with whom I have spoken, believe the protests are spontaneous and reflect fears of an autocracy.  Of course, they mimic the demagoguery of people like Rachel Maddow (for example, see here).  Maddow interviewed Cecil Richards of Planned Parenthood (see here), who observed that “young people are overwhelmingly progressive.”

Old Gadfly:  We’re all about the same age and are Cold War veterans.  In June 1957, speaking to a nationwide television audience in America, Nikita Khrushchev calmly stated:

“. . . I can prophesy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.  And please do not be afraid of that.  Your grandchildren will not understand how their grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a socialist society” (J. Edgar Hoover in Masters of Deceit:  The Story of Communism in America and How to Fight It).


AM: Richards is referring to our grandchildren.  And they are protesting Trump’s election.

IM:  They cannot discern Maddow (and other progressive) propaganda when Trump is called a bigot, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, and so forth.  Trump is opposed to illegal immigration, not immigration.  His wife is an immigrant.  Trump may have said crass words in response to crass words from women.  Little has been said about his campaign manager: a woman.  Trump believes in the Constitution and the rule of law—yet he is to be feared as an autocrat.  Many other examples can be listed to demonstrate how progressives have “painted” a picture that distorts reality.  If progressives are so morally pure, then why must they distort the truth?

AM:  Eric Hoffer, a lifelong longshoreman till retirement at the age of 65, wrote extensively on mass movements and the role propaganda played in them.  He concluded:  “Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.
 

Old Gadfly:  This describes our progressive grandchildren.  While our parents, the greatest generation, fought against socialism (communism and fascism), our generation failed to recognize the “progressive nature of socialism” and how it took root in America.  We can, however, fight it.  But it will not involve compromise.  Compromise for a progressive does not involve adaptation of their worldview; it mandates capitulation by its opponent.  As I have emphasized numerous times, progressives believe the conservative worldview is not only wrong but immoral.  Progressives do not negotiate with conservatives.  

Friday, August 5, 2016

Mind Manipulation

IM:  I hear a lot of my fellow Republicans now saying Trump is a catastrophe and do not want to support him; some are even talking about voting for Hillary.

Old Gadfly:  Does that come as a surprise to you?

AM:  What I see playing out in the news is a very deliberate attempt to not only control what we see and understand, but to control our reactions as well.  Take the news today.  All the networks focused on how Trump claimed to have seen a video of an aircraft carrying $400 million in cash as ransom for four hostages released by Iran.  Trump later corrected this claim by saying it was actually another clip of an aircraft carrying the hostages.  The focus was Trump’s incorrect claim.  There was no interest in the $400 million in cash in exchange for the hostages.  In other words, Trump is dishonest or a loose cannon.  How about a glib president that chuckled away the $400 million in cash for four hostages, saying this was not ransom money?

IM:  Remind me what glib means.

AM:  Glib means “fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow.”  Voluble is “characterized by a ready and continuous flow of words” in order to dominate the narrative.  See how the press reacted?  They focused on Trump’s erroneous video clip—something considerably trivial compared with a ransom for hostages.

Old Gadfly:  Remember, F.A. Hayek made two important observations related to these dynamics.  The first was about how the political elite shape reactions to any opposition to their established values in the Chapter, “The End of Truth,” in his book, The Road to Serfdom.  Those sufficiently indoctrinated with these values are to spontaneously attack those who express any opposition to these values.  This explains the vitriolic reporting following George Stephanopoulos’s questions to Trump following the Kahn attacks at the Democrat National Convention.  The second observation in his book The Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism is that “the mind is the product of cultural evolution and reflects more imitation than reason.”

IM:  I hear a lot of people repeating what is in the news.  When I ask them to provide more detail or examples to support allegations, they go silent.  So, this must be a form of imitation.  Just this morning, I read Michael Morell’s op-ed, “I Ran the C.I.A.  Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton” in the New York Times.  This evening, quotes from his article were all over the news—a classic echo chamber.

AM:  I read the same article—pure propaganda.  He said, “Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. . . . I spent four years with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room.  In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.”  These are called platitudes.  If this is representative of the type of analysis he provided as the acting head of the CIA, no wonder we did so poorly on the international stage.  None of these qualifications relate to actual achievements.  But they do “glibly” disguise the tremendous foreign policy failures during her tenure—Benghazi, Libya, Egypt, Syria, ISIS, a resurgent Russia (who took Crimea and threatened Ukraine), North Korea, China, Cuba, and so forth.  None of these were successes—they were all setbacks.  Obama had no foreign policy expertise when he ran for president.  When McCain confronted him with this realization, Obama laughed at him and said, “but I have superior judgment.”  As if judgement is in one’s DNA and has nothing to do with experience and the wisdom that follows.

IM:  Morell, obviously pandering for a Clinton administration appointment, then went on to criticize Trump for his character traits:  “The traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement [nothing compared with the narcissist in chief, Obama], his overreaction to perceived slights [there have been no vicious attacks of Trump—they are all in his imagination], his tendency to make decisions based on intuition [he offers no examples, but don’t forget intuition is what Obama’s superior judgment depended upon], his refusal to change his views based on new information [even Hillary refuses to change her views about lying to the people even from old information on the record from Director Comey], his routine carelessness with the facts [nowhere near to Obama’s characterization of the ISIS threat, the economy, and so forth], his unwillingness to listen to others [Obamacare is the right thing to do even though the majority of Americans didn’t want it], and his lack of respect for the law [enforcing immigration laws do not count and Obama is exempted from similar criticism because it would be racist].

AM:  In my view, the most egregious part of his article is when he suggested Putin “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”  Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation were involved in very serious “pay to play” actions with Russian actors.  Joy Overbeck provides a detailed expose in her article, “None Dare Call Her Treasonous.”  On the same page of The New York Times is another op-ed article by Arkody Ostrovsky, the Russian and Eastern European editor of the Economist.  The title of his article was “For Putin, Disinformation Is Power.”  The ideological zealots who make up the editorial staff at The New York Times completely missed the irony of these juxtaposed op-ed articles.  The Morell article is disinformation.

IM:  Mr. Ostrovsky said, “After Mikhail Gorbachev opened up the Soviet media, the contrast between socialist and capitalist economic systems had become too apparent.”  Yet, the progressive Democrats in America are pushing socialism while condemning capitalism.  Trump represents capitalism, which is why the progressive Democrats must diminish him as a candidate.  Ostrovsky continued, “Mr. Putin has reason to fear in one respect.  His system does face an existential threat from the Western model of governance.  Just as the economic inadequacies of Soviet Communism were exposed by comparison with the wealth produced by Western capitalism, Mr. Putin’s authoritarianism cannot match the appeal of an economy based on the rule of law, openness and competition.  The best way for the West to resist Russia, now and then, is to uphold its own values.”  Obama’s vision for fundamentally transforming America took us away from these values.  Hillary Clinton wants to accelerate this transformation.  Trump wants to reinstate them by “making America great again.”

Old Gadfly:  In the cold, gray month of January 1980, my wife and I traveled to Berlin, which included a visit to the Berlin Air Safety Center, a facility manned by officers from the four occupying nations—the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  As we met those on duty who were controlling flights into and out of Berlin corridors, two Soviet officers were in the room.  A younger one was sitting near the wall with his feet resting on the desk, reading the Pravda newspaper.  I shook hands with the senior Soviet officer on duty.  We were told by a younger Soviet officer, who spoke fluent English, the senior officer was a lieutenant colonel and a former MIG-25 pilot.  He was a first lieutenant, but the colonel reported to him—in other words, the lieutenant was the political officer for their unit.



AM:  The Russian word Pravda means “truth” in English.  We know Pravda was the government-sponsored and controlled paper.  It was the propaganda machine for the communist party—it reported on what the people were allowed to know or believe.

          Old Gadfly:  If the communist party controlled what was reported in the Soviet Union, then is it possible for an American ideology to have similar control over news reporting even in so called free societies?  Obviously it is.  American progressives—politicians, media, academia, and Hollywood—control the narrative.  The Trump and Clinton we see is the Trump and Clinton they want us to see.  Aggressive research is contrary to these images.  Hillary Clinton is unapologetically corrupt.  Peter Schweizer reveals some of this corruption in Clinton Cash (here is a free video that provides some of the evidence).  The last couple weeks I have asked friends, family, and complete strangers if they had seen Dinesh D’Souza’s movie or read his book:  Hillary’s America:  The Secret History of the Democratic Party.  Nine out of 10 have never heard of it.  The media is suppressing it.  This is called censorship because the facts and analysis are so contrary to the progressive idea of “truth.”  Americans—all Americans--need to realize this.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Democrats to Define Trump

IM:  Today’s New York Times First Draft reports that a Democrat research group by the name, American Bridge, is compiling volumes of dirt on Donald Trump.  The authors openly admit, “Their hope is to have Mr. Trump defined before he ever gets to reintroduce himself to the general election voters.”

AM:  The authors also indicate that American Bridge was founded by a close Hillary Clinton ally.

Old Gadfly:    Do you recall Obama’s response to reporters who asked why he had performed so poorly against Romney in their first presidential debate?

IM:  He laughed and said, “That was not the real Romney.”

AM:  Exactly.  The people were not to evaluate the candidate for who he really was.  The caricature of Romney was how Democrats defined him.  For those of us who actually believe in the 10 commandments—amazingly, there are only 10--one involves not bearing false witness against a neighbor.  But Democrats want the people to buy into what their own Party Pharisees preach, whether it is true or not.

IM:   We are observing full-throated propaganda.  Just today, I reviewed background on the Watergate scandal in terms of the circumstances about covering up illegal activity, refusing to comply with a Congressional investigation, and all the indictments and convictions related to the case.  No one was killed.  But there was accountability for the politically-motivated activities.  On the other hand, the Executive branch has obstructed a congressional investigation into Benghazi (not to mention Fast and Furious, the IRS, and other scandals) and intentionally destroyed evidence.  Four Americans were killed.  Immediately after the Committee released its 800-page report, major news networks headlined their belief that there was nothing new and that it was time to move on.  Why is this disturbing to me?  When Hitler and the Nazi Party assumed control of Germany, they could count on a complicit media.  Here is a list of 20 pro-Nazi newspapers or magazines.  I could not find a similar list for anti-Nazi newspapers.  American-born, William Joyce, known as Lord Haw-Haw, even participated in pro-Nazi radio broadcasts.


Worse, I checked on major themes for Nazi propaganda, and here is what I found:
·         Denounce enemies of their ideology, to include capitalists (this closely aligns with Democrat defined enemies such as the top 1%, white males because of white privilege, and any others that question progressive values as racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamaphobic, etc.)
·         Punish those who oppose their ideology (Dinesh D’Souza can vouch for this because of a $30,000 indirect campaign contribution; yet, George Soros can contribute over $7 million to the Hillary Clinton campaign while other Wall Street investment firms contributed even more.)
·         Champion eugenics (here the Nazi’s watched developments within America for the moral foundations for cleansing the human race from imperfections, to include Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood)
·         Maintain a cult of personality around the ideology’s leader (for progressives in America this is now Obama, soon to be Hillary Clinton)
·         Tolerate religious practices only if they do not interfere with the state (the Little Sisters of the Poor faced millions in fines for not complying with birth control and abortifacient mandates)
·         The media was more than happy to amplify the Nazi values (we see similar complicity with our own main stream media)
·         Employ propaganda, consistent with Hitler’s own vision for manipulating the masses.  Here are Hitler’s own words in his book, Mein Kampf:

The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses [this is why Democrats aggressively define the opponent; see also here]. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice [i.e., the emphasis on social justice, fair share, etc.]; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side [similar to progressive George Lakoff’s axiom that it is the frame that matters, and facts are only relevant if they fit the frame]. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas [e.g., racist, bigot, white privilege, misogynist, homophobe, Islamaphobe, etc.  Just the other day, Hillary argued that Trump followers fit into one or more of the standard progressive stereotypes.]. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.[1] (Text in bold, italics added)


AM:  Joseph Stalin engaged in similar tactics.  In 1991, the formerly classified footage of Stalin and his mind control evidence was released to the public.  A comprehensive sampling can be found here.  Under Hitler and the Nazi regime, some of the first to be sent to German concentration camps were communists.  Ironically, the fascists and communists were brutal ideological opponents within the same socialist camp.  The Nazis were opposed to Marxist materialism and capitalism.  Yet, to this day, scholars and the general public have bought the myth that fascism, and its Nazi manifestation, is far right on the political spectrum.  Communism and fascism are far left manifestations of left-wing socialism.

Old Gadfly:  As we were having this conversation, I received the personal thoughts of a pastor who plans to support Trump, not because he is a saint, but because he firmly believes Trump is a modern biblical Cyrus.  This pastor also reminded us that Winston Churchill was known to be bombastic and was similarly caricatured as Trump has been.

IM:  The thought has occurred to me that recent progressive efforts to punish Christian bakers for not wanting to participate in same sex weddings, to force public schools to accommodate transgenders, to celebrate black lives matter, to perpetuate gender pay gaps, to criticize opponents of lax immigration policies, to refuse to use terms like jihad or radical Islam, and so forth, are specifically designed to tee up opportunities to use stereotype labels such as racist, misogynist, homophobe, xenophobe, Islamaphobe, and so forth.

AM:    Your observation, IM, represents a swarming effect using several Saul Alinsky rules:  rule 5, ridicule is man’s most potent weapon; rule 8, keep the pressure on; rule 12, the price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative (here the example is the attempt to foil Trump’s evolving views on various issues by suggesting he is flip flopping); and rule 13, pick the target, freeze it, and polarize it.[2]  Obviously, Hillary Clinton has an opportunity to seize upon Alinsky’s tactics; after all, her Wellesley College senior thesis extolled his virtues.  And the American Bridge will be the instrument to lead these tactics.

Old Gadfly:  So, based on all these facts and circumstances, who is the most dangerous opponent to Democrats:  Donald Trump or ISIS?  Trump opposes the Democrat progressive ideology.  ISIS opposes American values in general.  Since Trump appears to be the most existential threat to Democrats, Democrats have indirectly aligned themselves with a threat against America itself.  But then again, Obama, who symbolizes progressivism, vowed to fundamentally transform America.  Therefore, while Trump wants to make America great again, Democrats are actually anti-America.  I know this sounds bold.  But as I mentioned to a good friend yesterday, when one is confronted with telling a mother her baby is ugly, one typically capitulates to dishonesty to avoid getting slapped. 




[1] Mein Kampf citations are from the Project Gutenberg-hosted 1939 English translation by James Murphy
[2] Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals:  A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, (New York, NY:  Vintage Books, 1972).

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Connecting Dots


Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, we have previously discussed evidence that public sentiment is being engineered (see here and here); but, do you suspect any actual propaganda taking place?

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Yes, and there is a clear indication of psychological operations (or psyops) as well.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s address propaganda first.  We’ll discuss psyops another day.  What is propaganda?

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Dictionary.com defines propaganda as: “1. Information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.  2.  The deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.  3. The particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.” 

Old Gadfly:  The definitions seem clear enough.  Do you have examples?

AM:  How about the President this week claiming Republicans are fabricating “phony scandals”?  How about Eric Holder accusing Republicans of being racist?

Old Gadfly:  By scandals are you referring to Benghazi and the IRS, among others?

AM:  Yes.

Old Gadfly:  But only Fox News is reporting on them.  And, my good progressive acquaintances keep reminding me, don’t watch Fox News—they lie.

IM:  So, you don’t watch Fox News?

Old Gadfly:  Of course I do, because I triangulate what I read and hear.  And I will tell you that based on my “triangulation” from multiple sources, the lack of coverage by other networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) and print media (The New York Times and Washington Post) is a clear case of propaganda—because the black out or censorship is deliberate and designed to propagate particular doctrines or principles of the progressive movement.

AM:  Do you think this black out is being orchestrated by the White House?

Old Gadfly:  Not necessarily, but I am certain that President Obama and his inner circle are advancing similar methods that occurred during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Administration.  If Time magazine editors accurately reflect left-wing sentiment, then there is a lot of support for advancing similar methods (see the cover for the November 24, 2008 issue here).  In 2007, Michael Socolow authored a compelling article about propaganda in America.  While merely acknowledging the blatant propaganda practices in the Woodrow Wilson Administration, Socolow specifically analyzed propaganda practices during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, 1939-1944.[1]  Socolow discovered that FDR actually pushed for a domestic radio propaganda program but did not need one because commercial broadcast journalism effectively performed that function.  Socolow’s research also discovered the regulatory activism role played by the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  Sound familiar?  There was a recent attempt to place “observers” in news rooms across the nation.

IM:  Hmmm . . . 1939-1944 . . . didn’t Orson Welles demonstrate the power of radio broadcasting with his “War of the Worlds” stunt in 1938?

Old Gadfly:  Yes, it generated panic among the listening public, forcing CBS and Welles to apologize; but, it also demonstrated to CBS and other political advocates the power of the radio to mobilize the public.  Orson Welles dramatized the War of the Worlds science fiction novel by H. G. Wells.  Many people only know Wells for his science fiction.  Yet, he was a frequent guest of FDR’s White House[2] and vocal advocate for liberal fascism.  Jonah Goldberg observed that Wells had spent 30 years, since the beginning of the Progressive Era, working on the idea of “liberal fascism.”[3]  Wells’ progressive ideology in the form of liberal fascism is heavily documented.[4]

AM:  I noticed Orson Welles’ association with CBS (see the logo in the picture above).  There are some interesting dots to connect here.

·         The Socolow article includes a photograph with the following caption:  “CBS News commentator Elmer Davis (L) confers with CBS News Director Paul White, December 1941.  In 1942 Davis would be named to head the Office of War Information, America’s propaganda agency.”

 
·         On November 22, 1963, when President Kennedy was assassinated, a CBS reporter by the name of Dan Rather heard a rumor that Dallas school children cheered the news.  While the local CBS news affiliate refused to run the story, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TRUE, Rather found another CBS venue to report the story anyway.[5]  Sound familiar?  Remember Rather’s report on George W. Bush based on fabricated documents?  Rather’s stubbornness to this day reflects Lakoff’s “frame” arguments—it is the frame that matters; if facts fit, great; if not, then the facts are irrelevant.

·         More recently Sharyl Attkison (see also here, here, and here) and Lara Logan (see also here) were exiled from CBS, ostensibly for their aggressive reporting about issue under the Obama Administration.  While Logan acknowledges she did not sufficiently vet an individual interviewed for a 15-minute segment about Benghazi on 60 Minutes, this portion of the report was less than 3 minutes long.  There was nothing inaccurate or dubious about the remaining 12-minute exposé on Benghazi.  I watched the original broadcast and was somewhat amazed, at the time, that CBS allowed it to be published.  Ironically, just today I tried to locate the original Benghazi exposé by Logan and, while there are thousands of “botched” and “apology” pieces, I could not find a single file of the original broadcast.  CBS, like the IRS, seems to be very competent at destroying evidence.  I had saved a link to the broadcast on YouTube.  Click on the link and see what has happened to the "evidence."  Too bad. The majority of the factual reporting was a casualty of political pressure (political correctness or propaganda).  Yet, here is another link that had no apparent "copyright" issue.  I suppose the best way to put a bag over Logan, and her interest in “watchdog journalism, was to bring her back.

·         More recently, there seems to be little interest among the commercial propaganda arm to look at potentially negative issues with the Obama Administration.  For example, there is little interest in the IRS’s Lois Lerner pleading the Fifth and the deliberate destruction of emails (evidence).  And regarding Benghazi, there is little interest in the recent revelation that Ben Rhodes, a member of Obama’s national security team, sent an email to Susan Rice directing her to blame the video on the Benghazi attack.  Ben Rhodes is the brother of David Rhodes, President of CBS.

IM:  There definitely appears to be a pattern among the dots.

AM:  After the demise of Hitler and National Socialism, Germans claimed they did not know what was happening.  Spencer Tracey, in the movie “The Nuremburg Judgment,” was shocked to hear Germans say, “I did not know.”  In one scene, a household servant claimed to know nothing of atrocities taking place under National Socialism and felt compelled to defend Hitler when she said he did do some good things for Germans—“he got the autobahn.”  Thus, there may be some redeeming rationale for Obama’s interest in “infrastructure investment.”

Old Gadfly:  If the media continues its blackout tactic as a shield for Obama’s transformation of America, time will tell whether Americans will remorsefully claim, “I did not know.”  In our next conversation, let’s talk about political psyops.




[1] Michael J. Socolow, “‘News Is a Weapon’:  Domestic Radio Propaganda and Broadcast Journalism in America, 1939-1944, American Journalism, Volume 24, Number 3 (Summer 2007), pp. 109-131.
[2] Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, (New York, NY:  Broadway Books, 2007), p. 135.
[3] Ibid, p. 134.
[4] Philip Coupland, “H. G. Wells’s ‘Liberal Fascism,’” Journal of Contemporary History, Volume 35, Number 4 (2000), pp. 541-558.
[5] Goldberg, op cit., p. 202.