From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 23 2005 - 16:59:02 GMT
Platt,
> Are you snowed in? No snow here in South Carolina.
About 6" here in Central Pennsylvania. It'll make good playoff football today!
Go All-PA Superbowl!
> You ignore the power structure when it's convenient to do so. Case in
> point: ABC News soliciting information about military burials taking place
> on inauguration day in order to launch an irrelevant smear attack on Bush.
Hardly, think of all the smear launched by the conservative media round the
clock against Clinton. Were you upset by that? Or does it only bother you when
it is against conservatives? Did it bother you when the media ran endless
round-the-clock reports on "the stained dress"?
Say what you will, Platt, but you really seem to only be bothered by the media
when it attacks "conservatives". When it attacks "liberals", you rather
deliberately (or conveniently) look in the other direction.
> A beautiful example of the left's use of the Big Lie propaganda technique.
> To lie, you must know the truth. Clinton did. Bush, along with the rest of
> the world, didn't.
A matter of faith, to be sure. You ignore evidence that Bush knew simply to
support your faith in him. Because, of course, conservatives are never
deceptive or manipulative, they are perfect human beings who govern with
flawless truth and honesty.
> You and MSH are all bent out of shape because Kerry lost the election. If
> Kerry had won, would you still be complaining? Hardly. Clinton spent more
> more on his inaugural after he sent U.S. troops in Bosnia in a pre-emptive
> incursion, based on his lie that the troops would only be there for a
> year. Not a peep out of the leftists.
On the contrary, I was very critical of many of Clinton's decisions while in
office. Why do you find it impossible to be critical of Bush?
If Kerry had done the same (inaugural spending), I'd be just as outraged and
vocal. To bad you can't rise above the "leftist/rightist" ability to criticize.
> > Not at all, I consider myself very patriotic. When I use it in quotes, it
> > is because I am angered at how the conservative media manipulated its use
> > to mean "blind obedience to government". To me, my patriotism is vigilence
> > against deception regardless of "party affiliation" and dissent against any
> > policy, by any administration, I find immoral. **That** is patriotism,
> > "blind obedience" is "patriotism" only to lapdogs.
>
> I don't find liberating people from tyranny immoral.
Ah, but it's as Mark and Sam have been discussing. I will only add here the
small statement that I don't believe "liberating people from tyranny by using
napalm on civilian streets" to be moral. One's stated "reason" (even if
scrutiny holds) does not absolve actions taken towards that end. But let's not
duplicate the good discussion Mark and Sam are having.
> In other words, people are too stupid to recognize when they are being
> manipulated? The election showed that most people weren't fooled by
> leftist propaganda that Bush lied about WMD.
Um, no, Platt. The election showed that despite most people admitting they were
fooled by the conservative media about WMDs, they expressed fear over being
invaded and so voted for Bush anyways. Bush made people afraid with (for
example) the swift boat lies implying a vote for Kerry meant emminent terrorist
attacks on US soil. People voted for Bush because Bush made them fear. This is
what all the polls revealed. (Add "fear of gays" to that as well).
As for "people are too stupid to recognize when they are being manipulated",
well, that's why propaganda works in the first place, isn't it?
Would you agree or disagree with this statment:
When the left convinces people something is "true", it is because of leftist
deceptive propaganda. When the right convinces people something is "true", it
is because an informed citizenry objectively reasoned based on truthful
journalism.
Or, if you prefer:
Does the "left" use deceptive propaganda? Yes or no.
Does the "right" use deceptive propaganda? Yes or no.
> > > Where?
>
> > http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm
>
> Which speech?
Oh, they're short. And I think you'll enjoy them. Pick one and run wild.
But if you insist, my recommends to you:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb16.htm
Goebbels talks a lot of "intellectuals" and nay-sayers to the moral rights of
the Reich.
"This ability to believe [in the moral actions of the reich] is rather weak in
some circles, above all in those with money and education. They may trust more
in pure cold reason than a glowing idealistic heart. Our so-called
intellectuals do not like to hear this, but it is true anyway. They know so
much that in the end they do not know what to do with their wisdom. They can
see the past, but not much of the present, and nothing at all of the future.
Their imagination is insufficient to deal with a distant goal in a way such
that one already thinks it achieved.
One cannot make history with such quivering people. They are only chaff in God's
breath. Thankfully, they are only a thin intellectual or social upper class,
particularly in the case of Germany. They are not an upper class in the sense
that they govern the nation, rather more a fact of nature like the bubbles of
fat that always float on the surface of things.
Today, they seek to give good advice to National Socialist Germany from abroad.
We do not have to ask them for it. They focus all their energies on the small
problems that always are there, complain about the cost and believe that crises
and unavoidable tensions are on the way. They are the complainers who never
tire of bringing National Socialist Germany before the so-called court of world
opinion. In the past they always found willing and thankful followers. Today,
they only have a few backward intellectual Philistines in their camp."
Sound eerily familiar???
or
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb59.htm
"The positive national discipline of the German press would never have been
possible without the compete elimination of the influence of the liberal-Jewish
press. That happened only because of the years-long work of our propaganda.
Today particularism in Germany is something of the past. The fact that it was
eliminated by a strong central idea of the Reich is no accident, rather it
depended on psychological foundations that were established by our propaganda."
Hmmmmm............
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 23 2005 - 18:22:07 GMT