Propaganda.

[woo me with science]

Recognize it. Reject it.

When this news came out, this board was filled with outrage and horror. Hours later, the corporate propaganda brigade has now littered GD with their predictable rationalizations, justifications, and carefully worded advertisements to justify even this. Even this.

Like the proverbial frog on a slowly warming stove, we got here gradually. And we are still urged by the corporate mouthpieces to believe that reasonable minds can differ...

But let's remember. This is the sort of obscene power grab that many of us here used to invoke years ago as *hyperbole,* to suggest how bad things could possibly get if we allowed corporations to seize control of our government. It was an imaginary, unthinkable dystopian future, in which a President could murder any of us at whim, without need for evidence or due process.

And now we are here. And the relentless propaganda machine rumbles on, telling us that it's okay. No big deal.

The one percent spend billions purchasing policy. They spend billions more to shape public reception of that policy. So the advertisements continue, the distractions and redirections and minimizations and shameless shilling for the unconscionable. And so does the parroting of it all by those who have been relentlessly brainwashed into believing that party trumps everything: even our Constitution and our morality and our lives.

Corporate morality is not human morality. Corporate ethics have no use for a Bill of Rights.

Reject the outrageous propaganda. You can't even parody the justifications that are being made anymore. We are in the realm of

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
And Drone Murders of Americans are Legal, Ethical, and Wise.

Reject the Propaganda.

[whatchamacallit]

1. The kind of madness I used to think was reserved for places like FR. K&R

[ProSense]

3. Some people hate when other people disagree with them. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

7. No, I hate it when they disagree with

the constitution, bill of rights, magna carta, habeas corpus... Hopefully your kids will appreciate the world you leave them.

[ProSense]

11. The Constitution

", I hate it when they disagree with the constitution, bill of rights, magna carta, and habeas corpus... Hopefully your kids will appreciate the world you leave them."

...allows the President to protect Americans from anyone who "poses a grave threat of such imminence that judicial process is infeasible and lethal force is the only option."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022322698

And for some, being self-righteous does come with some hypcrisy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318400

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318400

[whatchamacallit]

14. Joke

You post your own specious interpretations and opinions as law. You're something else...

[ProSense]

15. Denial is not virtue. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

16. Lol! Irony Overload! n/t

[laundry_queen]

35. LMAO totally. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. I agree

But not for the reasons you think...irony drips here.

[ProSense]

36. I try not to jump into these little popularity contests.

I was here for the ever-popular dump Obama thread.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. The irony is that this was 2007...

You be leading the parade.

Let me add this...


To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/theodorero169572.html#qddKyTJ8hfK2Rd6i.99

Second time today. Wow!!!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

46. ProSense? Why do you argue with people determined to live in their own reality?

This stuff has pretty much been settled law since the civil war. FDR arranged a military trial for an American citizen sabotaging the U.S. on behalf of Hitler, in which accused U.S. Nazi was convicted and then executed with nary a peep from anyone. And the overly-partisan Republican Supreme Court is, if anything, far more permissive of military prerogatives than President Obama has made use of.

But that doesn't matter to people who angrily type "LOL" at you because, like many Republicans, they seem to imagine that they speak for the Courts (and the American people - the substantial majority of whom approve of the President's drone policy).

I think it's just better to let these kinds of threads die. Psychological research has shown that when you introduce facts to someone emotionally wedded to a belief, they get even more doctrinaire. I certainly see this when I talk to Republicans, and it's just going to be true for some Democrats as well.

So it's just best to let it lie.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[tomp]

70. i see, so because there is precedent, it must be right.

and everyone who doesn't agree with yous emotional and you're always fact-based.

the arrogance!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

108. Because there is precedent, that is the correct interpretation...

..of the Constitution. Period. That's the way our laws work. It is also why Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

Now if like anti-choice advocates, you say that the decision made is not "right", then I'll merely say that good people can disagree. However, anyone (like the OP) who brings up the Constitution as if they are the arbiter of what it means rather than the Supreme Court (which ruled the other way), then I'll start talking about emotional, fact free, argumentation.

And in terms of arrogance, screeds that use loaded terms like "Propaganda" and which make declaratory judgements on the morality of others they disagree with... well, that seems rather more arrogant to me.


So joy - I get to be called a "baby killer" by both people who think a fertilized egg is a human being and people who think killing Al Qaeda terrorists in hostile desert hideaways is Constitutional. Such a moral reprobate I am.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[tomp]

111. sorry, no credence given to immoral laws.

i'm not a constitutionalist or a legalist. i believe in righteousness as the ultimate guiding principle (and you can read that as fairness, or justice or true egalitarianism or whatever). and of course i realize the potential dilemma inherent in such a concept. but the constitution and the american legal system has an incredibly shady history from the word go and i won't fetishize it. to the extent that any law violates my personal sense of morality it loses moral power, which it MUST have to be of any value (you know, consent of the governed and all that). and there are many such laws. that does not mean i altogether will flaunt any law i do not agree with. it means i will oppose any such law (or executive order). and when push comes to shove i will not obey it, as in civil disobedience. and when pusher comes to shover, i.e., real human beings are placed in jeopardy, all bets are off.

now, lest you suggest that some american al-qaeda is placing real human beings in jeopardy, we must weigh that against the ongoing history of lies spewed from our gov't, and the vicious foreign policy it has carried out over the last century. we haven't needed al-qaeda to justify killing innocent people for a long time.

[Luminous Animal]

75. Trial, conviction, then execution. Due process.

[Jakes Progress]

96. Denial is not in question. However colluding with the destruction of rights is.

How are you at history? Where does "My king - right or wrong" get you?

Sycophancy is not honorable.

[Fuddnik]

21. "Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither". Benjamin Franklin.

We're actually there now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. ^^^^____^^^^ This.

[woo me with science]

67. Yes, we are.

Can't post that quotation often enough. Thank you.

[truebluegreen]

76. "...deserve neither,

and will lose both."

At least, that is how I remember it.

[JDPriestly]

63. Problem is our president is claiming imminent danger too frequently.

He has taken too much power over human life for himself and those who follow him in the presidency.

We need to devise a judicial process that is feasible when it comes to drones. The president cannot just have a hit list that he and his buddies in the executive branch create without being subject to oversight.

The danger that these terrorists pose may be real, but it is not imminent in my opinion, not in the sense of the words "imminent danger to self and others" that justifies self-defense.

Our president is falling into a regrettable error justifying actions that are not justifiable.

[BlueCaliDem]

83. 100% in agreement with you, Prosense

although I still reserve the right to be upset with the drone strikes policy. Then again, just like everyone else here attacking President Obama, I don't get any PDBs so I don't have the details about what is happening out there.

I do, however, trust President Obama. I trust him based on his past as a community organizer who was so selflessly dedicated to helping the voiceless people in the really bad part of Chicago when he could've chosen the easy way out and had become just another Wall-Street billionaire instead. We know this. He's incredibly intelligent and he could've used those smarts unscrupulously to make himself and his family billionaires. But he didn't. So based on that, I trust that he isn't going to do something his wife or his daughters would be ashamed of.

Although I don't understand his decisions regarding these drone attacks, I also don't know what goes on behind the scenes. All I know is how the man has lived and worked, and this history appears to be in direct contrast with his current foreign policy. This leads me to believe he knows information we don't read or hear and based on that information, is trying to keep us safe, not only now, but for generations to come.

[rhett o rick]

91. When the OP says to be wary of propanda, I think he meant you.

It's one thing to allow the president to kill suspected enemies, but quite another to allow him to decide who the enemies are. Nixon identified lots of American citizens as enemies.

The Constitution is all about checks and balances. Those that want to eliminate those checks and balances for some irrational promise of security are our biggest enemy.

Abrogate our Constitutional rights and kiss any hope of democracy goodbye. This so-called war is a forever war.

[Jakes Progress]

95. Ahhh. The essence of apologist's everywhere.

[xtraxritical]

55. I hate it when poster use things like GD and don't type them out. What the F is GD?

[Dismalindistress]

78. I'll second that

[Luminous Animal]

79. GD = General Discussion (Forum)

[G_j]

10. So where were the people defending Bush policy

way back when...?

[ReRe]

51. They were busy being brainwashed...

...by the main stream media/government propaganda. (If I understand your question.)

[brentspeak]

59. Does the thread topic makes you feel a bit defensive? n/t

[sibelian]

65. That isn't even a refutation.

"Some people hate when other people disagree with them" - so disagreement prooduces emotional reations? How is that relevant to the subject matter?

[Katashi_itto]

92. As long as Republicans make Attila the Hun look like Mother Teresa, we have the potential for

an overall shift towards the kind of government that was envisioned by George Orwell.


That the problem with having one party batshit insane. It makes the other party's actions, look reasonable. Simply beacause there is no healthy alternative.

[Catherina]

2. Absolutely rejected.

Anyone spouting it goes on ignore immediately. Permanently.

[el_bryanto]

4. Remember anybody who disagrees with this is either a

mouthpiece of corporate fascism or a brainwashed stooge.

This is an agreement board not a discussion board. Differing opinions are signs of moral weakness and mental inferiority. Don't be sucked in.

Bryant

[nobodyspecial]

27. How true

[just1voice]

5. Rec'd, millions more people need to understand they're being duped

so here's my usual post, the definition of propaganda, maybe someone will learn from it:

---Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed towards influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political, religious or commercial agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.---

[ReRe]

53. Thanks for posting the definition...

... of propaganda.

[idwiyo]

6. K&R

[The Link]

8. "Some of us don't equate terrorists to ordinary Americans."

Kind of sums it up for some.

[Fire Walk With Me]

13. Did you know DHS and PDs consider Occupy Wall Street to be potential terrorists?

Cop strongly implies Occupy presence means increased terrorism threat; Federal agents at parade

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022137604


This is what DHS are doing to our police departments:

http://occupyobservations.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-lapd-are-made-into-tentacle-of-dhs.html

[rwsanders]

49. I'm wondering how long it will be before the first domestic drone strike...

The same justifications could be used, or it could simply be reported officially as a "gas leak".
I commented on one of Thom Hartmann's posts that the drones don't seem to have enough firepower to be true weapons of war, just weapons of assasination (and crude ones at that). If there is that much intel that a target is there and enough of a threat to warrant this type of strike, then there is enough time, intel and capability to take other action.
My neighborhood police force just got their first armored personnel carrier. The cops seem quite thrilled with their new toy, even though there is nothing going on around here to justify it.

[woo me with science]

50. +100000 Thank you.

[ReRe]

54. Exactly!

[tomp]

71. exactly. nt

[pscot]

73. Oh brave new world

[NCTraveler]

101. Link of a reputable news source stating something even close to what you have said.

"Did you know DHS and PDs consider Occupy Wall Street to be potential terrorists?"

Nothing in your first link comes even close to backing up that comment.

[Fire Walk With Me]

103. ...

Thanks, I needed that...LA Times, not a reputable news source...a cops words are pretty damn clear, strongly implying as I'd said that Feds, who he said would be at the parade due to Occupy presence, have told him Occupy are a potential threat...please re-read his statement at the LA Times link...and go to

http://www.bing.com/search?q=iwatch+dhs&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI

and look for connections between iWatch and DHS (one of my DU posts shows up). Please note that the LAPD links at the blog page are "reputable sources" unless you completely disregard what police agencies post on their web sites. Every day I ride city buses with the iWatch/Homeland Security banner in the advertising section. Now I know a city bus is not a reputable news source, but there it is.

Sorry.

and

[NCTraveler]

105. I covered that link. And it is a reputable news source.

It's kind of like you didn't even read my post before your reply. There is a reason you didn't pull a quote out of that article backing up you claim. It's not there.

"Did you know DHS and PDs consider Occupy Wall Street to be potential terrorists?"

I will repeat, I think there is a reason you won't pull a quote out of that article backing up your claim, it isn't in the LA Times article.

Nice smilies though.

[Fire Walk With Me]

106. You may have missed the last three paragraphs of the LA Times article.

There will be an increased law enforcement presence, including federal agents, at the 2013 parade because of the Occupy demonstration, Sanchez said.

Although official estimates tend to fluctuate, authorities expect nearly 900,000 people to attend the parade. Tournament of Roses officials said they expect more than 700,000 spectators.

"The big thing we'd like to get out there is that if someone sees something, they should say something," Sanchez said. "It's the best way we can prevent something from occurring."

---

Sanchez said there will be federal agents at the 2013 parade because of the Occupy demonstration.

Sanchez said there will be an increased law enforcement presence, including federal agents because of the Occupy demonstration.

More cops and federal agents specifically because of Occupy (Occupy Fights Foreclosures, to be specific).

It would seem that's the only reason, and he's extremely specific. Then he says what they're worried about: preventing something from occuring. Quoting the iWatch line, see something, say something. iWatch is Federal, it's the DHS taking control of police departments, as specified in the links to the LAPD website. Federal agents worried about something occurring. Do they mention any other worries, any agencies or organizations at all? No, "because" of Occupy.

I won't be answering any more of your replies as you appear to be purposely rejecting clearly stated details as well as having rejected LA Times and the quotes on the LAPD site, as non-reputable.

[NCTraveler]

107. You don't need to answer anymore of my replies...

and you didn't answer my last one.

This is your claim, not mine.

"Did you know DHS and PDs consider Occupy Wall Street to be potential terrorists?"

In no way did you back up your claim.

"It would seem that's the only reason, and he's extremely specific."

I know you won't answer, but where is he "extremely specific" that DHS and PDs consider OWS to be potential terrorists.

[woo me with science]

109. Thank you for your links and information,

not only in these posts, but in the many articles you offer to help keep us current on what is happening.

It is much appreciated.

[Fire Walk With Me]

110. Thank you as well. And I'm sure we're aware when someone, anyone, is simply acting in hopes of

discouragement. Give them every opportunity to clearly present it, I say. Peace!

[OnyxCollie]

9. Hey kids! Spot the apparatchik!

INTERESTING! "COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x281170

"There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'

Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.

Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'
A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com ) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'
Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.

Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'
Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.

Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'
It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes."

[RC]

28. Thanks you for posting

Or reposting.

This helps to clarify the current muddled state of DU.

[woo me with science]

42. Can't post that often enough.

Thanks.

[ReRe]

56. Thanks for posting this...

[MisterP]

88. amusingly, this is precisely what They accuse anyone bringing up drones of doing

"discourages people from voting Dem" ya'know

[KoKo]

102. Great Repost....Particularly at this time...

I had saved that somewhere and couldn't find it. It's incredible to look at "GD" Forum today and see evidence particularly of #1.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

12. Fucking recced and kicked ...

I can't believe some of the bullshit that I've read today on a supposedly progressive website.

Un-fucking-believable.

But, I guess we really need to be talking about Beyonce and the halftime show.

[Zax2me]

17. What a nice well rounded grouping of catch phrases and broad judgement.

now - what the hell are you talking about?!

[ancianita]

18. They're still out to make us eat this fucking company town elephant one bite at a time.

And count ourselves lucky at the thanksgiving table.

[woo me with science]

74. You have a way with words.

[theaocp]

19. Just you wait.

When a Republican has this power, they'll sing a different tune. They're designed that way. Unfortunately, by then, it'll be too late.

[BlueCaliDem]

82. A Republican can only regain power if the opposition party is made so disenchanted

that enough of their supporters decide not to vote in the next election. You know? Like in 2010.

Let's keep bashing President Obama without knowing the hard facts. Let's see him as no different than GWBush so that we slowly but surely become so angry inside that more and more of us become disenchanted enough not to want to vote for the party PBO represents and - voila! A repeat of 2010. Remember, 2014 isn't that far off.

Look, no one is saying that we can't have an opinion or be furious with some of the policies of this president (and I count myself in that furious crowd), but let's always, ALWAYS add, that we support this president in the end. I mean, he still is a Democrat and he is still fighting for policies that help the American people, our economy, our salaries, and our safety. In all this anger, let's at least NOT lose sight of that fact.

[Fuddnik]

22. Kick and Rec!

[Skittles]

23. WOO ME KNOWS THE SCORE

YES INDEED

[JoePhilly]

24. Who we voting for in 2016?

[Drew Richards]

26. No One, we will all be dead at this rate unless you're a 1%er (hyperbole) nt

[Initech]

25. Hitler and Stalin have nothing on the billionaire plutocracy.

[leftstreet]

29. DURec

[RandiFan1290]

30. I remember hurricane Katrina at DU

The same people showed up and started spreading the racist lies and propaganda to help turn people against the poor people that we could see were suffering. They made jokes about "chee wee" hairstyles. They spread the bullshit baby rape stories and even tried to give the cannibalism story legs. All of that is still available in the archives. I didn't get much sleep that week and I am still creeped out when I think of the things I read here.

[fleabiscuit]

31. Kick and Rec!

[Drunken Irishman]

32. I just can't wait until I get my check in the mail...

You know, for being a member of the corporate propaganda brigade. Do you know how much they pay?

[JEB]

33. First they came for terrorists (Muslims),

then environmental activists (now called terrorists), immigrants (labeled drug dealers and cartel members), LGBT people and their "agenda". Get with the corporate band wagon or get left beside the road.

[Dont call me Shirley]

34. They call drone killing wise?! Killing is NEVER WISE, EVER!

[ReRe]

60. Amen

Too much collateral damage.

[blkmusclmachine]

38. Don't drink the koolaid

[slackmaster]

40. Propaganda is a sub-set of information. It's always designed to spin a viewpoint, and that's...

...what's important to understand about it.

Rejecting it out of hand is not always the best thing to do, because information delivered in the form of a propaganda package is not necessarily false information. It's inherently biased in presentation, but not always completely wrong.

False information should be rejected out of hand.

[OnyxCollie]

94. "Education is teaching things that are true;

propaganda is teaching
things that are false. As a first comment
on this proposition, one is
tempted to repeat Pilate's question.
Yet the unpleasant connotation of the
term" propaganda" is due in considerable
measure to the notion that it is
synonymous with deception. Much
evidence to support this contention
can be advanced. Advertising propagandists
resist the establishment of
publicly administered tests and standards
by which their unsupported
claims can be measured. Medical
frauds flood print and air with meretricious
claims. Political and economic
quackery speed on winged feet over
every avenue of communication.

On the other hand, much that is
characterized as propaganda comprises
undeniable facts. Mr. Brisbane
points out the relative smallness of
our airplane defenses. Is this propaganda?
The conclusion that we should
immensely enhance our expenditures
on military and naval aircraft may be
argumentative, but it is not essen-
tially deception. The Junior Chamber
of Commerce urges that the use
of school buildings be denied to Communist
groups. Whether or not the
practice thus urged is sound public
policy is a matter of opinion, not fact.
Mr. Hearst (as Mr. Coolidge did in his
Delineator articles, when Vice-President)
declares that our colleges are
permeated with "reds." This may or
may not be a fact, according to the
definition given to the term "red."
What the facts mean, and what should
be done about them, if anything, are
matters of opinion.

It should be pointed out, moreover,
that not everything taught in the
schools can be definitely labeled as
fact. Perhaps the data of mathematics
are facts; yet the examples given
for solution in any given textbook of
arithmetic or algebra may-can, in
truth-scarcely escape embodying a
point of view concerning economic institutions.
A school reader containing
stories of the lives of great men
may inculcate Carlylean individualism;
a community civics may, on the
other hand, stress ideals of cooperation
and the importance of the group. A
high school economics text (if it be
several years old) may indicate that
the Federal Reserve Act made depressions
impossible or unlikely. Through
all the writing and teaching of the
social subjects runs inevitably a current
of interpretation. The spoils system
may be described as an evil that
should be abolished; it may be stated
that the Supreme Court interprets,
but never makes law; the Spanish-American
War may be referred to
as a humanitarian undertaking designed
to save Cubans from oppression.
These are not facts, but opinions
about facts."

Wooddy, C. H. (1935). Education and propaganda. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 179, p. 228, 229.

Your stance on rejecting propaganda does not surprise me.

[LittleBlue]

41. Indeed. Tyrants love those folks

who enable them to seize power. And this country is full of them, as you can see from the forum.

[marmar]

43. D'accord.

I've found some of the rationalizations to be, quite frankly, depressing and horrifying. You can support the Democratic Party and President and still call them out for this.

[Maven]

44. Why, just today we were all assured that the use of such strikes would be "conscientious"

by a well respected DUer. Imagine that. Conscientious killings of Americans without trial. By the next (possibly Republican) president as well as our own obviously infallible one.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Droney approves this message

[patrice]

47. Absolutist Fascism. Recognize it. Reject it. Make a stand for freedom. THINK for yourself. nt

[ReRe]

52. I do reject the propaganda.

K&R

[Demo_Chris]

57. These things always progress. So what's next?

We've come a LONG way in a short time. From a little unconstitutional spying, to indefinate defention without a trial, to torture, to this.

Murdering anyone, anywhere, including Americans, with no judicial oversight, no review, no questions allowed. Just well-intentioned government officials deciding who will live and who will die. And a death sentence not just for you, but for anyone around you. Your wife and children, the neighbors, the girls scout delivering terrorism cookies, it's all good.

That's where we are today and a whole bunch of people are totally cool with it. But it won't stop there. The people defending this today KNOW it won't stop there. And if it doesn't stop there, and of course it wont...

What's next?

[Amonester]

61. Climate change, Earth becoming more like Venus.

Overpopulation.

Wars for water.
Wars for food.

It won't be pretty.

Better get ready (to suffer).

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Well done, Woo!

Great post.

[woo me with science]

66. From Manny Goldstein?! :)

I am not worthy!

[Fire Walk With Me]

62. The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525089

[woo me with science]

64. I cannot adequately convey the nausea and despair

that causes in me.

We are in such deep, deep trouble in this country.

[OnyxCollie]

93. Under the Obama administration, the Pentagon found no fault

in its propaganda campaign leading up to the Iraq war.

Pentagon Finds No Fault in Ties to TV Analysts
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/pentagon-finds-no-fault-in-its-ties-to-tv-analysts.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all-12-26/news/30559559_1_bachmann-romney-santorum&

In January 2009, the inspector general’s office issued a report that said it had found no wrongdoing in the program. But soon after, the inspector general’s office retracted the entire report, saying it was so riddled with inaccuracies and flaws that none of its conclusions could be relied upon. In late 2009, the inspector general’s office began a new inquiry.

The results of the new inquiry, first reported by The Washington Times, confirm that the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld made a concerted effort starting in 2002 to reach out to network military analysts to build and sustain public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

~snip~

But several former top aides to Mr. Rumsfeld insisted that the purpose of the program was merely to inform and educate, and many of the 63 military analysts interviewed during the inquiry agreed.

Given the conflicting accounts, the inspector general’s office scrutinized some 25,000 pages of documents related to the program. But except for one “unsigned, undated, draft memorandum,” investigators could not find any documents that described the strategy or objective of the program. Investigators said that to understand the program’s intent, they had to rely on interviews with Mr. Rumsfeld’s former public affairs aides, including his spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke. Based on these interviews, the report said, investigators concluded that the “outreach activities were intended to serve as an open information exchange with credible third-party subject-matter experts” who could “explain military issues, actions and strategies to the American public.”

[BillyJack]

68. Yes. So what are we going to do about it?

Oh nothing.

[SkyDaddy7]

69. I totally disagree!

Not that it matters.

...President Obama is opening up the program to congressional oversight which is good.

[cantbeserious]

72. America Reduced To Dumb And Dumber -Let The Cheerleading Begin

eom

[Luminous Animal]

77. Hey! Try to carve out a little joy or cheer for yourself already.

Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Jeesh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320116

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022328601

[limpyhobbler]

98. ^^LOL.

[marions ghost]

80. Propaganda is even more effective online

...because there is less body language to help filter it. Unless you see the speaker on a video clip you have less info to decide whether they are lying or not.

[liberal_at_heart]

81. well said

[Octafish]

84. Alex Carey

Bernays.
Laswell.

[font size="5"]Carey*.[/font size]

Before Parenti.
Before Herman.
Before Chomsky.

* Scroll down and download. You'll be glad and democracy in the future will appreciate it.

[Zorra]

85. Propaganda, yes. Excellent, awesome, stellar post. You totally rock more each day, woo.

The gatekeeper marketers shilling for 1% global wealthy private interests never stop with their shameless, studied bullshit.

Marketing has been refined into an exact science in the 21st century.

Progressive: "Executing people without them getting due process is wrong. Killing innocent bystanders while executing other targeted people who are being executed without having been granted due process is unethical.

MIC Propaganda Marketeer: "No it's not, it's actually an awesome and moral occurrence. Woo-hoo!"

Progressive: "How can you possibly justify it?"

MIC Propaganda Marketeer: "There's lots of reasons - like, you know, one good reason is because the sky is not really blue. Another reason is that the dog ate my homework. Your problem is that you simply can't handle anyone disagreeing with you."

If I had a nickel for every time...meh, well, you know...*sigh*

[russ1943]

86. propaganda, street definition

To his perplexed spouse Zeke explained; By my first wife I fathered 3 babies, my second wife 4 young uns, my third wife also had three. We’ve been together for 8 years now and not a single pregnancy. That means while I’m the propaganda you’re not the proper goose!

[philly_bob]

87. "This news" = what? Link please. (nt)

[WillyT]

89. HUGE K & R !!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. We have a large contingent of the "Father Knows Best" wing of the party here.

Who are willing to, not just accept but, embrace whatever the bosses(D) tell them.

[NCTraveler]

97. I am not on board with this policy.

That being said, there is a flaw in your thought process with respect to this:

"When this news came out, this board was filled with outrage and horror. Hours later, the corporate propaganda brigade has now littered GD with their predictable rationalizations, justifications, and carefully worded advertisements to justify even this. Even this."

It can be said just as easily that the initial reaction was nothing but a knee jerk reaction. A couple of hours is not a long time to post on a fresh topic. Some of those people may not have even logged on for a couple of hours, or maybe even 24 hours, after the initial memo came out.

I have seen a number of posters state their acceptance of this policy in an eloquent and well thought out manner. I don't agree with them, but their thought process was their and was clear. Opinions are not always propaganda when they don't agree with you.

[CrispyQ]

99. kick

The one percent spend billions purchasing policy. They spend billions more to shape public reception of that policy.

Some think that Fish is saying Bush & Obama are the same. I don't think so. I think he's saying that in the overall scheme of things, it doesn't much matter who is president. The empire is going to grind through it's life cycle & issues that are important to the little people, like a fair economy, will never be addressed, & issues that affect us all, like climate change, will never be addressed.

[limpyhobbler]

100. well said nt.

[great white snark]

104. I say reject divisive bunk like this.

This is a Democratic forum. Pro-Dem and con-Repub OP's are the norm. Just because you disagree and dislike them does not make them propoganda.

Supportive OP's does not make the author a corporate Dem.

BTW aren't you the one who always says "address the facts?" Take your own advice and please stop the paranoid motive speculation.