cj#1021, rn-> Let’s talk about propaganda…

1999-11-27

Richard Moore

Dear friends,

I'm working on my chapter on propaganda.

I want to convey the depth of the propaganda ocean we live under.  One can
make a list of the lies, or give examples of the lies, but that doesn't
really tell the story.  The metaphor of the 'fish in water' helps some.
The fish doesn't know what water is - to a fish, 'water' = 'universe'.  I'd
like the reader to experience a kind of "Aha" breakthrough... media isn't
just distorted - it's total fabrication.  The world we perceive through the
media is a dream within a dream within a dream.  Not only are we seeing the
back of Plato's cave, but we're seeing it on video with distorting
narrative.

I also want to say something about how the propaganda machine operates.
When I talk to people, they say things like "You couldn't have a conspiracy
of thousands of media employees all agreeing to make up lies."  True
enough... so how does the system work?  I don't want to analyze this in
depth, but I'd at least like to point to some good sources and quote some
telling passages.

What I want to focus on mostly is what I would call issues of "meta
propaganda".  _Regular propaganda is lies about events.  _Meta propaganda
has to do with lies about public opinion itself, and lies which are aimed
specfically at dividing people into hostile camps.  I'm  thinking about
using the OJ Simpson trial (with mentions also of Clarence Thomas, Anita
Hill, and Rodney King).

In these cases, we had media circuses which were carefully designed to
create different reactions in different communities.  With OJ, the Black
community (speaking in broad general terms) responded to the issue of
whether OJ was getting a FAIR TRIAL.  The White community was responding
instead to the issue of whether or not OJ was GUILTY.  Both were seeing the
same show, taking in the same data, but their responses and sympathies were
180 degrees apart.  The propagnda value of the circus was considerable:
    (1) Everyone lost respect for Trial By Jury.  The long-range purpose
        of the charade was obviously to help get rid of that Constitutional
        right, which creates problems for elite control.
    (2) People probably assumed that the difference in Black & White
        responses was due to sympathies for the victim (White woman)
        or the perpetrator (Black man).  This was not true.
    (3) Mutual suspicion and misunderstanding was therefore increased
        between Black and White communities.  This serves the elite
        objective of 'divide & rule'.

If you have ideas, suggestions, references, or comments - on any of this or
anything related - please send it in.  If you don't want your name posted,
please say so.  If you disagree with my whole approach, that could be
especially helpful.  If I start arguing with somebody, that often leads to
good prose.


in collaboration,
rkm

Share:

ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com