Skip to main content

Folks, we've been on a quiet (creeping) path towards a total-information-awareness surveillance police state for a very long time.  As this historic trend has been developing, we have been exposed to carefully-designed propaganda meant to manipulate the citizenry into acquiescing to the imposition of "inverted totalitarianism."

“Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds expression in the anonymity of the Corporate State. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism, and the Constitution while manipulating internal levers.”

-- Chris Hedges

But like in any historic period, it is always the case that some people (although few in numbers) cannot be bought.  I know this is a very hard concept to understand for the corporatist hucksters and profiteers who are lining their pockets and acquiring illegitimate power over the population, but the conscientious whistle-blower will always be the Achilles' heel of the corrupt Corporate State.

Thus far, for years and years, the propaganda war has been one-way.  Our senses have been bombarded by false narratives, misinformation, outright lies and propaganda 24/7.

They've spend untold fortunes investing in the propaganda machine.  The reason for that is that it takes an extraordinary amount of effort and resources to manipulate people into acting against their own interests and into believing total bullshit, as in the insistence of the Corporate State that we need to give up our constitutional rights in the name of security.

Finally, people have begun to realize what's happening--at least, enough people to make a real difference.  And this is of extreme concern to the corrupt Corporate State which has become accustomed to an eerily passive population in the face of the imposition of increasingly draconian, undemocratic, oppressive, and unconstitutional regime.

{The critique herein has little to do with president Obama; it is a critique and observation about the entire system.}

And thus, you are likely to see an all-out assault on the truth, on those who speak it, on those who expose lies, corruption, greed and profiteering.

We need to educate ourselves about how propaganda works; about the history of corporatist cartels working in concert with the FBI and other surveillance state agencies to manipulate the population.

Here are some resources:

Student 'Subversives' And The FBI's 'Dirty Tricks'.

Rosenfeld's book, Subversives: The FBI's War on Student Radicals and Reagan's Rise to Power, is now out in paperback. It details how the FBI employed fake reporters to plant ideas and shape public opinion about the student movement; how they planted stories with real reporters; and how they even managed — with the help of then-Gov. Ronald Reagan — to get the UC Berkeley's President Clark Kerr fired.
To research the book, Rosenfeld pored over 300,000 pages of records obtained over 30 years from five lengthy Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the FBI.

The records "show that during the Cold War, the FBI sought to change the course of history by secretly interceding in events, by manipulating public opinion and taking sides in partisan politics," Rosenfeld says.

COINTELPRO
COINTELPRO (an acronym for COunter INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert, and at times illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveying, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.

The FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception; however, covert operations under the official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971. COINTELPRO tactics have been alleged to include discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; and illegal violence, including assassination. The FBI's stated motivation was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order."

The Propaganda Model

I also suggest people read about Noam Chomsky Propaganda Model.

The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that states how propaganda, including systemic biases, function in mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda.

The theory posits that the way in which news is structured (through advertising, media ownership, government sourcing and others) creates an inherent conflict of interest which acts as propaganda for undemocratic forces.

It is my contention that given the history of outright criminality and deceit by these corporate-government colluding entities, that many of these tactics have not only not ceased to be used, but have become even more entrenched and sophisticated aided by advancements in technology and by the imposition of an increasingly oppressive legal framework.

I think we're entering a dangerous stage.  When you see a parade of one public official after another at the highest levels making increasingly bizarre, contradictory, untrue, and preposterous statements akin to what you would see in a third world banana republics, as they try to defend the indefensible, you know something serious is going on behind the scenes.

Stay focused.  You're going to see the level of viciousness against people who are speaking the truth increase significantly, in many areas.  You're going to see disruptive tactics, especially online... It's akin to people jumping up and down, waving their hands, screaming nonsense, all to prevent you from understanding what's happening.

It's about this:

In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”  

-- G. Orwell

Here's my suggestion... It is hard (counterproductive and unfair) to try to ascribe ulterior motives to specific individuals you may suspect of being engage in corporatist propaganda.  So focus on the tactics; recognize them; study them.  You will notice a pattern... Facts and statements that are either clearly true, or likely true, but that threatened the established powers will be attacked with more viciousness than others.  That would be a clear sign that something is fishy.

Use your own intellect; think.  Analyze issues carefully; look at the facts, and you should be able to come up with your own conclusions about what's happening.  And most importantly, engage in this propaganda war.  Speak truth to power.  If we stay silent, the corporatist profiteer propagandist will always win.  We need to engage full steam ahead in a relentless, non-stop, strategic, counter-propaganda effort.  

 

P.S. To learn more about this subject, please visit the following links: The 15 Rules of Web Disruption / Thirteen Rules for Truth Suppression / Disinformation: How It Works.

George Carlin ~ The American Dream
http://www.youtube.com/...


EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What if people do this and (26+ / 0-)

    come to different conclusions?

    Use your own intellect; think.  Analyze issues carefully; look at the facts, and you should be able to come up with your own conclusions about what's happening
    Arre those conclusions, by definition, a false consciousness created by propoganda?  

    We seem back to the problem of the 20th century: why do people in democratic societies consistently reject Marxist solutions?  Lenin proposed several explanations.  one was that the workers were bought off.   Another is the idea of false consciousness (I think marax may have started this, been a long time since I read Marx).  Marcuse had explanations (consumerism, TV, to simplify) that were popular in the 60s.

    Why is it that nationalism defeated Marxism in the early 20th century (see WWI and the voting of war credits)?  Hell, one can go back to Boulanger in France.  The right discovered how to work the elctoral system early.

    I've believed concepts similar to what you articulte here at times in my life.   I just find the whole vanguardist line not to be very useful, but you certainly can go down that road.  

     

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 10:47:43 AM PDT

    •  marxism itself (9+ / 0-)

      had so many internal problems, particularly as applied. my reading of marx was that there would be more evolution than what we think of as revolution. but i also think a dogmatic and purely materialistic ideology necessarily alienates too much of the populace.

      i do think false consciousness is a big part of the problem, as we see to a stunning degree right now, all around us. ultimately, it all comes down to questions of consciousness, and the ease with which people are distracted and deluded.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 10:55:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have a problem with the concept of (9+ / 0-)

        "false consciounsess," although when I was more of a Marxist I beleived in it.  I think it takes away agency from people.  

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 10:59:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Successful propaganda means false (5+ / 0-)

        consciousness.  People are swimming in an ocean of opinions and news items.   The pyschosocio milieu is that ocean, and immersed in this ocean it is extremely difficult to see the water for what it is.  

        But a few eccentric and/or extremely analytic people are fated to see some of what the masses cannot.  The Snowdens of the world are few and far between.  We should try to recognize these heros for what they are.  They pull the shades from our eyes.

        An illusion can never be destroyed directly... SK.

        by Thomas Twinnings on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:17:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just don't see the "massses" that way. (13+ / 0-)

          I came from the working class and worked as a blue colleqe worker for 10 years before going to college and then law school.  

          The "masses" are not as dumb as some think they are and they do not need heroic middle class "revolutionaires" to open their eyes for them.   It is only from spearating one's self from the people that one sees them with derision.

          And I say that as one who believes, on balance, that Snowden acted with courage.  

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:52:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agree, Tom. (8+ / 0-)

            There is something genuinely undemocratic (small "d") about a generalized claim that some are closer to "the truth" than others due to some powerful insight that the more ignorant masses are not privy to or are unable to divine.

            Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

            by Bob Johnson on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:13:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So now those who speak up against propaganda (0+ / 0-)

              are tyrants wannabe?  That's very scary; they're "undemocratic" because they bring up the issue of how the ruling elite engages in propaganda against the citizenry.  Something that's verified and well-documented.

              But bring it up, and you're suspect.  It ain't going to work.

              If there are undemocratic forces, they are those who under the cloak of secrecy and influence peddling corruption collude to spread lies and misinformation to the citizenry.  Those are the real undemocratic forces Bob.

              •  Um, no, that's not what I wrote at all, Ray. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT, TomP, Sylv

                Here is what I wrote:

                There is something genuinely undemocratic (small "d") about a generalized claim that some are closer to "the truth" than others due to some powerful insight that the more ignorant masses are not privy to or are unable to divine.
                Here is what you wrote, line-by-line, in response:
                So now those who speak up against propaganda are tyrants wannabe?
                Where did I write or imply that?
                That's very scary; they're "undemocratic" because they bring up the issue of how the ruling elite engages in propaganda against the citizenry.
                Who is "they," Ray? I was talking about a general notion, a belief, in my post, not about individuals.
                Something that's verified and well-documented.
                Now you switch from a discussion of people to a discussion of facts. Facts are not people.

                Then you switch back to people:

                But bring it up, and you're suspect.  It ain't going to work.
                Where did I ever write or imply any such thing, Ray?

                You finish with this:

                If there are undemocratic forces, they are those who under the cloak of secrecy and influence peddling corruption collude to spread lies and misinformation to the citizenry.  Those are the real undemocratic forces Bob.
                Again, reread what I wrote. I was describing a belief or a notion that "some are closer to 'the truth' than others due to some powerful insight that the more ignorant masses are not privy to or are unable to divine."

                That is the "undemocratic" belief I was highlighting.

                What you write about are policies and procedures, cloaked in secrecy, that are undemocratic. I agree!

                But that does not preclude the notions I highlight in my post as also being undemocratic, Ray.

                Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                by Bob Johnson on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 02:23:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Nevertheless (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, Ray Pensador

            you will admit there are some worth reading.  I admire Richard D. Wolff.   http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            An illusion can never be destroyed directly... SK.

            by Thomas Twinnings on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:23:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You seem to be putting an extraordinary amount (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lostinamerica

            of effort in defending the status quo.  I do find that interesting.

            First of all, if one really wants to understand these issues objectively, our own personal histories are pretty much irrelevant.  They are irrelevant in the same way one would want to understand climate change from the prism of our personal experiences.

            Second, once you put it like that--that one is saying that the masses are dumb and need "revolutionary" saviors--of course is hard to support that view.

            I see it as just another clever way of attacking and discrediting the messenger... Bring this issue of propaganda up, and be immediately labeled an outsider, a revolutionary-wannabe, one that wants to be separated from "the rest of us."

            If the characterization sticks, then you've succeeded in undermining the person, i.e., messenger, and with it the message itself.

            It's not going to be that easy.  Here's a direct challenge for you:

            It is a well-documented fact that we as a country were misled to support the Iraq war through propaganda...

            As I pointed out, many people, including Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, and Naomi Klein have all discussed this issue of mass manipulation and propaganda at length.

            Now, after basic observation about how the system works, I've come to similar conclusions.  I actually (almost) full agreement with these people.

            What do you have to say specifically about this?  Do entrenched powers/interests, the ruling class, engage in manipulative propaganda against masses or not?

            You see.  I'm pushing back the focus you've put on me, on me possibly being a lone wolf, someone with suspect views, someone who may be alienated (according to your characterization) back to the topic at hand.

            Try it.

            •  I think you are misunderstanding what he's saying (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TomP, ricklewsive, Sylv

              He's not defending the status quo, he's noting the practical issues around liberation and revolution and the working class as seen through the eyes of history.

              I disagree with some of it, but I think the first step is to acknowledge that we all agree here that there is propaganda. TomP has said as much elsewhere. I agree with that. What we're disagreeing with is how and who and how much that propaganda effects people. It's an unfortunate fact that sometimes the truth support the status quo. Of course, how it supports it is the important part.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 02:14:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  A whole lot depends on which 'masses' (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, Ray Pensador

            you're talking about -- and which awarenesses (which I think is a better modern word for 'consciousness', in context).

            I don't see derision in the comment you're responding to, though of course I understand historically where that comes from. "We have been lied to, and I figured it out" is not inherently derisive, after all.

    •  Off topic issue that detracts from the theme (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jarrayy, Johnny Q, lostinamerica

      of this diary unnecessarily.  I'm not sure what the objective is.

      Question to you: Do you think COINTELPRO tactics may still being used on the population?

      That's a very simple and straightforward question.

    •  You Know What? (13+ / 0-)

      I was going to post a snarky reply to this, but that would have made me part of the problem and not the solution.

      I'd like to see the answer to this question, because in the past it's been more or less implied that reaching a different conclusion is a sure sign of being one of the paid propagandists.

      •  It's a mindset. (15+ / 0-)

        There is an increasing need here among some for uninamity of opinion.  

        I know Mao has many faults, and I know he did not really follow this statement, but I always liked this statement:

        "Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land."
        When opposing thought is labeled as "propoganda influenced" ideas no longer contend.   You're no longer debating or pursuading.   I see two problems with that.  First, it feels anti-democratic to me.  Second, it does not work.  Tell workers they are stupid because they have a false conscionsness (an example, but that same process as saying you have ben propogandized) just alienates they very people on whose behalf the revolution si made.  

        But the idea is worth discussing.,  I would not seek to shut down discussion of the ideas in this post.  

        in fact, I might even endorse a weak version of the concept.  Certainly right wng thought has been successful.    

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:06:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah And You're Right (15+ / 0-)

          I just read two of the responses you got.  The diarist's response is--that by asking him to clarify a point he made in the diary--you are hijacking the diary with something off-topic.

          Some other samaratin came along (one whom earlier today helpfully told me what my motives for things were, and what my opinions were six years ago) suggests that  people who disagree with the diarist might simply be delusional.

          So there's that.

          •  Of course, the psychological (8+ / 0-)

            explanation for any disagreement.  Anyone who disagrees is deluded.  Very close to false consciousness, but more Freud than Marx.  :-)

            Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

            by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:15:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  it's hijacking in the sense you're now talking... (4+ / 0-)

            about the diarist instead of the points made in the diary.

            Personally I understand the government has been watching us for a very long time so yes, this is nothing new, although the scope is larger due to the capabilities.

            But that doesn't make it ok, just like the fact that Bush did it doesn't mean we've survived it.

            As for planting operatives, that too is a time-honored tradition. Put a couple of goons in a labor rally, let them threaten the police, get the workers beaten up.

            I believe the so-called "Anarchists" who were at Occupy were largely plants. It seems a bit far-fetched that an anarchistic organization should even exist, let alone have people willing to dress up the same all over the world, causing trouble in otherwise peaceful demonstrations.

            Meanwhile there are plenty of reporters willing to do the work for the authorities. You might see a TV person accuse a reporter of something heinous. Ignore that the TV person also thought it was appropriate to dance onstage with a famous propagandist.

            But, sure, the government feeds stories and no doubt can get people hired at newspapers or television stations.

            If you like what the government says then it's "information". If you don't like it then it's "propaganda".

            Dear NSA: I am only joking.

            by Shahryar on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:20:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You beleive that Occupy was a government op? (6+ / 0-)
              I believe the so-called "Anarchists" who were at Occupy were largely plants
              I see no evidence of that.  I think many were just people.  I think the people in Occupy had a good message on inequality.  That they did not overthrow world capitalism does not mean they failed.  keeping ideas alive is important also.  

              Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

              by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:26:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm referring to the Black Bloc (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TomP, Johnny Q, TiaRachel, Sylv

                sorry if that wasn't clear (and re-reading, I can see that it wasn't).

                Dear NSA: I am only joking.

                by Shahryar on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:27:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I understand. I think Black Bloc (5+ / 0-)

                  was harmful.  I have no evidence that they were a government thing, but that would be how to discredit a movement.  COINTELPRO often pushed for bombings and violence.  They wanted the most extreme to push out effective leaders.   Of course, there are many ways to undercut movements.  

                  I see your point.  It's possible.  I would need more evidence though.

                  Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

                  by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:30:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  They weren't government (6+ / 0-)

                    They are various people who have participated in actions for more than a decade now. It wasn't the government when it happened in Seattle in '99 and it wasn't the government when it happened in SF during the antiwar movement in 2003. And it definitely wasn't the government when it happened during Occupy Oakland. It was radicals who want to show that they are resisting and who want to show that they don't respect property rights.

                    They aren't out there to win over liberal opinion. They're there to resist the police and break shit for a political agenda. Despite the fact that this information is laid out before and after virtually every protest where there is a black bloc people insist on acting as if they are some sort of inscrutable group. They issue more communiques than windows get broken I swear.

                    They are also fairly small in number. Maybe a couple thousand in the country.

                    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                    by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:38:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  It was clear to me, (0+ / 0-)

                  and so obvious that I find the "misunderstanding" un-credible.

                  Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                  by Deward Hastings on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:36:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Shahryar (0+ / 0-)

                  Anarchists were largely instrumental in founding Occupy. Graeber, an anarchist anthropologist and member of daily kos was one of those who was at the first organizational meetings along with other "horizontals" (as he refers to them) which is another name for anarchists.

                  Black bloc is a tactic, and in Portland, Oregon, I've been at countless occupy events and various independent black bloc groups (people dress in black, often with faces covered) were present and marching as peacefully as anyone. Most of these groups were probably anarchists of some form, and they were present in rather large numbers, and were welcome since they added to our numbers.

                  The few bank windows a few individuals break or deface with paint pale in comparison to the staggering level of real violence and murder committed by our U.S government, and which most loyal Democrats today  support. Thus, anarchists not only were not necessarily plants, but were instrumental in kicking off the entire movement. And as to organization, most anarchists are not anti-organization, but rather are specifically against organization that is authoritarian and hierarchical. They embrace democratic, horizontal, bottom up organizational structures.

                  Here's what Graeber had to say about anarchist involvement:

                  http://www.aljazeera.com/...

                  Almost every time I'm interviewed by a mainstream journalist about Occupy Wall Street I get some variation of the same lecture:

                  "How are you going to get anywhere if you refuse to create a leadership structure or make a practical list of demands? And what's with all this anarchist nonsense - the consensus, the sparkly fingers? Don't you realise all this radical language is going to alienate people? You're never going to be able to reach regular, mainstream Americans with this sort of thing!"
                  In-depth coverage of the global movement

                  If one were compiling a scrapbook of worst advice ever given, this sort of thing might well merit an honourable place. After all, since the financial crash of 2007, there have been dozens of attempts to kick-off a national movement against the depredations of the United States' financial elites taking the approach such journalists recommended. All failed. It was only on August 2, when a small group of anarchists and other anti-authoritarians showed up at a meeting called by one such group and effectively wooed everyone away from the planned march and rally to create a genuine democratic assembly, on basically anarchist principles, that the stage was set for a movement that Americans from Portland to Tuscaloosa were willing to embrace.  

                  [Emphasis is mine]

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 08:17:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I am an anarchist and I was there but (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TiaRachel

              I don't know anything about uniforms or anything like that and I certainly was not a plant.

              I am also aware and participate in actions organized by anarchist co-operatives where I live, which are fluid communities that come together to help each other and the greater community by volunteering after national disasters, collecting and distributing items to those in need, building community gardens, animal rescue, organizing arts organizations and participating within numerous political and activist organizations.

              The people who were violent at our occupy were police plants and homeless mentally ill people who desperately needed medical care.

              I mention this because I am an educated middle-aged housewife with children and I am a proud anarchist, I believe in a society without rulers but not without rules. We must realize that as a community of individuals we are each and everyone of us unique and it is our difference of opinion which is our greatest strength.

              •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

                I, too, am an anarchist (most here have no clue what anarchism is, or they have a Marxist-influenced view of it), and it seems many think it is anarcho-capitalism (which is a misnomer in my view).

                I commented above at length.

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 08:21:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  It goes hand in hand with the increasing (6+ / 0-)

          medicalization of dissent and resistance to various forms of control. If the folks in charge are saying that such and such group is mentally unbalanced(racists, for example) then why not just apply that to other people? You're clearly mentally unbalanced because you disagree with this obvious fact about society that is so fucking clear you'd have to be crazy not to notice. Of course, we do this to the right wing all the time here at daily kos, so why not start applying it to people who are right of you but still democrats? It gets tossed out at the DFHs and leftists enough as it is, why not throw it back at them?

           It's easier to ignore how you're being propagandizing and assume that only the other side is because you've seen through some set of propaganda directed at you. You've "woken up" and those who disagree with you have their vision clouded and are still deceived. In my mind the propaganda is not the biggest problem, it's the material conditions oppressing people and restricting them from claiming their full rights as a person.

          It's generally people who are middle-class who think that propaganda is the most important leg of the oppression stool. That's because, from what I can tell, the oppression of middle class people, and middle class people's role in oppression others, is based on propaganda. So from their perspective it really is propaganda that's the problem. The issue there is that most of that propaganda is aimed at obsfucating the complicity and removing the blame for participation with oppression. The rejection of the idea of white privilege is one of the most obvious versions of that right now, IMHO.

          Sorry, that turned into a bit of a run on but I need to get these things out occasionally and I know you at least can understand even when you don't agree.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:25:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree that psychology (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bob Johnson, AoT, Sylv

            often is used to marginalize dissent, but on Daiily Kos, it's used on all sides.  

            This is very good:

            It's easier to ignore how you're being propagandizing and assume that only the other side is because you've seen through some set of propaganda directed at you. You've "woken up" and those who disagree with you have their vision clouded and are still deceived. In my mind the propaganda is not the biggest problem, it's the material conditions oppressing people and restricting them from claiming their full rights as a person.

            Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

            by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:47:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is used on all sides (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TomP, Sylv

              I think that it is used by people with marginalized viewpoints and political beliefs, which includes myself, more now than before because it's been increasingly used by the "establishment".

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:07:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  You may have seen that mindset by some other (0+ / 0-)

          diarists, but not with me, right?  I just want to clarify whether you made this as a general statement of a trend, or specifically about me, this being my diary.

          Did you read the diary?  I start by criticizing the surveillance state; then I make a statement about them using propaganda; then I provide some historical references that prove that the ruling elite (corporate-government collusion) have used propaganda and many other illegal tactics against the population; then I advice people to be aware of those tactics, to think critically about these issues.

          How did that led to talks about Marxism, revolutionary wannabes, and people labeling opposing views as propaganda?

          This is an honest question.  

    •  People rightly fear too much state power (14+ / 0-)

      For a variety of reasons, every large scale effort to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat ended in a dictatorship of one individual or an elite few.

      However, that does not mean that propaganda by organizations such as Fox News hasn't convinced people to vote against their own interests.

      We need a little more nuance in this discussion.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:03:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you on that. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic, Bonsai66, Deep Texan, Sylv

        I think Marxist thought had many good things that are still useful and many things that are not.  People fear power.  In the US, they fear state power more than they fear power of capitalists, big compnaies and their owners.  I'm more of a socialist; I would enlarge state power to become a counterweight to capitalists.  However, their are limits and the NSA stuff is way over the line in my view.  The state also has to be democratically controlled.  

        Marx and Bakunin has an exceleent back and forth in the First Internatonal.  I think both were right about each other; both identified deep flaws in anarchistic and marxist thinking.

        Here's an interesting link.  

        “Again, I’m not enough of a Marx scholar to pretend to an authoritative judgement. My impression, for what it is worth, is that the early Marx was very much a figure of the late Enlightenment, and the later Marx was a highly authoritarian activist, and a critical analyst of capitalism, who had little to say about socialist alternatives. But those are impressions.” Noam Chomsky.

        THE TEMPESTUOUS relation between Marx and Bakunin is a well known legacy of the history of western socialism. As co-members of the International Working Men’s Association, they seem to have devoted as much energy battling one another as their common enemy, the capitalist system, culminating in Marx’s successful campaign to expel Bakunin from the organization. While at times engaging in cordial relations, they nevertheless harbored uncomplimentary mutual assessments. According to Marx, Bakunin was “a man devoid of all theoretical knowledge” and was “in his element as an intriguer”,1 while Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”.2

        snip

        However, their most profound point of disagreement centered on their conflicting analyses of the State. Most importantly, while Marx envisioned a transitional stage between capitalism and a fully mature communist society, which included a state in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e., a workers’ state), Bakunin adamantly rejected the establishment of any kind of state, including a workers’ state. In fact, this rejection is the defining principle of the school of anarchism, a term that literally translates as “no government”. For Bakunin, the only consistent, revolutionary option was to move immediately to a fully mature communist society which, both authors agreed, would be distinguished by the absence of a state. As a corollary to this disagreement, Marx supported attempts by independently organized workers to pursue their class interests by pressing for reforms within the bourgeois state – for example, for a reduction in the length of the working day – arguing that such victories would promote class consciousness, whereas Bakunin contested this proposal on the grounds that any political engagement whatsoever would constitute a perversion of the revolutionary movement and instead advocated complete abstention from the bourgeois political arena. The proper form of a revolutionary organization was also a point of dispute. Bakunin enthusiastically created secret societies as catalysts for a revolutionary upsurge while Marx flatly rejected them. Finally, the two contested the proper role of the peasants in a revolutionary movement. Bakunin argued that they might play a leading role while Marx designated the proletariat as the exclusive, leading revolutionary agent.

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:13:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem with the dichotomy (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP, TiaRachel, Sylv, Thomas Twinnings

          of state vs corporate power is that corporate power comes from the state. Property rights are the core of corporate power, which are enforced by the state. You can reduce both state and corporate power, it isn't a one or the other option.

          The problem is that the libertarians currently are pushing the reduction in state power that benefits corporations so that it skews the agenda in such a way that these two options look like they are the only choices. But really, corporations are a creation of the government. They are a legal fiction created to minimize liability and responsibility. We could destroy them all in a month is there was the political will.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:49:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The capitalist system (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        turn blue, TiaRachel, Sylv

        has been an oligarchy of an elite few from the beginning.  The problem, then, is in putting people power in charge of the society, and not just by faking "democracy."

        "Exxon’s CEO was recently quoted as saying, ‘What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?’, as if the future of humanity could be separated from the ecosystems on which we depend." -- Charlotte Wilson

        by Cassiodorus on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:31:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I tend to agree, (4+ / 0-)

          but I think "democracy," even the dreaded bourgeiose democracy" is useful.  

          How do we put "people" in charge of the society?  Vanguardism was an almost complete failure.  On the other hand, Bernstein's road did not prevent WWI, Hitler, etc.  

          I have a soft spot in my heart for Chomsky (he helped fund some things I was involved in a few years back), but I don't know what his answer is.   Keep fighting I guess.

          While we sometimes disagree, I like your writings because you approach it in a rigorous way.  

           

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:42:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  **cough** (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, Sylv
      We seem back to the problem of the 20th century: why do people in democratic societies consistently reject Marxist solutions?
      You mean like in Chile, where the people elected Salvador Allende to bring about the socialist paradise?  Or like in Nicaragua, where the Sandinistas were elected to do the same?  Or like in Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez was re-elected to extend "21st-century socialism"?

      Those are only the most obvious examples.

      "Exxon’s CEO was recently quoted as saying, ‘What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?’, as if the future of humanity could be separated from the ecosystems on which we depend." -- Charlotte Wilson

      by Cassiodorus on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:35:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I remember Allende. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GussieFN, Deep Texan, Sylv

        They are few examples.  Allende was a minority leader, about 38% of the vote.  That said, the CIA coup was evil.

        I refer more to the problem of Europe and more developed nations, the places Marx prophesized.  

        Allende was more Marxist, I think.  Chavez has good and bad points, but he also is in the line of strongmen.  Sandino was elected, although I'm not sure he is as left as he once was.

        But if you think Marxism has been a success in the last century and a hlf, I refer you to look out your window at triumphant capitslsim.  Even through a depression, few real anti-capitalsim movements.

        In addition, in the US, anti-capialism has been very weak for a long time.

        I see no reason to pretend there is strength where there is not.

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:46:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It is interesting that the examples are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, Sylv

        from Central and South America.  Underdevelopment theory started in describing those societies, and then was used to describe the effects of imperialism on African societies.  

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:54:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You mean why do people in Capitalist (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, TiaRachel

      societies with medias run under a Capitalist model or by a government that isn't marxist reject Marxist solutions?

      One doesn't need to be a vanguardist to recognize that there have been valid critiques of our supposed system of free press and how it propagandizes everyone. I'm not vanguardist at all and I have a general agreement with a lot of the Marxist critique. There is zero representation of Marxist or leftist ideas in the media for a reason and it isn't because those ideas are not popular. A hell of a lot of people have said they think socialism is a good idea, although what they mean by socialism may vary greatly. And in a great many places there are plenty of Marxist solutions that have been put in place through popular votes. Often that is followed by a coup of some sort. But it isn't from lack of votes. Iran and Argentina come to mind.

      It's the same reason we don't have a radical left in the US, violent suppression in the past and then propaganda.

      And I often see people say that they are independent thinkers because they disagree with someone who talks about how the media is controlled but I never see people actually critique Chomsky's outline of how the propaganda machine works. The closest I've seen here to critique is people saying it's conspiracy theory, or just that it's wrong, but not what's wrong about it.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:14:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hopefully people do come to different conclusions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, Thomas Twinnings

      then they communicate those conclusions to each other, discussions ensue, problems are named, ideas formed and solutions executed.  This is the very foundation of the concept of a free society. No single mind is so all emcompassing that it is qualified to tell everyone what to think about everything all the time.

      It is precisely for this reason that I am an anarchist-without freedom of mind our species is doomed and I support all people's rights to draw their own conclusions, whatever they may be.  Unfortunately, our culture squashes diversity of opinion and pushes an anti-human agenda. These propaganda systems, financial systems, religious and political organizations are completely human inventions, created and managed by humans and the only thing that makes them anti-human is the monolithic homogonization of idea and purpose.

  •  good point, NSA-gate signals legitimation crisis (9+ / 0-)

    requiring counter-hegemony

    “Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds expression in the anonymity of the Corporate State. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism, and the Constitution while manipulating internal levers.”
    -- Chris Hedges
    In political science a legitimation crisis occurs when a governing structure still retains the legal authority by which to govern, but is not able to demonstrate that its practical functioning fulfills the end for which it was instituted.
    Three characteristics may be linked with a legitimation crisis.
    Policy incoherence: Government employees are so busy, they don't necessarily know what they are looking at.
    Institutional will is lost: Employees are not careful about tainting a government institution with decisions which may be seen as mistaken or unpopular.
    Loss of public confidence. The public begins to lose faith in the government to act efficiently and effectively.
    Counter-hegemony refers to attempts to critique or dismantle hegemonic power. In other words it is a confrontation and/or opposition to existing status quo and its legitimacy in politics, but can also be observed in various other spheres of life, such as history, media, music, etc. Neo-Gramscian theorist Nicola Pratt (2004) has described counter-hegemony as “a creation of an alternative hegemony on the terrain of civil society in preparation for political change”....If a counterhegemony grows large enough it is able to subsume and replace the historic bloc it was born in. Neo-Gramscians use the Machiavellian terms war of position and war of movement to explain how this is possible. In a war of position a counterhegemonic movement attempts, through persuasion or propaganda, to increase the number of people who share its view on the hegemonic order; in a war of movement the counterhegemonic tendencies which have grown large enough overthrow, violently or democratically, the current hegemony and establish themselves as a new historic bloc.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 10:50:19 AM PDT

  •  I think you are ascribing intentional (11+ / 0-)

    maliciousness to what is largely defensiveness or disagreement. Yes, there are a few people actually seeking to actively misinform, but I believe that that number is quite small. And unnecessary, even on your terms. This isn't old-fashioned totalitarianism, which relies on agents provocateurs and such. It's inverted. We provoke ourselves. I am an agent, and I get paid in access cronuts and a 401k.

    And of course statements that attack established powers are treated unkindly. That's not fishy; that's established power. I like to think that I'm pretty critical of established power, but my entire life rests of the foundations of established powers, as do all of course, for good or ill, and I'd very much like to believe that I'm one of the good guys. So I'll criticize right up to the point where I'm implicated. That's not COINTELPRO, that's human nature.

    I always appreciate your perspective, but if you're taking requests from the audience I'd like to see more about your theory of change than your theory of dysfunction.

    "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

    by GussieFN on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 10:54:23 AM PDT

    •  More people have to be able to understand (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GussieFN, Ray Pensador, AoT

      what's at stake, and why it's a problem, before solutions to change can be properly articulated, though, don't you think?

      I mean, we're pretty up-to-speed around these parts, but the average person who doesn't live and breathe blogs or alternative news sources hasn't yet recognized The Big Picture, in terms of the dysfunction being discussed. More are awake than there were in the days after 9/11, sure, but we've a long way to go.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 10:58:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely. Education is (5+ / 0-)

        key. I mean, I suspect there's wide agreement that something is wrong. And even, in broadest terms, I suspect we agree about what's at stake. But I guess the difference between a liberal and a conservative is embodied by what specifically, we think is wrong.

        I mean, a Tea Partier would agree, I think, that 'more people must understand what's at stake, and why it's a problem.' The problem is that they're wrong about the specifics. But while I'm sure that some of us enjoy going onto Tea Party sites and derailing conversations, just as I'm sure they do the same to us (and while I'd not be surprised if there were even people making a buck on derailing our side) I just don't think that's a big problem. Not even Top Ten.

        This simply doesn't strike me as anything even close to the Big Problem: corporatist cartels working in concert with the FBI and other surveillance state agencies to manipulate the population.

        I think our problems are more fundamental, and less broadly intentional, than that.

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:12:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think that they are actually (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GussieFN, ricklewsive, TiaRachel, Sylv

          intentionally working in concert. It just coincidentally happens that the system supports those people and groups with more power more than those with less. Which means that if the FBI has a lot of power and IBM has a lot of power, what they both do will reinforce the power of the other institution. Not because they get together and have meetings about how they can go out and oppress people, although I'm sure there are organizations that do that, even if they don't use that wording. Instead they work together to create and maintain a system that reinforces the power of those who have the most power already. People talk about how Occupy was supposedly about income inequality, really it was about power inequality.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:12:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Access -to- cronuts. I don't actually think (0+ / 0-)

      that 'Access Cronuts' are a thing. Sadly.

      I'd sell my kid for an Access Cronut Card.

      "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

      by GussieFN on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 10:59:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I started a project to address your question: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GussieFN

      MARKET FOR THE PEOPLE

      A lot of it is based on these observations:


      I have very specific ideas for a theory of change.
  •  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (9+ / 0-)

    There are many trolls on the internet who disrupt just because they like to watch a train wreck.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 10:57:17 AM PDT

  •  my cigar has a first name, it's S-i-g-m-u-n-d (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:06:11 AM PDT

  •  Does your work cross over into propaganda? (20+ / 0-)

    I am specifically thinking of this paragraph:

    You're going to see the level of viciousness against people who are speaking the truth increase significantly, in many areas.  You're going to see disruptive tactics, especially online... It's akin to people jumping up and down, waving their hands, screaming nonsense, all to prevent you from understanding what's happening.
    People claiming to own "the truth" are generally fanatics.

    What follows the claim that some possess "the truth" is the natural follow-on for propaganda purposes: the keepers of "the truth" will be subject to disruption because "they" ("they" being these corporatist powers who control all) are trying to silence the "truth tellers."

    I'll be honest, I never trust folks who claim to own "the truth." Whether it's the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, a pundit or political theorist, a politician or a corporate mouthpiece.

    But that's just me.

    Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

    by Bob Johnson on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:08:18 AM PDT

    •  You'r point being? I totally agree with that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostinamerica, Sylv

      observation.  That's a different topic.

      Corporate propaganda is fact.  The reasons it exists are not too hard to understand.  There are volumes of studies, research, and books about it.

      People like Noam Chomsky, and Chris Hedges, and many others have been talking and writing about it for a long time.

      Do you have anything to say about that.

    •  'People claiming to own "the truth" are generally (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Johnson, ricklewsive, TiaRachel

      fanatics'

      Not really. That's most people. They think that what they believe is the truth. They still go to work and shit.

      And really, what's the alternative? Are you saying you know a lie?You've put forward a piece of "the truth" as it's known right now in our country. You don't have to call it the truth because it's "common sense".

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:16:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Claiming to own the truth coupled with... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sylv

        ... an assertion that those who don't see this ultimate truth are either naive or ignorant (or willfully seeking to silence that truth) is the fanatical part.

        Think Scientology and Scientologists.

        Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

        by Bob Johnson on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:33:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's what the majority of people do (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bob Johnson, ricklewsive, TiaRachel

          It's just that the majority agree on a certain subset of truth. Although, even that isn't true. If you take the number of Americans that think 911 was an inside job and add to that the ones that don't think that but think that Jews run the world and add to that the ones that think that reptilians run the world(or that reptilians are JEWS!!!), etc. etc. And add to that those that think that there's a secret government conspiracy covering up Obama's birth place and add to that the people who really truly believe that you eat the literal body of Christ at communion and add to that the people who literally believe that the Earth is 6k years old, and add to that the number of people who believe that the election in 2000 was legit stolen, and I could go on but I think you get the point.

          The vast majority of people think they have "the truth" when it comes to politics. It only becomes an issue when the people with power disagree.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:50:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Preachers Present Arms by Ray Abrams, (5+ / 0-)

    a book about the role of American churches and clergy in persuading citizens to support WWI and WWII.  The government and the oligarchy that controls it used the churches and other meeting places before there was TV, radio and the internet.  
    If people don't know now that they're being lied to, manipulated, shaped, and guided toward the goals of the sociopathic ruling class, then it may be impossible to get it across.  
    Modern brainwashing of society started over 100 years ago and with the likes of Edward Bernays who published his book Propaganda in 1928, its become ingrained in our culture, everyone's cultures.  They could persuade the people to go die in wars well before modern technology, imagine how much of a science it all is now.  
    If we're to overcome the oligarchy, the international criminal cartel trying to rule the world, then people have to admit they are being fed propaganda on a daily basis and learn where to find the truth.

    "America is the Terror State. The Global War OF Terror is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:16:00 AM PDT

  •  On the net, sometimes a troll is just a troll. (5+ / 0-)

    They get entertainment out of "disruption."

    and as liberals/progressives we already have a long and storied propensity to fight amongst ourselves anyway so even if there weren't trolls, even paid trolls, we'd still be sniping at each other.

    and that's a conclusion i've come to just by watching comments and whatnot on daily kos and elsewhere on the internet. it's enabled a lot of really snotty people to have an outlet they otherwise would not have. Which they do. For free.

    or in short, what TomP said.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex. tropical weather season is here

    by terrypinder on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:21:33 AM PDT

  •  English teachery remark (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador
    Stay focus.
    Please change to "Stay focused."

    "Exxon’s CEO was recently quoted as saying, ‘What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?’, as if the future of humanity could be separated from the ecosystems on which we depend." -- Charlotte Wilson

    by Cassiodorus on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:27:27 AM PDT

  •  This might be entirely off topic (9+ / 0-)

    or a hundred percent bulls-eye, but Hunter said something a few years ago, in 2007 at the apex of the I/P wars, that you might want to consider.

    So you tell me, what do you think is going to happen?

    I can tell you what, because I've seen this time and time again. Poster whines constantly about being oppressed. Poster whines more about being oppressed. Poster starts posting angrier and angrier things about how oppressed he is. Poster writes diaries about it, poster invents elaborate conspiracy theories tying together all their onsite enemies, poster disrupts entire threads with invective, poster rails against all the people against him.

    Then at long last the poster gets banned for being such an asshole that nobody can think of the last time they contributed anything positive to any discussion. And poster goes off to another site to say "See? I was right all along, it really was a conspiracy against me."

    I need two hands to count the number of times this has happened, just thinking of the more infamous cases. I see a half dozen people currently falling into this same transparent ploy/trap/whatever, and for the life of me I can't think of anyone who's ever stepped back and honestly thought about what they were doing. Once you've crossed that line into presuming "this group" or "that group" or "the site" or "Kos" is an enemy, that's it -- a switch goes on, and never gets turned back off. From then on, they can't think about anything else but how much everyone really secretly hated them all along.

    It's so predictable it's not even funny. I'll be bookmarking this comment so that I can refer back to it two weeks from now when exactly this has likely claimed the accounts of multiple posters.

    by Hunter on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:08:54 PM EDT

    I don't have a dedicated DK link library, but this one was enough of a keeper at the time and retains its relevance even now, over six years later.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:58:34 AM PDT

  •  OK, Ray, here's a question for you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, AoT

    Since we established above that what the word "propaganda" means is marketing advertising and public relations formulations of speech a la Bernays, let's look at that issue.

    I maintain that the failure of American democracy has to do in part with the acceptance of compaign marketing as acceptable speech in political campaigns and public relations discipline as acceptable interaction of public officials.   As a consequence, there is not enough nuanced coversation between the public and their representatives or among the public to actually arrive a realistic policies.  There are all sorts of short cuts and laziness and the overweening influence of money and acceptance of the idea that there is no other way in the current communications in our politics, but the result is to force candidates into a marketing framework.  To force issue advocates into a marketing framework.  To take the attitude that one must sell, sell, sell, sell ideas.

    So what is the style of political conversation among ordinary folks that begins to move outside of that marketing straightjacket and allows electoral politics to be liberated from its captivity to money?

    That is a precondition even if you take the attitude that the corporate-political establishment powers are so strong that they will never allow the transformation of electoral politics or even the use of public space to have that sort of conversation.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:13:11 PM PDT

    •  And we also have to take into account the fact... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TarheelDem, AoT, Sylv

      ... that the traditional fourth estate is, for all intents and purposes, dead.

      As this article today by Oliver Knox asks:

      Everyone knows politicians lie. Why don’t reporters say so?

      Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

      by Bob Johnson on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:34:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  was it ever really alive? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, Sylv, jhancock

        There have always been outliers like Watergate, but for the most part the press has always been a wholly owned subsidiary of the upper class white establishment.

        I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

        by jbou on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:40:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  True, but even the right wing rags had a team or (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Sylv

          ... two of investigative journalists that would nail politicians or corporations from time to time, if only to garner an award or two and retain their veneer of "unbiased" authenticity.

          Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

          by Bob Johnson on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:43:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Which is to say (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bob Johnson, AoT, ricklewsive, Sylv

        ...that the marketing campaign message and pubic relations talking points are never exposed as such so that ordinary folks can deconstruct the message and motivations.  And pick those apart in their informal personal networks.

        What happens today is that those informal networks become ritual gatherings for the true believers to repeat their externally-derived talking points and test the others for agreement.

        For a democratic society, that is exactly backwards.  Those gatherings have been in the past where new ideas and movements and political discourse have been born and spread through wider personal networks.

        Instead today those ideas are created non-locally and marketed to those same personal networks.  All politics has become astro-turf in the past two or three decades.

        And the most successful astro-turf campaign in American history was the Obama and Obama for America operation in 2008.

        The most highly promoted astro-turf campaign in American history was the highly visible tiny minority marketed under the Tea Party label in 2009.

        Both were classical marketing campaigns with tight message discipline, field strategies, roll-out dates, advertising promotion.

        Neither were authentic political conversations; one can tell by the fragility of the consensus they both engendered and the fact that symbolic battles continue that are not anchored in the realities that ordinary folks are facing.

        How do we get to honest-to-goodness political conversation about the future of the country and the world?

        50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

        by TarheelDem on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:05:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Finding an answer to the question in your last... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Sylv

          ... sentence is incredibly difficult because of what you wrote in your second paragraph:

          What happens today is that those informal networks become ritual gatherings for the true believers to repeat their externally-derived talking points and test the others for agreement.
          I mean, look what goes on here among the various subsets of people who call themselves "progressive" or "liberal."

          Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

          by Bob Johnson on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:09:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  if we had more self-proclaimed conservatives, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bob Johnson, AoT

            teabaggers, and libertarians around here, I think we'd attack one another less. Maybe.

            Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

            by greenbastard on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:26:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Heh. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbastard, AoT, Sylv

              Probably right. But it's institutionalized self-selection based one the site's stated mission.

              One note regarding your "isolation" note, below, I believe a number of fairly recent studies have found that we are increasingly congregating among those with like viewpoints, whether online or the communities in which we choose to live.

              Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

              by Bob Johnson on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:30:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  In terms of politics, I think the Carter campaign (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Sylv

          ... back in 1976 was a turning point in presidential politics. I know a lot of folks point to Reagan's campaign, but Carter's campaign -- presenting him as some regular guy peanut farmer -- was a load of crap from the get-go. In many ways, Carter was the first real corporatist Democrat.

          Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

          by Bob Johnson on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:12:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Isolation of the post modern age (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bob Johnson, AoT, Sylv, TarheelDem

          which is often written and spoken about, is part of the problem, like the lack of a town center, or square. People need to start talking to their neighbors. Face to face interaction is important.

          To me, one of the best things that came out of Occupy, besides changing the conversation from cutting the deficit to inequality, was simply realizing that I wasn't alone, locally or nationally.

          So to a certain degree, I think whatever happens, face to face, local interaction will be the key to change and honest-to-goodness political conversations.

          Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

          by greenbastard on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:24:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's exactly the answer to the propaganda (6+ / 0-)

      That's what Occupy was started to try to do. You described the initial problem of communication in an age of propaganda perfectly.

      And the way that the conversation moves beyond the marketing straightjacket(wonderful phrase) is that we start writing our own narratives about how the world works and then we argue about the narratives that we make up instead of the story of the avengers where the heroes do it all. We need to delegitimize the narrative of the monied interests and start from the ground up amongst ourselves talking about what we want out of our lives and how the political system can help everyone get what they want out of their life.

      For me freedom means the ability to live a life that doesn't grossly oppress a huge number of people. And we're no where near that.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:36:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Going to break out your text (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, Ray Pensador
        1. We start writing our own narratives about how the world works.

        2. We argue about the narratives that we make up instead of the story of the avengers where the heroes do it all.

        3. We need to delegitimize the narrative of the monied interests.

        4. [We] start from the ground up amongst ourselves talking about what we want out of our lives.

        5.  [We] start from the ground up amongst ourselves talking about how the political system can help everyone get what they want out of their life.

        My reflection is that "political system" is the context and environment "government" and not to conflate the two.

        And your test of a working political system is a society that permits you "to live a life that doesn't grossly oppress a huge number of people."

        50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

        by TarheelDem on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 02:55:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, that's a good break out (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador

          of my points. I think you did a better job than I could have.

          My reflection is that "political system" is the context and environment "government" and not to conflate the two.
          I think "regime" would be the broader word used for "political system" as context. Not sure what you mean by the second part though. Could you explain that a bit more?

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 03:05:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Political system does not equal (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT

            government but is broader context of government.

            The poltical system creates the environment in which government exists - the political processes, political culture, political resource trade-offs that shape but are beyond the government.

            Saying the the US has a two-party political system is quite a reduction of what actually goes on, for example.

            50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

            by TarheelDem on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 05:55:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I've written at length about this issue. (0+ / 0-)

      Obviously is a complicated and daunting challenge...

      I generally agree with the prescriptions suggested by people like Chris Hedges.

      I would distill the steps as this:

      1. Stop or minimize your exposure to TV programming.  I think it is one of the most harmful stimuli we can be exposed to.
      2. Reject rampant and unbridled consumerism in favor of sustainability concepts.
      3. Reach out to other who shared this outlook and come up with a strategy to spread these concepts to as many people as possible, in a recruiting mode.
      4. Build unity and solidarity, and start living in a different way: reject unbridled consumerism; embrace sustainability concepts; unite and build solidarity against exploitative interests.

      Of course, there a lot more that could be said, but that's a kind of high level overview of what I suggest.

      I encourage people to examine the work of Chris Hedges for more in-depth information.  There are other intellectuals and thinkers addressing these issue as well.

  •  and you have been brainwashed by... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv

    Hedges and all the left wing press you read. You just regurgitate all the stuff coming from the left. You're just another victim of propaganda, but I will save you with my truth, because my truth trumps your truth because my truth comes from people who are truthier.

    Are you going to win the hearts and minds of the masses by calling them stupid?

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:44:54 PM PDT

  •  and another thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT

    If you want to be an actual threat to the establishment you should try not to use language in your diaries that is  annoying. Your choice of language literally makes me cringe.  

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:49:59 PM PDT

    •  That's interesting because you have been (0+ / 0-)

      visiting all my diaries and posting extensive comments.

      How does that work?  For example, I think that there is a deeply antagonistic feeling you have towards me, and based on that, if I ever see a diary written by you is very likely I will not click on it.

      On the other hand, you claim that my writing style makes you cringe, but you keep coming back for more.  Nor only that, you post lots of messages.

      It's kind of weird.

      •  traffic accidents get people's attention (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        virginislandsguy, jhancock

        and you're one big traffic accident.

        If you want to attract people to your message you should try to make it more people friendly.

        You tend to sound like a breathless freshman poli sci major who just discovered Chomsky.  

        I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

        by jbou on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 03:24:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did I mentioned that I could care less what you (0+ / 0-)

          think?  I really mean that; I'm not writing it in anger or anything.  Your view, your opinion, your retorts, are really of no interest to me whatsoever.

          And I write that based on the manner in which you have chosen to communicate in my diaries.

          That may change in the future, of course.

          I will write the way I write, and I will choose the topics I want to write about, and your opinion about it is irrelevant to me.

          Just wanted to make sure you understood that.

          •  okay (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sylv

            but I will probably still share my opinion.

            The silly part is that I agree with your stance on a lot of issues, but your choice of how you get your message out has always been preachy and narrow in focus. I am giving you honest criticism.

            You have a desire for a mass uprising but no desire to appeal to the masses, it's like you're working to sabotage yourself.

            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

            by jbou on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 03:42:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's what I'm talking about. That's (0+ / 0-)

              respectful constructive criticism.  If you engage at that level, I'm game.

              The only thing is that you don't know what I'm doing.  You have the impression that all I want is a mass uprising and that I want to be some kind of leader convincing and motivating people to do so.

              That's not my intention.

              Either way, if you engage at this level, I'll pay attention.

        •  Yup. You nailled the characterization (0+ / 0-)

          of Ray's Leftist Cant™.

          You tend to sound like a breathless freshman poli sci major who just discovered Chomsky.
          I would substitute Chris Hedges for Chomsky since he is the goto-guy of the moment.

          There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

          by virginislandsguy on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 05:07:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Accepting and defending the status quo, and in (0+ / 0-)

            essence being an apologist for it is what's really bizarre, given the current reality.

            What Chomsky, and Hedges report and write about are just observations that anybody could easily see on their own--if they wanted to.

            •  What Paul Krugman reports and writes (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador

              about are just observations that anybody could easily see on their own--if they wanted to. And Krugman does not see capitalism as the enemy.

              See how easy that was, Ray?

              There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

              by virginislandsguy on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 07:14:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, so that's your beef: Don't thread on (0+ / 0-)

                capitalism!

                I kind of suspected that.

                •  Did you major in oversimplification in college? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador

                  If you need to know, I am in favor of a mixed economy, government and business. And of course, business needs to be closely regulated to avoid the excesses of the Bush/Greenspan Credit Bubble.

                  So yeah, I stand with Paul Krugman, as I guess most people on DK do.

                  There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

                  by virginislandsguy on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 07:39:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm pretty much in agreement with Krugman and (0+ / 0-)

                    people like Robert Reich.  I think Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky also have a good understanding about things.

                    I'm not an ideologue or dogmatic about anything.  I'm just interested in what works.

                    I have no problem with free market principles, supply and demand, etc.

                    The system as it is today has very little to do with free market principles.  We're basically dealing with predation, oligopolies, cartels, and outright corruption.  It really resembles more a Kleptocracy.

                    Trillions of dollars stolen by Wall Street criminal racketeering cartel, and then the FED turns around and give these crooks trillions of dollars to make up for the loses.

                    Anyways, do I have to write a whole dissertation on that? I think you're a smart person; you know the drill.  You know what's been happening.

                    Also, this is not a partisan issue.  The corruption is endemic, entrenched, and it affects and happens under both parties.

                    You and your friends here usually accuse me of being naive, and other things, but when I see the counter-arguments presented a D=good, R=bad, and other simplistic views, I have to wonder...

  •  I find that simplicity of a statement helps when.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv

    trying to convince others of the truth/facts. The one i have come up with is this. By policies that have been implemented Medicare and Social Security, Civil Rights we are a liberal country. Also by achievement we are a liberal country the moon landing that were proposed by a liberal president, JFK. The conservative experiment is over with disastrous results. Of course this just the opening round but the premise of my statement is True!!!

    America, We blow stuff up!!

    by IndyinDelaware on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 03:23:53 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site