Villainous Company

Note the snide little comment about the 2000 Florida election. After seven years of little comments like that a lie has become truthy.

And the truth is the truth. Or the truth is surely a lie.

I saw Penelope Trunk's story this morning, and like yourself, it instantly seemed to echo the Harpers piece. What's remarkable about her writing to me is that it is an admission of treason -- not treason to country, but to that thing that journalists supposedly give their loyalty instead of to a nation or a people. It's a remarkable admission.

The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth deserved no special credibility...

Yes, because there is no difference whatsoever between a group of 254 eyewitnesses representing both political parties and a single shreaking political opportunist willing to twist her son's dedication and sacrifice to her own self aggrandizement.

Nope, no difference at all.

From the culture wars to the science wars, the left has openly and enthusiastically said that it's not about truth but power. Which is to say that the left has embraced its inner fascism.

Dave, I wasn't even going to go there on the Swift Vets thing.

No matter how many times you try to point out how shameful it is when a man who was only in Vietnam for four months is allowed to use DNC lawyers to silence Medal of Honor winners who were imprisoned by the North Vietnamese and tortured for seven years, how disgusting it is that the Democrats will go on and on about how Kerry is a "war hero" and yet slander the most decorated living vet in America - Bud Day - for having the nerve to exercise his First Amendment rights - rights some people would say he bought and paid for far more than Kerry ever did, they will just yell "Swift Boat!!!".

They will never bother to read up on what lies behind their name calling because they might find out something that disturbs them. Like the fact that Kerry to this day continues to lie about the fact that millions died after the fall of Saigon. And if he would lie about a known historical fact like the slaughter of over 2 million people, what does that imply about the credibility of his Winter Soldier testimony, which was never corroborated?

Ummm...nevermind. Move along.

Again, we tell the stories we want to tell and never mind the facts.

I fell in love with him immediately.

Goat Fau

First thing to come to mind.

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who is a vegan, has been hospitalized with "severe" effects of apparent food poisoning.

I was slayed by this. Stop the slaying.

He basically made me sound like a lunatic.

you may not have been when you started, but if you keep going where you are heading, you soon will be.

I thought the work was genius commentary on storytelling.

Propaganda and illusion making. I suppose that's sort of like storytelling, except they're fairy tales. Or nightmares.

We each tell stories that matter to us. We take in the world, and tell it back in a way that creates meaning.

People are tools in the world, gotcha. The only person that matters is You, baby.

No two people tell the same story.

They do if one of them is dead or mentally dominated through psychological warfare.

it was all just a tragic misunderstanding!-Cass

I think they just meant it was the price of doing business, breaking a few eggs, telling a few lies, manipulating a few tools called persons by others.

massage them a bit until they fit a preassigned narrative, well...

Exactly, just like what Rather said/did, Cass.

In the end, all that matters to them is that their side, their narrative, prevails.

They're waging war. It is to be expected that those waging a war wishes to win, sometimes at all costs. Their wars, however, are unlike American real wars in that their wars will never end. Ever.

And to what end?

The end of which all propaganda branches and services seek. To win the battlespace in the minds of men and women, for their side.

It's a remarkable admission.

Let it not be said that you need an admission of treason to recognize traitors. It helps, but the early signs were there for anyone to see. Didn't even start with Rathergate.

they will just yell "Swift Boat!!!".

That's because, as Ayan Hirsi said, these people have never recognized a Swift Boat or been run over by a swift boat in their lives. So they can't tell the difference, thus making them prime material for broadcast propaganda and mental dominance; otherwise known as crafting useful idiots. The problem with the Pentagon and Bush is that they purposefully fight a guerrila war against the main sewer media occupation of the battlespace, which tends to produce an attrition war. Several plames thus result.

Again, we tell the stories we want to tell and never mind the facts.

Only one side deserves to tell the story, though, Cass. Because one side is always better than the other. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to destroy speech. There are always limitations, and some of them become clear in warfare, open or shadowy.

I've always believed you fight fire with fire, although this doesn't mean throwing a flare ontop a burning bush and hoping it goes out. Rather, there is a strategic way to use force against force, and still prevail even when the stronger side, the MSM, is dominant.

In the info/propaganda war, what is used is not force but force of belief and persuasion. Or intimidation and coercion, which are just slightly darker cousins of persuasion.

The Left tries to use everything because they are allowed to get away with everything. They hold nothing back against the tender psyches of defenseless Americans because nobody will strike them in the heart and mind, carving them out on pain unimaginable. They fear no retribution and thus do not obey the principle of reciprocity, which is defined as only dishing out as much damage as you can take.

Some other considerations such as pre-Revolutionary planning, aka arms cache making, is limited on the Left due to their fundamental natures as disposable weapons from the Cold War age. But even though they lack the strong arm tactics of numerous real guerrila organizations and terrorist groups, they have still conducted successful infiltration of the public policy making tools of the US. The media in otherwords.

One of the greatest ironies of our times is that the Left calls the military bullies that bomb and stomp on people weaker than they. The point of war is not an equal contest of arms to see which one is better, the point of war is to win, and it doesn't matter if you win by massacring defenseless targets because your technology is 100 years ahead of them. The Left understands this principle by heart, because it is the very same principle they live and breath by. They have no mercy against those defenseless against their psychological onslaughts, their media propaganda, and their disinformation propaganda services.

They attack the military for what they themselves did, because it focuses the public mind on the military's violence of action and policy, creating a "best defense is a good offense" strategic position for the Left.

That is ironic. In a sense.

"Propaganda and illusion making. I suppose that's sort of like storytelling, except they're fairy tales."

No, that is wrong.

Fairy tales are tales that sound implausible, filled with talking wolves and magic beans; yet they prove to be true. They do not beguile you into believing their surface details, but use them to hide a heart of gold.

What Trunk is proposing to tell are stories that sound plausible on the surface, but prove to be false. They are designed to beguile you into believing in them; but their heart has rotted hollow.

"We each have our own truth."

That says just about everything I need to know about the author.

Bah!

Fairy tales are tales that sound implausible, filled with talking wolves and magic beans; yet they prove to be true.

The events never actually happened in the way that they were told, assuming that such tales were based upon myths and legends in the first place.

It is story telling, but sort of like the difference between war stories and fairy tales.

The intent behind a fairy tale might indeed be what you say it is, but the material of the project is still the crafting of a world that does not exist or does not exist in the way you say it does.

There are two cores. One based upon morality, meaning intent to do harm or lack of it. The other core is based upon whether it accurately portrays events, realities, motivations, and consequences.

"Fairy tale" is giving the propagandist the benefit of the doubt, in assuming that he seeks to convince people because his cause is right or because it would actually help folks. That is why I added in "Or nightmares", because that is the path without the benefit of the doubt to Trunk.

Fairy tales have a connotation of good. and nightmares have a connotation and implication of terror and badness. A nightmare consists of belief in non-reality, that is of little to no benefit to a person.

To get to the point. In the end, whether Trunk is a fairy tale teller or a creater of nightmares, is going to be based upon how you view him. That is the choice I offered.

I have a post coming up on the whole subject of Islam, the Left and its hatred of the military... well, in a roundabout sort of way.

Tomorrow morning. I need to sleep on it. Big ideas, and I don't want to just spew. I'd prefer to think on it a while.

That whole Howard Zinn, "If we'd just 'educate' our young, they'd never want to join the military and there would be no one to fight their wars" BS is eating at me.

The idea the education should be an indoctrination of youth frightens me. Though I suppose I, in my way, want education to indoctrinate young people to defend our culture. So there is some truth to the idea of a culture war. I want to defend the values that make Howard Zinn possible.

He wants to eliminate the very things that made them possible. Scary.

During the Carter administration, pollsters kept noticing that Carter's numbers were barely better than Nixon's. Of course, that was a very bad thing for Carter, but if you tried to draw a comparison between the two you might end up looking pretty silly. Carter's numbers were bad because the country was in a funk; Nixon's were bad because his administration was perceived as criminal. The two were, in reality, not at all comparable.

There's something similar going on here. President Bush has gone from being one of the most popular presidents ever to being one of the most unpopular -- the majority of the country just plain does not like the man. Superficially, of course, it looks like the country likes Congress even less. But again, the two numbers are simply not comparable. Congress has a built-in low approval rating; Americans simply don't like or trust Congress generally, no matter which party is in control or what is going on. In addition, Republicans who approved of the previous Congress don't approve of this one, for obvious reasons. So take Congress' already low approval rating and remove those Republicans, and the number dips even lower. Normally, Democrats would make up for the drop. But in this case, Democrats don't like Congress because it hasn't done the thing that it was elected to do -- namely, end the war. (The basis of all my conjecture here is easily demonstrable, by the way: Just look at the polls asking who Americans trust more to handle Iraq and national security generally, Republicans or Democrats.)

Congress' poll numbers might be significant if there were not so many different factors going into the number, and if any polls asked two separate questions, approval rating for Republicans in Congress and approval rating for Democrats in Congress. I imagine you wouldn't like the answer to those questions, though.

This is why I wish I could do media criticism the way people like you and Instapundit do -- see something that conflicts with my worldview, assume the worst about the motives of those saying it and then, without any research done or logic applied, attack them for bias. Must be a great gig.

Actually Alex, you have managed to miss my point entirely.

Nice going.

If you bothered (a stretch here, I realize) to look at presidential approval ratings for presidents going back over the last 50 years - and I have - you might notice something interesting about them.

But that was another post. You're welcome to use my Search feature.

Alex, you should get your own blog that way you could write whatever you want and it wouldn't have to have anything to do with another persons post on another persons blog.

This is why I wish I could do media criticism the way people like you and Instapundit do -- see something that conflicts with my worldview, assume the worst about the motives of those saying it and then, without any research done or logic applied, attack them for bias. Must be a great gig.

Yep. The it's best gig that doesn't demand brain death as an pre-requisite, or result in an erection lasting more than four hours.

You're welcome.

Too bad for the feed nags but it looks like those crazy vegan diets are not as healthy as the wackos from PETA,CSPI and PCRM say they are and besides HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN AS WELL and so is CHARLES MANSON

He wants to eliminate the very things that made them possible. Scary.

That is cause useful idiots are only useful up until the point wherein the Revolution rises to ascendance. Then the purges begin.

Folks that want to undermine the US system believe that they or their handpicked leaders will be the ones making the decisions at the top come the Revolution. That isn't true.

As with socialism in Germany, there will always come a more extreme version of socialism, a more marxist Marxist, that will purge the non-extreme members of the Left.

see something that conflicts with my worldview, assume the worst about the motives of those saying it and then, without any research done or logic applied, attack them for bias. Must be a great gig.

Mirror dances are always great gigs.

The vegetarian part is in order to balance out the killing that they will find necessary. When environmentalism purges the world of more than half its population, there's going to be a lot of lettuce eating to atone for the killing of humans and animals.

I got to hand it to them, however. Even when they are defending against the exposure of their propaganda techniques, they still stick with the Bush poll results as if it was the holy grail. They follow the attack plan diligently. They hit the weak spots over and over again, with no let up, no cease fire, and sure as heck no mercy.

When the targeting orders have been given to them that Bush's poll numbers must be hit, that is the target every one of them will hit, until their orders change. They never go off message. They never lose morale or the spirit of the attack.

Marvelous, though simple, creatures really.

President Bush has gone from being one of the most popular presidents ever to being one of the most unpopular

That's the ticket right there. The red meat. The bait. The bull's eye.

That is cause useful idiots are only useful up until the point wherein the Revolution rises to ascendance. Then the purges begin.

Indeed, it's always the same!

Folks that want to undermine the US system believe that they or their handpicked leaders will be the ones making the decisions at the top come the Revolution. That isn't true.

Too true!

As with socialism in Germany, there will always come a more extreme version of socialism, a more marxist Marxist, that will purge the non-extreme members of the Left.

I agree. A good example is the European Union (E.U.S.S.R.) which has evolved into the strongest force of neo-marxism.

President Bush has gone from being one of the most popular presidents ever to being one of the most unpopular.

That's the ticket right there. The red meat. The bait. The bull's eye.

Agreed! Fortunately, the game isn't over yet. :)

[sanctimonious drivel snipped] Must be a great gig.

I always wonder what's stopping these folks. Blogger is free, and opinions are cheaper yet. Hell, they're so cheap that I always keep a dozen or so on hand.

Must be easier to just snark and snipe on the sidelines.

That said, I kind of agree on the polls. I can't see 535 disparate individuals of all sanity levels and political persuasions polling similarly to a single individual, nor do I think the approval rating of a body of legislators has the same meaning as the approval rating of the executive.

It does make me wish Sir Harry would STFU about "the people wanting this, that, or the other thing" based on polls, while ignoring the polls that don't fit his agenda. Makes him look all partisan and such.

The parts about "journalists" and their narratives I agree with 100%, though.

Let's just say I would have more faith in what the approval rating of the executive branch meant if:

1. I had any faith that the average American even understands what the President does (I'm always hearing voters blame the president for things Congress is supposed to do, and vice versa), and

2. I hadn't listened to the commenter' own explanation of how presidential approval ratings often reflect things that have nothing to do with his performance... like ... oh, national malaise, the economy... war fatigue anyone?

Polls are designed to manipulate public opinion and shape it. That's the hidden truth behind such techniques, since it often disguises itself as a representative of public opinion. Plato knew that was not true and so do we.

I agree. A good example is the European Union (E.U.S.S.R.) which has evolved into the strongest force of neo-marxism.

They aren't that strong. I mean strength of Marxist ideology in the sense that Mussolini and Hitler both came through the Socialist party networks in their individual countries. While the Socialists used grass roots organization and intimidation tactics, both Hitler and Musso believed them to be too weak, too soft, and too hesitant in seizing power. So when Musso and Hitler came to power, they organized their own little group of volks to purge anyone that got in their way.

Every country contains the seed of their own destruction, and therefore so does every Revolution contain its own end.

After Lenin died, Stalin purged Trotsky and that is why people on the Left calls folks "Trotsyites" because to them, Trotsky was a traitor of the Revolution and therefore justifiably purged by Stalin. The Left almost never talks about Stalinites, assuming they even know what Stalin was to begin with.

Here's proof I'm not just making this stuff up, btw.

As a scholar researching for several decades the migration of United States intellectuals from Left to Right, I have been startled by the large number of journalistic articles making exaggerated claims about ex-Trotskyist influence on the Bush administration that have been circulating on the internet and appearing in a range of publications. I first noticed these in March 2003, around the time that the collapse of Partsian Review magazine was announced, although some may have appeared earlier.

One of the most dismaying examples can be found in the caricatures presented in Michael Lind's "The Weird Men Behind George W. Bush's War" that appeared in the April 7, 2003 issue of the New Statesman. Lind states that U.S. foreign policy is now being formulated by a circle of "neoconservative defence intellectuals," and that "most " are "products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s...." Moreover, Lind claims that their current ideology of "Wilsonianism" is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism."

However, I am not aware that anyone in the group of "neoconservative defence intellectuals" cited by Mr. Lind has ever had an organizational or ideological association with Trotskyism, or with any other wing of the Far Left. Nor do I understand the implications of emphasizing the "Jewish" side of the formula, although many of these individuals may have diverse relations to the Jewish tradition--as do many leading U.S. critics of the recent war in Iraq.

It is pretty simple. The Left are very aggressive in purging the non-ideologically pure and extreme from their ranks. Just like what Kos is doing right now with the Kidz and such.

That very aggression, based upon insecurity, bullying interests, and desires of dominance and patriarchal or matriarchal control is what often leads them to accuse the military of being sadistic killers. The Left sees in the US military what the Left could never hope to accomplish for themselves, because Leftists are too weak and lazy for the mental discipline required for true killing. But sometimes one of them overcomes their inherent limitations, as Stalin did when he purged Trotsky.

If you want the links for the quotes I used and for a story on Stalin's assassination/purge of Trotsky, click on my name-link.

They aren't that strong. I mean strength of Marxist ideology in the sense that Mussolini and Hitler both came through the Socialist party networks in their individual countries. While the Socialists used grass roots organization and intimidation tactics, both Hitler and Musso believed them to be too weak, too soft, and too hesitant in seizing power. So when Musso and Hitler came to power, they organized their own little group of volks to purge anyone that got in their way.

No doubt, Shitler and Pussylini were hardcore queens.

However, right after WWII, the European Socialists revived Shitler's idea of the 'Germanisches Reich' (European Union). The problem is that the E.U., other than the U.S., is far away from being democratic and based on socialism (Third Way).

Anyway, the socialist propaganda of the E.U. shouldn't be underestimated. Euronews (www.euronews.eu) is distributed to more than 190 million households in more than 120 countries worldwide. And yes, look at their supporters of 'Gobal Governance' (the idea behind the E.U.) such as Sickophant Moore, Doomsday Gore, New York Times (affiliated with the German 'Der Spiegel'), Communist News Network (CNN International), etc. And yes, state-controlled media in Europe support the socialist propaganda (i.e. Global Warming) as well.

And it seems to work. Just read the brainwashed comments of the useful idiots at youtube.com/eutube (E.U. propaganda site). Here are some excerpts:

'I'm fully agree. The international permanent use of english is imperialist and absurd because it "removes" the access to the undevelopped countries and is unfair with the non-anglo countries.',

'The EU is the hope not only for us in the EU, but also for those outside it.',

'I feel so proud of being European...Europe, where everything begun and now we are the light that guides the world!
',

'I am proud to be a European citizen, but ashamed to be a British subject.',

or 'Europeans and european countries are culturally and historically superior. United we will be stronger than anyone else.'

Well, that's what the children hear in school and from the (state-controlled) MSM every day - not to mention the anti-American propaganda lies.

Agreed, there are some contrary comments too (50 Years of EU in the World - btw, nice propaganda title, but 50 years ago, there was no E.U.), but the E.U. is trying hard to revise the history - and anybody who doesn't support the socialist dictatorship of the E.U. is called a 'skeptic', 'denier', or 'American imperialist'. Anyway, Euronews, eutube, etc. are pure propaganda outlets driven by the E.U.

By the way, new comments at 'eutube' are censored and some comments get removed at a later time. Welcome to the 'democratic' E.U.! ;)

However, the idea of a European Union isn't that bad, but as long as the E.U. doesn't have the same values and ideals as the United States of America, we should be vigilant. And yes, we should teach them some lessons in democracy and free market economy. I know, Americans (and me too) believe in the idea of 'live and let live', but Socialists do not. That's the memo.

Socialists are weak, they create weakness, dissension, and disunity amongst the hearts of men, women, and children. This invites in evil and denies the ability of humanity to resist temptation.

All around a bad social engineering project.

Yep, you say it!