Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Political Propaganda: Selling Lies like Cigarettes

Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor

“The Crisis Papers.”

July 13, 2004

From Big Bush Lies, altered by Jerry “Politex” Barrett

(RiverWood Books, 2004).

Web and Hard-Copy Publication just with

Consent of the Author and Publisher

Emergency Papers Co-Editors, Ernest Partridge and Bernard Weiner,

contributed three papers to Big Bush Lies.

In The Crisis Papers and other dynamic sites, alongside various books now on the smash hit records, we have distinguished and confirmed a shocking summary of untruths that have been regurgitated forward by George Bush and his associates with regards to his substantively weak approaches – arrangements that are obviously in opposition to the interests and estimations of a similar overall population which has, in vast part, been influenced to acknowledge them.

How is this conceivable? What dark specialties of influence, and what corruptions of dialect, have been utilized to achieve this bewildering, though lamentable, acknowledgment by general society?

This will be the managing question of this paper.

Back to crisispapers.

Back to Homepage:

Governmental issues as per the Vince Lombardi Rule:

The key understanding into the GOP/Bush purposeful publicity machine is an acknowledgment that it is totally deceitful – truly, without compunction. To these political agents, Vince Lombardi's standard applies: “winning isn't all that matters, it is the main thing.”

Appropriately, if an infringement of regular tolerability, or even of the law, is counter-gainful to a GOP political battle, at exactly that point may conventionality and the law be an imperative. Else, anything goes, inasmuch as it improves the possibilities of political achievement. Basic tolerability and the law be doomed.

The Law? Richard Nixon's eagerness to depend on prevarication, unlawful wiretapping and theft to advance his political closures, is outstanding. The GOP likewise disregarded the law in Florida in 2000, as a huge number of qualified voters were “cleansed” from the moves, as many military polls stamped after the race were checked, and as the official relate of tallies in Miami-Dade County was hindered and afterward dropped, as the workplaces were blockaded in the “elitist revolt” did to a great extent by congressional GOP staff members.

Ostensibly, a Supreme Court choice can't damage a law, since it approves laws. All things being equal, the accord of legitimate researchers is that the December 12, 2000 choice, Bush v. Gut, is a preposterous, disjointed and faulty invention explicitly concocted to establish a pre-appointed outcome: the determination of George W. Bramble as President.

With such a history as this, can general society be guaranteed that the “paperless” contact screen casting a ballot machines, all produced by organizations claimed and controlled by Republican partisans, will precisely and reasonably record the votes in the up and coming Presidential race?

Regular Decency? Consider the contortions and untruths that the conservative purposeful publicity process has encouraged the voters:

Dukakis versus Shrub I and the scandalous “Willie Horton” advertisement. Horton, a Massachusetts detainee, carried out a brutal wrongdoing while on leave of absence amid Dukakis' term as Governor. The promotion does not call attention to that the leave of absence program was set up amid the term of Dukakis' forerunner, a Republican.

In the 2002 Georgia senatorial crusade, Max Cleland was portrayed as “unpatriotic” by his rival, Saxby Chamblis. Cleland is a Viet Nam veteran who lost three of his appendages in battle. Chamblis avoided the draft amid the Viet Name war.

In the 2000 Presidential crusade, Al Gore was criticized as a “sequential liar” and a “self advertiser.” Examples? He guaranteed, in addition to other things, to have “concocted the web,” and to have “found the Love Canal harmful waste website.” truth be told, the “lies” were made by the GOP crusade. Gut never made such cases, and one is unable to discover any instances of purposeful lying in his open record. (Note 1).

The overflowing of pain at the commemoration for Paul Wellstone was censured by the GOP as a “shabby political rally.”

In the essential 2000 South Carolina essential crusade, John McCain, a true war saint, was spread by a flood of misleading allegations: that he is rationally precarious because of his encounters as a POW, that he fathered a dark tyke, that his significant other is a heavy drinker, and so forth. (Note 2).

Government officials who gain their workplaces through criticism, race extortion, and untruths, can be required to proceed such conduct once in office – and they do.

None of this conduct would be effective if the media revealed and reprimanded it, and if general society denied it at the surveys. Be that as it may, they don't. Rather, the GOP crusade promulgation tests the points of confinement, experiences little opposition and is remunerated by progress, thus the cutoff points of degenerate political battling are extended ever further.

As needs be, in contemporary American legislative issues, Leo Durocher's standard applies: “Decent folks complete last.”

Putting forth the Defense versus Moving the Product.

Adlai Stevenson led his 1952 and 1956 crusades with the motto, “we should talk sense to the American individuals.”

How respectable! How honorable! How guileless!

Since a great part of the Democratic “mind trust” is drawn from the insightful and legitimate callings, Democratic hopefuls and battle directors are slanted to regard political crusades as though they occurred in a class room or a court. They amass their proof and place it into a legitimate structure, and after that continue to “present their defense.” Ho Hum!

Republican crusade strategists originate from a completely better place – the commercial center. Their approach is that of the sales representative: the competitor as “item,” and the voter as “client.” Their ordering objective is to “make the deal,” by whatever methods are observed to be powerful toward that end. They are totally resolute by second thoughts about submitting deceptions or even about remaining inside the limits authentic exactness and truth. “Persuasiveness” has little enthusiasm for such concerns. “Actualities,” as Ronald Reagan once stated, “are inept things.” Thus lying is simply one more weapon in their expository arsenal, to be used at whatever point it is observed to be powerful.

Ahead of time of their political crusades, GOP “business people” analyze completely general society mind, through surveying and center gatherings. There they find the “hot catch” words, ideas, pictures and (less fundamentally) issues. With this data, they at that point focus on the feelings (in “the post-9/11 setting,” fundamentally fear) , intentions (security and monetary gain), and mental self view (persevering, free, God-dreading) of the general population, this toward the target of what Noam Chomsky depicts as “the assembling of assent.”

At that point the GOP battle machine strikes early, characterizing their rivals and surrounding the challenge, whereupon the Democrats get themselves continually on edge. Furthermore, the Republicans set out to “remain on the message” which they rehash and rehash and rehash, until the point that people in general sees the reiteration as confirmation – a strategy which has come to be known as “the enormous lie.”

Democrats likewise use surveys and direct center gatherings, however essentially to find popular feeling concerning “the issues” – i.e., the economy, country security, social insurance, outside strategy, and so forth. On numerous occasions, they find that a dominant part of people in general is “with the Democrats” on the issues. On numerous occasions, the Republicans demonstrate that the issues are of auxiliary significance to symbolism and people in general's view of the identities of the hopefuls.

For instance, in 1984, when the surveyors reviewed general assessment with respect to the places of the two gatherings on open issues, cautiously barring references to the applicants and the gatherings, on for all intents and purposes each issue, the prevalence of popular feeling was in favor of the Democrats. But in that race we were told again and again that it was “morning in America” (whatever that implied) and the grinning Gipper confront was inescapable on the TV screen. Reagan trounced Mondale. In 2000 decision, the GOP picture producers effectively, but unreasonably, depicted Al Gore as conniving, self-retained, reserved and cool. George Bush, then again, was exhibited as a caring “straight-shooting” and “amiable” fellow. Once more, on the issues, an extensive dominant part of the general population was in favor of the Democrats, as the voters may have seen had they focused on the issues in the discussions and the crusade. Notwithstanding, the media turn meisters diverted open consideration regarding the created cartoons of the applicants, which limited Gore's edge of mainstream vote “triumph” adequately to permit the GOP, with the guide of five Supreme Court judges, to take the decision and the administration.

With Bush and Co. securely introduced in the White House and his gathering responsible for the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the broad communications, the business crusade proceeds – with show achievement.

By what other means is one to clarify the support by an expansive segment of the general population of arrangements that plainly neutralize their interests. Among them:

arrangements that are intended to redistribute riches “upward” from poor people and working class to the affluent

charge decreases for the well off that outcome in huge government deficiencies, obtaining from the Social Security assets and compromising to bankrupt this most prominent administrative program alongside other social administrations, for example, Medicare, Head Start, Americorps, and so on.

authorization and requirement of enactment, for example, the USA PATRIOT Act, which straightforwardly disregard Constitutional security of native rights and protection

approaches that open up the national parks and other open terrains to private abuse, and that unwind or nullify natural controls intended to secure the air, water, imperiled species and biological systems.

remote wars that will pick up them nothing while potentially costing the lives of themselves or the

1 Stern2 Sterne3 Sterne4 Sterne5 Sterne (84 Ratings. Average: 4.69 von 5)