From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jan 24 2005 - 16:19:58 GMT
Arlo,
P:
> > You ignore the power structure when it's convenient to do so. Case in
> > point: ABC News soliciting information about military burials taking
> > place on inauguration day in order to launch an irrelevant smear attack
> > on Bush.
A:
> Hardly, think of all the smear launched by the conservative media round the
> clock against Clinton. Were you upset by that? Or does it only bother you
> when it is against conservatives? Did it bother you when the media ran
> endless round-the-clock reports on "the stained dress"?
I guess you don't think a president caught in a blatant lie, "I did not
have sex with that woman..." is newsworthy, and that undeniable truth is a
"smear." If so, that's a pretty far out view of journalism.
> > A beautiful example of the left's use of the Big Lie propaganda
> > technique. To lie, you must know the truth. Clinton did. Bush, along with
> > the rest of the world, didn't.
>
> A matter of faith, to be sure. You ignore evidence that Bush knew simply to
> support your faith in him.
I'll be happy to change my mind if you can present evidence from credible
sources that Bush knew that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the
liberation.
> > You and MSH are all bent out of shape because Kerry lost the election. If
> > Kerry had won, would you still be complaining? Hardly. Clinton spent
> > more more on his inaugural after he sent U.S. troops in Bosnia in a
> > pre-emptive incursion, based on his lie that the troops would only be
> > there for a year. Not a peep out of the leftists.
> On the contrary, I was very critical of many of Clinton's decisions while
> in office. Why do you find it impossible to be critical of Bush?
I don't find it impossible at all. I think he's failed to protect the U.S.
border and am upset by his expansion of the federal government into
education.
> > I don't find liberating people from tyranny immoral.
> Ah, but it's as Mark and Sam have been discussing. I will only add here the
> small statement that I don't believe "liberating people from tyranny by
> using napalm on civilian streets" to be moral. One's stated "reason" (even
> if scrutiny holds) does not absolve actions taken towards that end. But
> let's not duplicate the good discussion Mark and Sam are having.
I agree with Pirsig's view that: "The idea that biological crimes can be
ended by intellect alone, that you can talk crime to death, doesn't work.
Intellectual patterns cannot directly control biological patterns. Only
social patterns can control biological patterns, and the instrument of
conversation between society and biology is not words. The instrument of
conversation between society and biology has always been a policeman or a
soldier and his gun." (Lila, 24)
> > In other words, people are too stupid to recognize when they are being
> > manipulated? The election showed that most people weren't fooled by
> > leftist propaganda that Bush lied about WMD.
> Um, no, Platt. The election showed that despite most people admitting they
> were fooled by the conservative media about WMDs, they expressed fear over
> being invaded and so voted for Bush anyways. Bush made people afraid with
> (for example) the swift boat lies implying a vote for Kerry meant emminent
> terrorist attacks on US soil. People voted for Bush because Bush made them
> fear. This is what all the polls revealed. (Add "fear of gays" to that as
> well).
Well, if you keep thinking that was the reason for Kerry's losing the
election, you can expect many more Democrat defeats. I pray that the Dems
will choose Dean to be their party leader.
> Would you agree or disagree with this statment:
>
> When the left convinces people something is "true", it is because of
> leftist deceptive propaganda. When the right convinces people something is
> "true", it is because an informed citizenry objectively reasoned based on
> truthful journalism.
>
> Or, if you prefer:
>
> Does the "left" use deceptive propaganda? Yes or no.
> Does the "right" use deceptive propaganda? Yes or no.
I guess if all depends on your standards of truth, a deep philosophical
subject which you may want to start in a new thread.
> > Which speech?
>
> Oh, they're short. And I think you'll enjoy them. Pick one and run wild.
>
> But if you insist, my recommends to you:
> http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb16.htm
> Goebbels talks a lot of "intellectuals" and nay-sayers to the moral rights
> of the Reich. "This ability to believe [in the moral actions of the reich]
> is rather weak in some circles, above all in those with money and
> education. They may trust more in pure cold reason than a glowing
> idealistic heart. Our so-called intellectuals do not like to hear this, but
> it is true anyway. They know so much that in the end they do not know what
> to do with their wisdom. They can see the past, but not much of the
> present, and nothing at all of the future. Their imagination is
> insufficient to deal with a distant goal in a way such that one already
> thinks it achieved.
>
> One cannot make history with such quivering people. They are only chaff in
> God's breath. Thankfully, they are only a thin intellectual or social upper
> class, particularly in the case of Germany. They are not an upper class in
> the sense that they govern the nation, rather more a fact of nature like
> the bubbles of fat that always float on the surface of things.
>
> Today, they seek to give good advice to National Socialist Germany from
> abroad. We do not have to ask them for it. They focus all their energies on
> the small problems that always are there, complain about the cost and
> believe that crises and unavoidable tensions are on the way. They are the
> complainers who never tire of bringing National Socialist Germany before
> the so-called court of world opinion. In the past they always found willing
> and thankful followers. Today, they only have a few backward intellectual
> Philistines in their camp."
>
> Sound eerily familiar???
Not really. Are you saying criticism of academics is a sign of a Nazi?
> or
> http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb59.htm
> "The positive national discipline of the German press would never have been
> possible without the compete elimination of the influence of the
> liberal-Jewish press. That happened only because of the years-long work of
> our propaganda. Today particularism in Germany is something of the past.
> The fact that it was eliminated by a strong central idea of the Reich is no
> accident, rather it depended on psychological foundations that were
> established by our propaganda."
>
> Hmmmmm............
Yes, hmmmm, indeed. The speech was made in 1934 after the Nazis came to
power, and Goebbels is bragging about how they did it. Why you would
believe him after all your railing against propaganda?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 24 2005 - 16:27:38 GMT