General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA few things everyone should know on the premise of "black propaganda."
When most people think of the term "propaganda" they assume it means lies or misrepresentations to make yourself look strong or the enemy look weak: "We will crush them," "We will be welcomed as liberators," etcetera.
Black propaganda is different. Wikipedia describes it as well as anything: "Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy." To put it in more directly applicable terms, concern trolling is a form of black propaganda. Black propaganda is designed to demoralize the side that it's painted as coming from, a supposedly "friendly" voice telling people that they shouldn't be fighting, or that it's hopeless, or that the enemy isn't really that bad.
Black propaganda is one of the three major schools of propaganda, and in many ways the most effective. Now tell me: with the best minds the Republicans can muster spending in excess of a billion dollars just this cycle on their efforts to defeat Democrats and throw President Obama out of office, do you REALLY think that they've simply ignored one of the largest and best tools they have available, in the form of trying to destroy Democrats from the inside?
It's in that context that you have people like Ralph Nader, Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, etcetera, operating: people who pretend to be liberals just enough to make people believe, while constantly and rigorously undermining the actual cause of liberalism. Acting as third party spoilers, advocating third parties, constantly disseminating smears against elected officials designed to depress left-wing turnout. Nader singlehandedly gave the 2000 Presidential election to Bush with the claim that there was no difference between Bush and Al Gore, a claim that's so laughable in hindsight it's hard to imagine how 95,000 voters in Florida actually believed it. How many liberals stayed home in 2010 because they believed the constant tirades from Greenwald and Hamsher telling us that Democrats are bad and we shouldn't vote for them? Tirades usually based on nothing but unsourced claims and pro-Republican spin.
And make no mistake, the left wing of the party is exactly where the propaganda is directed. They're not aiming at conservative Democrats, or middle of the roaders, they're aiming at us. We're more likely to be getting our news online from easily-manipulated blogs, more likely on average to be interested in ideological purity tests, and more likely to stay home if we're incensed or feel our pet peeve isn't being addressed fast enough. It's the nature of left-wing politics all throughout history: we are the undisputed masters of the circular firing squad.
One classic example that offered impeccable: the Republicans get in trouble over the Ryan budget's plan to effectively end Social Security and Medicare. Within days, you have "left wing" websites by the dozens attacking President Obama's supposed secret plan to end Medicare and Social Security in the name of debt reduction, including cites of anonymous "sources." When this "secret plan" was disproven time and time again as the goalposts were moved, including a debt deal that expressly protected every means tested and entitlement program from any cuts, it was finally dropped like it never existed and the next round of propaganda was hatched. It's the mirror image of Fox News: a propaganda operation designed not to prop up a party in the name of objectivity, but to tear one down with the same methods.
If you go back through the news over the last few years, you'll find the same basic pattern over and over: whenever the Democrats accomplish something or the Republicans are under fire, the same few universally negative sources will open fire with some counter. DADT repeal? It's not really repeal because Obama's a secret homophobe and it'll never take effect. Universal healthcare? Giveaway to big insurance, the same industry that spend hundreds of millions of dollars fighting it tooth and nail, and still is. We left Iraq? Obama's a secret warmonger who's invaded 42 more countries. Ryan budget? It's really OBAMA who wants old people to be eating cat food! Not to mention the thousands of things they say Obama hasn't done, even when he has, like proposing raising the cap on FICA taxes to guarantee Social Security's solvency, or ending the wars he inherited. And in each case, it usually tracks back to the same few sources like FireDogLake, WSWS, and others with a universally negative opinion of the Democrats, glowing things to say about third parties, and mysteriously good funding.
Consider this a friendly warning for the next time you see a "left wing" website or pundit talking about how horrible the Democrats are while giving the Republicans a pass, or while ignoring the fact that 2009 to 2011 gave us one of the most productive and progressive periods of government in half a century. Don't believe me on that? Go through the records and tell me when we've had as much success passing as much solid legislation since 1965 at the most recent, and maybe not since the 1930s. And even back during those periods, when they had three quarters majorities in the House and Senate, there was still grumbling that things like the Social Security Act and the Civil Rights Act weren't good enough. The difference today is that some people have given the grumbling a megaphone in the hope of stopping progress in its tracks.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Better than - say - Greenwald, etc.
Hysterical premise you're workin there.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Yes, I would say that I can.
Response to TheWraith (Reply #3)
Post removed
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Only way you could have done it faster was to invoke Hitler.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts).
.
.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)someone posts a link to where ralph nader (r-fl) says the democrats should be kicking the repubs' butts 90-10 and would be if they weren't such chicken sh#t mother f@ckers. people respond by saying "f@ck nader" The propagandist then says "why are you picking on nader, his whole premise is based on the fact he wants the repubs to lose?"
it is so transparent.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)or campaign. Blame the liberal instead of actually admiting the failures of running repug light.
I'm always amused at how the term party "purity" is used when a progressive screws up (Anthony Wiener)but is considered foolish when using it against running pos blue dogs.
jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)Who could ever forget Ben Nelson with the dead raccoon on his head. Or Blanche Lincoln?
mahina
(17,666 posts).
annabanana
(52,791 posts)and in the streets.
The first guy to throw the rock.. who is he really?
PSPS
(13,601 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)If the object is to sow distrust among Democrats, you're doing a great job.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Glenn Greenwald is not a Democrat. Ralph Nader is not a Democrat. That's not hyperbole, both of them would agree with those statements. The problem is people believing that non-Democrats are somehow most representative of the interest of Democrats. The point of my OP is that if you see a perspective "from the left" telling you that you should abandon the only realistic means of achieving leftist goals, you should damn well be suspicious of it.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)what was called The School of the Americas", a CIA training facility for Central and South American despots and their generals.
One of their nastiest tactics was to find out who was the most respected and admired member of your fighting force. The "Sergeant Saunders" guy.
[img][/img]
Every army has one.
Once you find him, have him killed as brutally and viciously as possible and make sure the enemy gets the blame. We're talking "head on a pike" stuff.
This will rally your troops in a quest for revenge.
His name will even become a battle cry.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Kill a lot of people then blame the person in charge because the "freedom fighters" would never, ever do it for propaganda reasons.
Paka
(2,760 posts)Thank you Wraith. Words of wisdom. We all need to be very alert.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Rec anyway.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)The whole "catfood commission " stuff was a prime example.
The dearly departed "Better Believe It" was one of their best operatives.
arendt
(5,078 posts)being black propaganda from someone who pretends to be a liberal.
Its one thing to point out that black propaganda exists. Its a completely different thing to label people as black propagandists. Especially when your list is exclusively people that a large segment of the board is extremely polarized about.
So, if you want to bash those folks, its your right. But its not your right to indulge in McCarthyite "I have a list of communists" witch hunts.
So why don't you stick to straight up invective and leave the CT crapola off this board.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)What a great example of black propaganda you have written!
Real show and tell.
If, like you said, we have the great success "..when we've had as much success passing as much solid legislation since 1965..." then why don't we have a real climate policy, an alternative fuel policy, banks straightened up and war over?
No... we have not had great success. Your dividing the progressives from the conservatives, when what this country needs is all progressives, plays right into the hands of the haters and other fools that think our course is on the right track.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)is full of woo and silliness.
Robb
(39,665 posts)...I don't think you need as much intent in the issue as you've put forth.
Corporate interests control media; anyone who threatens those interests will not get ink.
When Nader, or whoever is slamming Democrats "from the left" gets a lot of ink, we should be scratching our heads about it.
I am fond of quoting Slavoj Zizek on this, and I will do it again and again:
"The ultimate show of power on the part of the ruling ideology is to allow what appears to be powerful criticism."
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)and exclude those who don't.
It works, because it's difficult to explain how one can have the deepest commitment to democratic and social values and still see those things in one's commitments to an active PROCESS.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)It's "all powerful left" day. I guess "you guys are insignificant assholes" day is on even days.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
emulatorloo
(44,131 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Interesting choice of words. Here's why I support Glen Greenwald over the "He's a Douchebag" crowd:
The Geithner mystery solved
By Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com Monday, Sep 19, 2011 06:20 ET
Reviewing "Confidence Men" -- Ron Suskind's new book critically examining President Obama's management of the financial crisis -- The New York Times' Michiko Kakutani ponders this mystery raised by Suskind:
Mr. Suskind suggests that the administration's problems in dealing with the fiscal crisis began with the president's choice of his economic team. He wonders why Mr. Obama turned away from the advisers who had seen him through the campaign (including more progressive thinkers like Mr. Stiglitz, Robert Reich and Austan Goolsbee), and relied instead on two men associated with the deregulatory policies of the past, Mr. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, and Mr. Summers, the chief economic adviser. Both men had served in the Clinton administration (with Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who would later join Citigroup as a senior adviser and board member); their actions, Mr. Suskind contends, "had contributed to the very financial disaster they were hired to solve."
Of course, one might ask the same of Obama's penchant for filling the most important positions in his administration -- including his Vice President, Secretary of State, and Defense Secretary -- with supporters of the Iraq War. But about Geithner, Suskind unwittingly solved the mystery he raised: Kakutani notes that "one top banker quoted in these pages refers to as 'our man in Washington' for helping avert more systemic changes affecting Wall Street."
CONTINUED...
http://www.salon.com/news/timothy_geithner/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/09/19/geithner
So, please don't smear Greenwald as a "Black Propagandist." He's only reporting things as experts who follow systemic bank fraud see them.