Public Relations - Propaganda

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
This is an excerpt from -Noam Chomskys- -Media Control-



-Public relations is a huge industry. They're spending by now something on the order of a billion dollars a year.
All along its committment was to controlling the public mind....

...The corporate executive and the guy who cleans the floor all have the same interests.
We can all work together and work for Americanism in harmony, liking each other. That was essentially the message. A huge amount of effort was put into presenting it.
This is, after all, the business community, so they control the media and have massive resources... Mobilizing community opinion in favor of vapid, empty concepts like Americanism.
Who can be against that? Or, to bring it up to date, "Support our troops." Who can be against that? Or yellow ribbons. Who can be against that?... The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa.
Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy? But you don't want people to think about the issue. That's the whole point of good propaganda.
You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything, but its crucial value is that it diverts your attention....

That's all very effective. It runs right up to today. And of course it is carefully thought out.
The people in the public relations industry aren't there for the fun of it. They're doing work. They're trying to instill the right values. In fact, they have a conception of what democracy ought to be:

It ought to be a system in which the specialized class is trained to work in the service of the masters, the people who own the society. The rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization, because organization just causes trouble. They ought to be sitting alone in front of the TV and having drilled into their heads the message, which says, the only value in life is to have more commodities or live like that rich middle class family you're watching and to have nice values like harmony and Americanism. That's all there is in life.

You may think in your own head that there's got to be something more in life than this, but since you're watching the tube alone you assume, I must be crazy, because that's all that's going on over there....

So that's the ideal. Great efforts are made in trying to achieve that ideal. Obviously, there is a certain conception behind it. The conception of democracy is the one that I mentioned.
The bewildered herd is a problem. We've got to prevent their rage and trampling. We've got to distract them. They should be watching the Superbowl or sitcoms or violent movies.
Every once in a while you call on them to chant meaningless slogans like "Support our troops."
You've got to keep them pretty scared, because unless they're properly scared and frightened of all kinds of devils that are going to destroy them from outside or inside or somewhere, they may start to think, which is very dangerous, because they're not competent to think.
Therefore it's important to distract them and marginalize them.-


Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 17, 1991
Excerpted from the Alternative Press Review, Fall 1993
 

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
Chomsky is a chump. Just reading his drivel gives me a migraine.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
You really think,

Please excuse my naievety,

But why do you think so.
 

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
You really think,

Please excuse my naievety,

But why do you think so.
Noam Chomsky is a sicko anti-American Fifth Columnist linguistics professor who's political drivel has been sucked up by idiot liberals ever since the Vietnam era.

For further enlightenment read this:
The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky
by David Horowitz

WITHOUT QUESTION, the most devious, the most dishonest and -- in this hour of his nation’s grave crisis – the most treacherous intellect in America belongs to MIT professor Noam Chomsky. On the 150 campuses that have mounted "teach-ins" and rallies against America’s right to defend herself; on the streets of Genoa and Seattle where "anti-globalist" anarchists have attacked the symbols of markets and world trade; among the demonstrators at Vieques who wish to deny our military its training grounds; and wherever young people manifest an otherwise incomprehensible rage against their country, the inspirer of their loathing and the instructor of their hate is most likely this man.

There are many who ask how it is possible that our most privileged and educated youth should come to despise their own nation – a free, open, democratic society – and to do so with such ferocious passion. They ask how it is possible for American youth to even consider lending comfort and aid to the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins (and the Communists before them). A full answer would involve a search of the deep structures of the human psyche, and its irrepressible longings for a redemptive illusion. But the short answer is to be found in the speeches and writings of an embittered academic and his intellectual supporters.

For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world. In Chomsky’s demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe that befell them.

continued
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1020
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Do you feel he lies in the things he says and writes.

I have obviously been persuaded by the evidence he has produced, but I am always open to alternative points of view, if they are reasonable.

I have read and heard much of his work, and even done some research on what he has said and written, I have found it to be truthful,

have you found other legitimate information to the contrary.

Can you refute his allegations of Americas envolvement in Nicaragua during the 80s.....

That America trained Islamic fundamentalists to battle the russians in Afghanistan.....

That the Israeli army uses american supplied attack helicopters to kill civilians......


These are his some of his main talking points, these are abbreviated examples,

Chomsky goes into much greater detail in his books movies interviews and audio tapes. They are repeated throughout,

Have you heard, read, seen, information to the contrary. if so, please show me so i can see for myself if i am mistaken in believing what Chomsky has to say.
 

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
Do you feel he lies in the things he says and writes.

I have obviously been persuaded by the eveidence he has produced, but I am always open to alternative points of view, if they are reasonable.

I have read and heard much of his work, and even done some research on what he has said and written, I have found it to be truthful,

have you found other legitimate information to the contrary.

Can you refute his allegations of Americas envolvement in Nicaragua during the 80s.....

That America trained Islamic fundamentalists to battle the russians in Afghanistan.....

That the Israeli army uses american supplied attack helicopters to kill civilians......


These are his some of his main talking points, these are abbreviated examples,

Chomsky goes into much greater detail in his books movies interviews and audio tapes. They are repeated throughout,

Have you heard, read, seen, information to the contrary. if so, please show me so i can see for myself if i am mistaken in believing what Chomsky has to say.

Please explain how U.S. support of anti-communist forces and defending one's country are bad things.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
I guess we can start with Nicaragua.


stanford.edu/group/arts/nicaragua/discovery_eng/history/background.html


-After years of torture and bloodshed, the Somoza dictatorship was toppled on July 19,1979 by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN). On July 20th, Sandinista soldiers entered Managua amid the fervent cheers and celebration of hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans. For the first time in Nicaraguan history, newly elected Sandinista officials implemented successful social programs that fostered self-determination. These initiatives achieved international recognition and included gains in the areas of literacy, health care, education, childcare, unions and land reform.

As Nicaraguans worked towards greater self-sufficiency, the Reagan administration started funding the Contra War to undermine the Sandinista government in the early 1980's. This disastrous ten-year war cost 60,000 lives and destroyed the country's infrastructure and economy with estimated losses of U.S. $178 billion dollars.


With help and support of the United States, ie. Weapons, and training the Contras raped and murdered women and children, and killed thousands of farmers and defenceless Nicaraguans.

Is this how the US fights Communism, by slaughtering defenceless humans.

Are you saying that you are proud, and that this is the American way.

is it wrong to question the harmful actions of a country


history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=2550

1985 : United States walks out of World Court case

For the first time since joining the World Court in 1946, the United States walks out of a case. The case that caused the dramatic walkout concerned U.S. paramilitary activities against the Nicaraguan government.
For the Reagan administration, efforts to undermine the Sandinista government in Nicaragua had been a keystone of its anticommunist foreign policy since it took office in 1981. Policies designed to economically and diplomatically isolate the Nicaraguan government were combined with monetary and material aid to the "Contras," a paramilitary anti-Sandinista force that carried out armed attacks against the Sandinistas. Although some of these U.S. efforts were public knowledge, others were covert and remained hidden from public view.
Charging that the Nicaraguan government was receiving weapons from the communist bloc and was using those arms to aid revolutions elsewhere in Central America, the Reagan administration even resorted to mining Nicaragua's harbors. Infuriated by these acts, the Nicaraguan government appeared before the World Court and asked that orders be issued to the United States to cease the hostile activity and pay reparations for the damage.
On January 18, 1985, the United States walked out of the World Court, charging that the case was a "misuse of the court for political and propaganda purposes." A State Department spokesperson stated that, "We profoundly hope that court does not go the way of other international organizations that have become politicized against the interests of the Western democracies." Opponents of the Reagan policies roundly condemned the decision to walk out. Congressman Michael Barnes stated that he was "shocked and saddened that the Reagan Administration has so little confidence in its own policies that it chooses not even to defend them."
The Reagan administration's decision in regards to the World Court had little impact on the continuing conflict in Central America. The Court heard Nicaragua's case and decided against the United States; it charged that the U.S. violated international law with its actions against the Sandinistas, and ordered it to pay reparations to Nicaragua in June 1986.

The U.S. government ignored the decision. Meanwhile, the Contra actions in Nicaragua achieved little more than death and destruction, and Congress banned further U.S. military aid to the Contras in 1988.

Are you trying to say that when someone draws attention to something like this that they are, Ill use your words for this if you dont mind.

----Noam Chomsky is a sicko anti-American Fifth Columnist linguistics professor who's political drivel has been sucked up by idiot liberals ever since the Vietnam era.----


ill ask you again, do you think Noam Chomsky is a liar.
 

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
I guess we can start with Nicaragua.


stanford.edu/group/arts/nicaragua/discovery_eng/history/background.html


-After years of torture and bloodshed, the Somoza dictatorship was toppled on July 19,1979 by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN). On July 20th, Sandinista soldiers entered Managua amid the fervent cheers and celebration of hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans. For the first time in Nicaraguan history, newly elected Sandinista officials implemented successful social programs that fostered self-determination. These initiatives achieved international recognition and included gains in the areas of literacy, health care, education, childcare, unions and land reform.

As Nicaraguans worked towards greater self-sufficiency, the Reagan administration started funding the Contra War to undermine the Sandinista government in the early 1980's. This disastrous ten-year war cost 60,000 lives and destroyed the country's infrastructure and economy with estimated losses of U.S. $178 billion dollars.


With help and support of the United States, ie. Weapons, and training the Contras raped and murdered women and children, and killed thousands of farmers and defenceless Nicaraguans.

Is this how the US fights Communism, by slaughtering defenceless humans.

Are you saying that you are proud, and that this is the American way.

is it wrong to question the harmful actions of a country


history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=2550

1985 : United States walks out of World Court case

For the first time since joining the World Court in 1946, the United States walks out of a case. The case that caused the dramatic walkout concerned U.S. paramilitary activities against the Nicaraguan government.
For the Reagan administration, efforts to undermine the Sandinista government in Nicaragua had been a keystone of its anticommunist foreign policy since it took office in 1981. Policies designed to economically and diplomatically isolate the Nicaraguan government were combined with monetary and material aid to the "Contras," a paramilitary anti-Sandinista force that carried out armed attacks against the Sandinistas. Although some of these U.S. efforts were public knowledge, others were covert and remained hidden from public view.
Charging that the Nicaraguan government was receiving weapons from the communist bloc and was using those arms to aid revolutions elsewhere in Central America, the Reagan administration even resorted to mining Nicaragua's harbors. Infuriated by these acts, the Nicaraguan government appeared before the World Court and asked that orders be issued to the United States to cease the hostile activity and pay reparations for the damage.
On January 18, 1985, the United States walked out of the World Court, charging that the case was a "misuse of the court for political and propaganda purposes." A State Department spokesperson stated that, "We profoundly hope that court does not go the way of other international organizations that have become politicized against the interests of the Western democracies." Opponents of the Reagan policies roundly condemned the decision to walk out. Congressman Michael Barnes stated that he was "shocked and saddened that the Reagan Administration has so little confidence in its own policies that it chooses not even to defend them."
The Reagan administration's decision in regards to the World Court had little impact on the continuing conflict in Central America. The Court heard Nicaragua's case and decided against the United States; it charged that the U.S. violated international law with its actions against the Sandinistas, and ordered it to pay reparations to Nicaragua in June 1986.

The U.S. government ignored the decision. Meanwhile, the Contra actions in Nicaragua achieved little more than death and destruction, and Congress banned further U.S. military aid to the Contras in 1988.

Are you trying to say that when someone draws attention to something like this that they are, Ill use your words for this if you dont mind.

----Noam Chomsky is a sicko anti-American Fifth Columnist linguistics professor who's political drivel has been sucked up by idiot liberals ever since the Vietnam era.----


ill ask you again, do you think Noam Chomsky is a liar.
I think it's pretty well-established that Chomsky is a liar. Here is a list of the Top 100 Chomsky Lies.
You might want to pay particular attention to the section on Latin America.
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Have you read those?

Most of them are taken out of context and misenterpreted, a mojority of the "Truths" stated don't even address the supposed "Lie", simply filling an answer with death tolls doesnt refute the "Lie" in question.

I suppose that there will never be one answer, there are always going to be two sides to every story, it just appears that the US version caters to US views of the account. Perspective is everything. The sad part is that the truth usually gets buried in bullshit then put into text books and called history.
 

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
Have you read those?

Most of them are taken out of context and misenterpreted, a mojority of the "Truths" stated don't even address the supposed "Lie", simply filling an answer with death tolls doesnt refute the "Lie" in question.

I suppose that there will never be one answer, there are always going to be two sides to every story, it just appears that the US version caters to US views of the account. Perspective is everything. The sad part is that the truth usually gets buried in bullshit then put into text books and called history.
Oh sure....all those lies were just "misinterpreted"....and the backed-up "Truths" were all just unimportant "fillers"....sorry to pop your Chomsky balloon but the guy is full of hot air...and if you can't recognize how anti-American he is then you're a dedicated liberal.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Its settled then, you believe your bullshit, and ill believe mine.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top