Suppression/Propaganda in Media

[thrulookingglass]

On a side note, I saw someone's posting about some chat app and the surprise that it's not completely private. All methods of electronic communications are compromised. ALL. When "intelligence gathering" is your modus operandi there is nothing insignificant.

Your thoughts are being read right now. Everyone's. That's how bad it is. Controlling people requires deception. Plain and simple.

[JackRiddler]

^ Depressing response from Jack. You're right BS. Maybe Jack should read They Thought They Were Free if he hasn't already. It's all in there. I looked from book to world and from world to book, and already it was impossible to tell which was which.

Of course I've read it. It's not the most impressive treatment and very much in the apologist vein described above. After the war, it was all like, 'nobody knew what was going on until it was too late, golly gee, sorry' and then, the story went, as soon as they realized how bad things were, they went into 'internal opposition'. Oh, if only there had been anything they could do! So for god's sakes stop thinking anything was their fault. (Even Albert Speer tried to pull this, and successfully fooled a mind as impressive as Gabor Mate.)

The difference between us in this case is that I have read a minimum of 50 if not 100 other books on this particular subject, starting in the second fucking grade, through a career as a translator largely of history in Germany and seven years of grad school, and I don't know how many scholarly articles I read on top, and I've read more still every time I've taught it, and oh -- I actually wrote a book about it as the lead author of a research team of lifelong scholars of Nazi history (got good reviews and a decent award) -- and have translated several works on it in close collaboration with German historians since then.

Do I get to accuse anyone here of 'mansplaining' or some such? I'm reaching for a term that's catchy and would cover a smug monoculture that always posts the same links and the same podcasters and the same dozen observations (about 9 out of 12 of them actually true) as though they exhaust all conceivable human wisdom and knock every competing thought off its feet, dead. But I'm not quite finding it... Echochamberprisonersplaining?

.

.Some would say the egregiousness/brazenness/extent of liberty erosion over the past ~year would be considered "lightning quick and well orchestrated", particularly given the global scale involved. How else should it be described?

Some might. It would still be what it has been, and it would not be the Nazis, or quite the 'fascism' you imagine (even as you deny the real-existing fascism that still seeks to impose openly supremacist ideologies).

I find it ironic that you are suggesting I hit the brakes on the nazi comparison, which -- while I acknowledge there will not be exact parallels -- is very much in the spirit of what we're experiencing now

Go ahead, waste your time all day. It's got serious limits, and I've spoken on it. You can go on and on about how a flood is just like a fire, since both are dangerous, except insofar that it's not.

yet you continue to insist the events of a single day -- of minimal consequence, relatively-speaking -- is a blatant example of a 'fascist takeover'.

Certainly not. It was a blatant example of an attempted fascist takeover as ordered by the literal president of the country (that's the part you most reliably deny, every fucking time), and you've been engaging in apologetics for it ever since.

An event that lasted several hours. And made no significant impact

As with the Beer Hall Putsch, that remains to be seen.

offering a broader invite towards increased domestic surveillance

Something I've never failed to note and decry myself, but still irrelevant to the question of what actually happened on 6 January. (The MIHOP part, anyway, as opposed to the LIHOP actions of the police.)

It remains incomprehensible to me, how Jan 6th can be labeled a fascist takeover attempt

Much better this time. Attempt. Very good. Make sure to remember that shit. Like attempted murder. Huge difference from murder, right? Yet still, the attempt was aimed at murder. (Funny, murder usually just lasts a minute. What's the big deal?)

Also, if you're going to attribute it to me, I usually go with the 100% undeniable idea of a publicly announced presidential coup d'etat attempt enacted by a fascist-recruited mob he personally invited to DC via Twitter and other media for this explicit purpose, and whom he then dispatched to the Capitol after ginning them up with a speech that was televised. But, you know, it's a real mystery what happened!


How they were imagining & advertising it, before

(as if our system of govt was a pure beacon of democracy up to that point)

Well, what's the complaint about HItler then? Weimar was also nothing of the sort. So it's all okay.

but current wide-scale measures -- which have and will continue to cause devastation to lives/restriction of essential freedoms for millions, now and for years to come if left unchallenged -- requires a 'softer' messaging platform.

Only if you want to win, gent. Only if you want to understand the thing that is actually happening and possibly defeat it among the people who are actually experiencing it, rather than sabotaging any such effort by adopting a satisfying, maximal stance of alienation. If your preference instead is to have your full daily wank-off rant where everyone is a Nazi or 'complicit' except the actual Nazis, I suppose doing it here does the least damage.

.

[Grizzly]

I promise you they are going to use this to segregate themselves from the rabble, just like Roman Senators of old...
If they don't amplify this and use it, I'll eat my hat.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/boxer-mugged-80-year-old-former-dem-senator-robbed-oakland

The fabric is tearing and "nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care"*

H/T to G.Carlin....

[Harvey]

I expected no less Jack. If you can't see the parralels, clearly laid out without hyperbole, then I suppose you can't see them.

[stickdog99]

Whatever happened to that loudmouth villain who was always on TV?

[stickdog99]

[JackRiddler]

I expected no less Jack. If you can't see the parralels, clearly laid out without hyperbole, then I suppose you can't see them.

If you can't read -- and I can't believe that, in your case -- then yeah, you can simplify what I said ('clearly laid out without hyperbole') into this completely opposite misrepresentation of it. I feel no need to correct this, as it would merely mean I'd repeat myself, allowing the same misrepresentation. Besides, I'm the one doing all the work here, and it only takes a quarter-second for you to stamp REJECT on it and give a little self-congratulatory flourish.

This has very little to do with 'seeing', since no one actually seems interested in studying the cases empirically. One would allow for 'parallels' as well as differences, and we've had 98-page threads on this board fighting out comparisons of Nazi Germany to present-day societies.

Hint: History may remain atrocious, but it neither repeats nor 'rhymes'. Mostly it just sticks around, some of it as trauma or unconscious persistence, some of it reshaped into new forms. Here's an example of someone trying to describe the phenomenon, better than I can.

The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95.

It works analogously with the villainization. A very common one is to drape the Nazi guise over the bad guys, even when it doesn't apply usefully (which is not to say the bad guys are therefore good guys, or even to imply they're morally better; they may not be). I'll admit there is a major exception to that here on RI: One doesn't want to compare today's actual movement fascists with the classical fascists. That's just out of bounds!

The point you find so objectionable above was about how useless it is to insist on the utility of a particular historical comparison that is clearly far from 1:1 and has the practical effect of damaging whatever communication you want to make with a world outside of RI. But again, go ahead. Pretend that when I point out obvious differences from Nazi Germany I'm trying to defend the Covidian order, or whatever it is you think I'm doing.

By the way, the implicit model in 'They Thought They Were Free', as a product of the Cold War totalitarianism theory (which tried to disguise the libidinous unleashing of 'Aryan' supremacy as the product of bureaucratic-police-state oppression so that NS Germany could be equated or put in the same box as the USSR), may in fact fit the present day a lot better than it works as a description of Germany in the 1930s.

One parallel that should also be seen perhaps is in how some among the anti-Nazi elements in Germany insisted that everyone who wasn't repeating their own alienating rhetoric word-for-word was a Nazi. It worked so fabulously well.

.

[stickdog99]

JR, I totally respect your nuanced historical analyses as well as your almost unique ability to see the COVID-19 BigTech/BigPharma/BigReset/BigBrother biosecurity overreach for exactly what it while still trying your best not to alienate those who have been successfully conditioned to stop worrying and love lockdowns, masks, social distancing, school closures, small business closures, free assembly restrictions, music and drama prohibitions, and especially coerced experimental gene therapies.

Try as I might, though, I just can't get myself to see the January 6th insurrection much differently from how I see 9/11. Both events were MIHOP or at least LIHOP. Whatever the Q-Anon deluded imagined, I simply don't see a successful path to Trumpian fascism through any show of force on their part. And the January 6th insurrection itself had about the same chances of "success" as the FBI-informant "plot" to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer culminating in Michiganazi.

But I do see a far more authoritarian state being implemented before our eyes right now in terms of increased state and Big Tech censorship, increased state and BigTech surveillance, domestic terrorism laws, experimental vaccine coercion, and the unified promotion of experimental vaccines, masks and lockdowns as the only "sane" responses to COVID-19. Not to mention that the response to the January 6th insurrection turned Washington DC into a military occupied territory.

All while billionaire bailouts, whistle-blower prosecutions, sanctions, bombings, and assassinations continue apace as always.

So what am I missing that you are seeing so clearly? Are the Q-Anon deluded actually somehow more insidious than the Covidian deluded?

[stickdog99]

https://twitter.com/couragefound/status ... 6326259712

[JackRiddler]

I'll have to get back to you, time presses...

But I drop in to note some relevant

IN OTHER NEWS

Daniel Hale got 45 months (3 years 9 months). Not sure if time served applies.

https://thedissenter.org/daniel-hale-re ... or-a-leak/

[Harvey]

I expected no less Jack. If you can't see the parralels, clearly laid out without hyperbole, then I suppose you can't see them.

If you can't read -- and I can't believe that, in your case -- then yeah, you can simplify what I said ('clearly laid out without hyperbole') into this completely opposite misrepresentation of it. I feel no need to correct this, as it would merely mean I'd repeat myself, allowing the same misrepresentation. Besides, I'm the one doing all the work here, and it only takes a quarter-second for you to stamp REJECT on it and give a little self-congratulatory flourish.

This has very little to do with 'seeing', since no one actually seems interested in studying the cases empirically. One would allow for 'parallels' as well as differences, and we've had 98-page threads on this board fighting out comparisons of Nazi Germany to present-day societies.

Hint: History may remain atrocious, but it neither repeats nor 'rhymes'. Mostly it just sticks around, some of it as trauma or unconscious persistence, some of it reshaped into new forms. Here's an example of someone trying to describe the phenomenon, better than I can.

The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95.

It works analogously with the villainization. A very common one is to drape the Nazi guise over the bad guys, even when it doesn't apply usefully (which is not to say the bad guys are therefore good guys, or even to imply they're morally better; they may not be). I'll admit there is a major exception to that here on RI: One doesn't want to compare today's actual movement fascists with the classical fascists. That's just out of bounds!

The point you find so objectionable above was about how useless it is to insist on the utility of a particular historical comparison that is clearly far from 1:1 and has the practical effect of damaging whatever communication you want to make with a world outside of RI. But again, go ahead. Pretend that when I point out obvious differences from Nazi Germany I'm trying to defend the Covidian order, or whatever it is you think I'm doing.

By the way, the implicit model in 'They Thought They Were Free', as a product of the Cold War totalitarianism theory (which tried to disguise the libidinous unleashing of 'Aryan' supremacy as the product of bureaucratic-police-state oppression so that NS Germany could be equated or put in the same box as the USSR), may in fact fit the present day a lot better than it works as a description of Germany in the 1930s.

One parallel that should also be seen perhaps is in how some among the anti-Nazi elements in Germany insisted that everyone who wasn't repeating their own alienating rhetoric word-for-word was a Nazi. It worked so fabulously well.

.

I don't have any power to insist. In case you haven't noticed, others actually are insisting, and they aren't going to be placated or assuaged by any understanding of them as qualitatively different from fascists or Nazi's. None of which is likely to prevent me from making ill informed and half baked comparisons, I'm afraid.

But then, who was it who said our feudal masters are Nazi's? I haven't as far as I'm aware.

In fact, it's you who seems to want to reserve something approaching that label for the high political theatre of the Trump administration, for example, as discrete from the substantive actions of every single presidency since WWII including Trump. But since any effective political or media opposition are imprisoned, bankrupt, shut down, excluded or completely neutered, there exists at least one good parallel with the early days of Nazism that we can point to. The segregation now being proposed all around us is a qualitative step forward from the economic apartheid we all know well, toward something more resembling totalitarianism, if not a fascism overt enough to actually register. As it is, we know full well that if we, any of us, were inconvenient to power, they'd have killed us already, like all the others we read about continually in the forum behind you. Just as surely as any self respecting Nazi would.

If it's simply scale we're talking about, with 30 million+ bodies since 1945 under its belt, NATO, under the stewardship of America and all it's Presidents, is making excellent, if slower progress. If we include the original settlers and all the wars up until 1945, arguably America is well ahead of them in body count and overt racism if not overt fascism. If you happened to be on the receiving end however, whatever qualitative differences exist between what America is and does and fascism itself is open to experience and debate.

The British Empire was also well ahead of the Nazi's in most of the metrics, by quite a long margin. The Soviet Union, Spain, France, Portugal, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Ottomans and all the rest probably weren't that far behind by any similar measure and some, arguably, well ahead.

But if Nazism was ultimately about about racial purity as a central idea as you suggested earlier, through killing Jews, if that is the Nazi expression of fascism, then why were the Nazi's content to assist Jews in leaving Germany almost up until the war began? Why didn't they begin with the Jews first, if that were the end rather than the means? For that matter, why did they move against the Slav's if eradicating Jews was the central point? Surely power, or at the very least, 'cultural purity' seems a better description. If we judge the Nazi's by what their immediate priorities were, the real perceived agenda in order of importance was power, neutralising political and establishment rivals, territorial ambition, and eradicating the communists, the trade unions and the socialists.

We're currently having it impressed upon us, as we can see from dozens of angles, that total compliance is more important than either belief, science, medical efficacy or enthusiasm. That was certainly true of the early days of Nazism wasn't it?

We've seen sweeping legal changes which, in the UK at least, effectively bestow upon state actors the freedom to commit any crime against citizens without limitation, effectively removing the right to life of all non state actors. Is that not potentially comparable to the Nazi racial laws in effect if not in intent? The entire domestic population of the UK (and other notional democracies) is now legally Untermensch. Then there's the litany of bizarre 'scientific' experiments conducted by the Nazi's. With no hint of restraint or consent those might seem an order of magnitude ahead of most western governments in cruelty, but right here on RI there are also plenty of threads on the history of outlandish 'medical' experimentation without consent or care in our so called democracies. Especially if you happen to be a native or a former slave. If the level of damage currently acrueing to this grand 'vaccine' experiment continues to rise, then there too, the metrics will, before very long, become competitive.

While we're all fascinated by the spectacle, you seem to view it as something essentially understandable whereas I don't. I don't believe it is rational, nor can it be reduced to any logic or rationale except through erasure. It can certainly be analysed and categorised but ultimately, knowing something fully is not possible without direct experience, and even then, experience is no guarantee of understanding. To that end, I take Mayer for exactly what it is, a chance for us to sample the experience of those whom we might prefer to hate rather than understand, if only to look up and find striking reflections all around us today.

I'll certainly agree that comparisons with Nazism and Fascism can be unhelpful on the whole but I'd also argue that such comparisons as can be made, should be made while ignoring them entirely has more in common with Mayer's 'little man' keeping his head down, than not.

The argument is this: whatever we call it, we should mobilise to appreciate an equivalent level of threat posed by the technological feudalism/fascism that is upon us all, while it may still be possible to do something about it.

[Harvey]

I expected no less Jack. If you can't see the parralels, clearly laid out without hyperbole, then I suppose you can't see them.

If you can't read -- and I can't believe that, in your case -- then yeah, you can simplify what I said ('clearly laid out without hyperbole') into this completely opposite misrepresentation of it. I feel no need to correct this, as it would merely mean I'd repeat myself, allowing the same misrepresentation. Besides, I'm the one doing all the work here, and it only takes a quarter-second for you to stamp REJECT on it and give a little self-congratulatory flourish.

I can see you may have got the wrong end of a short stick. It wasn't a snide remark, I didn't think to explain that I simply expected no less than refined erudition. It was an appreciation. By 'expected no less' I meant, than this:

Of course I've read it... The difference between us in this case is that I have read a minimum of 50 if not 100 other books on this particular subject, starting in the second fucking grade, through a career as a translator largely of history in Germany and seven years of grad school, and I don't know how many scholarly articles I read on top, and I've read more still every time I've taught it, and oh -- I actually wrote a book about it as the lead author of a research team of lifelong scholars of Nazi history (got good reviews and a decent award) -- and have translated several works on it in close collaboration with German historians since then.

The rest refers to my impression that we were speaking past each other and I didn't see much point arguing either. Never post a brief reply in haste!

[Grizzly]

Disinformation for Hire, a Shadow Industry, Is Quietly Booming (nytimes.com)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/world/europe/disinformation-social-media.html

[Grizzly]

"This is the craziest fucking thing I've ever read, only because it is definitely real, and definitely implemented. Even if the author were not a high priest in the satanic church, it would be mind blowing.

Everything from chemtrails to hypnosis by EMF to Smith Mundt Act."

PSYOP is what grandpa did. Meet MindWar

https://www.wanttoknow.info/mk/mindwar-michael-aquino.pdf

[Marionumber1]

Michael Aquino's co-author, of course, would be Paul Vallely, an Army major general who has been a Fox News analyst, a committee chairman at the Center for Security Policy (an organization run by influential folks in the PNAC crowd), and founder of the Stand Up America US organization which has recently been pushing out all the standard Q-adjacent narratives such as the stop-the-steal talking points. Almost makes one wonder if this barrage of right-wing narratives could be just as much of a MindWar as the ones promulgated by the ostensibly-liberal mainstream press (and we all know that the mainstream media only includes those outlets, certainly none of the valiant "alternative" media sources that generally all seem to be pushing the same officially-sanctioned "alternative" views).

Speaking of Aquino, his alleged recent death is quite suspicious to me especially with the lack of published materials on it, and I am still in pursuit of anything (like a death certificate) that could prove it actually happened. FBI certainly won't release any documents on him until it can be proven that he's deceased