morality and propaganda ...

  .. don't go too well together ...

    .. in a properly functioning democracy


A properly functioning democracy is usually understood as "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

By 'morality[1]' we need to add the qualifier 'good;' a good morality can be based on the necessary and sufficient "Do unto others" construct, with an added 'extra' for slow thinkers: "Do no harm."

To implement 'of the people, by the people, for the people' one needs an educated and involved electorate, a reasonable choice of honest, alternative candidates (Haw!) and comprehensive, accurate information flows (Haw again!)


OK, so how are we doing? As my "Haws" above indicate, our choice of candidates is extremely poor; as a 'prime' example (of what to deplore!) consider 'modern' Israel; no matter who is elected there, whatever regime that results will continue murdering Israel's hapless neighbours in the both *illegal and immoral* push to enlarge Israel at any cost (to those same hapless neighbours.) This on-going process, mass-murder for land and water theft, is perhaps the most egregious example of bad morality in the modern world (with just a single possible exception, namely the continued depredations of the US. Example: 1mio+ dead Iraqis.)

Then, as to 'comprehensive, accurate information flows,' we can see from the performance of the mainstream media (MSM) in the case of the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the 60+ year outrage that is the state of Israel's murdering aggression against the dispossessed former legal owners of Palestine and Israel's neighbours in general, that the MSM honours its responsibilities far too often in the breach.

Finally as is 'awesomely' evident, the voters have been deliberately dumbed-down, both by totally inadequate education and by corrupted, MSM provided 'news' (modern word: infotainment, in actuality some real news permeated (polluted!) by lying propaganda[2]) - but before even those two, inadequate parenting. While the preceding sentence may sound outrageous - and it is for its truth, the causes lie not with the people themselves but the society as constructed by our so-called 'leadership.'

(Anyone seeking proof of inadequate parenting could consider that these days, most babies are set down in front of a TV as 'cheap babysitter,' almost from the first moment the babies can sit up. And for the adults "No, it's not just a movie!" - the human 'video-in' system has as good as no filtering capacity, which one can well understand when one considers how that video-in system evolved: "Is that a real sabre-toothed tiger threatening to devour me - or is it just a movie of one?" (Haw!))


The fact that we are being propagandised will not be contested by aware observers; neither the US nor Israel could operate 'on the dark side' as they do without deceiving the general populace. The game is totally given away here:

  «The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.»

Read that and weep. Any such manipulated society is the utter antithesis of a properly functioning democracy; any so-called 'leaders' and/or others who practice such manipulation (and many obviously do) belong in gaol - the truth may someday set us free. It behoves us, we who can clearly see, to work towards that day: expose the lies whenever/wherever detected!


PS Over at dangerouscreation, David G asks Q: "Who Is Running Our World?"

A: In addition to the 'usual suspects' of multinational but largely US-inspired corporations, our mostly dreadful politicians, the corrupt and venal MSM (including some publicly financed broadcasters!) and the various Churches (the M/I-plex that Ike warned about, as extended), there are the 'hidden manipulators' referred to above who manage the propaganda, both in content and recruitment of the MSM 'fifth columnist' quisling/collaborators. The 'amateur' apologists - well may one say 'lying trolls' - are usually deluded, immoral self-recruits.

This item was partially inspired by an article on Damian Lataan's "History of the Twenty-First Century, " SICK AUSTRALIAN MURDOCH JOURNO EXPLOITS BUSHFIRE TRAGEDY TO PUSH ISLAMOPHOBIC PROPAGANDA.



[1] morality n. (pl. -ies) 1 degree of conformity to moral principles. 2 right moral conduct. 3 science of morals. 4 particular system of morals (commercial morality). [POD]

[2] propaganda n. 1 organized propagation of a doctrine by use of publicity, selected information, etc. 2 usu. derog. ideas etc. so propagated.  propagandist n. & adj. propagandize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing). [Latin: related to *propagate] [ibid.]


  1. Hi there,

    I shold come back and visit you again. Just, the author of the WSJ article wrote back to tell me my information was incorrect. I asked him to provide me a CORRECT transcript of HIS information. But the way he has "assembled" Larijani's speech is really fascinating!

    I have the itch to write to him: "what the hell is your problem, to produce this biased picture of a speech that was only reconciliatory?!"

  2. G'day Naj,

    Curiouser and curiouser.

    Of course, the WSJ 'journalist' would stick to the published story - but what if it (the published story) actually is a lie?

    More research needed, I think.

    (A link to what we're discussing: Naj's translation of Larijani here.)

  3. Hi Ian,

    What I find puzzling is WHY would he, who is so prompt in calling my information incorrect, refuse my polite request for reference:

    Here's the exchange:
    "Dear sir,

    I have provided a word by word translation of Mr Larijan's speech in the Munich conference. Not even ONCE did he utter the word "HOLOCAUST" let alone to deny it!

    Are you so blatantly biased to lie, or is this an honest misunderstanding that you will correct?


    Your information is completely incorrect. He did discuss it, exactly as I wrote about, sparking the exchange with the French lawmaker which I detail in my article. If you read the transcript of the session, you'll see the entire exchange.

    Yochi J. Dreazen

    "Can you please reference me to the transcript of that exchange.


    No response yet!

    But, I have seen how these honorable journalists have mutilated Ahmadinejad's speech in the UN or even in the Colombia U.

    All of these, however, are smokescreen if you ask me.

    It's somewhat amusing: The Iranian and the American (even the Zionist) "Regimes" all walk a similar thin line:

    They cannot seem too "soft" because their softness radicalizes the lunatics in their countries. Well okey, in Israel, everyone seem to have become a lunatic; so I take them out of this comparative statement.

    But, what a LARGE portion of the world, except the "white" Euro-American one asks is a simple question:

    "Why can the world not open the Holocaust to investigation?"

    Iranians have said REPEATEDLY, even their most radical clerics that: "Whether 100 people, or 6 million or one billion, the ACT of genocide is condemnable." Even the most radical of Iranian Mullahs doesn't "condone" holocaust, or belittle it. all they do is to question, not the number, but WHY this number is so sanctioned!

    Sometimes I think (and I think this belief is shared by many on my eastern side of the pond) the cap on Holocaust serves to "hide" how the rest of Europeans and Americans were really complicit in it.

    Iranian position is simply this:
    "It is EUROPEANS who created holocaust.
    "It is EUROPEANS who created Israel.
    "It is EUROPEANS who are using Palestinians (and Israelis) to wipe their own disgusting bloody past.
    "WHY are you killing Arabs and muslims?!"

    This is not an invalid question!
    To ask WHY the genocidal hatred is shifted from Jews to Arabs/muslims is NOT an invalid question!

    What he propaganda machine has successfully accomplished is to give the average "European" (read American or Australian too) the comfort of NOT self-questioning.

    To have continued to ask questions about the "why" and "how' of Holocaust would have deprived particularly America from the moral legitimacy of its vendetta against the real winners of the WWII: The Soviets. It would have made it uneasy to welcome the Germany back to the league of nations, and the Nazis back to the realms of science and technology.

    To have reduced Holocaust to a "Jewish" problem, has made all of us vulnerable to Nero's madness! We barely escaped it ... the menace of Dr Strangelove #2: Mr Cheney!

    I just want to be allowed to ask questions about WHO/HOW/WHY 6 million people were exterminated. I want to ask WHO ELSE was exterminated. And WHY?!
    I want to also understand why the Soviet lives have not counted as much as the Jewish ones?! They lost plenty too, no?

  4. Looks as though the 'trolls' have found you, Ian.
    It's strange how quickly they come.

    They're like blowflies rushing to roadkill. They offer nothing constructive to any debate but instead leave a residue that is rather disgusting.


  5. Lakoff framing ...

      .. avoiding the pitfalls

    G'day Naj, David G.


    Lakoff's 'major' work in this respect is "How Liberals and Conservatives Think," then he published a subset in "Don't Think of an Elephant!"

    Paraphrasing a key aspect, he says that using certain words may invoke a 'frame of reference;' consider in this case "holocaust."

    This may immediately invoke the "Jews as horrific victims" frame, associatively arrousing pity for the poor 'little David' Jews (or so the filthy propagandists hope; I call this type of thing a 'pushed paradigm.')

    What originally drew me to the Larijani speech was hearing the German word for 'denial' near the end of a report on the speech on a publicly-financed German TV news item. (This brings up the Q: How dare publicly-financed broadcasters tell us lies? The employees are assumed to be professionals, it's their exact business to recognise and select truth from the news-storm. No democracy can properly function if not fully and accurately informed.) The word 'denial' was itself made 'popular' by the Pope's most recent 'folly.' I have become very suspicious of coincidences, and do not think it was coincidence at all, that the Pope caused such a storm - especially on the German broadcasters' news programs, where it was the looong lead item for perhaps a week - immediately after the IDF offensive into the Gaza, and driving the gaza massacre story out of the news.


    So, generalising from the part to the whole, it pays one to be extremely careful as to what words one chooses to deploy. For example, what the IDF (offensive!) did in the Gaza was not a war, it was a genocidal massacre.

    Whatever the details, any WW2 holocaust, regardless of the numbers and race of the victims was a long time ago now, and the (ir!)responsible regime has long since exited into the pages of history. Discussing the details can (safely?) be left to real historians; the general population really don't care a fig - except that they can be (almost/entirely subconsciously) 'hooked' by the 'pity frame.'

    Note: The mostly 'conservative' think-tanks have been beavering away on framing; they (temporarily) gained a long-lead 'advantage.' Having been 'alarmed' by Lakoff (thanks!), we can recognise the frames when we listen to the news with an ear to detecting propaganda. Things like "right to exist" and "right to defend" are close to the top of the list - but are extremely arguable, if not totally false. The Zionists cannot claim the UN as legitimating the rogue state Israel while heinously breaking the UN laws by slaughtering its neighbours; one cannot defend stolen land.

    Fazit: Be very aware of the frame 'baggage' of words.

  6. Media bias is a big problem. One form is particularly insidious: the bias toward ease or expediency.

    "Cost cutting" by corporations controlling many media organisations produced very effective echo chambers through which propaganda is repeated ... repeated ... repeated.

  7. G'day Orana Gelar,

    I'm not as forgiving as you seem to be; I can see the profit motive, and how that's a key to capitalism - but I can't see why profit has to trump truth. Consider this article - I recommend (as always) that you read past the title: "Is ethical capitalism possible?"