The Word
by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Originally, I drafted this article with a preface about the story Michael Hastings recently broke on BuzzFeed about an amendment to the latest defense authorization bill that would “legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences.” However, as I worked on it this morning, our very own poet laureate and research librarian extraordinaire Elaine Magliaro cut me off at the pass with her own excellent article on the subject. So instead of repeating the points she makes which illustrate why understanding propaganda is important, I will refer you to her post “How about Some Government Propaganda for the People Paid for by the People Being Propagandized?”
Now that the kid gloves have come off regarding the governmental efforts to control your mind by controlling both your information and how you receive it, let’s discuss the nature of propaganda. Now more than ever, it is important to know the basics of how propaganda works. Since words are the basic building block of the English language, we’ll start with asking what is propaganda, look at some general history of the practice, consider the importance of meaning of words, the ideas of connotation and denotation, and the process of selecting “value loaded” words.
What is propaganda? Webster’s defines the word as follows:
propaganda \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\, n.,
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions (ed. note: Not relevant, but interesting.)
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
But that’s not exactly what people feel when they hear the word, is it? Why do most people have a negative reaction to the word “propaganda”? After all, by definition, “propaganda” is much like the verb “to persuade” in meaning.
persuade \pər-ˈswād\, v., v.t.,
1: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action
2: to plead with : urge
Etymologically speaking, the word “propaganda” is fairly new as a political science term. “Propaganda” didn’t come into common use as a political science term until World War I. Even then it was not a pejorative in use like it is today. The word originated (some would say unsurprisingly so) as shorthand referring to the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregatio de Propaganda Fide or the “congregation for propagating the faith”. This committee of cardinals was established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions. The word “propaganda” is the feminine gerund of the Italian verb “propagando” which in turn is derived from the Latin verb prōpāgō, meaning “to propagate”.
propagate \ˈprä-pə-ˌgāt\, v., v.t.,
3a : to cause to spread out and affect a greater number or greater area : extend b : to foster growing knowledge of, familiarity with, or acceptance of (as an idea or belief) : publicize c : to transmit (as sound or light) through a medium
Clearly the largest distinction between persuasion and propaganda is that propaganda is a form of large scale persuasion. Persuasion isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Changing someone’s mind is a better tactic than violence. Persuasion is at the heart of society’s pillar and replacement for self-help justice and dispute resolution, the adversarial court system. Persuasion is an alternative to coercion.
So what is propaganda? It’s a tool to change people’s minds. Like any tool, it is capable of beneficial use and horrific misuse. This makes understanding how the tool works critical if you want to recognize (and possibly work to prevent) its misuse.
If that is the case the word originally had no pejorative use, then why do most people have an automatic negative reaction to the word “propaganda”? This brings us to the ideas of connotation and denotation. Plainly put, denotation is a direct specific meaning; the literal meaning of a word and nothing more. Connotation is a “something” suggested by a word or thing; an implied meaning. I suggest the negative connotation for the word “propaganda” comes from both the negative denotation built in to the word itself (part of the definition is “for the purpose of helping or injuring” and injury carries the negative notion of harm to self and/or others) and the recent historical use of propaganda to dastardly ends culminating to create an implied negative meaning beyond the definition. The denotation of a word is not the direct province of the propagandist. They have to know what the words actually mean, but that is of limited value to them. The edge of the propagandist’s knife so to speak lies in the connotation of words. More on that topic as we move along. In the 20th Century, we have seen what truly evil injury propaganda is capable of inflicting on a society. To know how we got to today, it is important to have a bit of historical perspective.
Historically, the idea of propaganda has been around as long as there have been society and governments. For example, in ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh Ramses II claimed a great victory over the Hittites in the Battles of Kadesh (possibly the largest chariot battle in history). The two most common forms of Egyptian records of the battles are known as “The Poem” and “The Bulletin”. Both are found carved into multiple sites in Egypt, all built or expanded upon by Ramses II – one of the greatest builders of ancient Egypt. “The Bulletin” is found on seven different temples or monuments and eight total sites have “The Poem”. When you add numerous other references on papyrus and in tangentially related carvings, this makes the Battles of Kadesh one of the best recorded battles of antiquity. The tale told is of an overwhelming victory for Ramses II and Egypt.
There’s only one problem with that depiction.
It is most certainly a lie at worst and an exaggeration at best.
Hittite records, although not as numerous, all tell the tale of a Hittite victory. Archaeological evidence is inconclusive. One of the two parties is lying and possibly both. Most modern historians have come to the conclusion that the battle likely ended in a draw. Given that, why did Ramses II carve his non-existent victory into stone? Propaganda is the answer. Ramses II wanted the reputation as a strong military leader even if the reality wasn’t so glorious. So he fluffed the details and spread the word that “Ramses II Kicks Ass!” Unless you were at the Battles of Kadesh, who were you to argue with a Living God? Then realizing that his chances for immediate military exploits were practically nil, Ramses II did what any respectable Pharaoh would do and a secondary exercise in propaganda: he returned to the building spree he started as a young man. Some would say the greatest building spree in the history of the ancient Egypt. Just like the Romans after him, Ramses knew that impressive buildings were a kind of psychological warfare – non-verbal propaganda geared at projecting the power of the throne to the masses, but more on this at a later date. The focus here is language and the basics of propaganda.
In the beginning, there was the word. Those with the word were limited. If they could not speak directly, they were limited by how many manual physical copies they could get out to the masses and how many of the masses could read. Then came the printing press in the 15th Century. When Guttenberg invented it, one of the early adopters of the technology was the Holy Roman Empire. By the end of the Renaissance, book making was industrialized to the point that printer/binders could produce between three and four thousand pages per day: a hundred fold increase in production compared to the most prolific of scribes. Books and written material went from rare treasures to common items. As knowledge became democratized, the use of printed propaganda grew in unison: public notices, political flyers and proto-newspapers became cheap and abundant.
The 20th Century was in some ways a Golden Age for deploying propaganda. Unlike any previous age, the 20th Century was the age of mass communications. Industrial mass printing of newspapers, radio, television, telephones and the Internet radically changed the way humans communicate. The word became King and the picture became Queen. Even illiteracy wasn’t the barrier it had posed to the ancient world as the spoken word supplemented the written and the truism that “a picture is worth a thousand words” is a truism for a reason. Even physical handicap was less of a barrier to getting the message out as those blind to the printed word and picture and deaf to the spoken word now had the channel of communication created by the 19th Century invention of Braille. As propaganda is large scale persuasion, mass media provided a natural accelerant. What had previously been a candle of propaganda became a bonfire necessarily becoming a political science term in common usage. The 20th Century saw probably the most devastating use of propaganda to date on any population. Propaganda was instrumental to both the Nazi war effort and their social engineering that allowed them to industrially murder six million Jews, Roma, homosexuals and handicapped. Propaganda was key to the crimes of the Khemer Rouge. Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Castro’s rise to power in Cuba. The wrongful, misguided and likely illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. These are a few of many examples where propaganda has been used to either garner public support for ethically wrong actions by government or obfuscate the truth to aid the guilty from being brought to justice. This point will be addressed further in a later column, but it goes a long way to explaining how a word of neutral value became a word of negative value due to recent history.
We are still left with the word. As far as the word “propaganda” proper, we know what it means. We know where it comes from. We know the goal of propaganda in general. That leaves us with word choice and the idea of “value loaded” word and how it relates to propaganda. What are words loaded with? They are loaded with implication. This is why connotation is the edge of the propagandist’s knife. Word choice is critical. As I noted earlier, the denotation of a word is not the direct province of the propagandist. The edge of the propagandist’s knife so to speak lies in the connotation of words. However, knowing the proper denotation of words – i.e. having a large vocabulary – puts one at a tactical advantage against the propagandist. If one knows the actual meaning of words, it becomes more difficult for the propagandist to use connotation against you.
For example, consider the use of media outlets like NPR that made a public and conscious decision to refrain from reporting on “torture” – a word with extremely negative denotation and connotation – and instead choosing to use the euphemistic language “enhanced interrogation”. Everyone with a conscience thinks torture is a bad thing and torturers are ethically abhorrent people. It’s not only a Federal crime, cruel and unusual punishment is specifically barred by the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. The word choice here is designed to clearly shift public attitudes from “those guys need to be prosecuted as criminals” to “maybe they aren’t so bad after all”. NPR (aided by the Bush Administration no doubt) chose words with a neutral/positive value load compared to the word “torture”. Connotation plays to your emotional response over your rational response. When the word choice becomes more subtle, the damage of connotations can be even more insidious. Compare:
- war – limited police action
- conquest – liberation
- famine – widespread hunger
- pestilence – outbreak
- death – casualties
Be aware and suspicious of word choice, certainly. Especially when dealing with adjectives as they have by their nature a great capacity to carry connotation. However, it is equally important to consider the speaker. When evaluating something you suspect is propaganda, ask these questions:
- Who is the speaker?
- What does the speaker want from me?
- What advantage does the speaker gain from my agreement or lose from my disagreement? And vice-versa?
- Does the speaker represent other interests that may not be obvious?
- Why is the speaker giving this message now?
What is your first line of defense against propaganda?
Be aware of the meaning and choice of words. To that end, work to strengthen your vocabulary. Buy a “Word A Day” calender or download an app for your phone, use a website or download a tickler program for your computer.
Always question the message and the messenger as well as any who may have sent the messenger. Practice reading with emotional detachment and a critical eye to not only what is said, but how it is said and by whom.
Keep in mind that propaganda is a tool. It is inherently neutral. The good or evil is found in the intent of the speaker and their desired actions and/or reactions on your part.
What is your first line of defense against propaganda? You are. And that is my unhidden message to you: Wake up. Civilization calls. The world is what we make it.
The next article in this series will address methodology, strategy and tactics in deploying propaganda.
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
The Propaganda Series;
Propaganda 105: How to Spot a Liar
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Streisand Effect and the Political Question
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Sound of Silence
Propaganda 104: Magica Verba Est Scientia Et Ars Es
Propaganda 103: The Word Changes, The Word Remains The Same
Propaganda 102 Supplemental: Holly Would “Zero Dark Thirty”
Propaganda 102: Holly Would and the Power of Images
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Child’s Play
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Build It And They Will Come (Around)
Related articles of interest;
talkingbacktocspan, as I noted upthread has provided us a service by illustrating the use of propaganda to develop a narrative that either justifies the pre-judgments of a person/group and/or provides a strategic framework for attacking those perceived as enemies. His/her(?) technique includes a variety of quotations taken from divers sources and strung together to give those lacking knowledge and/or dissatisfied with their own existence a rationale why their individual failures are not their own fault. This was made most clear with respect to tbtcs by this statement:
“Why don’t I publish in a peer reviewed journal? I don’t have access to a peer reviewed journal because I do not have an education. My parents were too poor to pay for college, and they were too poor because my Mom had lost her home and my Dad had been permanently injured fighting in a war that did not have to be fought. This is for you, Mom and Dad.”
Now as most here know I’m a Jew. My parents were dead by the time I was 18 and left me with nothing. I worked my way through college, was completely self supporting and in addition won a full tuition scholarship based on a Statewide test. I also won a full tuition work/study scholarship to obtain my Masters Degree. Did I resent the fact that I was orphaned at 18, of course I did. As I grew up though, I came to see that such self justification and such self pity actually prevented me from understanding that despite the tragedies of my life, I was responsible for my own successes and failures. tbtcs by his statement above shows that he remains stuck in a level of selfish immaturity blaming his own failures on others, in his case conveniently it was the Jews who ruined his life. How sad for him and for those around him.
A bigot is one who assumes that some other racial/ethnic group is homogenous, so that the statements and the actions of a few, represent the
monolithic whole of the group. As has been done with Blacks and other ethnicities in humanity’s history there is an underlying, false assumption of that
hated group’s power. Thus the Jews, via their organizations, were able to mobilize world powers against the “innocent and defenseless Germans” in a labyrinthine plot to establish a Jewish State. This plot was so detailed that it included the sacrifice of millions of Jews in service to the great cause.
Underneath the accusations of Jewish plotting is of course tbtcs’s assumption that we “Evil Jews” are uniformly Machiavellian in our unseemly thought processes. In his/her view, as in Hitler’s, we are an evil non-human race. In fact all we are is both an ethnicity and a religion, that is rather tiny compared to others in the world and that has been historically powerless to fed off the attacks upon us. As far as homogeneity of thought and belief that is the nonsense typically spouted by propagandists and is ridiculous on its face because the nature of humans and human groups is one of ongoing lack of agreement. However, under authoritarian regimes awash in sophisticated propaganda there does appear to be an outward homogeneity of belief as illustrated by Germany under the NAZI’s.
It is easy to cite AIPAC as speaking for all Jews, but it doesn’t. It is easy to characterize Zionism as a monolithic movement, but it isn’t. It is also easy to
conflate the policies of the Netanyahu government with all Israeli’s, but they aren’t. It is easy to further conflate all of Judaism with Israel, but that is easily shown to be wrong. It is easy because that’s how propaganda works. One takes simplistic concepts, weaves them loosely together to create the illusion of conspiracy and develop a plot-line to declare something bad. This is illustrated in tbtcs’s comments.
His/her work is rather on the low end of anti-Jewish diatribe I’ve run into in my life, but indeed it is a body of work filled with hatred and illogical thought.
This writer though makes a case for the need of Israel’s existence though, albeit minor due to the writer’s limitations. Jews everywhere on this planet, due to their small numbers, require their own State, because history has shown that everywhere in the world we can potentially wind up as scapegoats for the ignorant and the greedy.
The question of why Jews have been such convenient targets is an easy one to answer. Christianity and Islam both have adopted our Torah to their own uses. They both are founded on the belief that the Torah has been super-ceded by their belief systems. Both Christianity and Islam felt initially that Jews should flock to their teachings as since they were “superior” to Jewish belief. Despite adversity, Jews have adhered to their beliefs and that is a lasting affront to both of these religions. Sadly, from a theological perspective if the Jewish belief is correct, then other beliefs are incorrect.
That religion, supposedly speaking to the “higher nature” of mankind, devolves into the petty struggle for temporal/theological power is one of the curses’ humanity has lived with for its entire history.
bron,
extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
you are going to have to provide extraordinary proofs for this statement, or retract the claims:
“What civilized nation calls for the destruction of another nation?
If you are suggesting that Iran “calls for the destruction of Israel, ***
And works toward that end.*** you are going to have to state with excruciating precision the times, dates, actions, and context.
” Iran is just exactly like Nazi Germany.
If your second statement is true, that “Iran is exactly like Nazi Germany,” and if you are unable to provide evidence required to support your first statement, then Nazi Germany was the victim of a war waged against it illegally.
“In a just world, after 9/11, we would have invaded Iran and put the Mullahs on trial and executed them.”
For what crime?
” Which is what we should have done to Hitler instead of giving him the Sudetenland.”
Perhaps if Hitler HAD been “put on trial” in 1938, or 1939, or 1940, when Germany offered peace to Great Britain but Churchill refused to parley. Yes indeed, Hitler should have been put on trial. Then we would have transcripts and evidence, rather than propaganda.
talkingback:
“What kind of ghouls seek to intentionally starve others? It is the antithesis of civilized behavior.”
What kind of ghouls support a tyrannical government like the one in Iran?
The German citizenry was complicit in the rise of the Nazis to power, maybe not all of them but enough.
The Iranian citizenry was complicit in the ascension to power of Ayatollah Khomeini in the late 70’s. They are guilty as well.
What civilized nation calls for the destruction of another nation? And works toward that end. Iran is just exactly like Nazi Germany. In a just world, after 9/11, we would have invaded Iran and put the Mullahs on trial and executed them. Which is what we should have done to Hitler instead of giving him the Sudetenland.
Or go to a church and light some candles.
Hug a puppy.
Get a few crayons and sit down quietly and draw a really nice world.
Next time a telemarketer calls, don’t be abrupt, make their day, speak with them and buy something. Oh wait a minute — maybe you ARE a telemarketer — oh well…
Oh, “I type facts from books. That is all.” Get a book like “There’s a Big Beautiful WOrld out there” by Nancy Carlson and type some facts.
Have a cup of tea without any strychnine in it.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Malisha suggested:
“Kick in and help some of the people in need, some of the people being starved, hurt, tormented, killed, etc. Help some of them, or perhaps even just ONE of them, maybe just for a month, a week, try that. It is remarkably healing. Find an elderly German who was starved during or after the war, and bring him or her free breakfast, lunch and dinner for a week. DO SOMETHING!”
Remarkably healing for WHOM, Malisha? For the person who doles out charity? Maybe you feel a need for healing but I don’t, thanks just the same.
Furthermore, knowing what I do about the German people, no elderly German who was starved during the war continues to dwell on his or her misery, nor do his/her fellow Germans leave him unassisted if he needs aid. After the war, Germans rolled up their sleeves and made “sane and productive lives” for themselves, as Wolfgang Samuel details in “The War of Our Childhood,” as I mentioned in a comment several days ago.
In the “kick in and help” category, these aphorisms apply:. ‘First do no harm’ and ‘ An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’ I spend my time trying to PREVENT groups like AIPAC and my own government from attempting to starve Iranians into submission. We have seen the play before, and it does not turn out well. It didn’t turn out well for 800,000 German civilians in WWI, and it didn’t turn out well for half a million Iraqi children 20 years ago. No amount of “charitable feeding” will bring back those dead children.
In a conference in Washington, DC last March, Sanam Anderlini told the audience that, as a result of AIPAC/US-imposed sanctions on Iran, children in Iran do not have the foods and vitamins they need, and people who are sick cannot get the medicines they require.
Ephraim Sneh told an AIPAC audience in 2008 that “Iran’s leaders should be made to worry about whether their 70 million people will starve.”
In an interview in Nov 2011, Charlie Rose asked Iran parliamentarian Mohammad Javad Larijani if sanctions were hurting the Iranian people; if they were having a hard time finding enough food.
What kind of ghouls seek to intentionally starve others? It is the antithesis of civilized behavior.
hey mr propaganda man,
did I read this correctly? You wrote:
“Practice reading with emotional detachment and a critical eye to not only what is said, but how it is said and by whom.”
Let’s apply that to the centerpiece of your comment on May 30 at 12:08 am, when you wrote:
Because he says so and quotes from other people, most of whom are either fringers or bigots themselves and not one a professional historian of any repute. All of this while admitting he has a bias because be blames Jews for everything bad in his life instead of taking some responsibility for his own life”
Second sentence first: “be [sic] blames Jews for everything bad in his life instead of taking some responsibility for his own life”
What I wrote was this:
“Why don’t I publish in a peer reviewed journal? I don’t have access to a peer reviewed journal because I do not have an education. My parents were too poor to pay for college, and they were too poor because my Mom had lost her home and my Dad had been permanently injured fighting in a war that did not have to be fought. This is for you, Mom and Dad.”
You exploded a statement indicating that I did not have sufficient education to publish in a peer reviewed journal into “everything bad in his life.”
Based upon your incorrect reading of the words written, you somehow made the judgment that I had not “taken responsibility for his own life.”
Where do you get that idea? It is not present in the words that I wrote. I wrote of the suffering of my parents, and concluded with a dedication to my parents. That is all that was written; that is all the information you have available on which to make an assessment. There is no information communicated in my statement that let’s anyone know whether I am the CFO of a Fortune 500 corp., the owner of a Subway shop in Podunk, the manager of a bordello in Tijuana, the editor of a small circulation trade magazine in Kalamazoo, or a missionary drinking three cups of tea in Uzbekistan. The only thing you DO know is that I do not have the education necessary to publish in a peer reviewed journal.
You wrote that I “blame Jews” for this disability. What I wrote is that my parents suffered because they were caught up “in a war that did not have to be fought.” Numerous people were responsible for joining that war; prominent among those people were Jewish activists. That is all that you can rationally conclude from the words that I wrote.
Thus, the second sentence in your statement is totally without merit; it relies on information you supplied from your own projection, and not from anything actually written by me.
As to the first sentence in your statement:
“Because he says so and quotes from other people, most of whom are either fringers or bigots themselves and not one a professional historian of any repute.”
Below is a list of sources and people I have referenced and quoted from in this (tedious) conversation:
Propagandacritic.com
Edward Bernays
Old Testament
C Paul Vincent, “Politics of Hunger”
R H S Stolfi, “Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny”
Jorg Friedrich, “The Fire”
Ralph Raico, Prof. of History, Buffalo State College, review of “Politics of Hunger”
Edwin Black, author, journalist. “The Transfer Agreement” and on
JewishVirtual library website
Herbert Hoover, “Freedom Betrayed”
John Dower, Professor of History Emeritus, MIT http://www.booktv.org/Program/11939/After+Words+John+Dower+Cultures+of+War+interviewed+by+Sanho+Tree+Institute+for+Policy+Studies+fellow.aspx
Sanho Tree, Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies
NIZKOR
Martin Glynn, former gov. NY
N P Howard, University of Sheffield
Benjamin Netanyahu, “A Place Among the Nations”
Benzion Netanyahu, “The Origins of the Spanish Inquisition”
Wolfgang Samuel, author, “The War of Our Childhood”
Nima Shirazi, blog owner
Ramage & Bean, authors, “Argument”
Dennis Dalton, Professor of Political Science at Barnard College, Columbia University
Raoul de Sales, editor & commentary, “My New Order: Hitler’s Speeches”
Eyal Weizman, architect & author, “Hollow Lands: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation”
Niall Ferguson, professor of history, Harvard University, author, biography of the Rothschilds
Xvi Rex, Israeli psychiatrist
Avigail Abarbanel, Israeli-born psychologist
Mondoweiss
London Daily Express
New York Times
Erich Mendelsohn, “the Jewish architect.”
Simon Winchester, author
Richard Hawkins, biographer of Samuel Untermyer
British National Archives (online)
U S Rep Ed Royce (C Span video)
Former Israeli Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh
U S Senator Mark Kirk
U S Rep Brad Sherman
Charlie Rose, journalist
Mohammad Javad Larijani, Iranian parliamentarian
John F. Piper, author, Christian Churches in World War I, Ohio Univ. Press
Etan Bloom, doctoral diss., Tel Aviv Univ., “Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Modern Hebrew Culture”
Benjamin Freedman, video (1961) accessed thru Gilad Atzmon, deliberation
Jonathan Kay, journalist; Webster Tarpley, PhD (Princeton), author and activist
pete,
You never cease to make me smile.
I’ve already attacked your facts several times and all I got in response was more cherry picked antisemitic and/or pro-Nazi propaganda that you seem to think is valid because you “typed it out of a book”. I feel no need to discredit your “facts” anymore than I already have.
“I am totally anonymous to you; you have no idea if I’m sitting in a CIA workroom, an IRGC squad room, a hasbara pod in OT Hebron, or tante’s basement.”
And you think this makes you credible how exactly?
So let’s check that score, shall we?
Some anonymous Internet Nazi jackass is expecting others to think his take on history – which is contrary to that professional historians and as taught in schools and colleges around the world – is the true version of history. Because he says so and quotes from other people, most of whom are either fringers or bigots themselves and not one a professional historian of any repute. All of this while admitting he has a bias because be blames Jews for everything bad in his life instead of taking some responsibility for his own life.
Yeah. You’re real credible there. Pst! That was sarcasm. No one with any sort of education (or even sense) is taking you seriously other than as in “that is one seriously fucked up individual”.
I also don’t give a rat’s ass if you point out I’m attacking you or not. Why? Because I am and I’m doing so on purpose. Let me be perfectly clear here:
You’re Nazi scum.
The only thing I hate worse than Nazis is pedophiles.
You are due no respect or courtesy whatsoever.
You are due no consideration of your special presentation of the “facts” as distorted by your obvious agenda.
it’s absolutely astonishing. I point out, You are attacking ME, not the facts, and you respond by attacking ME, not the facts.
Lather rinse repeat.
the more you attack me, the more you reveal about yourself.
You. do. not. know. me.
I am totally anonymous to you; you have no idea if I’m sitting in a CIA workroom, an IRGC squad room, a hasbara pod in OT Hebron, or tante’s basement.
I type facts from books. That is all.
You think that you have a window into my soul & life based on comments about parents and a war that did not have to be fought. You leapt from that to concoctions and conclusions of your own fabrication. Those conclusions can only be based on the stuff of your own psyches because, if you’ll excuse the repetition, you. do. not. know. me.
but please, do keep up the attacks and the oh so brilliant repartee; you are drawing your own profiles using the BIG box of Crayolas.
Oh jeez, this is so sophisticated! When I was in grade school they would just go: “I’m rubber and you’re glue; it bounces off me and STICKS TO YOU!” Wow, memories. A couple of them told me I killed Christ, too, and I couldn’t figure that one out — took me years!
Well, enough Nazi-baiting for one night, I’ll have to go now, carry on…
No, Nazi lover.
I’ve already critiqued all of your garbage I’m going to waste my time on. Your “facts” are crap. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to make fun of you though. You’re a historical revisionist who thrives on cherry picking and mischaracterization. You use displacement and selective information to demonize and blame Jews for things they had no control over (like the blockade) and logical fallacies to imply that Jews all operate as some monolithic bloc that were capable of “declaring war” on Germany when then had no state, no military and no form of unity whatsoever in the pre-war period. If you want to operate under the delusion that Jews control Allied strategy in WWI and WWII and that they “declared war” on Germany because a group of Jews who had no power to speak for all Jews let alone a Jewish state declared an economic boycott on Germany in WWII that had little or no effect on the German economy?
Be my guest. I’m not here to convince you your delusions aren’t real. I’m just here to point it out and point out your tactics – which to be clear is all based on distortions and lies. I’m not the kind of doctor who can help you with your problems.
BTW, nice try at the Rove thing again. That “smear the opponent with your own sin” thing is really cute in a third grade “I know you are but what am I” kind of way. However, time for a fact check. I don’t blame the Jews or anyone else for the things in my life (or in my parents life) that I don’t like. Either they are my own doing, accident or misfortune. And unlike you, I do indeed have a long line of psychiatrists willing to testify to my sanity. Part of the benefit of spending my childhood as a lab rat for the educational system. However, by your own admissions, you have stated facts that combined with your historical revisionist bent and severe hatred for Jews puts your mental health into question in such a way that is obvious to even an amateur.
Carry on hating on the Jews though.
You provide a perfect example of why they did indeed need and deserve a state and military of their own in the wake of WWII.
I’m really blown away by that talmudic insight, Malisha.
The more you and Gene attack me, rather than the text that is written, the more it is apparent that you are seeing yourselves; how do i know the talmud tells me so:
since you do not see things as they ARE, — time after time you have refused to consider or critique the text AS IT IS;
and because you cannot possibly see things through the eyes of another,
the saying, ‘we see things as WE are’ means you look only through your own eyes; you see only yourselves. And apparently, you pretty much hate what you see.
All of the sarcasm and psychologizing and derision you dish out, is your exudation of yourselves, which you are serving up to yourselves.
Soon to be released: Talmudic commentary according to TalkingBack.
Everybody get out your Amazon account numbers, limited printing!
(Headline announcing the publishing of this book inadvertently omitted the word “impossible.”)
TalkingBack, your guy Adolph ran off a cliff himself one time. But thanks for the object lessons, very objective of you, I’ll try to keep that all in mind. I’m glad you remembered that “impossible” in that sentence, too; it’s good for you not to forget that word too often.
talkingbacktocspan,
You’ve mistaken me for someone who thinks you have any grip on reality whatsoever.
edit: “It is physically and psychologically for a person to see things through the eyes of another.”
SHOULD BE:
“It is physically and psychologically IMPOSSIBLE for one person to see things through the eyes of another.”
tremendous insight, Malisha; thank you —
“a Jewish text, the Talmud, says:
We see things NOT as they are,
but as WE are.”
Thus, when you read the facts and quotations that another person writes, if you are operating under the saying of the Talmud, you do not see them for the facts and reality they represent, you see them as YOU are. Because you are, just like every human being, incapable of looking through another person’s eyes, you look through your eyes and persuade yourself that what YOU are seeing is what THEY must be seeing; you project You into They.
You cannot possibly see things as, for example, Hillary Mann Leverett or Wendy Sherman sees things, because you do not look through their eyes. You cannot possibly see things as Andrew Bacevich or George Soros sees things, because you do not look through their eyes; their eyes are in their heads and your eyes are in your head.
It is physically and psychologically for a person to see things through the eyes of another.
That is why it is so essential to try to see things as they are: as reality; as objectively and logically defined as possible, lest your vision becomes so distorted with trying to look through eyes not your own that you run into a wall or off a cliff.
Bron, friends of mine who are living in Germany now and who know a bit about German culture would probably say there was a thriving intelligentsia there for centuries. I haven’t studied that. But read “Diary of a Man in Despair” by Friedrich Reck-Mallaczewen (sp? — not sure) for what it’s worth.