Re: [Fwd: Theos-World Re: What Is Happening In America?]
Jul 11, 2003 05:53 PM
by Bart Lidofsky
Theo Paijmans wrote:
"What Bart Lidofsky actually knew but was afraid to consider" an
essay in doublespeak by Theo Paijmans
At least Theo admits that he is using doublespeak.
What Bart actually is saying: contrary to democracy, you will not
criticise America in any way. Hermann Goering's words spring to mind:
'who is not for us, is against us.'
Note how Theo uses a quote from a well-known Nazi, in order to cleverly
imply that I am a Nazi without saying it outright. In addition, I have
no problem with truthful criticism of America. It's lies, half-truths
and hypocrisy with which I have a problem.
There were no results of that election enforced, else Gore would have
been in the WHite House. The election clearly was a simple coup
d'etat. That Bush clearly is steered by those behind the screens, is
a logical conclusion of the way the power structure in America is
conctructed.
Every recount that used the standards under Florida law had Bush
winning. Even the liberal Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court
said that what the Florida Supreme Court was trying to do was illegal.
The controversial ruling was whether there was enough time for more
recounts (as the legal deadline for appointing electors was going to be
the next day). If THAT vote had gone the other way, the Florida State
legislature, which had a strong Republican majority, would have chosen
the electors. Now, how does that add up to Gore being elected?
It is unquestionably the most radical government in modern
American history, one whose ideology and actions have become so
pervasive, and are so unquestionably mirrored by the mass media
here, that the population seems to have forgotten what "normal"
is.
Translation: I don't agree with his policies.
Meaning: here we skirt the issue by cleverly avoiding discussion over
content and focussing on form. Note: Bart offers no rebuttal of the
claims of the author.
OK. Let's see if we can find a MORE radical government. Under FDR,
there were massive social programs enacted, including an attempt to
override the Supreme Court by packing it with justices. Under Lincoln's
administration, we fought a war to keep states from dissociating
themselves from the United States, turning this from a group of
cooperative independent countries into a single country. Under Kennedy,
civil rights violations by federal agencies were routinely greater than
even the Patriot Act would allow now. Both Nixon and Clinton routinely
used federal agencies for strictly personal purposes. Truman used
nuclear weapons, and got the United States involved in an undeclared
war. I think all of these can be counted as more radical.
Church and State George Bush is the first unelected President of
the United States, installed by a right-wing Supreme Court in a
kind of judicial coup d'etat.
Translation: I am so far to the left that I even consider the three
liberal members of the Supreme Court to be right wing (all the
conservatives, all the moderates, and one of the liberals voted in
Bush's favor). Also, I disagree with the founding fathers, and
believe that the electoral college should not be valid.
Bart's 'Translation' in this case means 'interpretation', with the
effect in mind to discredit the writer and issue some good ol'
propaganda. Obviously one cannot find a single reference in this part
of the author's article about his political beliefs ('so far to the
left'), his ideas on the founding fathers or the electoral college,
because they are not there. It recalls one of Stalin's show trials
with mocked up charges.
He called the 7 members of the Supreme Court who decided that the
recounts called for by the SCOFLA was illegal to be "right wing", in
spite of the fact that even the liberal New York Times and Washington
Post call three of them "moderates" and one of them "liberal". This puts
his opinion somewhere to the left of the New York Times and Washington
Post. And he clearly shows he does not believe in the electoral college,
because he does not stand by their decision.
He is the first to actively subvert one of the pillars of
American democracy: the separation of church and state. There are
now daily prayer meetings and Bible study groups in every branch
of the government, and religious organizations are being given
funds to take over educational and welfare programs that have
always been the domain of the state.
Translation: I love to tell half-truths and out-and-out lies if it
fits my agenda.
Again the same tactics: Bart's 'Translation' is in reality a crude
form of propaganda and the discrediting of the use of free speech:
noewhere does Bart offer any proof as to his allegations that the
author is lying, that the author is telling half truth, that the
author has a hidden agenda. In jurisprudence this tactic is called
'slander'.
OK, show me the Bible study groups in Congress. And, there has ALWAYS
been an opening prayer to open sessions of Congress. One lie, one
half-truth. Show me the Bible study groups at the Supreme Court. Show me
the prayer groups with the Supreme Court. Theo can't because there
aren't any. Another lie. Yes, there are some Bible study groups and
prayer meetings in the White House; it's called freedom of religion.
That includes religions the author DOESN'T like, last time I looked at
the Constitution.
Bush is the first president to invoke the specific "Jesus Christ"
rather than an ecumenical "God," and he has surrounded himself
with evangelical Christians, including his Attorney General, who
attends a church where he talks in tongues.
Translation: I disagree with the U.S. Constitution, and believe
there SHOULD be a religious test for serving public office. Just
make sure it's MY version of religion.
Again Bart repeats the by now worn method of demonising the author,
with whom he clearly disagrees. That again, he offers no evidence to
actually demonstrate that his 'translation' is in fact a correct
*interpretation*, only unveils his method even more.
He gives the fact that Bush used "Jesus Christ" as a criticism.
Therefore, he shows that he does not like the fact that Bush is a
practicing Christian. The fact that he is using it in an attack shows
that he believes that Bush's religious ideas are wrong in a President.
Therefore, he clearly supports religious tests for the office of
President, to make sure that they don't belong to brands of Christianity
that he does not agree with. Note that he also criticizes the attorney
general specifically because of the church he attends. I think my
conclusion is valid.
It is the first administration to openly declare a policy of
unilateral aggression, a "Pax Americana" where the presence of
allies (whether England or Bulgaria) is agreeable but
unimportant; where international treaties no longer apply to the
United States; and where-- for the first time in history-- this
country reserves the right to non-defensive, "pre-emptive"
strikes against any nation on earth, for whatever reason it
declares.
Translation: Paramilitary attacks against the United States don't
count.
Here Bart uses a somewhat other tactic: the simple "two wrongs
hopefully make my viewpoint right" method.
Well, I guess one can paint the actions of the U.S. during WWII as
being wrong if one ignores the attack on Pearl Harbor and the
declarations of war against the United States by Germany and Italy.
Discriminating readers of
course are aware that the author has not written at all that
"paramilitary attacks against the USA are okay", but by accusing the
author hereof, Bart hopes to a) discredit the author b) gain sympathy
for his opposing viewpoint c) find an excuse for the the actions of
the USA abroad with the two wrongs make a right method, often used by
convicts and criminals by the way.
And notice how Theo changes my interpretation that "paramilitary
attacks against the United States don't count to "paramilitary attacks
against the United States are OK", and even puts quotes around it. Hell,
I can tear Theo apart by misquoting him, too, except that two wrongs do
NOT make a right. Of course, to the far left, only Communist and Third
World countries have the right of self-defense.
It is the first-- since the internment of Japanese-Americans in
World War II-- to enact special laws for a specific ethnic group.
Non-citizen young Muslim men are now required to register and
subject themselves to interrogation.
Translation: How DARE the United States do what ANY other country
would do in the same position, and scrutinize non-citizen members
of countries or alliances that have declared war against it.
Again the convict method. While it would be easy to see parallels
with the German racial laws as to Jews, we need not use such a clear
example. Bart could simply explain which muslim nation currently is
at war with the USA - because as far as I am aware, there is none.
The Jews in Germany were citizens, and there was no alliance of Jew
making paramilitary attacks against Germany and German citizens. There
IS an alliance of Islamic people, largely Arab, who have declared war on
the United States and have participated in paramilitary attacks. True,
no Arab government has declared war on the United States. They just give
funding and give shelter to those who did. Kind of like someone who pays
a hit man to kill somebody, and tries to declare after the murder, "Hey,
I didn't kill anybody!"
Many hundreds have been arrested and held without trial or access
to legal assistance-- a violation of another pillar of American
democracy: habeas corpus.
Translation: Oops! Forgot to mention that these are non-citizens,
and that the right of habeus corpus has NEVER existed in ANY
country in the world for non-citizens. And I didn't mention that
the people were allowed to have legal assistance if they wanted it.
After all, we can't let those uncomfortable truths interfere with
my case.
Here Bart shows something of his inner mind: there are übercitizens
and lesser people, Orwell's famous "some are more equal than
others"springs immediately into mind. Besides, by cleverly using the
verbs "uncomfortable truths", Bart pretends there are some issues
that would really convince us all. However, he does not name them,
nor does he delve into these points, thereby downgrading what could
become a discussion on pragmatic arguments to the point that it is a
morass of underbelly agit-prop, aimed at our base emotions.
I ask Theo: Are you trying to say that the United States should let
anybody walk in and have every right that citizens have? Can you name a
single country in the world that does that? And, specifically, the
people detained by the U.S. government WERE given the option of legal
counsel; you cannot blame the United States if they chose not to take
that option. Now, what issues did I not name? I realize that it's a lot
easier to argue with things you would had have preferred I said rather
than my actual statements, but, in spite of your fondest wishes, the
people reading this are NOT idiots.
Many have been taken from their families and deported on minor
technical immigration violations; the whereabouts of many others
are still unknown. And, in Guantanamo Bay, where it is said that
they are now preparing execution chambers, hundreds of foreign
nationals -- including a 13-year-old and a man who claims to be
100-- have been kept for almost two years in a limbo that clearly
contravenes the Geneva Convention.
Translation: in spite of the fact that these were non-uniformed
members of an army that declared war against the United States,
and, as such, are being treated according to the Geneva Convention
rules for such forces, I think they should be treated according to
the rules for uniformed sources. And I am reporting rumor (the 13
year old) as fact. And I am mixing those who are being executed
with those who are being held until they can find a non-belligerent
country that will patriate them and all those in between as if they
ALL were going to be executed.
Bart here uses the age old tactic "just call the nastiest facts a
rumor" and avoids the issues of extermination chambers, in effect
making Guantanamo Bay an extermination camp. Also note that his
answer here is fairly long, without actually saying something other
than that "rest assured, not everybody is going to goosestep into the
death chambers"
OK, Theo, please give me evidence that there is a 13 year old at
Guantanemo Bay. I tried to find a valid source, but I only found it from
politically-oriented groups and rumor-mongering tabloids (nothing even
in the liberal-leaning Washington Post, New York Times, or in the more
centrist London Times, for example). And, in war, sometimes people are
put to death. But that does not mean that all, or even most, or even a
few, or, for that matter, ANY of the illegal combatants in Guantanemo
Bay will be executed. But, according to the Geneva Convention, there are
circumstances under which they CAN be.
Similar to the Reagan era, it is an administration openly devoted
to helping the rich and ignoring the poor, one that has turned
the surplus of the Clinton years into a massive deficit through
its combination of enormous tax cuts for the wealthy
(particularly those who earn more than a million dollars a year)
and increases in defense spending.
Translation: I am ignoring the fact that Clinton favored the rich
just as much, and that a war against the United States, which
Clinton allowed to go on unchallenged, was escalated. I am also
ignoring the effects of the dotcom crash, an event of which the
Clinton administration carefully hid the early signs, while
overstating the health of the U.S. economy by a third during the
Presidential election.
Here Bart for the first time uses some pragmatic arguments, but, of
course, in the "two wrongs make it right"method. In effect Bart is
not even disgreeing that Bush is doing badly, Bart just says, "yeah,
but Clinton was doing badly too".
True. I am NOT fond of what Bush is doing. In fact, I dislike Bush
quite a lot. However, the author was favorably comparing Clinton to
Bush. I am showing him wrong in that sense. The Clinton administration
contributed heavily to the economic collapse, by doing to the American
people what his pals at Enron were doing to their stockholders.
(And, although Republicans always campaign on "less government,"
it has created the largest new government bureaucracy in history:
the Department of Homeland Security.) The Financial Times of
England, hardly a hotbed of leftists, has categorized this
economic policy as "the lunatics taking over the asylum."
Translation: I am ignoring the fact that there is a war going on.
Here Bart uses the age old tactic of "create the problem (war) offer
the solution (more war)". While one cannot see any war going on at
this time, the question remains. War on terror? War in Iraq? Also
note that Bart here offers no firm rebuttal of the claims of the
author.
OK. A group of nations figured out that they could outfit, train, and
support an army, but, if they officially disavow that army, they can use
it to attack with impunity. After 9/11, the United States has finally
said, "Bullshit", and finally has recognized the various attacks against
the United States as acts of war rather than criminal acts, and is
finally taking steps to defend itself against them.
Undermining Law But more than Reagan-- whose policies tended to
benefit the rich in general-- most of Bush's legislation
specifically enriches those in his lifelong inner circle from the
oil, mining, logging, construction, and pharmaceutical
industries.
Translation: I am crossing out Clinton's name and putting Bush n
it's place.
Again, the "two wrongs will make it right" method.
Well, if you take a look at the record, Clinton was MUCH closer to the
people currently being enriched than Bush. There is no analysis of
whether or not this is justified; it is merely guilt by misassociation.
At the middle level of the bureaucracy, where laws may be issued
without Congressional approval, hundreds of regulations have been
changed to lower standards of pollution or safety in the
workplace, to open up wilderness areas for exploitation, or to
eliminate the testing of drugs..
Translation: I don't know the difference between a law and a
regulation. Or I do, but I'm purposely trying to confuse people who
don't. And I also like to confuse labels with that which is
labeled.
Here Bart uses another tactic: that of humbling the author by trying
to paint him as a dimwit who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Very favourable in academic circles, it is said. Simple abbreviation:
"shut the fuck up, you don't know what you are talking about."
No, I am merely assuming that people here DO know the difference
between laws and regulations, or, if they don't, are smart enough to
look it up, so I don't have to give a lesson in law to everybody here.
I'm sorry if you think that the people here are so stupid that they
can't do that. Also, thanks to the mania of the past 80 years or so to
legislate everything, many laws which are labeled as "safety",
"anti-pollution" or "conservation" laws do just the opposite of what
their label says they do; they make things less safe, and increase
pollution and waste.
Corporate Kickbacks Billions in government contracts have been
awarded, without competition, to corporations formerly run by
administration officials.
Translation: I don't know what a kickback is, and I am not
considering whether or not the contracts were valid.
Again, see above.
Kickbacks are when the corporations give those who acted as agents of a
group that awarded them a contract money or other consideration for that
service on a personal basis. As far as I know, there has not even been
accusations of kickbacks. Therefore, the author clearly does not know
what a kickback is.
Undermining Law - II In a country where the most significant
social changes are enacted by court rulings, rather than by
legislation, the Bush administration has been filling every level
of the complex judicial system with ultra-right ideologues,
especially those who have protected corporations from lawsuits by
individuals or environmental groups, and those who are opposed to
women's reproductive rights. It remains to be seen how far they
can push their antipathy to contraception and abortion.
Translation: I think Bush should put judges who disagree with him
on the bench.
Here Bart distorts the message of the author by a process of
needlessly simplifying parts of the message, leaving other linguistic
options out of the equation, thus reducing the message to a nice
propaganda ploy. I think we call this "twisting of words"
The author criticizes Bush for putting on judges who don't agree with
his opinion of what the political viewpoint of judges should be. Tell me
how that is a distortion.
They have already banned a rare form of late-term abortion that
is only given when the health of the mother is endangered or the
fetus is terribly deformed, and a large portion of Bush's
heralded billions to Africa to fight AIDS will be devoted to
so-called "abstinence" education.
Translation: I'm ignoring the fact that it only stops ELECTIVE
late-term abortions; medically necessary abortions are STILL
allowed. And how DARE Bush try to push the most effective way of
stopping AIDS!!!!
Another good one: demonising the author by slyly suggesting by word
choice that he in fact is pro-AIDS.
Nope. I am saying that the author is anti-abstention.
Totalitarian America
Most of all, America doesn't feel like America any more. The
climate of militarism and fear, similar to any totalitarian
state,
Translation: Any government I disagree with is totalitarian.
Here Bart again distorts the message of the author by simplifying
parts of the message, leaving other linguistic options out of the
equation, reducing what is left to a nice propaganda ploy. The
"twisting of words" method.
No, I am simply summarizing his arguments.
permeates everything. Bush is the first American president in
memory to swagger around in a military uniform, though he
himself-- like all of his most militant advisers-- evaded the
Vietnam War.
Translation: I am lying. Bush war a military outfit, but it was NOT
a uniform; there was no sign of rank on it. The military outfit was
the only kind manufactured for the purpose. In addition, I consider
serving in the armed forces outside of Vietnam the same thing as
running off to England.
Again Bart uses the The "twisting of words" method, and in the
process nicely skirts the issues the author touches upon, by drawing
the limelight to his (Bart's) accusation.
The author lied by saying that Bush wore a military uniform, and even
used the inflammatory words, "swaggered around". Bush did NOT wear a
military uniform, and therefore the contention is a lie. He also stated
that Bush evaded the Vietnam War, ignoring the fact that Bush DID join
the armed services during the Vietnam War.
(Even Eisenhower, a general and a war hero, never wore his
uniform while he was president).
Translation: I am inserting an irrelevant historical point.
Here Bart uses the method of humbling the opponent by humbling his
words.
Nope. I am only humbling the opponent's words.
In the airports of provincial cities, there are frequent
announcements in that assuring, disembodied voice of
science-fiction films:
"The Department of Homeland Security advises that the Terror
Alert is now. . . Code Orange." Every few weeks there is an
announcement that another terrorist attack is imminent, and
citizens are urged to take ludicrous measures, like sealing their
windows against biological and chemical attacks, and to report
the "suspicious" activities of their neighbors.
Translation: I'm telling half-truths again. Not to mention out and
out lies.
Here Bart goes into demonisation and slander method mode: slander
because Bart is not demonstrating where the author "lies"and writes
"half-truths". Demonisation because, if the author is lying, then
clearly he must be of ill repute and we cannot possible take his
words seriously now, can we?
OK: The voice is not disembodied; it comes from people, and the
announcements are not frequent. A lie. There was only a single incident
of citizens being asked to take ludicrous measures, NOT every few weeks,
and the administration admitted they made a mistake. A half-truth. As
far as people being asked to report suspicious activities on the part of
their neighbors, that was proposed, but never put through. Another
half-truth.
The Pentagon institutes the "Total Information Awareness" program
to collect data on the ordinary activities of ordinary citizens
(credit card charges, library book withdrawals, university course
enrollments) and when this is perceived as going too far, they
change the name to "Terrorist Information Awareness" and continue
to do the same things.
Translation: The Pentagon is doing what the Pentagon has ALWAYS
done.
Here Bart uses the "humble the author method" by reducing this part
of his text - which has a sense of urgency in it - to a simple "shrug
the shoulders" passage. Note how Bart cleverly avoids any statement
as to the value of this part. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing?
If so, why? These are issues that Bart does not touch upon.
The author is treating this as a specific crime of the Bush
administration, not the way the Defense Department has been run since
the second World War. I am putting it into context.
Millions are listed in airport security computers as potential
terrorists, including antiwar demonstrators and pacifists.
Critics are warned to "watch what they say" and lists of
"traitors" are posted on the internet.
Translation: Bush is doing what people, especially on the left,
have been complaining he didn't do before 9/11. In addition, people
are posting bullshit on the Internet. Not unlike my article.
Here Bart uses the part of the author's text to smear leftist
sentiments. Clever: in effect acknowledging that what the authr
states is indeed a bad thing, but connecting it to leftwing politics,
Bart is conjuring the suggestion that "bad things come from the
left".
I am saying that you can't have it both ways. Bush was heavily
criticized, from both the right and the left but especially the left for
not taking action to prevent 9/11. But the author is complaining when
Bush takes just that kind of action. And the author cleverly takes what
people who have nothing to do with the Administration are saying, and
ascribing it to the administration. I am not saying here that "bad
things come from the left", I am saying that EVEN the left was begging
Bush to do what he is doing, and therefore they shouldn't complain when
he gives them what they asked for.
The war in Iraq has been the most extreme manifestation of this
new America, and almost a casebook study in totalitarian
techniques; First, an Enemy is created by blatant lies that are
endlessly repeated until the population believes it: in this
case, that Iraq was linked to the attack on the World Trade
Center, and that it possesses vast "weapons of mass destruction"
that threaten the world.
Translation: I am concentrating on a single issue, which the entire
world believed BEFORE it was brought up by the United States (the
disagreement was not on whether the weapons existed, but how to
best divest Iraq of them), and ignoring all the other issues
brought up, including Saddam Hussein's own statements.
Here Bart in effect gives his method away by writing: "I am
concentrating on a single issue", which is a very good method often
used in text books: an author gives phletora of arguments and
reasons, all the opponent has to do is to harvest all the elements of
a speech or written article, combine them into one single issue by
picking one out, and focussing on that single aspect. That Bart then
does not discredit that single issue by force of pragmatic reasoning
is a pity, he uses the level one approach: grab the single issue and
use it to cast a cloud of suspicion on the knowledge and abilities of
the author to do some reasoning.
Here, Theo is writing a bunch of bullshit that has nothing to do with
what I wrote.
Then, a War of Liberation, entirely portrayed by the mass media
in terms of our Heroic Troops, with little or no imagery of
casualties and devastation, and with morale-inspiring, scripted
"news" scenes--such as the toppling of the Saddam statue and the
heroic "rescue" of Private Lynch-- worthy of Soviet cinema.
Translation: I think the United States is trying to use my tactics.
Here Bart is using the demonise, stigmatise and two wrongs make a
right tactics all combined. The outcome is of course slander, since
the author nowhere writes: 'hey, The USA is using my tactics!"
He does when he writes, "worthy of Soviet cinema". And, let's take a
better look at what he wrote. There were plenty of images of casualties
and devastation, where it occurred, and there is no evidence that either
the toppling of the statue or the rescue of Private Lynch was scripted,
and considerable evidence that neither were.
Finally, as has happened with Afghanistan, very little news of
the
chaos that has followed the Great Victory. Instead, the
propaganda machine moves on to a new Enemy-- this time, Iran.
Translation: I don't pay attention to the news.
(actually, the BBC news at this moment now treats the false Bush
allegations of WMD) Here Bart uses the humble the author tactic: I am
a dumbass, I don't watch the telly doctrine.
There has been plenty of news about the problems in both Afghanistan
and Iraq. And, although it has nothing to do with what I wrote, the BBC
is talking about a single document in the entire mass of evidence. And I
have not seen on the news any sort of call to invade Iran.
It is very difficult to speak of what is happening in America
without resorting to the hyperbolic cliches of anti-Americanism
that have lost their meaning after so many decades, but that have
now finally come true.
Translation: My anti-American tripe no longer works. Wahhhhhhh!
Here Bart uses the simple, make fun of your opponent tactic by
painting a comic book presentation of what the author means.
Hey, if the shoe fits...
Humour
is a very effective weapon, as Reagon time and again demonstrated.
That the real issue, that what the author discusses, is lost amidst
the laughter, is the desired effect.
It is OK to laugh at that which is laughable.
Perhaps one can only recite the facts, and I have mentioned only
some of them here. This is, quite simply, the most frightening
American administration in modern times, one that is appalling
both to the left and to traditional conservatives. This junta is
unabashed in its imperialist ambitions; it is enacting an
Orwellian state of Perpetual War; it is dismantling, or
attempting to dismantle, some of the most fundamental tenets of
American democracy; it is acting without opposition within the
government, and is operating so quickly on so many fronts that it
has overwhelmed and exhausted any popular opposition.
Translation: I love to use Stalinist buzzwords.
Here Bart uses for his "demonise and stigmatise"routine the McCarthy
Communist witch hunt tactics that worked so well in the fifties and
did a great job in Latin-America not too long ago: subtly paint the
author between the lines as a hardass commie, as the conditioned
reaction of most people to the words "communist" are well nurtured in
the long period of the cold war.
I realize that many would like to pretend that Russia and China did not
exist during the Cold War. If you do, it sure makes the United States
look bad. But they DID exist. And there is a group, called the Frankfurt
School, who have developed techniques with the express purpose of the
destruction of Western Civilization. And the author is using many of
those tactics, and taking words directly from the writings of the
Frankfurt School.
Perhaps it cannot be stopped, but the first step toward slowing
it
down is the recognition that this is an American government
unlike any other in this country's history, and one for whom
democracy is an obstacle.
Translation: We must go forward to create a destruction of Western
Civilization to create an anarchy which, as we all know, will
result in a Communist Paradise.
Same as above. And adding slander, demonisation and ridiculisation.
Well, I am simply assuming that it is not a coincidence that the author
is following the precepts of the Frankfurt School, aka The Institute for
Marxism.
Bart Lidofsky
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
