John Best, July 3 at 11:34 pm,

“This post by Shenonymous, “I believe most people don’t know
they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public that
they are being propagandized in simple terms they can
understand is the course in which liberals ought to be committed. 
This is my agenda ...” on July 1 at 9:07 am

Whomever he/she turns out to be, certainly he/she is a fanatic out
to disrupt the processes of our Democracy.  A neo-con in sheep’s
clothing.  Repetition, repetition, repetition.  Call the pot black.”
—John Best, July 3 at 11:34 pm

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

You people, John, seem to have, by way of Shenonymous’
intellectual prowess, developed your own classification for your
own type of propaganda, Simple Terms Propaganda; this
is basic “them” and “us” propaganda with an
emotional choice between “them” and “us”. 
THEY are not like “us,” THEY are the “simple folk”
and “we” are the “privileged few, who MUST use
“simple terms” as a rhetorical device of propaganda to
explain.  It is “our” position to be the parental figure and
EXPLAIN things to the child like “simple folk” who are
emotionally immature and look to “us” the “privileged
few” for guidance and as arbiters of their emotional childishness. 
This reeks of a strong father figure Right-Wing EXTREMIST
politics of the Evangelical Christian Movement and Dr. James
Dobson, which brings to mind Dr. Dobson’s, Dobson Squat
Politics.  Are you people Dobson Squat Politicians??

I haven’t heard much from the Dobson Squat Contingent of
the Evangelical Christian Movement lately—Why did “you
people” not introduce yourselves?

The following from the AlterNet forum by Dr. Cynthia Boaz
are 14 additional examples of binary
emotional rhetoric that IS propaganda:

http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_"news"_uses_to_brainwash_americans/

Gary Mont, July 3 at 4:16 pm,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

Page 1 of 2

When the determination of who did what to
whom with regard to propaganda is determined
by viewers of this Truthdig forum, the salient
germinal point that MUST be kept in mind is that I
am the one offering a simple and easy way of
defining propaganda for use by the masses in
propaganda analysis to decrypt the complexities
of propaganda, and the chorus of Hard Right
and Lite Right minions of
Shenonymouses together with
Shenonymous are AGAINST my offering
of the simple and easy way of defining
propaganda as “binary emotional
rhetoric,” in favor of “simple terms”
THEY, the masses of the American
Populace, can understand that is “the
course in which Liberals ought to be
committed.” that Shenonymous has
proposed here on the Truthdig forum and that
Shenonymous and all of her minions
here on the Truthdig forum have refused, and
continue to refuse to define and give EXAMPLE of.

Shenonymous and her minions asked of
me that I provide definition and EXAMPLES with
regard to propaganda as “binary emotional
rhetoric,” and I complied in a straight
forward and forthright manner.

When the time came for Shenonymous
and her minions to define and give EXAMPLES of
the “simple terms” THEY, the masses of
the American Populace, can understand that is
“the course in which Liberals ought to be
committed.” that Shenonymous
proposed as an alternative, “you people,”
together with Shenonymous, started a
Campaign of Denegration and Personal Attacks
AGAINST me to berate me personally, rather than
to provide definition and EXAMPLES with regard
to the “simple terms” THEY, the
masses of the American Populace, can
understand that is “the course in which
Liberals ought to be committed.” that
Shenonymous proposed.

Why is it that YOU attack me personally and
denegrate me personally, rather than to just
provide the “simple terms” THEY, the
masses of the American Populace, can
understand that is “the course in which
Liberals ought to be committed.” that
Shenonymous proposed.

All I want “you people” and
Shenonymous to do is to define and
give EXAMPLE of the “simple terms” that
“you people” advocate that
“THEY,” the masses of the American
Populace, can understand that is “the course
in which Liberals ought to be committed.”
that Shenonymous proposed.

The following from the AlterNet forum by
Dr. Cynthia Boaz are 14 additional examples of
binary emotional rhetoric that IS
propaganda:

http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_"news"_uses_to_brainwash_americans/

Gary Mont, July 3 at 4:16 pm,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

Page 1 of 2

When the determination of who did what to
whom with regard to propaganda is determined
by viewers of this Truthdig forum, the salient
germinal point that MUST be kept in mind is that I
am the one offering a simple and easy way of
defining propaganda for use by the masses in
propaganda analysis to decrypt the complexities
of propaganda, and the chorus of Hard Right
and Lite Right minions of
Shenonymouses together with
Shenonymous are AGAINST my offering
of the simple and easy way of defining
propaganda as “binary emotional
rhetoric,” in favor of “simple terms”
THEY, the masses of the American
Populace, can understand that is “the
course in which Liberals ought to be
committed.” that Shenonymous has
proposed here on the Truthdig forum and that
Shenonymous and all of her minions
here on the Truthdig forum have refused, and
continue to refuse to define and give EXAMPLE of.

Shenonymous and her minions asked of
me that I provide definition and EXAMPLES with
regard to propaganda as “binary emotional
rhetoric,” and I complied in a straight
forward and forthright manner.

When the time came for Shenonymous
and her minions to define and give EXAMPLES of
the “simple terms” THEY, the masses of
the American Populace, can understand that is
“the course in which Liberals ought to be
committed.” that Shenonymous
proposed as an alternative, “you people,”
together with Shenonymous, started a
Campaign of Denegration and Personal Attacks
AGAINST me to berate me personally, rather than
to provide definition and EXAMPLES with regard
to the “simple terms” THEY, the
masses of the American Populace, can
understand that is “the course in which
Liberals ought to be committed.” that
Shenonymous proposed.

Why is it that YOU attack me personally and
denegrate me personally, rather than to just
provide the “simple terms” THEY, the
masses of the American Populace, can
understand that is “the course in which
Liberals ought to be committed.” that
Shenonymous proposed.

All I want “you people” and
Shenonymous to do is to define and
give EXAMPLE of the “simple terms” that
“you people” advocate that
“THEY,” the masses of the American
Populace, can understand that is “the course
in which Liberals ought to be committed.”
that Shenonymous proposed.

The following from the AlterNet forum by
Dr. Cynthia Boaz are 14 additional examples of
binary emotional rhetoric that IS
propaganda:

http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_"news"_uses_to_brainwash_americans/

Gary Mont, July 3 at 4:16 pm,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

Page 2 of 2

“You people,” in HARSH, PROPAGANDISTIC fashion define and provide EXAMPLE of me in propagandistic terms as an EVASION, rather than to define and provide EXAMPLE of the “simple terms” that “you people” advocate that “THEY,” the masses of the American Populace, can understand that is “the course in which Liberals ought to be committed.” THAT Shenonymous proposed.

All you people need to do is just to trot out YOUR “simple
examples” and we can move on in our dialogue with regard
to the “simple examples” given; perhaps the so called
“simple examples” were a propagandistic play and the
“simple examples” do not exist.

Whatever the case is, attacking me personally as a solution to
solving the dilemma of you people’s own self inflicted
problem of “simple solutions” is not the answer; I am only
the messenger and killing the messenger will not change the
causal consequences of the message.

Rather than to continue YOUR attack on me personally to avoid
presenting definitions and examples of the “simple terms”
<b>Shenonymous proposed, I suggest that you
people get together and trot out those “simple
terms,” rather than to continue your personal attacks
AGAINST me as a propagandistic alternative to provision of
definition and EXAMPLES of those “simple terms”
Shenonymous proposed.

The following from the AlterNet forum by Dr. Cynthia Boaz are 14
additional examples of binary emotional rhetoric that IS
propaganda:

http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_"news"_uses_to_brainwash_americans/

John Best
You certainly do ask good questions.  Thank you for that, this thread certainly can use it.

The Ombudsman approach drew mail that spanned the spectrum from “good idea” to ” it would just become corrupted”  and of course the reality would fall somewhere in between.  Seems that as I kept writing that the public must remain “Vigilant” , always on the lookout for those who lurk in the shadows waiting for the opportunity to game the system, the reaction was basically “ho-hum”.

One of my main, must do concerns, about the idea was that just finding the thieves was not good enough, they had to be brought to swift and harsh punishment from the White House to the lowest appointee or Agency employee, including Ombudsman elected.  I wrote that the Ombudsman plan would have to have teeth, meaning the Ombudsman Group would have to have unbridled authority to Investigate, Identify, and bring charges.  Only the Supreme Court would have review authority and no criminal could be pardoned by the President.  Anyway the plan I wrote was about 4,000 words long.  But something like this would require an Amendment to the Constitution and without Third Party intervention would never happen.  So without a Third Party with teeth, we can forget that plan.

As to the Christian question, I wonder what percentage of those who call themselves Christian really believe they are Christian.  For example, I once heard John Hagee state that no one could be a true Christian without supporting the Nation Israel.  You might know that Hagee has quite a racket going raising money for Israel.  For people who support him I always ask them to read Second John.  Those who call themselves Christian, and know that they are not, will become quite vile at that suggestion, maybe even make a few un-Christian threats, but the upshot is that they really don’t care, their Christianity claim is nothing more than the invisible shield they raise to “justify” their actions.

You may be aware that a survey of Evangelical preachers in, I believe 2005, found that 70% believed that God was pleased with the Iraqi War.  And I saw Palin say such on TV.
 
Since I have a very diversified family, I have been exposed to several Religions.  I have seen no religion that cannot be corrupted to act against its stated principles.

What I learned from all the reading, personal experiences, and actions I see, all of humanity is corruptible.  That is why, in my opinion, we need to have a Absolute from which there can be no deviation without consequences.

That Absolute is the Law, The Constitution.  Allowing our present Two Party Kleptocracy to continue to exist is our (common man ) own fault.

To define Kleptocracy go to Wikipedia , “Kleptocracy is a term applied to a government subject to control fraud that takes advantage of governmental corruption to extend the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class”.  Does that sound familiar?

I am always drawn back to a quote ( I believe by Alexis de Tocqueville) and repeated by President Eisenhower in a speech in Boston in 1953?

“America is Great because America is Good, If America ever ceases to be Good, America will cease to be Great”.

Night-Gaunt, July 3 at 3:36 pm,

If what Shenonymous said were “simple terms,”
were, in fact, “simple terms,” those “simple
terms” should be “simple” for “you people” to trot
out, so that everyone can have a look at them and know the
certainty of the “simplicity” of “the course which
Liberals ought to be committed.” in the “simple terms”
that Shenonymous makes reference to, and that YOU and
the rest of Shenonymous’ minions support.

What say you?  Will YOU as Shenonymous’ minion or any
other of Shenonymous’ minions trot out the “simple
terms” proposed by Shenonymous that are “the
course which Liberals ought to be committed.”?

What is all of the fuss about trotting out “simple terms”
that are “the course which Liberals ought to be committed.”?

Surely YOU, Night-Gaunt, or one of
Shenonymous’ other minions can trot out
Shenonymous’ “simple terms” for her, so that we can
move on, on this Truthdig thread, but until YOU do so, “This is
What Resistance Looks Like” to the blatant use of
propaganda by Shenonymous and “you people”
as Shenonymous’ minions.

Shenonymous,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

YOU people, Shenonymous, are advocating propagandizing
the masses of the 70% Majority Common Population in service to
YOUR OWN Hard Right and Lite Right greedy self serving
interests and presenting YOUR propaganda as “simple
terms” that the masses can understand, according to the
dialogue “you people” have presented on this Truthdig
forum. 

You should all be ashamed, but I know that you are not.

If YOU were a Left-Winger, a Liberal, you would not just talk the
talk, you would walk the walk.  YOU, Shenonymous talk
the talk, but the walk you walk IS propaganda to “Sell the Left
and Liberals DOWN the River.” You should be ashamed, but I
do not think those who can sell those who they claim as their Liberal
kindred “down the river” have any shame.

What say you?  Or, will you continue to hide from YOUR OWN
behavior behind your minions on this Truthdig forum?

The following link is for awareness of the Hard Right and Lite
Right propaganda techniques YOU and your minions use:

http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_"news"_uses_to_brainwash_americans/

Shenonymous,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July 1 at 9:07 am

You say you teach Critical Thinking and yet, on this Truthdig forum,
you request EXAMPLES of propaganda, and when the EXAMPLES of
propaganda YOU requested are provided YOU do a critique of
propaganda according to Culture of Critical Discourse “Inside
the Box” Critical Thinking Standards, as if the
propaganda YOU requested is NOT propaganda and is
subject to rules of critical discourse; —What is that?

You also, while in pursuit of critical thinking and Critical Discourse,
blatantly use propaganda to enable the use of
propaganda on the masses by using “simple terms”
as a rhetorical device of propaganda to enable a FALSE CHOICE of
propaganda—What kind of critical thinking do you teach?

To me, the sound of what you say is more like you teach Critical
Thinking and Discourse about Propaganda and how Propaganda
is used and applied, rather than critical thinking about positively
and negatively balanced logic that will serve the common good.

What say YOU? Or, will you continue to hide from YOUR
OWN behavior behind your minions on this Truthdig forum?

Shenonymous, YOU are well versed in the following
techniques of propaganda:

14 Propaganda Techniques Fox “News” Uses to Brainwash
Americans by Cynthia Boaz. 

http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_"news"_uses_to_brainwash_americans/

****AWARENESS, AWARENESS, AWARENESS ****

The good news is that the more conscious you are of these
techniques, the less likely they are to work on you, as many other
forms of media adopt the FOX News Network’s propagandistic
techniques.

Night-Gaunt, July 3 at 3:36 pm…...great little post there. Good technique too….ask a direct clarifying question and see if they ignore or spew noise, or use some other method of avoidance.

You Madame or Sir, have developed a tactic, shared it with others, and made the world more safe by providing a tool to ID and disrupt the disruptors.

Would you like to work on a project to produce a guide to these neo-con personalities and/or tactics and countermeasures to them?  Seriously.

This post by Shenonymous,
“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public that they are being propagandized in simple terms they can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be committed.  This is my agenda ...” on July 1 at 9:07 am

Well, that post really set the Thomas G. Miller/Martha Ann Miller FAKE DNC representative moles off in a tizzy. 

Is this our Thomas G. Miller??
http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?24971496453
Bush/Cheney contributor, and dept of commerce employee? 

There is a Martha Ann Miller, an attorney up in Connecticut also. 

Whoever they are, somebody needs to inform the local DNC. Not that I’m a big fan of either party, but fair is fair.  This infiltration of other parties (and forums) under false pretense is quite brown-shirtish. 

Whomever he/she turns out to be, certainly he/she is a fanatic out to disrupt the processes of our Democracy.  A neo-con in sheep’s clothing.  Repetition, repetition, repetition.  Call the pot black.

Have a great 4th of July All.

Cliff first, Thanks for that post, I think I was asking Ardee, but certainly, I am glad to hear your reply. 

A party which seriously polices itself and extends that Omudsman oversight to the government itself I couldn’t agree with more.  Structurally, and in terms of guiding law, the Ombudsman group would need to remain uncorrupted itself, and also in terms of structure, it resembles the religious oversight of a theocracy, so I’d say I agree in principle, but there are issues to be worked out! 

Our existing system might even work fine if better people were in it, and they were better able to resist corruption.  Not sure how you’d go about that except to point the entire society in a less self-oriented and materialistic direction. 

In any case, I get the feeling you’re what I’ve called an ‘old fashioned (read that decent) Christian’, as opposed to these shills for the neo-cons who do all manner of heinousness in the name of Christ.  I’d really like to hear your take on that.  Some while back, I gave OzarkMichael an earful on the subject.  Frankly, though I believe in the stuff Jesus supposedly taught, )‘help your neighbor’, and ‘forgive’, lot’s of other decent stuff) I am so disgusted with these ‘neo-pseudo-Christians’ that I won’t even call myself a Christian anymore. 

In any case, given the nature of the third pary you describe, your feelings on separation of church and state might be interesting.  What about prayer in school?  Prayer before public meetings?  What about a public official who consults God as a prerequisite to making a public policy decision?

A note to any who give a shit.
==============================

While I do not expect him to ever go away; as this blog gets global revue and more than anything else, Thomas wants as large an audience as he can get, I do expect that he and his minion Martha will show more and more of their true Republican colors and Brownshirt reversal techniques as fewer posters respond to their bevy of incredibly childish insults and accusations.

In case anyone has not noticed it, every one of Thomas’s posts are perfect examples of Republican Binary Emotional Rhetoric, using negative reverse-logic based insults to emotionally stimulate the posters to respond angrily, allowing Thomas to post further insults and innuendo based on accusing others of using his own methods.

As a means of redirecting the enemy’s dialogues and imposing his own subject matter on the group, it is a superb Brownshirt technique that has worked successfully here for weeks now.

Its actually ingenius. Pretend to offer a solution to the Left Wing Dilemna which is actually the Right wing Technique for propaganda that created the Left Wing Dillemna, and then berate the Left wingers for not agreeing to use the offered Magic Formulae.

In reality, Thomas’s advise boils down to:

“The best way to defeat the Republicans is to turn the entire population into Republicans.”

Reminds me of the oft-quoted line:

“The only way we will defeat the next Evil Empire, is to Become the Next Evil Empire.”

I think the best advice to all would be:

Please Do Not Feed the Trolls

Its advise I’m going to follow in future, as I’m certain that the success of Thomas’s campaign of disruption and redirection here at TruthDig will signal a wave of similar Brownshirt posters over the next couple months, using the same or similar techniques.

I suggest that any further discussion of Thomas or Martha be handled in private messages to reduce the amount of white noise on this forum.

Found a word in “The Superior Person’s Book of Words” that fit just well near perfectly our own problems here in communication with certain others. The word is battology, the continual reiterations of the same or very similar verbage.

One of the things propaganda can do is to confuse an issue. That is when clarification is needed and wanted and asked for it does not come. Direct questions are either ignored or not answered in the direct and clear terms specified. It would tend to affect the propaganda being said in the first place. Another technique is to overload a forum with large amounts of posts and long ones at that without really saying anything substantial or useful.

Clarity is antipodal to their cause. Note it, record it, and avoid it. Propaganda tends to be antithetical to communication to promote knowledge of the truth or reality of things.

Truthdig Webmaster,

For some time now I have been and continue to experience Catch 22 Truthdigging problems posting on the Truthdig forum, problems of having the right to dig for the truth on all of the truth that I can’t be prevented from digging for by “Page Not Found” restriction of posting my dialogue on the Truthdig forum.

I would very much appreciate a solution to the “Page Not Found” posting restriction on the Truthdig forum that allows me to exercise FREE SPEECH on the Truthdig forum, rather than Catch 22 Free Speech that is edited by “Page Not Found” restriction of my posts.

Shenonymous,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

The Liberals should be committed to pro*pag*and*izing the
ma*ss*es for the benefit of the se*l*ect f*ew; this is your
essential claim made on this Truthdig forum, when what you say is
put into terms that are made clear and understandable.

You p*eo*ple rationalize your greedy self serving perspective by
your view that there are too many of them, the m*ass*es, and
they, the m*ass*es, will use knowledge and pro*pa*gan*da
against us, the s*e*le*ct f*ew, if they, the m*a*sses, have
knowledge of and understand pro*pa*ga*n*da; there are too
many of them, the ma*ss*es, and there are to f*e*w of us, the
se*le*ct-f*ew, to allow them, the ma*ss*es, to have a simple way
of doing pro*pa*ga*nda an*al*y*sis that we employ against
them, the ma*ss*es, in service to our existing order, the
existing order of the se*le*ct f*ew, because if our benefit, the
benefit of the se*le*ct f*ew, is spread out among them, the
ma*ss*es, our benefit, the benefit of the se≤*ct* f*=ew will not
be able to continue to maintain the living standard and status that
we the se*le*ct f*ew have come to expect as Aristocracy, Middle
Class and genteel peasants.

This is a bankrupt perspective, Shenonymous, and you
know it, so why don’t you give it up and accept the GREATER
GOOD for real, rather than the greater greed as a political
objective.

For a time, I had a degree of hope for the prospect that you would
represent the interests of the populace, and encourage a NEW
SOCIETAL NORMAL that is representative of benefit based upon
sublimated terms of equivalence, rather than polarized greed and
pro*pa*ga*nda that keeps a *se*le*ct*f*ew at the top of a Ponzi
Scheme Pyramid riding on the backs of the ma*ss*es like the
Ancient Pharaohs together with their entourage and lackeys; it is
NEVER too late to CHANGE, Shenonymous, but change
that radiates outward from within you is all that matters, CHANGE
that is a reflection of that which radiates inward is meaningless.

Shenonymous,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

What-“y*ou-p*eop*le”-are-doing-is-us*ing-pro*pag&anda;-to defend-
YOUR-use-of-pro*paga*nda-for-pro*paga*ndistic- purpose-of-
di*v*iding-them, -the-ma*sses,-from-us,-the “se*le*ct-
fe*w”-,-so-that-they,-the-ma*sses,-can-be-con*trol*led for-
our- benefit,-the-benefit-of-the-“se*le*ct-f*ew.”-

The-pro*of-of-what-I-say-is-in-the-posts-that-yo*u-pe*ople
-have-made-on-this-Truthdig-forum.—If-you-have-an-explanation-for-
YOUR-reprehensible-behavior-,-I-would-be-interested-in—hearing-
what-it-is-. 

Yo*u-pe*op*le-should-be-as*hamed-of-yourselves-and- what-
YOU-are-doing,-but-I-know-that-you-are-not,-because- yo*u-
pe&o*ple- think-that-you-are-representative-of-the- “se*le*ct-
f*ew-,”-that-you-are-the-beneficiaries-of--“Tr*ium*phant-
Ex*cep&tio;*nali*sm”--and-that-you-are-exempt-from-the-
consequences-of-your-behavior-,-because-you-are-part-of-a sp*e*cial-
fraternity-,-the-“se*le*ct-f"ew-,”———You-are-“WRONG,”- and-you-are-
“NOT-EXEMPT!!!”

Shenonymous,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

con*trol*led for-
our- benefit,-the-benefit-of-the-“se*le*ct-f*ew.”-

The-pro*of-of-what-I-say-is-in-the-posts-that-yo*u-pe*ople
-have-made-on-this-Truthdig-forum.—If-you-have-an-explanation-for-
YOUR-reprehensible-behavior-,-I-would-be-interested-in—hearing-
what-it-is-. 

Yo*u-pe*op*le-should-be-as*hamed-of-yourselves-and- what-
YOU-are-doing,-but-I-know-that-you-are-not,-because- yo*u-
pe&o*ple- think-that-you-are-representative-of-the- “se*le*ct-
f*ew-,”-that-you-are-the-beneficiaries-of--“Tr*ium*phant-
Ex*cep&tio;*nali*sm”--and-that-you-are-exempt-from-the-
consequences-of-your-behavior-,-because-you-are-part-of-a sp*e*cial-
fraternity-,-the-“se*le*ct-f"ew-,”———You-are-“WRONG,”- and-you-are-
“NOT-EXEMPT!!!”

Shenonymous,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

Them, the masses, and us, the “select few” is a
binary frame of propaganda.

Shenonymous,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

So, ———“Simple Terms” as undefined propaganda that
cannot be structured as an example is, according to you, “the
course in which Liberals ought to be committed.”  This is the
propagandistic claim that you have made on this Truthdig forum,
and strangely this is what all of the other posters on the “This Is
What Resistance Looks Like” and “Electronic Brownshirts” threads
are supporting; I am the only one standing against
propagandizing the masses and “you people’s” claims that
the masses cannot have information meant for the “select
few.” They, the masses, cannot have the same
information that we do, “you people’s” claim, because
they might use it against us, and there are too
many of them, this is what “you people” have said and
continue to say in both fact and intent.

John Best
I last commented on this thread on June 15th.  What MarthA has posted is monotonous, repetitive, and rambling.  Someone paying a price (time) usually excepts to get something of value.  I fail to see any value in her ramblings.  But any exchanges of sincere ideas is worthy of much labor.  What have I done in the past politically, you ask?

I have advocated forming a Consolidated Third Party so that such a party could have real clout.  I contacted many of the 135 or so Third Parties beginning back in 2003 suggesting that as long as the Independent Parties don’t join together in common cause, nothing will ever happen to dislodge the corrupt Special Interest of the two Headed Washington Monster.

What I suggested over those years to the Independents was the following:

A methodology to create a Unified Coalition of Independent Parties that could challenge the might of the combined cesspool now occupying Washington.

A Methodology for the common man to assert himself as the AUTHORITY in charge of the resultant Government and to continuously maintain that position.

A Methodology to force ethical and moral government by utilizing an Ombudsman Group to monitor our Government’s performance to ethical and moral standards.

A Methodology to insure that the voice of the common man is equal to or superior to the Rich and Powerful voice.

A Methodology to constrain the influence of Foreign Nations on our Government.

A Methodology to return to Moral and Ethical Governance.

Nothing that I have penned can occur until the people of America as a unified force decide they will no longer allow themselves to be manipulated, their freedoms to be shackled, or their American Dream to be compromised, by those who would use common man as their beast of burden.

The common man has to make that decision and then act on that decision.

The Decision is Resistance and the Act is Resistance.

The desire and willpower to start it and to see it through has to be within us if we are to succeed. 

We need to do this for a future that many of us will not live to see, our faith needs to be that our children and theirs will be the benefactors of our sacrifice.

The Good Society is best known for how the most powerful of the Society is a good Samaritan of the least of the Society.  I am my brothers keeper.

It is funny how much alike are the mortal enemies.  One calls us
cicadas, the other calls us clowns.  Maybe we are just clowning
cicadas!  Yipieeeee!  Buzzzzz buzzzzzzz buzzzzzz LOL

John Best

I get the feeling you’re serving my with a cease and desist.  OK, I’ll try.

Not at all John, only suggesting that the threads might be more conducive to real conversations, that real issues might be actually discussed as well, if we leave off responding to an obviously useless presence here.

Just an opinion.

Shenonymous,

“I believe most people don’t know they are
being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the
ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple
terms they can understand is the course in
which liberals ought to be committed.  This is my
agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July 1 at
9:07 am

As you know, the Hard Right/Lite Right
duopolistic circus is composed of the
following acts and more:

Main Act

Side Show

Clown Act

Dog and Pony Show

Inquiring minds want to know, what does the
Hard Right/Lite Right Ringmaster have to
present for the next act now that you and the
main actors have run your course?

One Clown Act, ardee, is not sufficient to
maintain the Hard Right/Lite Right Circus.

What is the next act to be?

Will there be a next act in the Hard Right/Lite
Right Circus? Or, will the Hard Right/Lite
Right Circus fold up its tent and move on to
a new forum?

Everyone watching the Truthdig forum,
Shenonymous, is focusing in on how you
propose to inform the ignorant public that they
are being propagandized, in simple terms they
can understand, that is more simple than
propaganda defined as “binary emotional
rhetoric,” that is, as you say, “the course in
which Liberals ought to be committed.”  Why
would you think that such a claim is not clownish?

Talk to the Ringmaster, that used to be
OzarkMichael, get your act together if
the circus is going to stay in town; the show
must go on if you and the Hard Right/Lite
Right Circus are not folding up your circus
tent to move on to a new forum.

How is it that unspecified and undefined
“simple terms,” that cannot be
formulated into an example can be simple?
——and, if a term cannot be specified and
defined, how can that term be, in fact, a
term?

We must get to the bottom of “you people’s”
so called “simple terms” and until we do so,
it must be assumed that everything “you people”
say amounts to the same clownish value as that
of YOUR “simple terms”——amorphous
propagandistic nonsense that has no value,
worthless blather that is nothing more than a
device of propaganda.

“Simple terms” is an EXAMPLE of
“virtue words” a device of propaganda that
is used to make us accept and approve the thing
without examining the evidence; this is Type 2
Propaganda that is named “Glittering
Generality” according to “The Fine Art of
Propaganda, A Study of Father Coughlin’s
Speeches” by The Institute For Propaganda
Analysis.

John Best, July 2 at 6:27 pm,

“I believe most people don’t know they are
being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the
ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple
terms they can understand is the course in
which liberals ought to be committed.  This is my
agenda ....” —By Shenonymous, July 1 at
9:07 am

I provided all of the EXAMPLES “you people” asked for and “you people” are providing NOTHING.

If “you people” have “simple terms” trot them out.

Why would “you people” make such an issue of “simple terms” and then get busy back pedalling when the time comes to pony up YOUR EXAMPLES of those “simple terms” ... “the course in which Liberals ought to be committed.”

Again, I say to all of “you people,” trot out your more
“simple terms,” so that we can all have a look at them and see
how simple they really are in comparison to binary emotional
rhetoric as a definition of propaganda.

Trotting out a Dog and Pony Show without the “simple terms” is
an evasion , most likely due to the fact that the so called “simple
terms” do not exist.

Do the “simple terms” “you people” espouse exist or not?——
Inquiring minds want to know; I think not, try to prove me wrong if
you can.

She: your comment reminded me of a Beatles song, “The Fool on the Hill”  I’ve stopped reading the crap.  Again. 

Night Gaunt: Tar baby gambit…..I like that.  I think you might enhance it a bit….“tar baby with poison pustules”?  Too wordy?

Mr. Ardee, (since we’re in a formal mood today)

I get the feeling you’re serving my with a cease and desist.  OK, I’ll try. 

Apologies for getting the ThomasMartha fired up, but I saw a pathology that is new to me.  I’ve extracted all I think I can and learned something, I think.  Sadly,  Shenonymous, Anarchissie, Night Gaunt, Gary, Cliff, and yourself have all paid the price.

The consolation is that between the ThomasG/MarthA gripe sessions, there were some good comments, and I think a few interesting articles were linked, so alls well that ends well.

But is it over?  A question was asked some time ago, what is to be done?  I’m speaking of the various complaints we’ve voiced here aside from complaints about ThomasG/MarthA.  I think the potential for ‘Resistance’ is enormous.  There are ideas out there.  Let me ask, just as a curiosity, and certainly not infering anything at all, what sorts of political activities do you do?  I’ve been thinking of hosting a MoveOn open house, but it’s a pretty partisan group.  I’ll crank out a letter to the editor on occasion, but that’s ‘done and gone’.  Very unsatisfying.

Shenonymous, July 2 at 3:24 pm,

I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they can
understand is the course in which liberals ought to be committed. 
This is my agenda ....”—By Shenonymous, July 1 at 9:07 am

Something wrong with this picture, YOU say “simple terms” is
YOUR agenda.  Simple terms is also my agenda, but as you say in
the above quote you are committed to a more simple term
agenda, and this is something I am interested in. So please carry
on with the more simple agenda.  Maybe I just thought that only
three words were the most simple, I am willing to learn.

I have provided all of the propaganda EXAMPLES that you
requested, I didn’t want to, but I did, so there is no reason to
keep requesting EXAMPLES of propaganda looking for facts as
facts have a tendency not to show up in propaganda. 

It appears you are trying to join the clowns in the Clown Show.

What name do you think I called you?  I did not call you a name at
all.  All I have made reference to is the Hard Right/Lite Right Circus
that you are obviously a part of, and that instead of providing the
“simple examples” you made reference to that we are going to be
subjected to a Clown Show.

What’s worse is that now you are saying, as I take your
comments, that you are joining the Clown Show, rather than to
engage in constructive liberal dialogue under the same terms that
you set, and I complied with.

This is NOT calling you names; this is making an observation that I
take seriously——being called a clown and being told that you are
acting like a clown is totally different.

I did not and am not calling you a clown——be very clear on that.

I am telling you outright that you and the rest of your Hard
Right/Lite Right Circus are acting like Circus performers and that
yours, ardee’s, and the rest of your circus’ performers’
behavior is clownish and circus like.

This brings to mind a story about my granddaughter when she
was a child in grade school and one of the kids in her class was
acting like a fool. My granddaughter told the kid that he was a fool
and the kid went to the teacher and told the teacher my
granddaughter was calling him names.  The teacher called my
granddaughter in and told her that she could not call the kid
names.  My granddaughter told the teacher that she had not
called the kid a name, that she had told the kid that he was a fool
and that the definition of a fool only meant that someone did not
know what was in their own best interest, at which point the
teacher told my granddaughter that the kid did not know what
was in his own best interest and that to tell the kid that he did not
know what was in his own best interest by way of definition as
the kid being a fool was not calling the kid a name, but stating a
fact, because the kid did not know what was in his own best
interest and was indeed a fool, and the matter of my
granddaughter calling the kid a fool was dismissed, because the
teacher determined in fact that the kid was indeed a fool. 

My granddaughter’s teacher determined that it was NOT name
calling to call a kid a fool that is indeed a fool, and it is not name
calling for me to tell you and others on this forum that you are
acting like circus performer and clowns, when indeed you are
acting like circus performers and clowns.

With regard to your acting like a clown in the Hard Right/Lite Right
Circus, my position is the same as my grand daughter’s position
with the kid that she called a fool and that is that it is not name
calling to state a fact.

MarthaA, you act such the fool. If anyone trots it is you onto
the pages of Truthdig with your long-winded hypothetical
conjectures and indictments.  Laconic would not describe any
post you have ever made.  You try to bait me into doing an
assignment that is yours and only yours. It is your wind-egg,
MarthaA. You show yourself to be lethargic and limp of mind,
MarthaA having devised a creed for yourself to boilerplate skimpy
ideas flowered up to look as if they are a bouquet in various and
copious posts that drearily populate the Truthdig forums.  Sorry, I
am not your lacky.  If your words are so simple, then demonstrate
with a simple example as has been requested a half dozen times now. 
Then we would have something to discuss.  It is obvious you are not up
to the task therefore your hypothesis falls flat.  And you are a teacher
of…nothing, therefore signifying…nothing.  I would advise that you
stop calling me names, MarthaA.

What ardee says about “the rest of us” harkens back to the old boiler room days on the Truthdig forum, as whatever an “ardee” is, says it was an “us and them” situation.

What those who follow this Truthdig forum need to know is, “WHO
the us is on the Truthdig forum” that suck up around the
nucleus of each other like the electrons in an atom and bind
together in elemental fashion——WHO is the us and
WHAT is the purpose that “We” serve and WHY
are “we” against “them” against
all logical and rational reason; WHAT is Our Agenda that
Our bad behavior on the Truthdig forum represents? 
WHAT purpose do “We” serve and for WHOM do
“we” serve?

From what has been said and done on this Truthdig forum, the
us, we, and our that is against “them”
is the Duopoly of the Hard Right and the Light Right
of the Republican/Democratic Party Duopoly standing against
the best interests of the 70% Majority Common Population of
the United States, the American Populace.

When the Main Act is over in the Circus, the Ringmaster sends in
the clowns; the first clown, ardee, has entered the ring
on Truthdig forum’s “This is what Resistance Looks Like” at the
present time, so it would appear that the Main Act is over, and we
are waiting now to see how many clowns enter the ring, how long
the Clown Show lasts before the beginning of the next “Main
Event” and whether or not there is a “Side Show” distraction.

In any event those of us who have a seat in the Truthdig “Big
Top” are waiting for the next “Main Event” being
entertained by the “Clown Show” and wondering about
what the “Side Show” will be; whatever happens, if
nothing else, it WILL BE entertaining and serve the purpose of
distracting attention from Shenonymous trotting out her
“simple terms” in EXAMPLES, as I have done with
sophism, dialectic, and propaganda, so that we can all be taught
and educated by Shenonymous as a teacher of Critical
Thinking on HOW her “simple terms” are in fact
more simple than binary emotional rhetoric as a three (3)
word definition of propaganda, that can be used by the masses for
simple and effective propaganda analysis.

Mr. Best

You strew rose petals in the path of a train wreck I think. Your characterization of the posts of that singularity, Martha/Thomas as “F_ing brilliant. It’s propaganda camouflaged.”, admits to a certain effectiveness that I fail to see, frankly.

In fact there are only a small coterie of responders to h/her crap and I cannot help but wish these few would follow the example of most of the rest of us and ignore h/her until, frustrated by the lack of attention, h/she wanders off to crayon the nursery wall or some other such pastime as befits this disturbed personality.

Shenonymous, July 1 at 9:07 am, Shenonymous,
July 1 at 10:13 am,

“I find continuing the argument about BER
useless and a real waste of time.  Focusing
on how to inform the ignorant public that they
are being propagandized in SIMPLE TERMS THEY
CAN UNDERSTAND IS THE COURSE IN WHICH
LIBERALS OUGHT TO BE COMMITTED.  This is
my agenda so I’m bowing out of this discussion
to make better use of my time.  If there are more
fruitful things to discuss then count me back in.
—Shenonymous, July 1 at 9:07 am

You have lost the whole point of defining
propaganda as binary emotional
rhetoric, which is intended by me as a simple
uncomplicated definition that can enable the
masses to engage in propaganda
analysis and be able to determine for
themselves whether or not they are being
propagandized.

YOU apparently want to be the gatekeeper and
have others be the gatekeepers who tell the
masses what is or is not propaganda.

What I want is for the masses of the American
Populace to be able to analyze linguistic content
for themselves and to know for themselves that
when they are given two binary emotional
choices and presented with a rhetorical device to
make one choice from the two given choices to
the exclusion of ALL OTHER CHOICES that they
are being propagandized.

So far, I have not found anyone incapable of
using “binary emotional rhetoric” as a standard
of definition that enables them to effectively
isolate and identify the constituent parts of
propaganda in language.

Get Real, Shenonymous— What could
be more simple than three (3) words as a
definition of propaganda that will enable ANYONE
with the ability to know and understand those
three (3) words, binary emotional
rhetoric, to analyze language, to isolate and
identify the constituent parts of language
content, to determine whether or not language is
propaganda?

You say “Focusing on how to inform the
ignorant public that they are being
propagandized in simple terms they can
understand is the course in which Liberals ought
to be committed.” ——— What is it that you
think the “simple terms” are,
that are more simple than three (3) words,
“binary emotional rhetoric” that I have
given as a definition of propaganda, that can be
used by the masses for propaganda
analysis?

Explain to me with EXAMPLES, as I have done for
YOU, what the simplicity is of YOUR
“simple terms,” so that we can
evaluate whether or not YOUR “simple
terms” really are more simple than
“binary emotional rhetoric” as a three
(3) word definition of propaganda.

I have provided all of the examples of sophist
and dialectical propaganda that YOU and others
on Truthdig forum have asked that I provide;
and, now that I have done so, are YOU and YOUR
supporters on this Truthdig forum going to just
run away and hide, rather than to provide me
with examples of what the “simple terms
they can understand” that is, as YOU
say, “the course in which Liberals ought
to be committed.” is?  ———I am very
much interested in examples of what YOUR
“simple terms” are that the
masses, “they can understand”
that is, as YOU say “the course which
Liberals ought to be committed.”

Trot out YOUR “simple terms” in
EXAMPLES, as I have done with SOPHISM,
DIALECTIC, and PROPAGANDA, so that we can all
be taught and educated by YOU on how YOUR
“simple terms” are more simple
than binary emotional rhetoric as a
three (3) word definition of propaganda.  Or, run
away and hide by, as you say, “bowing
out” of the discussion.

We can only hope that MarthaA/ThomasG Miller never learn the lessons being taught here. We don’t want them to be better at their wares. Remember the Tar Baby Gambit? They are experts at it.

Shenonymous,  I think I’ve got them pegged here July 1 at 10:31 am on the Electronic Brownshirts article.

They have a two-pronged attack that is actually quite brilliant in ti’s ability to spew propaganda, whilst retaining plausible deniability.  Should anyone complain, he/she merely shrugs and says, “I was merely providing examples”.  But look at them!  Surely in your circles there is a method for tallying sentences by type based on the sort of person who would grasp any given sentence.  The percent content which is of the classification “vile neo-con rhetoric” easily graspable by “Joe Sixpack” is quite high. 

And there it is. 

Now look at the remaining sentence types…..mumbldy-glop for those of us who are trying to give him/her a fair hearing. 

I am way away from any area here where I am competent, but think how OzarkMichael would read through that last MArthA post of July 1 at 12:12 am.  Remember Peanuts, how Charlie Brown hear his parents?  That’s how OM and others read MArthA’s post, except for the phrases and concepts which are the dogma of their ever-reinforced ideology.

blah, blah, blah TALKING POINT, blah blah, blah, blah TALKING POINT, blah, blah, blah TALKING POINT, TALKING POINT, TALKING POINT, blah, blah, blah TALKING POINT. 

We get caught up in all the blah-blah, which is indeed nonsense, and ThomasG/MarthA Miller get away with spewing sewage and retain plausible deniability!

F_ing brilliant. It’s propaganda camouflaged.

Screech all you want MarthaA, it is still screeching.  It is doubtful
you can give grades to anyone (that is, make judgments) without
being able to give extant examples of your own hypothesis.  It will
remain hypothetical until you provide examples instead of
screeching at me.  Your shrill effort to berate me and belittle my
valid questions only undermines your entire exertion at persuading
others of your views.  It is obvious from all the other’s comments. 
Your alleged examples are metaexamples and I said why they were
metaexamples in a prior post and I do not intend to repeat myself as
you are wont to do.  You could never be my superior as a teacher as
you are quite unqualified.  You can question my ability all you want
that does not make you qualified.  You are not able to make the fine
distinctions that was asked of you.  You make all kinds of accusations
about all kinds and various political views, without saying who
represents the infractions.  That says there are none and thus you are
left with only your opinion.  It is you who are unqualified to judge
anyone who has been participating in this discussion.  Your smoke
screen screeching is a useless and unconvincing piece of diatribe.  It is
your hypothesis and therefore your case to make.

MarthA, under cover of ‘discussion’ about a red-herring topic, BER, states Liberals are at fault for the 2008 collapse? 

First, the terms liberal and conservative have been so bastardized as to be worthless, but let’s just say ‘Socialists’ vs ‘Neo-con free marketeers’ if all you will manage is to frame the world in two pieces

Lump me in with the socialists if you must do the simple ‘friend-foe’ analysis that lets you attack people instead of their ideas.  If favoring civility, if favoring society which strives for improving itself, if favoring charity toward those who truly cannot help themselves lumps me with the ‘socialists’, so be it.

But it is not the ‘Socialists’ who are at fault for undermining the currency on which Socialist and neo-con both depend.  It is the neo-cons, who are practically identical to ‘free marketeers’.

Alan Greenspan might have at one time been called a Liberal.  Had the term liberal not been completely turned on it’s head.  At one time, Liberals favored Laisse Faire economics.  No longer is this the case.  It is the radical ‘free-marketeer neo-cons’ who favor Laisse Faire economics, and who hypocritically, do everything they can to rig markets instead of making them fair.

As if we need proof….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bX_vhojH8c&feature=related
There is a nice series of youtube videos of the Waxman/Greenspan interview.

Shenonymous, July 1 at 8:01 am,

“I must remind you MarthaA in Part I you are making only observations
and have not provided extant examples.  Part I merely states what is
already known by any conscious citizen.” Shenonymous, July 1 at 8:01 am

“If the US has “strayed” away from Community interests I expect to see
an example of that, just as the example of Credit Unions counteracts
the notion of “strayed.”  And more and more community projects are
being created and are underdevelopment as we lounge here on the
forum.”—Shenonymous, July 1 at 8:01 am

“You claim this nation is divided, polarized, then show that it is.
Perhaps the population is conflicted, but you have not shown that.  The
only ones who attempt to show it , and weakly, are pundits, news
media pontificators and politicians who superficially speak for the entire
population. 

I do not have a problem with your philosophical distinction between
Liberals and Conservatives, but how these descriptions are actualized in
the reality of our lives is not shown. —Shenonymous, July 1 at 8:01 am

YOU are trying to pedantically parse EXAMPLES of propaganda that were provided at YOUR request as EXAMPLES of how propaganda and dialectic is used in propaganda; GET REAL!!!!!!! ——The EXAMPLES given ARE PROPAGANDA and as PROPAGANDA you are whining about content; HOW FUNNY IS THAT?—— Coming from someone who says she teaches Critical Thinking.

I suggest that YOU focus in on the EXAMPLES that I posted AS EXAMPLES of PROPAGANDA, and what an EXAMPLE of positively and negatively balanced propaganda IS; EXAMPLES are what YOU PEOPLE were whining about and when YOU are provided with EXAMPLES YOU want to change from discussing the EXAMPLES as examples of propaganda to pedantically parsing the content of the examples given as if they are something other than EXAMPLES of propaganda.

I gave you EXAMPLES of what propaganda is and an EXAMPLE of positively and negatively balanced dialectic as propaganda; FOCUS in on the EXAMPLES of propaganda that I have give you as PROPAGANDA, rather than the content of the EXAMPLES of propaganda.

YOU are always talking about giving grades.  If I was YOUR superior as a teacher of Critical Thinking and YOU coud not focus in upon the Process of Critical Thinking, rather than the CONTENT of what is submitted for analysis by critical thinking, I would question YOUR ability to be teaching “Critical Thinking.”

I suggest that YOU focus in upon Propaganda Analysis and what a Model of Logical Dialectic that is NOT propaganda is, in this case the propaganda models that have been provided by me to you at YOUR request, and that YOU not stray off, trying to get lost in the weeds of the content of the EXAMPLES of Propaganda that I have given to you as EXAMPLES.

A reasonable question is how many of the American populace can
use whatever is the definition binary emotional rhetoric to see what
is happening to them?  Is that what they do when they figure out
what propaganda is being used?  And do they do this as a rule or
as an exception?  I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  Else how can the Republicans keep getting away with the
poison they are feeding the public? 

I find continuing the argument about BER useless and a real waste
of time.  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public that they
are being propagandized in simple terms they can understand is the
course in which liberals ought to be committed.  This is my agenda so
I’m bowing out of this discussion to make better use of my time.  If
there are more fruitful things to discuss then count me back in.

John Best, July 1 at 8:16 am,

Your cure, BER, is poison to the ocular nerve. —John Best, July 1 at 8:16 am

For you as a propagandist maybe, but not for everyone else in the American Populace that can use the definition “binary emotional rhetoric” to decipher the propaganda that you and others like you spread.

Thamas G Miller, via Martha Ann Miller says: “I keep saying over, and over and over again that binary emotional rhetoric IS a definition and that that definition is a definition made to enable propaganda analysis by the masses, so that Joe Six Pack….........”

And yes, that is the problem….  You offer yourself as a doctor to cure ‘the common man’s’ blindness, and you are indeed a Dr., name of Goebbels.  Your cure, BER, is poison to the ocular nerve.

As I’ve formulated before, words are tools that can be used for
unending purposes and are carriers of meaning that have the
feature of ferrying emotion, indifference, or complete apathy. 
These are three mental states that can be conveyed through the
power of words, that is the written word, such a we have here on
the forums.  But in face-to-face confrontation, words have an
accomplice, gesture and expression of tonality.  Putting tonality
into the written word is an art. 

I must remind you MarthaA in Part I you are making only observations
and have not provided extant examples.  Part I merely states what is
already known by any conscious citizen. 

If the US has “strayed” away from Community interests I expect to see
an example of that, just as the example of Credit Unions counteracts
the notion of “strayed.”  And more and more community projects are
being created and are underdevelopment as we lounge here on the
forum. 

I agree that our nation has become polarized, as witnessed by (which
you fail to provide, so I will), the impasse in Congress of taking care of
the national debt.  More evidence is provided by listing what each
politician says and does with legislation, how the vote.  You speak of
Community Interests but do not say what those interests are exactly.
This unspecificity is what concerns me in every post made by who I call
The Pontificators.  As if their saying a thing makes it so!  How utterly
wrong!  And conceited!  I want to know exactly what are Liberal
Interests, what are Commercial Interests, and what are Conservative
Interests, not some pronouncements that they are, but what they are!

You claim this nation is divided, polarized, then show that it is. 
Perhaps the population is conflicted, but you have not shown that.  The
only ones who attempt to show it , and weakly, are pundits, news
media pontificators and politicians who superficially speak for the entire
population. 

I do not have a problem with your philosophical distinction between
Liberals and Conservatives, but how these descriptions are actualized in
the reality of our lives is not shown.  You leave too much up to the
imagination and thereby commit fallacies up and down the yingyang.
The way you have outlined one position’s relative view of the other does
have a ring of verisimilitude but that is all it has.  It sounds like the
truth but you have not been specific enough to put an actual raiment of
truth on these views.  If the Conservatives accuse Liberals of the Sept.
18, 2008 collapse of the US economy, say who in the band of
Conservatives have made the accusation.  You only give a general
overview of what is the “apparent” attitude of conservatives of liberals. 
The same with the positive balanced dialectic, and the logic the you
script as the Conservative device.  Perhaps you are right, but you need
to be absolutely specific in your claims.  You only think you are being
thorough, but MarthaA, you are not.  I realize only too well how
egotistical egocentric thinkers become when in fact they have only half-
assedly dealt with a problem they see but only see dimly.  I am afraid
you will not see into what I am saying.

John Best, July 1 at 6:50 am,

“You attempted to substitute BER [binary emotional rhetoric] as THE definition for the word ‘Propaganda’, as previously cited in your Wikipedia comments.  So your claim to offer it merely as an analytical tool is questionable.” John Best, July 1 at 6:50 am

I keep saying over, and over and over again that binary emotional rhetoric IS a definition and that that definition is a definition made to enable propaganda analysis by the masses, so that Joe Six Pack along with everyone else in the 70% Majority Common Population, the American Populace that I represent, can determine for themselves whether or not they are only being given two emotional choices and whether or not specific language used as a rhetorical device is being used to lead them to accept one of the two choices given to the exclusion of all other choices.

Lets be clear, I did not “attempt to substituted binary emotional rhetoric as the definition” of propaganda; I, as I keep saying over and over and over and over again that “binary emotional rhetoric” IS the definition of propaganda and that the definition of propaganda as being binary emotional rhetoric is a definition to be used for the purpose of “propaganda analysis”.

What was that Guelzo thing?  Who is it intended for?  The “name dropping as citations” technique is interesting…..it both puts the reader in a defensive position, whilc saying ‘welcome to the club’.  By this I mean, this particular reader, me, felt as if I should be intimately familiar with the authors cited, as their works and conclusions are so well known (in the circles of readers) as to not require mention.  So, by writing to a most academic club, the author retains reader interest for morsels of truth which might surely follow such a great man among great minds. 

Well, the overall effect of Guelzo’s tactic seems to be to repeat the notion that there is an ‘American mind’.  It’s backhanded and is a cleverly inverted compliment to ‘manifest destiny’ narrative, which itself is a perversion.   

And the final thought….“And that’s why the history of America in the Age of Obama, and beyond, will continue to be a clash of ideas.”  Lulls us into complacency that indeed this culture war is merely fought on the gentile battlefield of old, the field of ideas, where gentlemen fight honorably, where non-combatants, women, children, the old and infirm are not savaged.  That this impression, ‘a war of ideas’ is untrue.  The ultimate enforcement of codified policies which ‘trickle down’ from such rhetoric throws students into debt, removes ladders by which children can escape ignorance, poverty and disease, and dissolves the dignity and expectations of all citizens who had worked toward a simple fair American dream. 

Though it is arcane, the article supports critical girders of an ideological framework into which every potential soldier for the cause of a fuedal empire can fit. 

The arguments to define ‘propaganda’ as BER are similarly arcane and arguably as insidious.

Binary Emotional Rhetoric - Propaganda - EXAMPLE I:

Conservatives are patriots to the United States because it is the best country in the world, the most preeminent democracy in the world that has the best economic system in the history of the world, Privatized Capitalism, and the Free Market System.

Liberals are all unpatriotic Godless Communists and socialist subversives that are plotting against America, want to destroy America and throw the world into economic and political chaos.

This is an EXAMPLE of “Glittering Generality” which is used to associate Conservatives and Liberals with virtue words “the best country in the world” based upon a binary choice between Liberals and Conservatives, the former who are trying to destroy the USA and the Conservatives, the latter, who are patriots defending the USA.

The virtue words, “the best country in the world” are used to make us accept Conservatives as patriots without examining the evidence.  The use of “virtue words” is the rhetorical device that leads to a conclusion that Conservatives are patriots because they support “the best country in the world” and because Liberals are trying to destroy “the best country in the world” they are unpatriotic—— This is an EXAMPLE of PROPAGANDA——binary emotional rhetoric.

***********

Binary Emotional Rhetoric - Propaganda - EXAMPLE II:

Liberals are lazy, uneducated, unpatriotic, mean, vile, and vulgar people who want to be taken care of by the government and live on welfare, rather than work for a living like good productive Conservatives that have worked hard to get an education and make the United States the beacon of democratic civilization and both the industrial and commercial success that the United States is in the world today.

This is an EXAMPLE of “Name Calling” which is used to reject and condemn based upon a binary emotional choice between Liberals and Conservatives with rhetoric to lead to a conclusion to reject and condemn Liberals and to accept and glorify Conservatives.

The binary emotional choice to be made is between Liberals and Conservatives.  The use of “Name Calling” is a rhetorical device that leads to a conclusion to reject and condemn Liberals and to accept and glorify Conservatives. ——— This is an EXAMPLE of PROPAGANDA———binary emotional rhetoric.

Shenonymous, June 30 at 4:53 pm ,

“The entire essay, then, where Emerson comments on the conservative
perspective of happiness and the quintessence of life, then, is an
example of binary (dichotomous) rhetoric.  But we have to ask, as
beautifully put as it was, in what way is rhetoric being used inasmuch
as the entire essay is rhetorical, not factual with factual references?  It
is all conjecture based on personal observations but opinion
nonetheless.  There are few I would grant heroic status to, he is one of
them, but he presented philosophy not science, not fact. —Shenonymous, June 30 at 4:53 pm

Emerson’s essay, “The Conservative” was posted as an “EXAMPLE” of how dialectic is “USED”.

My post of June 29 at 5:00 pm was never meant to be an example of historic events that could be pedantically parsed, and YOU know that, so why comment to that effect?

My post of June 29 at 5:00 pm was meant to impart “UNDERSTANDING”, an EXAMPLE of what DIALECTIC IS, to impart UNDERSTANDING to people who have been acting as if they are unbelievably “OBTUSE,” while at the same time wanting to be given deference based upon their education and enlightenment of understanding as educated people.

For me, undeserved deference is something that I do not feel comfortable with, because undeserved deference is down there at the base of the problem with linguistics that has taken our nation and its people, along with the rest of the World, into the societal and economic difficulty that presently exists.

You attempted to substitute BER as THE definition for the word ‘Propaganda’, as previously cited in your Wikipedia comments.  So your claim to offer it merely as an analytical tool is questionable.

In any case, I step back from the paragraph by paragraph bludgeoning in the post below, to be simply that, a beating into submission by shear, consistent , uncaring repetition of that which you would force and coerce the reader to accept, that the intricacies of our society can be framed in this ridiculous bi-polar binary rhetoric. 

The entire construct serves as a shield, a disconnect, a surrogate behind which you can repeat nasty playground-level neo-con remarks behind the guise of an academic argument, said argument claimed to be merely an ‘analytical tool’.  In reality, the entire notion and discussion of BER is serving you quite nicely as a propaganda delivery tool. 

Part I, by extreme repetition lulls the reader to accept the notion of a two choice situation, preparing the reader to make a choice, the choice to follow in parts II and III.

In parts II and III the particular remarks you chose are examples of extremist divisive political dogma.  Coincidence?  Merely for illustration?  You stand behind the veil of plausible deniability.  But the effect, a binary choice has been established, and the unwary reader may, in a state of beaten exhaustion, capitulate to believe the overall goal of the propaganda and choose your particular singularity, the true over the false. 

All of this could pass as merely academic squabbling, and your choices merely examples, not intended to carry particularly influential power outside this forum, however, I charge that you do have ulterior motives, and repeat that you attempted to substitute BER as THE definition for the word ‘Propaganda’, as previously cited in your Wikipedia comments.  So your claim to offer it merely as an analytical tool is questionable to say the least. 

Looking at another aspect of the ThomasG/MarthA case we see the fanatics tactic of repetition.  Eventually, the susceptible reader/listener will give in.  The reader may not be convinced, but they may simply go away.  Either case is a win for the fanatic propagandist.

John Best, June 30 at 11:17 am,

Propaganda defined as binary emotional rhetoric, as I keep saying over and over and over again, is a definition used for Propaganda Analysis; if ALL THREE attributes of propaganda are found to be a part of linguistic structure, the language in question is PROPAGANDA.

Why is it that this is so difficult for you people to grasp that this is so?

Shenonymous, June 29 at 5:56 pm,

Page 1 of 2

***Dialectic EXAMPLES of Propaganda—Part I ***

Example of Both Positively and Negatively Balanced Dialectic Used as Logic to Unite:

A successful nation is made up of more than polarized self serving Private Interests.  A nation to be successful depends upon communal assets of infrastructure, stable domestic markets for the products of its economy, a stable workforce to provide labor for its economy and stable communities as a tax base to provide the resources to serve Community Interests. 

A nation is made up of communities and of Community Interests as well as Private Commercial Economic Interests.

The United States as a nation has strayed away from Community Interests that provide stability of infrastructure, domestic markets, domestic work force; strayed away in general from domestic Communal Interests of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with freedom and justice for Community Interests in favor of the pursuit of Commercial Interests of life, liberty, and happiness with freedom and justice for Commercial Interests at the expense of Community Interests of the nation as a whole.

The United States has become a Polarized Nation that has a conflict of interest between Community Interests, Liberal Interests, and Commercial Interests, Conservative Interests.

The United States is a Polarized Nation, a nation divided between Liberal Interests and Conservative Interests, a nation that is no longer united for the Common Good of both Public Interests and Private Interests.

The population that make up the United States, as a people, are a conflicted people, conflicted between the Liberal Interests of Community and the Special Interests of Conservatism.

Liberal and Conservative is a very old concept that has been called by different names over the ages that go all of the way back to myths of creation and chaos.

The Conservative position is that of a stand against Chaos by conserving the established order, and the Liberal position is that of Progressive Creation of New Order that is in service to Community Interests; Conservatives seek to Conserve Order that is in service to Private Interests; Liberals seek to Create a better and more useful New Order that serves Community Interests.

Here in the United States the Established Order of Commercial Interests seek to Conserve the existing structure of an Established Order to maintain certainty and benefit for Commercial Interests and serve Private Interests to a greater degree than Community Interests; this is the Conservative perspective.

The Liberal perspective is one of Community Interests, Creative Interests for community benefit that conflicts with Private Conservative Certainty of Established Order benefit and certainty for Private Interests.

The United States, at the present time at the beginning of the 21st Century, is a Polarized and Fractured Nation.

There is a Natural Unity between the interests of Creativity and Conservatism, and when that unity is NOT fractured into Special Interests and polarized into Self Serving Interests separate and apart from the unity of interest between Creative Liberal Interests and Conservation of Advantage and Benefit that are Conservative Interests, the Greater Good of both Liberals and Conservatives have been, can be, and will be served in the past, present, and future.

As a nation all of the people of our nation, both Liberal and Conservative must learn to recognize Common Interests and Common Benefit that unite Liberals and Conservatives, rather than polarize and divide Liberals and Conservatives into divisive Special Interests, because we cannot continue as a nation divided, as a nation of Polarized Special Interests that are not united. 
(cont.)

Shenonymous, June 29 at 5:56 pm,

Dialectic EXAMPLES of Propaganda—Part I (cont.)

Page 2 of 2

We must strive to become what the name of our nation defines our nation to be, “The United States of America,” united for the Greater Good of both Liberals and Conservatives, rather than united for the Greater Greed of Special Interests that polarize and divide our nation in service to their own greedy Private Interests.

*******************************

***Dialectic EXAMPLES of Propaganda—Part II ***

Negative Balanced Dialectic Used as Logic to Accuse, Condemn, Denounce, and Kill:

At the present time here in the United States there is work available for all who want to work but Liberals do not want to work, they want a handout, instead of a hand up, and they will lay around and take welfare, rather than take honest work when it is available; this is the problem that has destroyed the United States as a nation, and until the Godless Liberals who are lazy slackers that want a hand out, rather than a hand up are dealt with the United States as a nation will continue to descend into a state of moral decay that pulls good Conservatives, that are doing everything that is humanly conceivable to do to save the country, from going down into the abyss of the lazy degenerate Liberals.

Proof of the Liberal problem is the September 18, 2008 Collapse of the U.S. Economy that was brought about by the Liberals and their Godless, lazy, self serving policies and practices from the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the present that has destroyed our country, the United States, and if we do not do something to solve the problem, a final solution, we who are the good people, the Conservatives, are going to have to live in the Godless, degenerate Communist and Socialist deprivation of the Liberals, because they are against God and God’s Will of a Free Market Economy and they will never change from wanting a hand out, rather than a hand up at our expense, and rather than from working and earning their way in a Free Market Economy as we, the good people, the Conservatives do.

******************************

***Dialectic EXAMPLES of Propaganda—Part III ***

Positive Balanced Dialectic Used as Logic to Glorify:

The United States is the best nation in the world and Privatized Capitalism and the Free Market Economy is the best system in the world, because it gives all who want to work employment and the highest standard of living in the world; Conservatives have worked from the time of the American Revolution to make commercial opportunity, educational opportunity, and opportunity for all who want to work a reality of day to day life in the Free Market Economy of the United States, but the Godless Liberals, the Liberal slackers who want welfare, rather than to do an honest days work for an honest day’s pay are destroying everything we have worked for in the United States from the time of the American Revolution to the present, a period of 235 years, and what happened on September 18, 2008, the collapse of the U.S Economy was created by Godless Liberals who want welfare, rather than to do an honest days work for an honest days pay is where Liberal policies and practices in the United States has taken our Great Nation.

We, the good people, the Conservatives, must do something, whatever it is necessary to do, to correct the abomination of the Liberal problem and effect a final solution, so that good people, the Conservatives, do not have to continue to suffer from Liberal policies and practices that destroy our way of life as a people and as a nation.

Lest anyone thinks I endorse and agree with Guelzo’s script,
I do not.  It was only offered it as a sobering counterexample
of conservative binary emotional rhetoric in the journalistic
field today that is an exaggeration and misconception of liberal
intelligence in the US and its history of excellent thinkers. He uses
examples that “seem” to give his thesis a cast of penetrating
astuteness about the state of the American mind.  It would take
some analysis to ferret out the fallacies he perpetrates.  Isn’t it
the essence of our task to expose this species of propaganda,
MarthaA?  Isn’t it?  It seems to me that finding such doublespeak,
showing it is doublespeak and then publishing that it is doublespeak
is what will inform the unsuspecting, oblivious masses especially those
who have the power of their vote to effect political change.  Should we
analyze this essay as practice?  Pragmatically speaking, that is.

I am going to let the ‘American Mind’ article sink in overnight.

My last comment on the Emerson article is that he was surely playing to an audience which he thought sought an overly-simplified dichotomous argument.  He mentions Saturn and Uranus, and surely he thought of Venus, Mars, the Earth, our Moon.  I really wonder if Emersons view was indeed binary, or more complex, and I suspect the latter, given his prose.

But the question was about his speech being BER, and we agree, OK, yes it is. But does that prove all propaganda is BER, and the example in no way proves that.

Sleep well All.

MarthaA – As an example of positively and negatively balanced
dialectic where is truth to be found in the Emerson essay?  For
what’s a good binary emotional rhetorical dichotomy for but to
discover truth?

John Best – ”The Emerson essay is an example of ‘us-them,
yes-no, buy-stay, true-false rhetoric.” In so many more words, yes
it is. 

The entire essay, then, where Emerson comments on the conservative
perspective of happiness and the quintessence of life, then, is an
example of binary (dichotomous) rhetoric.  But we have to ask, as
beautifully put as it was, in what way is rhetoric being used inasmuch
as the entire essay is rhetorical, not factual with factual references?  It
is all conjecture based on personal observations but opinion
nonetheless.  There are few I would grant heroic status to, he is one of
them, but he presented philosophy not science, not fact.

In his loveliest of language, and he was able to turn a divine phrase
and call on the oldest and best literature as muses, Emerson offers
descriptions of Conservatism and the reforming Innovators (I read these
folks as Liberals in today’s language, I may be wrong), where he
theorizes the State is divided, do we assume America the State?  He
gives a list of characteristics that define each of the polar positions. 
Neither group is pleasant nor paragons of integrity.  Has nothing
changed from the 19th century?  but they do represent different
landscapes.

He discussed it as a long standing argument (quarrel) in civil history. 
Setting the binaries of patrician and plebeian, of parent state and
colony, of old usage and accommodation to new facts, of the rich and
the poor, centripetal/centrifugal forces as it reappears in all countries
and for eternal times.  The two forces are universally abiding.  First one
side wins the dialectic, then the other.  The irreconcilable antagonisms
oscillate in their renewal of the “hot” new personalities.  Is this not
right?  The vital point Emerson makes is that each ideological position
“exposes the abuses of the other, but in a true society, in a true man,
both must combine.”  Is this the truth we are looking for?  But isn’t that
just conjecture?  Hypothesis?

Emerson wanted the myth of Uranus and Saturn to stand for the
Conservative and Radical opposition (where Radical is translatable into
Reformer, or Liberal, in order to fit today’s language).  Conservatism is
signified by a “certain meanness…and a certain superiority, belief in all
that has been made was made by God.”  I want to believe him when he
says conservativm goes for comfort, reformism for truth but gets
bloated in self-conceit. 

We have to remember that Emerson struggled with becoming a minister
in the “conservative” Unitarian church and that he optioned to resign
completely from the church and instead pursued a career of essayist
and lecturer.

But in the final analysis, in Emerson’s final sentence, we find that it is
with all possible hope that a Reformer would yet be born from the
congregation of Conservatives.  Quite unlike those who roam the halls
of Truthdig, he was optimistic.

To take a break and read something you might find interesting, check
out Is There an American Mind? at   http://tinyurl.com/quvk4t

Thanks for the link MarthA.
The Emerson essay is an example of ‘us-them, yes-no, buy-stay, true-false rhetoric.  It does not prove that all propaganda takes the ‘binary choice’ forms as exampled above. 

“Japan has more supercentarians* than any other nation.” 1.)  This is a fact, but if I include it in a presentation to simply boost Japans image, to inspire pro-Japan feelings, what is the binary choice? 

* people older than 110 years.
1.) http://mindcheese.com/wordpress/?p=578

I happen to be a fan of Emerson and have and read his writings
often.  I will most certainly check out the website you posted.
However, that suggestion and all the others noted in your last post
are metaexamples.  In other words, they are examples of where
examples might be found but are not examples themselves of BER.

It is your project and an example out of the texts you noted would
show you know what you are talking about.  Again, I do not intend
to do your work for you.  Just give an example of binary emotional
rhetoric as found in Mein Kampf, any glorification of the Right by
the Right, glorification of Capitalism by Capitalists, or glorification
of Corporate Democracy by Commercial interests.  Give an example of
negative dialectic of the condemnation of black people to enslave them,
or Native Americans, or an example of binary emotional rhetoric to
condemn the Irish during their potato famine (Jonathan Swift did write a
marvelous essay in defense of the Irish, you ought to be able to fine an
example where they were condemned, say… by the church would be a
good place to start.)  Or condemnation of communism by capitalism (as
an economic system how exactly does capitalism condemn anything,
BTW?), condemnation of The Left by The Right (there should be lots of
examples of that available!), and Liberals by Conservatives, (what
no condemnation of Conservatives by the Liberals? Surely it is going
both ways? Is that an insignificant distinction?), and finally last but not
nearly least, an example of the present condemnation of Socialism by
Captialism (same question as earlier about the isms not really being
able to lodge a condemnation, one would think it is the ists that could
do that, no?  As in a communist, a capitalist, etc.).

Dear ThomasM via MarthaA,

While I realize that you’re as thick as a brick when it comes to actually reading the words of anyone other than your chosen heros, it would behoove you to just once pay some small attention to what is being said to you here, if you wish to receive equal attention from those who you appear to be hell-bent to convince.

You were asked to present “...an example of positively and negatively balanced dialectic using current political concerns...”

Either you did not read the entire sentence, misunderstood the sentence, or chose to simply ignore the full content of the sentence.

Regardless, if you simply cannot use your concept to show an example, you are proving that your concept is unusable By You, and thus, very likely, unusable by everyone else, except possibly some rare few, like Hitler.

So either show us an example of your concept in action, produced by your own hand, pertinent to any of today’s political situations, or shut the fuck up.

Shenonymous, June 29 at 7:42 am,

“You next say…”we must
begin to use positively and negatively balanced dialectic that
represents truth…”  The rest of your post is a classic example of
your own described rhetoric since it does not give any examples.
Please give an example of positively and negatively balanced
dialectic using current political concerns.” —Shenonymous, June 29 at 7:42 am

“The Conservative” by Ralph Waldo Emerson is a really good example of positively and negatively balanced dialectic that I am particularly fond of; there is not much of a market for Emerson’s positively and negatively balanced dialectic these days, but it is an eternal example.

http://www.emersoncentral.com/conservative.htm

If you want examples of negatively balanced dialectic to accuse, condemn, denounce, and kill and positively balanced dialectic to glorify, my favorite place to find examples is in Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler.

Other examples of positive dialectic are the glorification of the Right by the Right, the glorification of Capitalism by Capitalists and the glorification of Corporate Democracy by Commercial interests.

Other examples of negative dialectic are the condemnation of black people to enslave them, condemnation of Native American people to deprive them of their sovereign status, the condemnation of the Irish during the Irish potato famine, more recently the condemnation of Communism by Capitalism, condemnation of The Left by The Right, condemnation of Liberals by Conservatives, and at present the condemnation of Socialism by Capitalism.

Thomas G Miller, via MarthA takes my comment out of context below and draws a self-serving conclusion. 
This is not a technique of very legitimate and beautiful content, logic and framework of the Enlightenment, or of reasoned discussion among reasonable adults.  Given the extreme nature of your distortion, I offer that you may be a fanatic.

Thomas G Miller, your history here at TruthDig indicates you are frustrated, rejected, and have not attained the status to which you feel entitled.  Apparently you have chosen to be a mole/troll, for some perceived or real group, and it fulfills your needs for belonging.  You feel as a part of a greater and noble group.  You feel your life has divine purpose.  Rest assured, you will be used as a pawn and will be rejected, spent.  You will never be good enough for the ‘inner circles’ of the Christian Nationalist movement due to your obvious social handicaps.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are right in your
first paragraph of June 29, 7am, MarthaA.  You next say…”we must
begin to use positively and negatively balanced dialectic that
represents truth…”  The rest of your post is a classic example of
your own described rhetoric since it does not give any examples. 
Please give an example of positively and negatively balanced
dialectic using current political concerns.  Just to remind you that
Socratic argument always gives examples of the kind of answer
he was looking for.  Not “the” answer but the “kind” of answer.  No
one can either agree nor disagree with you until it is known with what
it is being agreed or disagreed.

You may be right MarthaA, but you have not demonstrated that you
are.

When one says, “This is What Resistance Looks Like.”
and resistance is based upon the propagandistic frame of
American linguistics that is based upon unbalanced sophism,
positively balanced dialectic, and negatively balanced dialectic, as
has been the case for the 235 year history of the United States as
a nation with regard to the established order of American
linguistics, both the established order of linguistic domination and
resistance to the established order of linguistic domination in the
United States is nothing more than “PROPAGANDA”, when
it is used both in support of established order and used in
resistance to established order, or for the purpose of the
establishment of New Order that serves the greater good.

If the greater good is to be served, we must begin to use
positively and negatively balanced dialectic that represents truth
as balanced logic and discontinue the use of unbalanced sophism,
positively balanced dialectic, and negatively balanced dialectic that
represents truth as being derived from false logic and unbalanced
sophism.

When an original form of ordered complexity, positively and
negatively balanced dialectic, is replaced by a chaotic form of
disordered complexity, unbalanced sophism, in the name of an
escapist drive and desire for simplicity and happiness, and the
latter form of disorder is more complex than the former form of
order, where is the simplicity and happiness, that was
originally sought, to be found??????? ——— And, is it not more
of a reality that the practical result of the latter is that, instead of
achieving simplicity and happiness, the only result that is achieved
is that of the complexity of disorder and chaos along with
the complexity and unhappiness that unstructured chaos
brings as a result of an escapist desire for simplicity and
happiness.

A choice between ordered complexity of positively and
negatively balanced dialectic and disordered complexity
of unbalanced sophistry is a FALSE CHOICE based upon a
FALSE SENSE OF ADVANTAGE when disordered complexity of
unbalanced sophistry is represented as simple binary choice
that will provide happiness as a result of those same simple
choices, because disordered complexity of unbalanced
sophistry is a choice of the complexity of disorder and
chaos over order and balance of positively and negatively
balanced dialectic.

Representing disordered simplicity of unstructured chaos
as having the causal effect of simplicity, structure, and
certainty that will result in simple effect based upon simplicity
of causation is a gross misrepresentation that in the United States
is an institutionalized aspect of American linguistics that is used to
enable the few to present a false sense of advantage to the
many and has empowered the few to maintain undeserved
advantage over the many for 235 years in the United States in the
name of freedom, with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
and justice from which the many do not participate and benefit.

It is time for a change in the United States— from the
linguistics of unbalanced sophism, negatively balanced dialectic
used to demonize and positively balanced dialectic that is used to
glorify to the use of dialectic with a unity of positive and negative
balance that is sublated into unity on both sides of the equal sign,
so that FALSE LOGIC cannot be used to prove propaganda by way
of linguistic structure.

Please forgive the typos, as I find they only show up clearly after Submitting the post. Previewing almost always leads to a lost post and often a lost connection to TD, so it is necessarily avoided.

The statement that starts:

“The comment about their unwillingness or inability to absorb and utilize the obvious multitude of questions…”

Should have read:

“The loss of material due to their unwillingness or inability to absorb and utilize the obvious multitude of questions…”

I would prefer to edit these responses off-line and paste them into the edit box, but that too often also leads to a lost post, Page Not Found, or lost connection.

C’est la vie.

Shenonymous: Reciprocation.”

Thanks for the clarification.

The idea of suggesting I use “give and take” when pertaining to dialogue with the Millers was quite perplexing, as it would be, in my estimation; now that I have “Met The Millers”, a pointless effort.

The comment about their unwillingness or inability to absorb and utilize the obvious multitude of questions and critiques they had to have encountered over a decade or more of attempting to ram something as esoteric as Hegel down the throats of readers, is in my opinion, a waste of such proportions that it made me somewhat angry.

A True evil, in my opinion, is the destruction of information. Any information.

Their argument could have been based entirely upon such gathered critiques and integrated into their presentation in such a way as to literally eliminate reader confusion altogether.

That is assuming this whole process is actually possible of course, for I think that in truth, their claim is bogus to the core.

What is galling though, is that I think the Millers, know its bogus to the core.

The years of reading the same insurmountable arguments and critiques of their presentation has shoved the fact that their presentation sucks in their faces so often that now they simply ignore all negative responses and seek only positive ones that might lead to an unguessed at solution to their presentations limitations.

Certainly if one had a magic wand and could cause the MCPopulation to become the verbal equals of the current flock of sophisticated Aristocrats, overnight, one might accomplish the goal of equalization in sophistry between the upper and lower classes.

Whether this would actually solve the problems faced by the MCPopulation is not obvious however, and may indeed create whole new problems.

But such an across-the-board indoctrination is simply not possible without years of re-education and an enourmous campaign just to get the idea across that the education is necessary - and even then, the Aristocracy would be spending great wads of their nearly unlimited wealth in a massive effort to do everything in their power to prevent the success of any such program of re-education.

It eventually became apparent that the Millers possessed neither the means of implementation of the necessary process of re-education, nor a method of dissemination of the ideas and concepts to the target population, without which, the whole thing becomes a pipe dream.

I fully believe what Aristotle said - that “every man has a little bit of the truth.”  My intentions are normally to try and elicit logical thought on subjects often overlooked, in the hopes of gleaning a nugget of verifiable reality here and there that originated outside my own mind. I extrapolate a lot.

I will normally look under the least likely of boulders, in the off chance of finding a nugget of truth or even a clue to a path to a truth.

I thought MartaA/B might have something new. I was wrong. It was something old and tried. And historically, it had been used for negative purposes almost exclusively.

I try and make it a habit of thinking the unthinkable at least once a day. On days like this - it is still raining, and still cold and I still feel thick as a brick - that is not a difficult task.

I love the heat. Give me sticky, sweaty, lake-surrounded humidity and 95 degree temperatures any time. I find that no matter how hot I might get, a few seconds in a strong breeze cools me off beautifully, whereas, once I’m cold, it can take an hour for me to get warm again no matter how warm the place I might be in happens to be.

As I’m 60 years old and love all music save Polka, C&W, Rap, and Myron Florin, I have the lyrics to Jethro Tull’s Aqua Lung engraved permanently on the soft tissues of my brain; somewhere between Pink Flloyd and Led Zepplin, and have been humming the damn thing ever since reading your post.

Anarcissie, June 18 at 7:04 am Link to this comment

What ideas?

Having a bad day perhaps? I fail to understand why, if your opinion of the efforts here are so very low, you continue to participate.

There is certainly, in my own opinion,  wheat amidst the chaff. That is why I continue to read the articles and the responses to them. Certainly some threads get hijacked, but only with the willing support of those who cannot seem to understand that responding to some is a waste of time and energy.

I have, albeit slowly, compiled a list of those whose “efforts” deserve the turbo-scroll, and , admittedly ,the list grows. But I remain because there are posts worth the effort.

Oops, sorry wrong forum.  I will now post it there too.

Good Morning!

Gary Mont – shitty weather can be hot as well as cold.  Rain and
heat is stifling, muggy is thick.  But I like the heat, not the cold. 
I’m sorry you felt thick.  Just to get my reply comments off to a
good start, and maybe “thin” you up a bit, recalling Jethro Tull’s Thick
as a Brick, I’m assuming you mean dense. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV-ASc0qkrM
and if you don’t know the lyrics:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jethrotull/thickasabrickpart1.html

Your posts about the Millers did motivate my comment.  Herostratus
and his vainglorious act of burning the Temple of Artemis might fulfill
your question of seeking fame at any cost.  Herostratus sought nobility,
and proudly took the blame in order to immortalize himself.  I suppose
the essence of the story could be a term for someone who wants to
bask in some notoriety as a result of some infraction against others.  In
the case of the Greek, it was a criminal act for which he was executed,
but in our culture Herostratic fame means fame at any cost. 

It is hardly doubtful that the perpetrator of binary emotional rhetoric is
anxious to be the author of a Wikipedia page and hence go down in
encyclopedic history.  Teaching the ordinary citizenry the art of
propaganda (uh…pardon my euphemism, but I find it more efficient),
does seem to be her game.  Should we require that in her teaching she
inform students that it is sophistry that is being taught and that there
is a stigma, and ancient one, to being a sophist. 

Your expressed observation about unrequited vainglory (condescension,
arrogance) does seem to have some traction (forgive my perhaps biased
translation).  You are admirably so kind, to give them some history! 
The rest of us who are fatigued with the sales pitch for BER and a ffew
other pet topics have so far not been so intuitive. 

No, I did not use the term reciprocity to mean you should give and take
with the Millers.  I was referring to your statement: ”Too bad they
didn’t choose to use their intellect for a more viable solution, or to
analyze their own claims.”

It’s not that there are not kernels of good ideas in what they propose. 
But indeed “it is too bad they could not bring themselves to listen to
the arguments posed against their ideas by all those they encountered
over the years” and have been able to integrate them.  Aristotle said
“every man has a little bit of the truth.”  The trick is to ferret out
whatever is the truth, maybe even hammer it out at times.

I meant that their plan of indoctrinating the public (MCPopulation) on
the finesses of propaganda (there I go again!), might have proven the
case of reciprocity were they conscious enough to see it.  Problem is, I
do not have much optimism.  You have given them a month, whereas a
few of us over the years have made the case you so aptly sketched,
more than often in much more declarative terms!  To no avail.  Let
alone the three pages of this forum, I mean it has been years!  So what
does that imply?  That we are complicit? 

I am familiar with the other forum you posted.  MarthaA’s usual litany
only delineates their handicap.  I hope my affirmation has elevated your
mood.  But, ah…it’s morning.  Mornings start a new day.

What ideas?

Anarcissie, June 17 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

No one here is required to read, much less respond to, things other people write which they find annoying.  If that’s what you’re doing, it’s because that’s what you want to do.

But Mommy, isn’t the entire point of having a political forum like this one the free exchange of ideas and the stating of ideals? That there are those whose efforts fail the smell test and are, or should be, weeded out over time seems a better practice than what you suggest; posting in isolation.

I agree, and try to practice, selective responses, eliminating the ones to unheeding, politically deaf or trollish types. There are, however, large lies and subtle distortions that beg a response. Its a fine line that I, for one, struggle with. I have, of late, began to accelerate the numbers of posters I turbo-scroll past.

No one here is required to read, much less respond to, things other people write which they find annoying.  If that’s what you’re doing, it’s because that’s what you want to do.

If they are smart in anything it is in using what I call the Tar Baby Gambit. It seems to work even on me. But then I didn’t expect her to be able to fulfill my query which I asked twice and nicely. She can’t or won’t. Either way I guess the best is to just ignore their prattlings. Just robotic regurgitations and insults. Nothing of substance that are useable. Anyone can do what they do and sound intelligent for the first time then after that it is just a means of endless repeats and minor permutations without conveying anything useful or ultimately intelligeable.

We understand…...
We work, and pay in our taxes to support the old, the sick, the young and the helpless.  We invest in the common good, education, physical infrastructure, research, to ensure the working population has the tools and technologies to carry the weight of those which we choose to support, namely, old, the sick, the young and the helpless.  This is, more or less,  the traditional American Social contract. 

It is embodied in programs such as Social security, Medicare, Medicaid and Public Education.

MarthA, you state in your stinky-poop way:
“To date, you have made NO mention of a Social Contract based upon Positively and Negatively balanced dialectic that would allow for both responsibility and benefit to be sublated into unity on both sides of the equal sign” —And to this I reply, “Nor do I need to”.  See above, that is about how it’s to be stated, in plain language everyone can understand.  To state it in an unintelligible fashion is to engage in ‘stinky poopiness’. 
 
Resistance looks like using clear language.  We need to quickly understand that a new underlying energy our economy needs to be kick started NOW, so we can maintain the social contract roughly as stated above, by continuing our social programs without attenuation.

John Best, June 16 at 1:00 pm,

YOU are promoting a Social Contract based upon Positively
and Negatively balanced dialectic, sophism, and propaganda.

To date, you have made NO mention of a Social Contract based
upon Positively and Negatively balanced dialectic
that would allow for both responsibility and benefit to be sublated
into unity on both sides of the equal sign; short of this, you are
talking sophism and propagandistic dialectic, the Social
Contract between the Farmer and the
Cows, the Right-Wing Social Contract of Newt
Gingrich.

If you have an enlightened concept of a Social Contract that can
be sublated into a unity of equal balance of responsibility and
benefit, present it, so far you have not done so, you have done
NOTHING more than to talk the ENLIGHTENED TALK of a Social
Contract and walk the DARK WALK of sophism and propagandistic
dialectic.

Social contract theory is an Enlightenment concept which the right attempted to bastardize and pervert to their own ends.

The farmer-cow relationship is not at all an example of a social contract, it is more like your Newt Gingrich’s sort of perversion, thus it undermines the very legitimate and noble Enlightenment notions.  So, your example serves to obscure, distract and misdirect.  It serves the same purposes as right wing propaganda.

John Best, June 16 at 6:55 am and John Best, June 16 at 4:08 am,

“But, plain folk aren’t going to have the incentive to invest the time
learning these defensive tools, and as you suggest, some might
use them offensively.  A sense of common support, belonging, a
social contract is needed.”—John Best, June 16 at 4:08
am

Talking about the Customer and the Consumer in the United
States being on the short end of what the “market will bear” when
taken in the context of your post about what “plain folk” should or
should not know with regard to their understanding of dialectic,
sophism and propaganda that leads them to accept a false
sense of advantage and benefit in place of actual
advantage and benefit is meaningless as the propaganda of
sophist drivel, and I suggest that you and everyone else on the
Hard Right and Lite Right get used to hearing about
discontent with this type of perception and perspective, because
“This Is What Resistance Looks Like” from the American Populace,
the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States.

“A sense of common support, belonging, a social contract is
needed.” you say, like the Social Contract between the
“Cows” in the Farmer’s field and the Farmer, so that the
“Cows” will not have offensive tools at their disposal with
which to challenge the “FARMER’S fence is the context of
the frame of YOUR Social Contract.  Here is a “Cows with Guns”
link that expresses the view of the American Populace with regard
to YOUR type of a Social Contract:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IJBbtkBMMs

BTW, Did you get your idea of a Social Contract from Newt
Gingrich, OR WHAT!!!!!!!!

Gary Mont, June 16 at 3:01 am,

“As Einstein said. (Paraphrased) 
Knowledge is nothing without imagination.” —Gary Mont, June
16 at 3:01 am

Exactly what does YOUR paraphrase of Einstein mean from people
like you, who have neither knowledge nor understanding?

Those who have nothing to say because they know nothing,
should limit themselves to dialogue about what they know——
NOTHING.

The phrase “Charge what the market will bear” touches the ear a little e differently than “Charge whatever you can get”. 

Though I am unskilled in language, it is clear neither of these phrases reflect the philosophy “charge what you need”.  The phrase “a reasonable profit” seems to be from another era. 

Comparing “charge whatever you can get” with “charge a reasonable profit” highlights a shift in attitude.  I’ve sampled the attitudes of low-level businessmen, store owners, purchasing agents, manufacturers, who conducted business in the mid 20th century, during and after WWII.  The predominant attitude was sensitive to gouging, war profiteering, and some economic activity was profit limited to a ‘cost plus’ formula, subject to government oversight to discourage war profiteering.  Two ideas which supported this “charge a reasonable profit” approach were, first, one needed to calculate costs accurately, and mark up accordingly.  ‘Accordingly’ was modulated by a sense of fairness.  Though the market might have paid dearly for certain goods, especially in a time of shortages and rationing, there was a sense of fairness, of reasonableness, of some obligation to the customer, at least among some business people.

Today’s general attitude seems to have shifted and is derived from a nucleus within some MBA program.  That attitude being one of ‘what the market will bear’, is not only fine, but an obligation, so the market will work properly.  The companion customer oriented ethic is ‘let the buyer beware’.  If a product is marked up using a rather large profit margin, it is the customers option to walk away, and it is not the merchants concern if the customer must do without.  This attitude has spread since the ‘80’s, trickling down to even low level service providers.  “Charge what the market will bear”, or more accurately, showing the underlying greed, “charge whatever you can get”.

There may be a point in noting the underlying sloppiness that can accommodate the cost-pricing calculations when the modern businessman is freed from that rigor, now fortified with the tools needed to gouge out a profit, but that is another topic.  Sloppiness and crudeness. 

What the MBA’s (for lack of a specific boogie man) have done is construct a basis, a credibility, even an obligation (to ‘the Market’) to practice greed.  I am certainly not the first to observe this, what I wish to highlight is just one simple aspect underlying this ethical shift in our nations business people.  That aspect is that of the ‘spin’, the phrasing, the mantra “what the market will bear”.  I urge anyone who understands the danger and destruction caused by the underlying ethical corrosion of the ‘MBA ideology’ to simply resist that phrase, and replace it with “charge whatever you can get”.  At least the suggested phrase is more honest in reflecting the attitude of the merchant toward what used to be called their ‘customer’.  I hesitate to use the word ‘customer’, as it implies some interactive human, capable and worthy of a relationship of respect.  We might as well also point out that the word ‘customer’ does not carry it’s former meaning.  ‘Consumer’ might be a more accurate replacement.  One who simply mindlessly uses a product or service with the same lack of regard for the provider as the merchant shows the consumer…little or none.

In conclusion, this is my little observation of the day, and with a nod to Orwell, let’s acknowledge linkage between the language and the underlying diminished attitudes toward each other.

Gary, life is indeed too short to waste engaging them, but you do make excellent points.  One semi-disagreement, in general, if the population did know the languages and tactics of deceit, AND had the morals to avoid using them, it might raise the general level of content in the various public media.  I’ve suggested things like the ‘common logical fallacies’ http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/, and Shenonymous suggested a nice paper: http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=715&paper=1145  But, plain folk aren’t going to have the incentive to invest the time learning these defensive tools, and as you suggest, some might use them offensively.  A sense of common support, belonging, a social contract is needed.  Broken record?  Naw.

Night Gaunt: absolutely, smart folk should respect the more average people by making an effort to say things clearly.  Unnecessary complexities are a sort of glass ceiling.  Gary is right about the arrogance of the Marthe’s.  I refuse to believe they are merely socially inept.

Yawn…. not sure why I bother….

MarthaA/B: “As for my message, Gary Mont, my message is awareness and a balance of power.”

What a crock. Your message has been the same since day one.

You have been unable to offer even the smallest example of how you intend to spread the awareness of your magic formulae let alone how you intend to wrestle the MCPopulation out of their semi-literate drudgery into the lofty cloud castles where you dwell.

All you can do is copy text from Hegel and paste it into the edit box.

Oh yeah, and you can cry and accuse others of your own failings and errors like spoiled children whenever anyone doesn’t immediately recognize and bend a knee to your (in your own mind) obviously superior intellect.

And whether you actually know it or not, your only coherent message has been just as I stated, since day one.

Teach the peasants to lie like the aristoctracy and the aristocracy won’t be able to lie to the peasants any more. Literally, turn the MCPopulation into Sophist Aristocrats and they will be the equal of the current Sophist Aristocrats. Problem solved.

Your solution sucks because you have no means of making it a reality and no idea if its even possible and because it ends up creating a whole nation of people whose only real talent is bullshit.

It would literally make the whole of America, Republican. A Righty Dream-Come-True, if there ever was one.

John thinks you might be a pair of disgruntled Lefties turned Righties, pretending to still be concerned Lefties, but really just using your incomprehensible Hegelian Cut and Paste to disrupt and detour dialogues among Lefties.

Me, I think your exactly what you appear to be. A pair of immature, socially inept intellectual egg-heads, who have chosen a tunnel-vision singular path for the world to follow, but have no idea how to implement the necessary steps to see that path you have chosen for us all succeed in the real world.

The reason you post in these forums is in the hopes that someone like Shenonymous will post a detailed method of implementation that can allow you to successfully initiate your re-education of the MCPopulation in the use of Hegelian Sophistry and Dialectic.

Then you can take full credit for the idea of course.

In other words, you’re a pair of frauds, no matter how heavy duty your education or academic involvement may be. You simply have no idea how to “make it so”.

As Einstein said. (Paraphrased)

Knowledge is nothing without imagination.

Night-Gaunt, June 15 at 7:37 pm,

You need to get acquainted with a dictionary, Night-Gaunt,
and quit so much complaining about being ignorant of meanings of
words.

How about it MarthaA, can you describe what you mean in terms that a 6th grader can understand? The ball is in your court. Nothing fancy or convoluted here, just to see if you actually understand what you continually and incessantly repeat. And don’t use words like “dialectic, sophism and Hegelian.” Someone who really understands and isn’t parroting will be able to. If Dr. Carl Sagan & Dr. S. J. Gould can so can you. Or not.

John Best, June 15 at 12:23 pm, Cliff Carson, June 15 at 1:04 pm,
Gary Mont, June 15 at 6:12 pm, Gary Mont, June 15 at 5:20 pm, et
al,

All of the personally abusive ploys that are possible for “you
people” to devise in order to divert and distract attention away
from discussion of dialectic, sophism, and propaganda, as a means
of leading others to accept a false sense of advantage, has been
used by “you people” in dialogue with me hundreds, if not
thousands of times, over the years.

I did not find personal abuse as an emotional tactic to discourage
constructive dialogue impressive, and indicative of anything other
than simple minded demagogues to begin with, and after years
and years of listening to the same cycle of personally abusive
demagoguery used to distract others where they can be led to a
false sense of advantage by dialectic, sophism, and propaganda, I
am not impressed with anything other than the degree to which
“you people” will go as genteel peasants to act against YOUR
OWN class and cultural interests of the American Populace, the
70% Majority Common Population of the United States, for
reasons of your own greedy gain.

Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers sold their own
children into slavery to establish what they called life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness with freedom and justice for all in the
United States by way of dialectic, sophism, propaganda, and
tropes, and “you people” are the very flower and heritage of the
seed of their American Dream ——Disgusting.

There should be shame and disgust associated with the use of
blatant dialectic, sophistry, propaganda, and tropes to promote
slavery and wage slavery as life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness with freedom and justice for all, when in fact, it is
nothing more than greedy, self serving dialecticians, sophists, and
propagandists promoting a false sense of advantage to
others in service to their own self serving benefit and greed.

I see that you, John Best, are NOT familiar with the
“Works of Henry David Thoreau;” I assume that you are a
descendant of John Field of “Walden” fame, because I am
experiencing the same problem with you that Henry David Thoreau
experienced wtih John Field, as a wading web footed bog trotter.

I suspect that even John Field would be ashamed of you as a
relative for your shameful behavior and I know that you should be
ashamed of your shameful behavior, but I know that you are not,
because like John Field, you are being paid to work your bog hoe
of dialectic, sophism, propaganda, and personal abuse.

As for my message, Gary Mont, my message is
awareness and a balance of power.

John Best: “...we might need to evolve countermeasures to intentional attacks on public discussion…”

Actually, trolls, bunkers and paid shills rarely post their real names on a public forum unless the identity itself can be used to promote their con by adding legitimacy.

Perhaps, as you suggested, a jilted lover syndrome.

But since they did name-drop in a mass posting, I would suggest examining the earliest educational credentials of the Millers if discoverable.

They appear to be professional something-or-others and should have left a huge public trail if they’ve always been this verbose and socially inept.

That might better pinpoint exactly what their agenda is in regards to disrupting discourse among those on the side of the political fence they claim themselves to be on.

Methinks we will need to go back before they embarked on this illustrious career of berating their allies, to determine if they are legitimate lefties, wo are merely without the slightest awareness of socially interactive conduct, or complex moles pretending to offer an incomprehensible “to us morons” solution as an apparently legitimate method of flooding the forum and redirecting dialogue.

Both seem equally probable, considering their adamant refusal to elucidate and simplify their message and their constant use of the aristocratic “turn the tables” tactic - accusing others of being and doing exactly what they are and do, rather than answer even the simplest question.

Is there a detective in the house??

Calling all lurkers….

Unusual event re: Timeouts after Submit.

Normally, my second post and there-after result in a loss of connection with TruthDig - a timeout.

However, I have just tried something that amazingly has worked twice to prevent the timeout.

I clicked on a blank space on the page a second or three after hitting Submit and both times the page instantly loaded - precisely at the moment I clicked on the page. The one time I did not do this, it timed out.

No idea why this might occur, but if you have timeout problems after hitting submit, give it a try. I did it purely by accident the first time.

An attempt at simplification…

While MarthaA and MarthaB seem ever so reluctant to do so, methinks their message to date can be summed up like this:

Teach the peasants how to lie like the aristocrats and the peasants will be able to counter the lies of the aristocrats with effective lies of their own.

The method proposed for this re-education of the MCPopulation, is Hegel’s Mathmatica Dialectic, which as MarthaA/B points out rather often, is exactly what the aristocracy used to befuddle the vocabulary of the peasants in the first place, so that the peasants would be unable to successfully debate anything with the aristocracy.

Fight fire with fire more or less.

The reason I fail to see this as a successful method of countering the aristocracy is simply that the whole nation would then be blessed with the dubious ability to bullshit effectively, making society somewhat repulsive at best, in my opinion.

I also see the process of this re-education as being extremely difficult if not impossible because of the fact that the MCPopulation’s current langauge is already so screwed up, they will be hard pressed to understand the message once presented to them.

Color me wierd, but I really think honesty is an important component for the infrastructure of a society. Teaching everyone how to deceive effectively simply seems to me to be the wrong path. I could be wrong however.

I’d be more in favor of levelling the debate field by making bullshit debate tactics, deception and obfuscation in political debates, speeches and announcements, illegal.

But then I suppose that would necessitate that an army of people learn to recognise the tactics of deception and that would mean they would need to know how to lie effectively.

Not an easy situation to fix…

John Best

As to who are these people.

Back when Netscape was still alive and continuing into Propeller before its demise, there were “Action” groups who worked as a team to influence what you saw on the Net.

One commenter that I remember had in her Bio that she headed up a network of “Citizens For Israel”.  She would alert her line and the lines would fan out to present a multitude of trashing anybody who dared speak anything negative about Israel.  They usually had several avatars each, different IP’s, and each were on many sites so that within an hour or two they could bring a whole horde ( hundreds to thousands) of Martha look likes to clog up a site.

But I don’t recall any acting stupid, usually their MOI was the “Intelligent”, think alike, mode.  Usually had ready made, well put together “comments” to post.

Kind of like some of the TV “rent a call-in” programs going on now.  You’ve probably seen discussion about this on several TV programs.

It goes on all the time.

What she was most proud of was her group’s success in seeding sites where surveys were taken.  They could influence a site and the outcome of a survey with ease.

WAKE UP!  TIME TO SHOUT A LITTLE!

Gary, this clicks with someting: “that if nobody can understand it, nobody is gonna respond favorably to it”

Night Gaunt: “If not robotic”.

And a poster ‘Leefeller’, in another forum, claims “....consciousness becomes practically suspended….”.

I’m sort of merging the subjects of ‘What Resistance Looks Like”, and “Electronic Brownshirts”, and saying we might need to evolve countermeasures to intentional attacks on public discussion.  These comments by MarthA remind me quite a bit of the ‘astro-turf activism’ financed by the Koch brothers in August 2009 which effectively derailed public discussion during the health care debate.

If powerful interests are going to fill busses with disruptive, loud mouthed bullies, surely they’d also be looking at forums such as this.  The name calling alone indicates the sort of disdain among these people for rational discourse.  The innuendo, suggestions, smearing, stigmatizing?  The repetitive unintelligible meaningless froth?  Who are these people?  If they are misdirected lefties, fine, but this is getting to be a smaller probability with each MArthA post.  The latest tactic…....sleep, slumber, sleepers, etc…........hypnotic? 

WAKE UP I SAY!  Let’s find out what sort of people are invading the discussion!  WAKE UP! 

Another possibility: These folks were rejected by the DNC and have turned about…..a lover scorned.

THEORIES PLEASE???  DATA??  We have a genuine mystery here.

John Best, Gary Mont, Night-Gaunt, Cliff Carson, Anarcissie, et
al,

Sleepers sleep and complain bitterly about those who try to
awaken them from their slumber.

Awake from your slumber! —all of you sleepers who let
Right-Wing Republican and Lite-Right Middle Class
dialectic, sophism, and propaganda lull you into slumber.

Try not to be unkind to, or kill the messenger, who would awaken
you from your slumber; that messenger is doing you a service that
you are too groggy from slumber to understand.

However, those who with conscious intent and purpose work with
diligence to keep the sleepers sleeping, so that they can obtain
benefit and advantage from those who sleep are what we call
propagandists, who are skilled in the use of dialectic, sophism, and
propaganda; these people should be ashamed of their behavior,
because it is a shameful business, but they are not, because there
is money to be made from keeping the sleepers asleep.

Are you a sleeper, a PAID propagandist, or just one more genteel
peasant with a false sense of advantage trying to get advantage
by putting on a show financed on credit and designed to take
advantage of all who cannot navigate their way through the
smoke and mirrors?

You can tell me.  I won’t tell anyone.  It will be our secret.  The
truth will set you free.

Cliff, I like to think there are not too many truly ‘bad’ people, but there are a lot of potentially decent people who go along with, and initiate BS to survive.  As Night Gaunt said, job security.  I extend that ‘bad’ behavior of some seemingly abusive employers who are themselves in survival mode.  We have this damn MBA ideology which drives us to be extremely competitive in the short run, in neglect of the long term.  ‘Everyman for themselves!” 

On Martha, I wonder if they are sort of mole within the DNC, using the same tactic as we’ve seen in this forum.  I must say I’ve seen two distinctly ‘rightish’ tactics.  1.Repetition of message ad nauseum (literally, it seems to cause a hypnosis), and 2., what I’ll call, for lack of the proper term, is ‘reverse transference’.  What I mean by that is that they accuse someone of exactly the behavior or characteristic of which they themselves are guilty.  One hears this on right wing radio all the time.

I really do suspect we have a couple of fanatic right wingers intent on a sacred mission of bringing down anything which threatens the status quo.  Or, she might actually have aspergers autism and be an ally.  Don’t know yet though, need more data. I’m not likely to read back through her posts elsewhere to find out.  Perhaps someone else might have some clues?  If she/they are moles, they should be exposed to their local Democratic party people.  And of course, one must wonder how many more of them there are.  Good grief.

John Best: “What does one make of that?”

Hmmmm… so maybe the wife is the Hegel Nut….

At least MarthaA/B probably wasn’t shittin’ us when s/he said they been at this for a decade. That bit is 4 years old. If only they were capable of learning the obvious: that if nobody can understand it, nobody is gonna respond favorably to it.

I thought my little ditty about how - if one has a cure for cancer but cannot get anyone to try it, its as useless as no cure at all - might have slid past their concrete mental barriers, but no, went right over their heads instead…

C’est la vie.

We are speaking of the Christian work ethic which is much abused in this country. on average those in the USA work twice as much than in advanced Europe. But get a dwindling return of money and perks like vacations. Mainly because people, including myself, worry we won’t have a job to go back to, so don’t want to have their 2 wks off or less. Times are just too precarious for relaxation.

Well at least MarthaA/ThomasG wrote less than I expected. And of course no answer for my question about putting their densely unreadable and usable jargon to work. And their pattern of behavior is familiar and repetitive. If not robotic.

Good comment John and oh so true.

When I speak of the Work Ethic Ideal, it mean it just like any other Ideal.

As you know the Ideal is the “perfection”, the best Apple in the Orchard, of which none better can exist because it is perfection.

In a perfect World the Ideal Work Ethic means just what I wrote ” That both the employer and the employed recieve a mutual and just benefit”.

In the real world it ain’t gonna happen.  But there are good people and bad people, so not all employee and employer relations are going to be the same.  As you stated, the bad guys Goat dies so he wants his Neighbors Goat to die.

He is a Politician.

Cliff, there is a saying, “if a bad mans goat dies, he is not happy until his neighbors goat dies.” 

Gary, from Google “Martha A. Miller DNC”, from hit #4 on the list: “474. Martha A. Miller (10/22/07) - Mike Gravel is representative of the 70% common population, therefore it is important that Mike Gravel represent the 70% common population in the October 30th Presidential Debate and whatever other debates that are held, because Mike Gravel is one of only two candidates that represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION. It is undemocratic to exclude the common population’s representative from representing the peoples view.  Al Gore is a member of the Right Wing led DLC, John Edwards is a member of the Right Wing led DLC, Barack Obama is a member of the Right Wing led DLC, Hillary Clinton is a member of the Right Wing led DLC, Bill Richardson is a member of the Right Wing led DLC, Christopher Dodd is a member of the Right Wing led DLC, and not certain but think Biden is also a member of the DLC. The DLC does not represent the 70% majority common population of the United States of which I am included, meaning my 70% majority common population representation in the presidential debates would be cut 50%, if Mike Gravel is excluded. The only candidates that represent the 70% majority common population of which I am a part is Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, as neither are MEMBERS OF THE DLC. The DLC separated themselves from the majority population and represent only their 20% population, therefore it is of utmost importance that candidates that represent the complete common population be in any and all debates, so that all the people of the common population will be able to be represented in the presidential debates. The 6 DLC Presidential Candidates have regular media confirmation and use, but the 2 Non-DLC Presidential Candidates have very little media use and no media confirmation. These debates are their major way to talk to the people. Please DO NOT UNDEMOCRATICALLY CUT MIKE GRAVEL OUT OF THE OCTOBER 30th Presidential DEBATE or any other PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, quieting Mike Gravel’s voice will only make it easier for the undemocratic Right Wing DLC to take”

What does one make of that?

Gads! Who wooda thunk they were this wacky!!

I see now how this pair of wackos goes about its real purpose of shutting down dialogue sites. I’ll bet this 2 part piece of purest BS was posted in every forum on TD. I note that the 2 posters mentioned do not post in this particular forum, so the assumption is that they mass posted this complaint as per standard operational procedure.

I’ll bet if you were to examine the complaints they posted on the above mentioned “Liberal Forum, it would be nearly identical in wording to what we see here.

And I was right on the money too.

There really is a MarthaA and a MarthaB.

“Martha A. Miller and Thomas G. Miller.”

And I’ll bet that the Hegel fanatic is Thomas.

They’re like the worst kind of Neo Christians.

Piss everyone off by proselytizing, using the same pointless non-arguments for a month or two, until folks simply lose patience and start calling them what they are - a waste of air - then they begin their pogrom of complaints to the site owners about organized persecution against their persons and beliefs!

What a wacky way to get your jollies… just a pair of frauds trying to put an end to the dialogue of others by hook or crook.

Republicans obviously.

This argument about “Work Ethic” reminds me of a guy I worked with so long ago probably most of you weren’t born.

He had some property he wanted to sell for a profit and one day his wildest dream came true.  Someone offered him substantially more than he thought it was worth.  He didn’t want the sucker to get away so he really went to work and got the man to complete the sale and gave him a small discount to make the deal irreversible. 

He was truly gleeful that he had “taken” the sucker.

A few months later the sucker sold the property for significantly more than he paid my co-worker.

Now my co-worker was blown up with anger - that the sucker had cheated him.  In fact it was years before he would even drive by that property.

I have always wondered who was really the “sucker”.

Beyond that though, I have enjoyed mirth many times over that little back and forth.

ATTENTION:  TRUTHDIG WEB MASTER

Page 1 of 2

I have been the victim of personal attacks by a
group of posters
for quite some time now on the “This Is What
Resistance Looks Like” and “Electronic
Brownshirts” threads and many other
Truthdig threads in the past, and I suspect that
the people on these threads who have been
personally attacking me on this Truthdig forum
for a prolonged period of time are now
complaining about me as if they are innocent
victims, because of my dialogue concerning the
structure and application of dialectic.

Please check out the previously indicated
threads, so that you will be aware of the present
situation and advise me of what action will be
taken to control personal attacks initiated by the
group of posters personally attacking me relative
to my dialogue on Truthdig forum, and then
complaining about me as if they are innocent
victims.

I am concerned that I may be being made
example of by censure because of my dialogue
regarding the structure and application of
dialectic, rather than for reasons given; and that
those doing so will be allowed to do so, as
innocent victims, rather than self serving
collaborators who have initiated and continue
ongoing personal attacks of personal gang
abuse against me to silence my dialogue
regarding dialectic.

My last post to Inherit The Wind and
Jorge X Rodriguez on Mon, June 13,
2011, at 7:56 am prior to your censure on Mon,
Jun 13, 2011 at 9:32 am is as follows:

[“My dialogue on Dialectic is about what
constitutes facts and how they are determined;
this is what dialectic is all about.

Understanding what constitutes Dialectic is really
important to the Left not being over run by the
Right.”]

The above post expresses my concern to
Inherit The Wind and Jorge X
Rodriguez, and is included with my response
to your censure as an indicator of the context of
whatever complaint has been made against me.

ATTENTION:  TRUTHDIG WEB MASTER

Page 2 of 2

I ask that complaints concerning my behavior be taken in the
context that the complaint is being made, rather than as a
legitimate complaint from an innocent victim or victims.

In the context of the give and take nature of abuse directed at me
as a means of intimidation and control of my dialogue, and my
response to that abuse, I do not feel that I have anything to be
ashamed of or to apologize for and, as with
Shenonymous, if I feel that a person’s behavior is
deserving and worthy of respect, I will be concerned about offense
that may or may not be given and received, whether actual or
amorphous.

However, with regard to your censure Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:32
am, I am unaware of any innocent victims that an offense has
been committed against by my behavior, and ask that any claims
of abuse made, be made in specific, rather than amorphous terms,
and that such claims be dealt with in a context of balance with
regard to all parties involved on both sides of the complaint.

If the Truthdig forum is about digging for the truth, I am
digging for the truth of dialectic, sophism, and propaganda,
and I ask that Truthdig as a forum, support me in this effort, rather
than censure me.

If otherwise, I suspect that your censure will inevitably lead to the
same result that I experienced on the Liberal Forum, a
Right-Wing Propaganda Blog posing as a Liberal Forum, that
of defenestration, because I will respond in kind when attacked
personally, and I will not go along to get along with what I know
to be wrong, like the Democratic Party and the Light-Right
Middle Class that pretends to represent the Left, but in fact
represents their own Middle Class’ class and cultural agenda to
the exclusion of representation of the Left, the American Populace,
the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States in the
making and enforcing of legislated law and order.

With regard to Inherit The Wind and those who
support Inherit The Wind’s claims that there is humor in
the structure and application of positively and negatively balanced
dialectic, sophism and propaganda, this is a ludicrous claim and
one that I cannot pretend has merit——if this is a position you
support as Web Master, I suspect that we will have difficulty
finding common ground with regard to an understanding that
allows for common cause with regard to our differing perceptions
and perspectives.

Sincerely,

Martha A. Miller and Thomas G. Miller

Anarchissie makes a hell of a good point.  How much work do we need? 

The media and government is owned by people who produce stuff.

An example from Wikipedia: “According to the Center for Responsive Politics, from 1990 to 2006, NADA (National Automotive Dealers Association) donated a total of $21,167,642 to political campaigns 31% of which went to Democratic candidates while 69% went to Republican candidates.”

Have you ever walked through the toy section at a WalMart before Christmas?  The noxious fumes from the out-gassing is enough to do brain damage.

The question is how does this get translated back into the public conscience?  How is the advertising, the pressure to conform to the all-American brand-loyal, gotta keep up with the Jonses stuff image get neutralized.  How do you fight it?  Folk music?  Poetry?  New CW music hits talking about stuff that lasts? 

We are a cheap, throw away people, and it is reflected in the cheap stuff we buy.  This is why we are on a treadmill…...because we are too materialistic, a reflection of our vanity.

Investors know too well that cheap consumable stuff makes more money in the short term, and advertising makes people want the latest. 

Someone once told (as a joke) me when a product design engineer should be told what the target ‘design lifetime’ of a product should be…....just a bit over the time it takes the consumer to forget how much the thing cost. 

We have a system which allows greedy and unethical to gain economic advantage by exploiting the human weaknesses of selfishness, envy, etc.  If we were smart, we would regulate this.  If stuff is built to standards, we waste a lot less work and materials.

About the Work Ethic:

What I said about the Work Ethic.

“The Ideal is that both you and your employer realize a mutual benefit.”

If no one worked, everyone would starve to death, including the super rich.  Civilization would end and only the predators could survive.

There is noting wrong with work just as there is nothing wrong with profit.  Where the problem comes from is the immoral, the unethical, the corrupt, and the criminal.

In some definitions - the Usurious.

The work ethic simply declares that work performed is mutually beneficial to all.  It is that simple.

John Best, June 13 at 4:53 am:

Cliff, I’d add a bit to this: “Actually I think the “Work Ethic” is really meant to represent that a good moral and ethical person will work to support themselves and not lay back and depend on the charity of others to survive” 

I’d suggest that an ethical person will also seek work that’s not completely ‘parasitical’. ...

We all need the charity of others to survive.

As for ethical work, I’d suggest that it would have to be non-predatory as well as non-parasitical.  Nice if you can find it.

And I still haven’t found out why all this work is necessary.  Let me repeat myself, then: ‘And some point, too, we might ask what all the work is for.  Don’t we have enough junk?  Hasn’t enough of our environment been destroyed?  Aren’t there enough people in prison?  Aren’t our roads choked with enough SUVs?  Don’t we burn enough oil?  Haven’t we invaded enough countries?  Do our rich folks really need yet more money?’  Please—tell me what’s so wonderful about all the work we’re doing.

Cliff, I’d add a bit to this: “Actually I think the “Work Ethic” is really meant to represent that a good moral and ethical person will work to support themselves and not lay back and depend on the charity of others to survive”   

I’d suggest that an ethical person will also seek work that’s not completely ‘parasitical’.  That some value be added.  If you’re managing investments, that actual ethical factories and farms be involved, that capital not go toward speculative mystical paper markets. 

When folks buy high yield investments which obscure the mechanism for adding value to something,  they should know they deserve to lose.  They didn’t deserve to hold capital in the first place.  To me, this is part of the work ethic.

MarthaA/B: “<i>I am talking to Shenonymous there regarding the same subject and she has greater
capacity for understanding and is not so much a
waste of my time as you seem to want to be.

Well spank me silly lassie dewd, ye done found yer first faithful follower!! I am so happy for ye.

Don’t ferget ta feed and water it regular now. Sitting at yer feet with mouth agape can be very thirsty work for some.

Since you have shown us repeatedly that you’re incapable of translating Hegel’s Mystic Sophistry into meaningful sentences, and that you are thus, merely ignorantly parroting the contents of the book and pretending to understand the material, apparently in the hopes that those reading your directly copied esoteric ramblings might believe; as Shenonymous obviously does, that your some kind of genius, I see no reason to bother you again on this topic.

Your continued refusal to even try and rephrase Hegel’s esoteric BS proves beyond any doubt that you’re nothing but a fraud.

Most dialogues, even if not friendly, deliver some small bit of wisdom or piece of useful information,
but all the time I’ve spent posting back and forth with you has been of no value whatsoever. Sad.

Then again, I suspect that this verbal vandalism may indeed be your only purpose here. You are good at it.

Regardless, enough is enough. Thanks for playing.

What use is communication if it is on such an esoteric level that only a few educated in a certain way can understand it? Especially if you want it to be universal. Then this talk of who is smarter comes down to what you want. If you can’t make it understandable to the masses then who is the intelligent one here? 

MarthaA why don’t you give us an applicable use of this sublation or ritual purification? One that a 6th grader can understand. No jargon. If you can’t then you are the one who has the intelligence & communications problem. It also means that you really don’t understand what you are saying. I and all of us are waiting.

Cliff Carson and Anarcissie,

The Work Ethic of the British Peasantry prior to the Enclosure
Movement was NOT valued by the Aristocratic Capitalists, because
the British Peasantry got the subsistence benefit of their own
Work Ethic; as a result the Aristocratic Capitalists used Legislated
Law and Order to take hearth, home, and all possessions away
from the British Peasantry to make them hungry and homeless
———After that, the Work Ethic meant that the British Peasants
working for the Aristocratic Capitalists would, as employees and
consumers, provide the Aristocratic Capitalists with Capital and
Markets for their textile products and all of a sudden the Work
Ethic of the British Peasantry had value again.

Do you suppose that the value of the Work Ethic depends upon
who gets benefit from the work being performed? ——and that
without benefit from the Work Ethic, it is nothing more than
slavery.

Gary Mont, June 12 at 5:34 pm,

You sound like a structural savant looking for
certainty in a causal world.

If you want the certainty of your mommy, go talk
to your mommy.

If you want the certainty of causality, get used to
the fact that your mommy is no longer taking
care of you, explaining everything to you —
causality rules in the real world, rather than the
structural certainty of your missing mommy.

If you are not smart enough to keep up with the
dialogue regarding dialectic and sophistry, you
might want to look in on the “Electronic
Brownshirts” thread of Truthdig forum.

I am talking to Shenonymous there
regarding the same subject and she has greater
capacity for understanding and is not so much a
waste of my time as you seem to want to be.