Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message --- -Caveat Lector-They rule by "any means necessary", but you say to a liberal this is all we're left with, our only recourse, and UH--SHOCK! Then i've suggested, OK, then how about "by every means is necessary"? So let's get out of the way of thoose who are forced, pushed, inspired to put up a stronger resistance. That's what the Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians, Colombians...and hey, you may not be next, but your free days are numbered. Just see how the progression of this loooong-building clampdown is quickening:First, what are Machiavellian principles?
Several definitions posted at http://www.the-prince-by-
machiavelli.com/machiavellian.html
Definition: [n] the political doctrine of Machiavelli: any means
(however unscrupulous) can be used by a ruler in order to create and
maintain his autocratic government
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/Machiavellianism
Masterful Machiavellianism
By: Rebecca Knight - 01/25/04
Machiavellianism: The political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies
the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft
and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power.
George W. Bush, with the help of his advisor, Karl Rove has mastered
the art of portraying himself as a man of great principle, integrity,
honesty, caring, compassion, and character. Some morning just tune in
to C-Span's Washington Journal and listen to the callers sing his
praises. The question becomes what do they find so inspiring and how
have they come to their conclusion about Bush when most of the
evidence does not back it up?
A very informative article regarding the use of language by
conservatives provides some helpful insight.(1) The article's
premise, based upon the studies of George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley
professor of linguistics and cognitive science, is that conservatives
have mastered the art of "framing" the issues. Conservatives have
spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language
with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to
communicate them through think tanks. They have put a huge amount of
money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it
out there, while progressives have done nothing similar. Professor
Lakoff states, "It's one thing to analyze language and thought, it's
another thing to create it."
From the article:
"And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who
started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio
talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they
understand their own moral system. They understand what unites
conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are
constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.
"There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that
conservative foundations and progressive foundations work.
Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to
their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what
you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build
TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books
to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for
their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put
them on TV."
The result? From the article:
"…to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones —
those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant — and
those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people
by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent.
The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order,
administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and
orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become
self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the
minimum needed for such government take away from the good,
disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on
those who have not earned it."
An example from the article:
"The phrase "Tax relief" began coming out of the White House starting
on the very day of Bush's inauguration. It got picked up by the
newspapers as if it were a neutral term, which it is not. First, you
have the frame for "relief." For there to be relief, there has to be
an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the
relief, and an act in which you are relieved of the affliction. The
reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad
guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief"
and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody
against relieving this affliction is a villain.
"It's not just about what you call it, if it's the same "it." There's
actually a whole other way to think about it. Taxes are what you pay
to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic
and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has
been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure.
The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education
system, the power grid, the system for training scientists — vast
amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained
and paid for. Taxes are your dues — you pay your dues to be an
American. In addition, the wealthiest Americans use that
infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that
other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-
tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange
Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are
mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it.
"It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you
trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? It's
about being a member. People pay a membership fee to join a country
club, for which they get to use the swimming pool and the golf
course. But they didn't pay for them in their membership. They were
built and paid for by other people and by this collectivity. It's the
same thing with our country — the country as country club, being a
member of a remarkable nation. But what would it take to make the
discussion about that? Every Democratic senator and all of their
aides and every candidate would have to learn how to talk about it
that way. There would have to be a manual. Republicans have one. They
have a guy named Frank Luntz, who puts out a 500-page manual every
year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is
from the Republican side, what the other guys' logic is, how to
attack it, and what language to use."
How are Democrats doing? >From the article:
"Right now the Democratic Party is into marketing. They pick a number
of issues like prescription drugs and Social Security and ask which
ones sell best across the spectrum, and they run on those issues.
They have no moral perspective, no general values, no identity.
People vote their identity, they don't just vote on the issues, and
Democrats don't understand that."
Conservatives use "framing" tactics to convince the public that all
the policies they advocate are good for "the people" when in reality
they are not. The Bush administration is quite adept at this. They
apply a wholesome name to a policy and the public is somehow
convinced that Bush is taking actions in their best interest.
Three examples:
The "No Child Left Behind Act" sounds glorious, but many believe it
is flawed. Bush administration budgets do not even fully fund the
program, forcing states to raise college tuitions and local taxes,
which hit the lower and middle classes far more than the wealthy.
The "Clear Skies Initiative" is anything but. First, the global
warming measures are voluntary. But there are deeper problems: close
inspection reveals a dangerous bait-and-switch in the fine print.
Though the Bush proposal includes cuts in the pollution that causes
smog, soot, and mercury poisoning, these cuts actually aren't as deep
as the pollution reductions that would result from enforcing the law
already on the books - and they take up to a decade longer.
"Inspired by all that has come before, and guided by clear
objectives, today we set a new course for America's space program. We
will give Nasa a new focus and vision for future exploration. We will
build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new
foothold on the moon and to prepare for new journeys to the worlds
beyond our own. ...We've undertaken space travel because the desire
to explore and understand is part of our character. And that quest
has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless
ways." --- George W. Bush, January 14, 2004
Notice the fantastic rhetoric of the new Bush space initiative.
Sounds great, ddoesn't it? Never mind the fact that it is estimated to
cost $400 to $500 billion at a time when deficit spending is
skyrocketing out of control. Never mind that it may be just another
expansion of the military industrial complex as outlined by the PNAC
on page twelve of their report on rebuilding America's defenses.(2)
And never mind that Halliburton is already being mentioned in
connection with the plan.(3)
Recently Kevin Phillips, former Republican strategist, appeared on C-
Span's Book TV to discuss his new book, American Dynasty:
Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush.
(4) During his opening statements he spoke of political tactics as
shaped by Machiavelli, the first great political philosopher of the
Renaissance or more specifically from his work entitled The Prince.
Phillips stated that Karl Rove, George W. Bush's political
strategist, and the late Lee Atwater, George H. W. Bush's political
strategist, followed the teachings of Machiavelli.
For Machiavelli, politics was about one and only one thing: getting
and keeping power or authority. Everything else, religion, morality,
truth, honor, and integrity, that people associate with politics has
nothing to do with this fundamental aspect of politics, unless being
moral helps one get and keep power. The only skill that counts in
getting and maintaining power is calculation. The successful
politician knows what to do or what to say for every situation, no
matter what it takes. It is only about winning and keeping power.
The present administration's Machiavellianism is cunning in that it
takes some investigating to understand their true motivations. They
are quite adept at masking their real intentions with moral
imperatives.
For example, on Bush's recent proposal for changing the status of
illegal immigrants, White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said
this: "We're addressing an important economic need (and) we're being
compassionate to those undocumented workers who are here now ... many
of (whom) are probably being abused and exploited,... part of this
policy will help make America more secure because we'll know who's
here."
Wow, that sounds nice. But what is really behind it? Votes!
Presidential advisers believe that Hispanic voters, one of the
targets for Bush's reelection campaign, will give him credit for
pushing for the changes even if nothing is enacted before the
election.
Remember that Bush has held only eleven solo press conferences. Why?
Because Bush and Rove have little respect for the press. Rove
stated, "He [Bush] has a cagey respect for them -- the press...He
understands that their job is to do a job. And that's not necessarily
to report the news. It's to get a headline or get a story that will
make people pay more attention to their magazine, newspaper, or
television more."
How does the media respond to this shortage of exposure to the
current administration? They bend over backwards to be obliging in
the belief that it will gain them more access. Wrong. That is not
their job. The Bush administration has the press right where they
want them. That is evidenced by the shortage of in-depth
investigative reporting. In his appearance on C-Span, Kevin Phillips
expressed dismay that the media does not report on the Bush
administration more thoroughly.
The Columbia Journalism Review published an interesting article on
how politicians are media trained not to give straight answers to
questions.(5)
From the article:
"But in my examination of some fifty news transcripts, sharp
questioning is unusual, raising the larger question of what the
audience takes away when journalism appears to be little more than
disguised public relations. Does the audience see through the culture
of caution and obfuscation that permeates the news business? When TV
guests practice question evasion, does the audience think twice about
their credibility? Does the public see through polished answers and
the platitudinous comments? Does it ask where the real meat and
potatoes are?
"Such questions bring up others: What are journalists for? Are they
to analyze and interpret the news and arbitrate conflicting opinion
for the public, or are they to act as mere carriers of other people's
messages?
"It's no secret that journalism has a credibility gap. Maybe it has
always and by journalists who try less and less to close it."
Now, combine the skills of "framing" the issues in ways that always
keep the opposing political party on the defensive with the
philosophies advocated by Machiavelli and throw in secrecy and a
distaste for the media. One begins to see a pattern that fits the
current administration.
The Bush administration is quite Nixonian when faced with challenges
to their credibility. The bogus security investigation over Ron
Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, like the outing of Valerie Plame,
shows the lengths they're willing to go to in intimidating their
critics.
Seventy-four days passed between the Novak column on Plame that
pointed to someone outing a member of the CIA and the announcement of
an official investigation. Only one day passed between Paul O'Neill's
appearance on 60 Minutes and the announcement of an official
investigation into documents O'Neill gave to Suskind. Has anyone
noticed that no one has denied the claims made by O'Neill in the
Suskind book? No? That is how their Machiavellianism works for them!
They have shifted the focus from Bush by accusing O'Neill of doing
something wrong! Never mind that they gave Bob Woodward National
Security Documents for his flattering book on Bush.
No, they can't have Bush's public persona questioned because his
popularity rests upon it. They have built an image of Bush being a
masterful commander in chief who happens to be a nice man and no one
must get away with tarnishing that image. The public has bought into
it! That is why Bush approval ratings remain consistent.
These tactics have led to American citizens growing accustomed to
being lied to and/or misled about gravely serious matters. How will
they respond in the upcoming presidential election in which massive
amounts of money will be spent to give a generally false view of the
state of our union? Half of the electorate doesn't even bother to
vote. Will the other half tune in or tune out?
Americans deserve to be told the truth on matters of public policy by
every President and every candidate. That is a principle that no
candidate should violate, regardless of party affiliation. Will the
upcoming election be a chance to reclaim the truth? It must be! Now
as never before, American voters must educate themselves about
realities versus Machiavellian rhetoric!
Resources:
(1)
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
(2) http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
(3) http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnarch/010228-49.html
(4) http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=4257&schedID=237
(5) http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/1/question-lieberman.asp
Rebecca Knight, a contributing writer for Liberal Slant, is a native
Tennessean, who grew up in Nashville, and currently resides in a
small town near Nashville. Ms. Knight's political awareness evolved
through the civil rights movement, the Vietnam era, the Watergate
era, and the cold war. The debacle of the 2000 election increased her
sense of responsibility for political activism.
You may contact Rebecca Knight via e-mail at
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
© 2003 by Rebecca Knight
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Yahoo! Groups Links
www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
