Times Praises Mind Control

RULE THE MINDS, & YOU SHALL RULE THE WORLD.

Abstract: The New York Times deliberately avoids to call a duck a duck if it quacks inside the government. This strategy is revealed, explicitly, by the New York Times itself. The New York Times, by its own admission,  deliberately misinforms the public, as it judges what semantics to use, in the service of what it perceives as being the White House’s best legal strategy.

***

How can large modern societies veer towards mass murder? Why did 80 million Germans goose-step behind the Kaiser, and then Hitler, to fight the world and achieve barbarian domination? I have the simplest explanation: mind control of the masses by cruel masters through carefully contrived emotional, semantic, logical and data input.

Germany 1938. Seeing What You See: Bad For Worship

Germany 1938. Seeing What You See: Bad For Worship

[“Bird Hell” detail; by German Max Beckman, 1938. Obviously A Parody Of Hitlerland.]

Hannah Arendt, a suspect thinker, came instead with a convoluted theory (in the second edition of her “Totalitarianism”  book, in 1958). She suggested that “individual isolation and loneliness” are preconditions for totalitarian domination. Speak about pop psychology.

Was Hannah saying that the several hundred million people who embraced totalitarianism, in Europe alone, were isolated and lonely? Is that why they gathered in vast herds? When 50,000 Brownshirts paraded together, were they isolated and lonely? Were the comrades of the Politburo standing with Stalin isolated and lonely? An obviously stupid theory. It’s the exact opposite that is true.

Arendt’s fancy was actually contradicted by an explicit study of Columbia University’s Theodore Abel, published in 1938. The study “Why Hitler Came In Power” showed that the characteristic 1931-1932 Nazi supporter was employed, but not educated. The supporter’s mentality, far from being isolated and lonely, was shared by the Nazi herd. Nazi supporters were enraged by the World War One defeat, the Versailles Treaty, and all and any revolutionary movements contesting the old plutocracy.

In other words, Nazi supporters had their minds programmed expertly by the very class that caused World War One, and their own suffering.

Arendt’s weird considerations sound like excuses (for herself, for her lover Heidegger?).

To find the truth, it’s better to read Nietzsche’s broadsides against the German herd, or Hitler’s detailed explanation on how to make the multitudes goosestep, spiritually speaking. Hitler explains that the way to lead the folk (“Volk”) where it does not want to go is by using “big lies“. Nietzsche explains that Germans were in love with the instincts of the herd, and cultivated them by choice first, a will to baseness, and then because they did not know any better, that’s what they became. That’s why Nietzsche broke with his (ex) friend and fellow musician, Richard Wagner.

Now fast forward to Twentieth First Century USA. The New York Times, the ‘newspaper of record’ practices, of its own gloating admission, semantic mind control.

***

LET’S CALL EVERYTHING EMBARASSING DIFFERENTLY:

Wonders Margaret Sullivan, the New York Times “Public Editor“, about her own paper: “If it’s torture, why call it a “harsh interrogation technique”? If it’s premeditated assassination, why call it a “targeted killing”? And if a suspected terrorist has been locked up at Guantánamo Bay for more than a decade, why call him a “detainee”?”

Funny she has to ask that. Recent leaks from inside the CIA showed that CIA officials therein were afraid of International Warrants of Arrest against them in the future. So they did what bandits have always done, when they don’t fear summary execution. They switched from torture to assassination (assassinated people don’t tell tales to the International Criminal Court).

Ms. Sullivan went to ask Mr. Shane, a national security reporter in the Washington NYT bureau, and Philip B. Corbett, the associate managing editor for standards of the New York Times, to respond to some of these issues.

Mr. Shane addressed the question on “targeted killings,” noting that editors and reporters have discussed it repeatedly. He wrote:

“Assassination” is banned by executive order, but for decades that has been interpreted by successive administrations as prohibiting the killing of political figures, not suspected terrorists. Certainly most of those killed are not political figures, though arguably some might be. Were we to use “assassination” routinely about drone shots, it would suggest that the administration is deliberately violating the executive order, which is not the case. This administration, like others, just doesn’t think the executive order applies…“Murder,” of course, is a specific crime described in United States law with a bunch of elements, including illegality, so it would certainly not be straight news reporting to say President Obama was “murdering” people.

So, basically “assassination” is banned by decree, so “is not the case” and murder is illegal, so it’s not “straight news“. Thus Mr. Shane opines that: 

“This leaves “targeted killing,” which I think is far from a euphemism. It denotes exactly what’s happening: American drone operators aim at people on the ground and fire missiles at them. I think it’s a pretty good term for what’s happening, if a bit clinical.”

Clinical? The CIA is a hospital, and drones, presumably, scalpels? By that token whenever somebody shoots at children, it’s “targeted killing”, not murder! Indeed, an “operator” aims at children on the ground, and fires. Mr. Shane added that he had only one serious qualm about the term: it’s not “what’s happening”.  

Indeed, that, he said, was expressed by an administration official: “It’s not the targeted killings I object to — it’s the untargeted killings.” The official “was talking about so-called ‘signature strikes’ that target suspected militants based on their appearance, location, weapons and so on, not their identities, which are unknown; and also about mistaken strikes that kill civilians.”

“Mistaken strikes”? What’s mistaken about exploding a home one knows harbor women and children, in the alleged hope to get some potential terrorist, potentially inside?

In any case, Mr. Shane calls, from his own admission, “untargeted killings” and “signature strikes” by their opposites, “targeted killings”. In other words, black will be white, as long as it would be illegal, were it black.

Such are the standards at the New York Times. One can be barbarian because one is cruel. One can also be a barbarian, because one does not know how to use words. This is where the word barbarian comes from. The Greeks viewed those who could not talk well as saying: ba ba ba ba… (Notice I avoids any mention of the babama who wants to exponentiate Social Security out of existence, in an effort of remarkable restraint.)

Finally one can be a barbarian, because one views as valid a proposition and its negation. Mr. Shane seems affected by these three versions of barbarity: cruelty, at a loss for words, and self contradiction.

***

TORTURE HAS LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS, WE CAN’T TALK ABOUT IT:

On the matter of “detainee,” Mr. Corbett called it “a legitimate concern” and agreed that the term might not be ideal. He said that it, not prisoner, was used because those being held “are in such an unusual situation – they are not serving a prison term, they are in an unusual status of limbo.”

They are not serving a prison term, but they are in prison. This is the New York Times, thinking.

The debate over the word “torture,” he said, has similar implications to the one Mr. Shane described with assassination. “The word torture, aside from its common sense meaning, has specific legal meaning and ramifications,” Mr. Corbett said. “Part of the debate is on that very point.

Which point? What Mr. Corbett is saying is that the debate is about not torture per se, but about the “legal meaning and ramifications” of torture. Does that mean that the New York Times cannot talk about “torture“, because it has “legal ramifications” for its client?

The New York Times wants to “avoid making a legal judgment in the middle of a debate,” he added. The New York Times shall not judge before its time. We are not talking about “news” anymore, here. We are talking about judgment, once the debate, thus the news, are over.

***

NEW YORK TIMES AS A PROPAGANDA OUTFIT:

The most notorious failure of the media of the USA was when Nazi’s barbarity was not revealed to the public to the extent it deserved, in a timely manner. That’s how Hitler got on a joy ride for as long as he did.

The New York Times re-tweeted all the talking points of the Bush administration in the march to the Iraq war in 2002-2003. For years, if I sent a comment mentioning Mr. Bin Laden had been recruited and trained by the CIA and the SIA, my comment was immediately censored (I did this deliberately, just to experiment with the lemmings at the Times).  

What the authorities in Washington wanted, and it was amplified by the Main Stream media, is to make the folks believe that the Involvement of the USA in the Middle East started with a treacherous, mass murdering attack on 9/11. (My spouse worked for a firm that had offices in one of the collapsed towers, by the way, but moved just weeks before, so I’m not belittling 9/11, even on the personal level!)

In truth, 9/11 was a consequence of Washington’s policies more than that of some god crazed maniacs. And the consequences were highly predictable: after all the same trick of crashing a jumbo jet had been tried on Paris a few years earlier. Does that mean Washington never heard of Paris?

The first way to fight criminals, is to reveal, and then denounce their apparent, or suspected crimes. If there is a murder in the street, one does not call it a “targeted killing” especially if one knows that it is actually “untargeted” or a “signature strike”.

Also torture is the deliberate infliction of pain. It’s simple. Torture was stopped by European powers in the Middle Ages, because police techniques of interrogation had become more effective (and could be used legally, whereas torture could not… by law).

To stop barbarians in the modern world, the first thing to do is to uncover and denounce them. This is the job of journalism. The New York Times refuses to do this job. Instead it imagines it has another job, that of a legal authority. It also has the jobs of judge, and White House advocate. Not only it does all these things, which contradicts journalism, but it does it consciously, and deliberately.

Nazism was made possible because enough journalists and editors in the Anglo-Saxon world refused to report what the Nazis were doing. If they had, public opinion in the Anglo-Saxon world would have turned, and the collaboration with Hitler would have been declared unlawful, and then German general would have made an anti-Nazi coup.

So this is serious stuff.

And it’s still serious today. Obama basically proposed to do away with Social Security, by exponentiating out of it (more on that in another essay). What does the New York Times really know, and think about this? How come the reactions in the media have been so mild? How come not seeing what’s plain to see?

***

CIVILIZATION WITHOUT BRAINS CAN’T BE CONCEIVED, LET ALONE DEFENDED:

And so it goes. People are programmed by their (mental) environment. A devious mental environment makes for devious people. A base mental environment makes for base people. A false mental environment makes for small people. A mental environment where people learn to be only excited by trivialities makes for trivial minds.

Nietzsche condemned Christianity as a slave religion, while pointing out that the European aristocracy, while outwardly breathing Christianism, actually practiced the opposite. Nietzsche also noted that the strength of Greece came from keeping a balance between two completely opposed mentalities, the Dionysian and the Apollonian.  

Vast minds with vast personalities are more powerful than those who know only a few. When man domesticated an animal, the animals’ behavior registry got sharply reduced. A wolf is capable of much more behaviors than a dog. Domesticated animals are tools.

Tyrants rule over people because they have turned those people into low dimension minds with fewer emotions, and fewer thoughts, and less ability to form them, just like dogs relative to wolves. Ruling over weak minds is not just easier, it’s the only way. It’s also why democracy, which is more clever, keeps on defeating fascism.

Indeed a mental universe where people demand that ducks be called ducks is more powerful than one where they are not named. Intelligence is about discernment. Thus, the proper labels.

Mental freedom without mental power is only illusion.

The New York Times grandly proclaims the slogan “All News That Are fit To Print” on its front page. As pointed out above, the New York Times does not like to talk about it “while a debate is going on“.

New York Times, tell me: if “torture”, “murder”, “assassination” are not fit to print, what is fit to print?

***

Patrice Ayme

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

19 Responses to “Times Praises Mind Control”

  1. GMax Says:

    What’s Obama’s game?

    • EugenR Says:

      To make it clear what I meant to say above is; no one could predict before1936, where Germany is heading too, so no one except of the Nazis themselves are to be blamed for what they had done to the world. No one could even imagine to where all this is heading too until 1938.

      In a same way can you predict today to where the Arab world is heading with its revolution? Even if we can with certain security predict that the fundamental Muslims will take over the political power in most of the Arab world, can we predict towards where are they heading too? Are they going to implement their ideological-religious agenda, or are they going to sink in the mud of the unsolvable, urgently pressing economic problems? Or to say it in a metaphor, are they going to be troubled with the municipal sewage, or are they going to make wars among themselves and with the others? Who can say what the future will bring to us from this part of the world?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      GMax: the proper question may rather be: what’s the game of the demonocratic, I mean, democratic party? The democrats are greatly controlled by people of the Romney class, as I have explained in the past. When Obama became somebody in the democratic party, he was to become more if, and only if, he took instructions from above. That was his default mode, still is. After all, he presides…
      PA

  2. EugenR Says:

    Dear Patrice, I see you believe human history is based on cause and consequences. The truth is there are some historical developments that can be explained as consequence derived from cause. In these cases you can even limited predict the future.
    As an example I would use the technological development, that can be predicted when we say, “Most probably the human technological knowledge will be wider in the future”. Out of it we can derive many consequent predictions about the future.
    An other example is the demographic development, that has obvious trend, and again we may say; “Most probably the population of the wealthy nations, (US, Europe, Japan) will shrink in the next decades, while the population of rest of the world will grow. Again you can derive out of it many consequent predictions about the future.
    The third example I would use is the economy, where you can with certain confidence say; “Since 2008 the economic wealth is shifting from the traditional developed nations, (again US, Europe, Japan), to the rest of the world.
    Yet all this historical trends, has nothing to do to historical consequences of political decisions of political communities and/or their leaders. These are unpredictable and the consequences of their deeds are also unpredictable. Take for example the recent history of president Bush the Junior. At first he was elected by 50,000electors from Florida. Then since September 11 he was doing what he was doing. The attack at September 11 wouldn’t be prevented by a different president, but all the rest could be totally different. Probably the war in Iraq would never happen. The economic policy would be different and the world economic crisis of 2008 could be prevented.
    Conclusion, certain trends of human history can be identified, but the human history is about destiny and decisions of individuals and communities, and the consequences of their decision, I wouldn’t be to hasty to predict the consequences of certain decisions.

    • EugenR Says:

      (Sorry wrongly located reply above)
      To make it clear what I meant to say above is; no one could predict before1936, where Germany is heading too, so no one except of the Nazis themselves are to be blamed for what they had done to the world. No one could even imagine to where all this is heading too until 1938.

      In a same way can you predict today to where the Arab world is heading with its revolution? Even if we can with certain security predict that the fundamental Muslims will take over the political power in most of the Arab world, can we predict towards where are they heading too? Are they going to implement their ideological-religious agenda, or are they going to sink in the mud of the unsolvable, urgently pressing economic problems? Or to say it in a metaphor, are they going to be troubled with the municipal sewage, or are they going to make wars among themselves and with the others? Who can say what the future will bring to us from this part of the world?

      (Patrice, thanx to your likes on the book:))

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: Second time I write this. Program crashed as I was trying to save my long answer. Too bad, it was a long answer.
      Time: the overall set of all causes and consequences.

      9/11. Perfectly avoidable. There were NO USA air defenses at the time. It would have taken THREE HOURS to get them up.
      Obama is derelict about anti-missiles defenses. He can’t say he did not know anymore than Bush could say he did not know.

      Prussian racial military fascism was a long trend, originating with the Teutonic Knights, ending with Hitler.

      European Union is an even older trend. It started under Rome. It blossomed under the Franks. Then its opposite was tried for 1,100 years, with disastrous consequences. Now we are back to doing the right thing again.

      Anyway, my initial comment was much longer, no time now. Will try later.
      PA

  3. Roger Henry Says:

    To Eugen;
    Your ‘ no one can predict ‘ theme is a bag of rubbish. It represents a total abandonment of understanding of cause and effect based on copious amounts of historical president, and many man years of scientific study.
    To throw up ones hands and say” no one could have predicted that would have happened” should be reserved for the sports arena where the heat of battle and total physical out put overwhelms the power of intellect.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      dear Roger: I agree with you. My next essay partly deals with the causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Those have not been properly analyzed, and thus the present crisis is still deepening.
      PA

  4. Patrice Ayme Says:

    To Eugen (supporting Roger explicitly). You say:
    “The attack at September 11 wouldn’t be prevented by a different president, but all the rest could be totally different. Probably the war in Iraq would never happen. The economic policy would be different and the world economic crisis of 2008 could be prevented.”

    Indeed, as I already said, the president just had to bang his fist on the table, and order an effective air patrol, especially for the New England triangle, Boston Chicago, Washington. Which is no larger than France (France is overflown by as many planes, by the way).

    War in Iraq? It was vigorously pursued under Clinton. On a chronic basis. OK, 2003 was outrageous, mostly due to the determined opposition of France. I doubt president Gore would have France as much.

    Definitively, the 2008 financial crisis would have happened because it was definitively planted by Clinton-Rubin-Summers-Goldman Sachs in the 1990s, when financial derivatives were made cosmic.

    It would have taken heroic efforts (financial transaction tax a necessity) to revert the Goldman Sachs economy. They have not been done yet. Goldman people are not in jail, last I checked.
    PA

  5. Dominique Deux Says:

    I am afraid you are too much of a continental European and therefore lend too much influence to words, to the accuracy of words, to the pedagogical weight of accurate wording. Contrary to French, English is a language which accommodates euphemisms wonderfully, and American has turned that ability into a propensity. “Creative accounting” and “economical with the truth” may sound droll but they fulfill a need.

    From my experience on forums where the issues of America’s spiral into barbarity are discussed, I get the sad impression that those US citizens who are all for it (and who may be in a majority) are perfectly aware of the unconscionable reality behind the lofty words. And they have (almost) no problem with it, if only because for them, there is America the land of the free, and there is Injun country where anything goes. The very idea that, for example, due process is a right also for non-citizens makes them howl with self-righteous indignation.

    It is gratifying to call a cat a cat, and Obama, horresco referens, a murderer, but it leads nowhere soon. Better be cynical and argue on the waterboard-and-bomb strategy’s inefficiency, or rather its appalling counter-productivity.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: OK, let’s suppose that the “you” in your comment is me. Maybe I am too much a “continental European”, which, I guess is better than being an incontinent American. In truth I am a hummingbird of thought (one of the Aztec god was a hummingbird, and they are very clever: they come to my window to ask for nectar, and indicate to me where I should put it!)

      First of all, I am an African European, not an African-American. African-Americans are generally nothing African, whatsoever. When Michael Jackson went to Africa, he caught instant depression. Because he realized he had no roots. I have roots. American roots is to have no roots, and this I refute.

      Some of your points are very pertinent.

      …”issues of America’s spiral into barbarity are discussed, I get the sad impression that those US citizens who are all for it (and who may be in a majority) are perfectly aware of the unconscionable reality behind the lofty words. And they have (almost) no problem with it, if only because for them, there is America the land of the free, and there is Injun country where anything goes.”

      I talked about this extensively in the distant past. This is an American characteristic that Tocqueville missed entirely, and unjustifiably: he witnessed the deportation of the Cherokees, prototype to what the Nazis did in 1945, to kill millions while claiming they did not. Methinks he did not want to advertize the holocaustic side of the USA.

      The holocaustic side of the USA is central to its economic success: if they had to share the 48 states with 200 million Indians, it sure would not have been the same. The USA would look more like Brazil. Or, come to think of it, the Indians were also massacred in Brazil. So the USA would be just a giant Bolivia or Peru.

      So due process is definitively not for non citizens, it’s a matter of the basic American way of life, thus like. Something I have witnessed in person more than once. However, the Obama administration went too far, all the way to assassinating a teenager US citizen, USA born.

      Holocausting in the American cultural genes, complete with geological layers of non saids and hypocrisy to enable it.

      I am NOT calling Obama a murderer. Nor suggesting People should do so at this point. Because I do not know the exact circumstances of what he knew and ordered. But I do call people at the New York Times who call something a “targeted killing”, knowing full well that it is not so, accomplice to murder.
      PA

  6. Dominique Deux Says:

    “When Michael Jackson went to Africa, he caught instant depression” I was there, in Gabon… The Gabonese laughed themselves silly about his skin color – they were very miffed that he would not remove his gloves, and the young did like his music.

    But of course his roots were way North in the Sahel, where most slaves came from. Forest and coastal tribes traded slaves, getting rich from it, and secure in the knowledge that they, themselves, had little commercial value.

    Yes, Patrice, I am aware you have more recent African heritage than most French. Which makes you even more of an European when valuing words. Finding the right word is an African passion. Before they had mobile phones, young shepherds crafted poetry day and night. And the French-speaking African elites are incredibly demanding about terminology and style. Drafting for them is a pleasure, but an exacting one.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes Dominique. When it gets too hot, for half of the day, the best thing to do in Africa is to talk deep, below the incredibly black shade of a tree. Although I worship civilization max, I feel confident that the critical mindset of the African, having crossed three thousand years in three generations is indispensably critical.

      Most “African-Americans” are even more European-American, genetically speaking… My bet is that the lightness of Jackson’s skin, before he bleached it, came from Europe, not North Africa. Culturally “African-American are American through and through. Victim side. It’s the victimhood that unifies them.

      I did not realize that blacks traded light skin ones (Peuls?) Really? Generally, in old Africa, the lighter the skin, the more of a slave master one was, at least in the Senegal-Mauritania-Algeria zone I know best. But it could make sense. In my zeroes, I have seen Guinea Bissau blacks training with steel arrows, and it was a demoniac spectacle. Much more impressive than modern bows full of wheels and levers…
      PA

  7. Dominique Deux Says:

    Sorry to have been murky. I mean most of the West African slave trade came from what is now Mali, Burkina, Senegal… Savannah people (Bambara, Malinke, Mossi etc). They were taller and more muscular than the coastal/forest people in Côte d’Ivoire, Benin etc. White slavers bought their wares from coastal/forest tribes, but those tribes did not sell their own – except the occasional thief or chief’s supernumerary wife, added to the lot as a commercial gesture and good riddance. Anyway the traded ones were quite black too. They may have included Fulani (Peul) but generally nomadic people were more slavers than enslaved.

    Yes the race situation in Northern Africa (as opposed to sub-Sahelian) is far from solved. Mauritania in particular is a nest of hypocrisy, slavery, racism, apartheid and jihadism. Nice people, though. But I was there during a surge of racial unrest in the late eighties and it grew extremely nasty, pogrom-wise. With retaliation on the southern bank of the river in Senegal.

    Let me stop. We could babble about Africa for hours. It does that to people who’ve been there.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes Africa is another, fascinating and more real universe, in more ways than one.

      Although the slave trade got initially sparked by Spanish colons’ demands (having killed presided over the femise of millions of Caribs, in Hispanolia alone), fact is, as in all societies before it was outlawed by the Franks in 660CE, there was considerable slave trading before the first merchand showed up. Also an idea from the Pope,,,
      PA

  8. 747: Creating the world’s first Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures from a Life in Aviation | WWW.MINFOWORDS.COM Says:

    舒暢的愛情樂曲 合集 張專輯Times Praises Mind Control

  9. Amna Shiekh Says:

    You say: “A society demanding that ducks be called ducks is more mentally powerful than one where things are not properly named, and nobody cares.”
    Really? why?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Amna: Because the wills to mental discernment and passions forces a richer mental environment on people, and thus a more complex brain. The experiment was made on rats at UC Berkeley by a lady professor there (Marion Diamond), more than 3 decades ago. A complex brain cannot be built overnight, on a whim. Preschool differences in mental performance carry on thereafter. The very latest published research (April 2013), shows drastically bonzai short range entangled lader like neuronal architecture in some autistic people.
      PA

  10. Banksters Saved, Jobs Lost | Some of Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Intelligence at the core of humanism. « Times Praises Mind Control […]

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: