Lies and Myth and Propaganda and Conventional Wisdom
By: Guest Authors
By: Brooks A. Mick
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic.”
–John F. Kennedy
Perhaps that’s so, but doesn’t the myth often develop from the relentlessly repeated lie? Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s chief Nazi propagandist, was famous for saying â€œIf you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Kennedy may have been dealing with only half the propaganda problem. He did not consider that the propagandist creates the lies for the express purpose of building a “persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic” myth.
This sequence transpired with the events following the election of 2000. What was evident was that George W. Bush was a decent man, an honorable man, and an honest man. What he said was believable. What was objectively evident was that George W. Bush won the election in Florida on the initial count and the recount, and that Al Gore then began to concoct ways to steal the election and that the election theft was thwarted. The Democratic propagandists, however, began the immediate big lie that Bush had stolen the election and this has become the accepted conventional wisdom, at least among Democrats if not a fair percentage of Republicans.
After 9/11, the credibility of George W. Bush, one of his strongest points, was incessantly attacked by charges that “Bush lied” about virtually everything he said. Though the objective evidence is clear that the intelligence sources of the entire world were simply inadequate, stories were fabricated that Saddam’s WMD were merely creations of the Bush administration. The lie was repeated endlessly that the USA had a great store of good will in the world after 9/11 and that Bush “squandered” it. Reality clearly contradicts this Big Lie.
>From just one source, The Guardian newspaper in Great Britain:
1) 13 September 2001 – “America’s policies–and those of its allies–have become a crippling liability, for which American civilians are now having to pay.”
2) 13 September 2001 – “They can’t see why they are hated.”
3) 14 September 2001 – “There is an intellectual framework in which to fit this posture of a Wild West–or rather a Deep South–mentality of a lynch mob out to get the first Darkie after a local rape and string him by the nearest sturdy oak.”
4) 15 September 2001 – “The penknife and the bomb–Brute force is not the way to defeat the terrorist threat.”
5) 16 September 2001 – “Blair must say ‘don’t go mad, George.’”
(from “How Propaganda Works” by Robert Merz)
There was, in The Guardian in Great Britain and in Le Monde in France, a single day wherein token comforting and sympathetic editorials were posted, but prior to 9/11 and within two days of the attack, the usual anti-American verbage resurfaced. There was no squandering of good will–there was never significant good will toward America. The rest of the world has always feared America and has been jealous of its power and success and wealth.
What the terrorists recognized from the beginning, having studied the North Vietnamese success in turning public opinion against the Vietnamese War, is that propaganda, especially as promulgated through our own media in America, was at least equal to all the other weaponry at their disposal. Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s #2 man, said “I say to you that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.”
My proposition is that the Democrats’ implacable enmity for George W. Bush and the lack of journalistic integrity in our media which allows, even relishes in, the spreading of anti-Bush and anti-American propaganda, are the equivalent of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Worse, they are the equivalent of car bombs set off in our streets. They are weapons of our enemies.
Think of the urban legends that George Bush is a liar and that there was great good will in the world toward us and that Bush “squandered” it as improvised verbal explosive devices.