Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Iranian President accused the West of using the Holocaust as a pretext....
RETURN OF THE OVERFIEND!:
--- Quote from: virtuoso on April 21, 2009, 05:46:44 AM ---
I never said he wasn't a hypocrite or using it as a staging post for his re-election campaign but all I am saying is this epitomises the feelings of a lot of the world, ;D that the israeli government government is racist and yet gets away completely unscathed. Of course the arab countries were and have been complicit in allowing the suffering of the Palestinians to continue. As has been mentioned before they don't really like the palestinians, because they are seen as the black sheep of the arab world but will use them as a political tool whenever the need arrises. I guess this just underlines how controlled these said governments are.
--- End quote ---
I agree aswell, what struck me about Amadinejad's speech is that really, the vast majority of the world representatives stayed and cheered him on, really only a minority of countries diplomats walked out, and even then, the populations of those countries that walked out dont all necessarily not empathise with some of what was said in his speech, the problem is shit like Amadinejad's speech hijacks and radicalises an otherwise legitimate view.
I TO DA GEEZY:
--- Quote from: Overfiend ILLuminati Click brrrrrrap! on April 21, 2009, 02:26:31 PM ---the problem is shit like Amadinejad's speech hijacks and radicalises an otherwise legitimate view.
--- End quote ---
That's actually an interesting point. It should tell you something about how western doctrinal systems function. First, they marginalize certain views. Then, they wait for enemy states to start harping on the marginalized views, something they typically do. Finally, our doctrinal systems use the fact these views were voiced by official enemies in order to delegitimize them even more. This practice has also another important side benefit of exerting pressure on dissent, because dissidents can be accused of being in cahoots with the enemy, and with some credence because the views are indeed very similar.
So when I wanna hear about Israeli human rights violations I can go to B'tselem (the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights), that carefully documents Israel's violations. Or, I can listen to Ahmedinejad make generalizations about Israel's practices. Later, apologists will equate B'tselem-an Israeli organization-to Ahmedinijad and other official enemies.
RETURN OF THE OVERFIEND!:
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 22, 2009, 01:28:39 AM ---
--- Quote from: Overfiend ILLuminati Click brrrrrrap! on April 21, 2009, 02:26:31 PM ---the problem is shit like Amadinejad's speech hijacks and radicalises an otherwise legitimate view.
--- End quote ---
That's actually an interesting point. It should tell you something about how western doctrinal systems function. First, they marginalize certain views. Then, they wait for enemy states to start harping on the marginalized views, something they typically do. Finally, our doctrinal systems use the fact these views were voiced by official enemies in order to delegitimize them even more. This practice has also another important side benefit of exerting pressure on dissent, because dissidents can be accused of being in cahoots with the enemy, and with some credence because the views are indeed very similar.
--- End quote ---
Exactly.
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on April 22, 2009, 01:28:39 AM ---
So when I wanna hear about Israeli human rights violations I can go to B'tselem (the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights), that carefully documents Israel's violations. Or, I can listen to Ahmedinejad make generalizations about Israel's practices. Later, apologists will equate B'tselem-an Israeli organization-to Ahmedinijad and other official enemies.
--- End quote ---
It gets like that. But it dosn't matter if the state itself directly equates a liberal human-rights watch group with a radical fundamentalist source because people will do that themselves. Because let me explain: it is more powerful if the state dosn't make such judgements itself because if people are left to make what are default conclusions on their own, in their mind it will be much more legitimate than any state decision or policy, rather the state should not try to force public opinion, rather all the state should do is hint at things which it can do through many ways as we have seen, media and psychology campaigns through fiction and non-fiction and in this way a myth will be created which is much more influential than any lone state opinion, in the mind of the individual then, every event, every power move will be encapsulated and understandable to the individual through this myth. 9/11, Muslims, Christians, Bible, Holy War, Crusades, The Rapture, Jihad, The Promised Land or even New World Order, the illuminati, the Bilderbergs. Most people entertain some meta-narrative, some myth through which they use to some degree to aid them understand the world.
I TO DA GEEZY:
This is where more democratic states differ from dictatorships. The propaganda in dictatorships is basically used to make public the government line, if you don't follow they'll use force against you. In more democratic states, like the United States, UK, etc propaganda is disseminated and produced in a much more decentralized fashion. Instead of State directed propaganda, we have Media corporations which work under institutional constraints.In their everyday functioning they are directed by profit orientation, which in turn forces them to take into account the views of advertisers and official sources (which are the cheapest ones) . Despite these institutional differences between dictatorial and democratic countries, the media products are strinkingly similar. Try to find a mainstream media product condemning the use of force in international affairs on principled grounds (as opposed to opposition on grounds of cost-benefit analysis). I did a small study of on the mainstream Israeli media to see whether there's any principled condemnation of the possible use of force against Iran. Even at the dovish extreme, people who were critical of a possible attack on Iran, all there was was a cost benefit analysis, no principled critique.
So yeah, the decentralized version of propaganda we find in democratic states is probably even more effective than dictatorial propaganda, because we have an illusion of diversity, whatever's out of the discussion becomes often unimaginable to many people.So the official line becomes like the air you breathe. Though this is not to say people actually buy all of it. In Israel it seems to be the case.In contrast, in the US, the government is typically way to the right of the population, something that shows up on polls.
dexter:
i admire he's gangster
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version