Neocon tactics examined.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mischief, Feb 24, 2005.

  1. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #1
    Let me see if I have this right:

    Neocons are using an adaptation of the scientific method in generating their propoganda and entreanched ideology.


    Step One: Hypothesis.

    Usually this is the establishment of a goal in terms of an election cycle, gerrymandering, setting policy, etc.

    At this time careful seeding of keywords and vague orwellian concepts are used to create unease in the public tied to an unspecified group of miscreants who are bent on destroying America.


    Step two testing/Execution.

    This is also the stage at which a strategy of specific Orwellian propoganda is formed and targets isolated.

    The doublespeak is usually constructed to target those politicians most likely to be able to defeat or impede the goal set above.

    A framework of propoganda is constructed using general buzzwords planted by pundits over the long term. These buzzwords are inherently vague and couched such that they create a pre-existing bogeyman ready made to fit the framework of the propoganda.


    Step three: Cross testing/Refined execution.

    The Propoganda is seeded both directly and indirectly through saturation of media and word of mouth that the targeted politicians mentioned above have already or are attempting to execute the very scheme being put into motion.

    This provides a mandate of public outcry demanding to those who put out the propoganda do something about this devious bogeyman who now has a face and a plan.


    Step four: Independant Verification/ Legislation.

    By this stage the above strategies have removed, discredited or demonized any opposition and convinced the public that the group executing this technique is well down the road to preventing exactly what they are, in fact perpetrating.

    Legislation is written, couched in further orwellian language to execute the actual legal shift sought.

    This execution has already been described in detail to the public as being the evil plan of the opposition. The Bill will likely pass overwhelmingly as constituencies are terrified of it failing.

    Once it passes the Orwellians can claim victory and then spin the repercussions down the line using the pre-emptive planting of ties between the repercussions and their opposition as an " I told you so." jumpstart on their next anti-bogeyman crusade.

    Note: This technique was refined to a fine science initially by Heirich Himmler. Orwell just gave us a moniker for the technique not tied to a war criminal.
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    If you go here you can download the 160 page Frank Luntz work on exactly how one would go about doing what you suggest...
     
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #3
    The back-and-forth between us has been sorta a broken record, but Orwellian criticisms could just as easily be put upon the comtemporary Democrats.

    During WWII, Orwell, a genuine socialist, did not mince words about the appropriation of socialist "ideals" by either the Germans or the Soviets for completely different realities.

    He also had scating criticism for those in Britain (and to a lesser degree, the US) who were rabid supporters of the USSR, either because they were so anti-Reich/Fascist, that they refused to look at an enemy of the Reich with a critical eye, or they bought the Soviet propaganda hook, line and sinker.

    What I mean to say here, is that while the neocons are a force to reckoned with, there is a possibility for many to give the Democrats carte blanche,because they are the opposition. Such lack of critical analysis, why certainly aided by Neocon propaganda, has a tendency to let the Democrats off the hook for their behavior(s).

    While the Democrats are obviously preferable to the neocon agenda, they are by no means angels, and are guilty of many of the same crimes as the neocons, just dressed differently and substantially less brazen in execution.

    While the Democratic Party is on the defensive and disorganized at the moment, there is a real danger that in combating the neocon agenda they will use the same tactics as their enemies, in which case they will be little better, but the uncritical and rote support of many will leave them (and the supporters) open to serious charges and problems should they regain some semblance of power.

    *EDIT* I am sorry, I'm not sure I did a very good job of explaining my point here.
     
  4. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #4
    Good work Mischief I think you are on target with your post, but I will say that I think this is nothing really THAT new. It is unfortunate, but various parts of this hypothesis have been occuring for about 50 years. A good book was written by a gentleman names Stuart Evans called "PR!." THe book tracks the history of propoganda use in the united states, specifically the use by the government in war and other crisis times. This stuff began back in WWII... in the 80's through the Gulf war, during the time Sadaam went from friend to foe, PR and advertising agencies were working day and night. The British PR firm H&K actually staged a psuedo trail like hearing thing over a girl that was supposedly "recovered" from a bombed out Kuwaiti hospital. In reality she was the daughter of a government official who was going to volunteer at the hospital and arrived after the destruction took place. All this was done to villify Sadaam before the invasion. No, none of this is right, but it is not new... I think we are just getting better at seeing it and the admin is getting bolder.

    Also as far as media conspiracy goes, it is not a question of intentionally pushing an ideology (except FAUX NEWS) it is a question of profit margins. I am a advertising, PR and journalism student that spent over a year researching the exact topic of media accuracy and fairness (and as an extension manipulation). We pretty much came to a very strong conclusion that the media does not advatage the admin in office because of some covert, secret, conspiracy theory to make Bush king of the earth, but because Corporations run our news and corporations want money. It is exponentionaly cheaper to take pre-packaged media packets and press conference info from the White House than it is to actually invistegate. And reporters are now being pressured to do just that. The White House isn't stupid, they gladly feed the press info, just as every admin in the past has, our corporate greed is now just winning out over journalistic integrity. I guess my final point is.. yes it sucks, and yes the admin is acting inapropriately, but the ultimate problem starts with the system.. so I ask this intelligent group of people to start looking at what we the people can do to fix a very broken system... not what we the people can do to make the Bush admin look even worse (trust me they got that covered.)

    Paul
     
  5. mischief thread starter macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #5

    Oh no, I agree altogether. This is, in fact the very reason I'm using Nazi Germany as my example. The Nazis rode to power roughshod over the Marxists. I'm not advocating either group, I'm instead attempting to illustrate just how dire things are right now.

    Personally I believe that this country has become too saturated with polarized "free-radicals" (look it up) of propoganist ideology from both sides to continue without fundamental change coming from neither side.

    I realize, however that group social dynamics do not bode well for things to come. The combination of bystander effect and the tendency of people to choose complicity over intervention nearly guarantees that rational voices will not be heard no matter how eloquent. Witness the celebrity who, when voicing his concern that attacking Afghanistan was an irrational and ultimately destructive move born of anger and grief was literally boo'd off stage.

    All of this leaves me little choice but to show the most horrifying examples of the end products of this process by the closest similies I can find in modern history. Unfortunately the closest thing to current trends in the USA were the events leading to and surrounding the Nazi coup in Germany in 1933-37.
     

Share This Page