The big moment has now arrived. My Middle East historical work STRUGGLE FOR THE HOLY LAND: ARABS, JEWS AND THE EMERGENCE OF ISRAEL has been published by the leading e-book distributor Smashwords.com and is now available for purchase.
Free samples of this book are currently available. Readers will learn about what was on the mind of the world's leading intellectual Albert Einstein at the time of his death. The great thinker's final unfinished sentence from a talk he was slated to make for Israeli national radio related to the imperative urgency for peace between Jews and Arabs.
Moving forward some six decades, we can see that this imperative urgency remains. In the course of the last week the world has witnessed through the blinding speed of current high tech communication tragedies occurring in Australia and Pakistan that troubled the world citizenry.
STRUGGLE FOR THE HOLY LAND has been praised by both Arab and Jewish sources for its objectivity. The histories of both Arabs and Jews have been analyzed in this work. Throughout the emphasis has been toward generating understanding and peaceful cooperation. Olive branches were consistently sought rather than armed conflict.
This book was written with the author's fervent desire to help achieve peace through understanding. It establishes a point of intersection between Jews and Arabs. In that sense it is different from most books on this subject, in which the history of one group or the other is presented.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Amazing
This is an important effort in this area of propaganda and the significance of it. It demonstrates how alert the public must remain to nip its influence at the bud.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Cognitive Dissonance: The Engine That Drives Political Propaganda
In listening to Peter Dale Scott, the oracle of interpreting political propaganda, yesterday on You Tube as he coolly with factual precision analyzed Dick Cheney’s rape of the Bill of Rights following 9/11, it is easy to see him as recipient of a symbolic baton handed to him by George Orwell.
Scott and Orwell were among the few able to perceive and interpret the whys and wherefores of political propaganda.
Each understood the importance of cognitive dissonance as a mighty propaganda engine driving the process.
Envision a dual concept, an event and a controlled response. There is a fine tuning, a shaping process made to look like a natural sequence and flow of events, but in reality a bludgeoning force shaped by mainstream influences along with shadow government activity.
The thought of a shadow government shaping events is so disconcerting on its face that propagandists have a built-in ace in the hole to tune opinion in their favor.
Who really wants to believe that events have spun out of control and what is perceived as functioning political behavior is in so many respects a shadow dance meant to confuse?
With the mainstream media spending so much time on the horserace aspect of American electioneering, scores of citizens pay scant or no attention to the acts of governance and instead engage in the kind of sniping akin to choosing sides in a Super Bowl.
The more intense sounding and emotional the ebb and flow activity of inter-party debates followed by those between the emerging major party candidates the easier it is to accomplish two objectives 1) to sell the importance of the tactical process and 2) in the process distract from what is really occurring.
Was it any accident, for instance, that while Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff occurred there was a great focus on the Republican challenger in an election four years hence and how Sarah Palin might fare against Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee?
In 2000 George W. Bush announced he was removing “politics as usual” from the political process and would be operating as a people’s leader detached from partisan considerations.
In 2008 voters were besieged in speeches and commercials about Barack Obama and “change” of a major directional shift away from “politics as usual” and becoming a true people’s leader.
Instead the first major economic move by Obama was to protect the economic powers that be while on the military front pushing precipitously onward in Afghanistan into increasing difficulty.
When I encountered a veteran lawyer with many years of courtroom experience and asked him casually about how hard it was to swallow the official account of 9/11 and asked him if there was much more to the picture, he responded quickly, “Oh, I could never believe that!”
Here is someone who through experience should be more skeptical than the average individual without his special professional training and background. What was he saying?
I dare not question the bases of ultimate government authority since the prospect is too terrifying.
I encountered a person during the last presidential campaign who declared he was voting for the first time in his life.
The reason is that this time there would be meaningful change.
No sooner did he finish his declaration than he stated sadly that it was too bad we no longer had Kukla, Fran and Ollie as well as Mr. Rogers on television.
He said they made him happy. His confidence in substantive political change amid directional gale force winds was more of the same kind of rainbow realism.
Note how many times the same people get on the major television networks to declare their views, the James Carvilles, Ed Rollinses, and Tom Friedmans.
How many times have you seen Peter Dale Scott on prime time television?
Scott and Orwell were among the few able to perceive and interpret the whys and wherefores of political propaganda.
Each understood the importance of cognitive dissonance as a mighty propaganda engine driving the process.
Envision a dual concept, an event and a controlled response. There is a fine tuning, a shaping process made to look like a natural sequence and flow of events, but in reality a bludgeoning force shaped by mainstream influences along with shadow government activity.
The thought of a shadow government shaping events is so disconcerting on its face that propagandists have a built-in ace in the hole to tune opinion in their favor.
Who really wants to believe that events have spun out of control and what is perceived as functioning political behavior is in so many respects a shadow dance meant to confuse?
With the mainstream media spending so much time on the horserace aspect of American electioneering, scores of citizens pay scant or no attention to the acts of governance and instead engage in the kind of sniping akin to choosing sides in a Super Bowl.
The more intense sounding and emotional the ebb and flow activity of inter-party debates followed by those between the emerging major party candidates the easier it is to accomplish two objectives 1) to sell the importance of the tactical process and 2) in the process distract from what is really occurring.
Was it any accident, for instance, that while Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff occurred there was a great focus on the Republican challenger in an election four years hence and how Sarah Palin might fare against Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee?
In 2000 George W. Bush announced he was removing “politics as usual” from the political process and would be operating as a people’s leader detached from partisan considerations.
In 2008 voters were besieged in speeches and commercials about Barack Obama and “change” of a major directional shift away from “politics as usual” and becoming a true people’s leader.
Instead the first major economic move by Obama was to protect the economic powers that be while on the military front pushing precipitously onward in Afghanistan into increasing difficulty.
When I encountered a veteran lawyer with many years of courtroom experience and asked him casually about how hard it was to swallow the official account of 9/11 and asked him if there was much more to the picture, he responded quickly, “Oh, I could never believe that!”
Here is someone who through experience should be more skeptical than the average individual without his special professional training and background. What was he saying?
I dare not question the bases of ultimate government authority since the prospect is too terrifying.
I encountered a person during the last presidential campaign who declared he was voting for the first time in his life.
The reason is that this time there would be meaningful change.
No sooner did he finish his declaration than he stated sadly that it was too bad we no longer had Kukla, Fran and Ollie as well as Mr. Rogers on television.
He said they made him happy. His confidence in substantive political change amid directional gale force winds was more of the same kind of rainbow realism.
Note how many times the same people get on the major television networks to declare their views, the James Carvilles, Ed Rollinses, and Tom Friedmans.
How many times have you seen Peter Dale Scott on prime time television?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)