Tactics of Brain-washing

Death of Truth, Extremism, Right-wing Extremism, Sacred Ignorance

For many years I never watched the TV news. I thought I was better off just reading a newspaper or magazine.  Now there is evidence that in some cases at least that is true!

Jen Senko, the director and producer and narrator of the film The Brain Washing of my Dad, which I had watched blogged about earlier, told the story of her father who had been led from being a good guy to a fanatic right-winger largely on the basis of Fox News.  She felt he had been brain-washed by Fox News. She found some scientists and doctors who identified some of the tactics of the right-wing  that could result in profound changes in people.

 

One tactic she called “Lie and Skew.” This is based on an insight of the German Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels who said, “If you tell a lie big enough, and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it” this is what Timothy Snyder called “The Big Lie.”  Hitler told such lies too. So did Donald Trump. It seems counter intuitive but the bigger the lie the better it worked.

 

Another example was the claim by George W. Bush and his cronies that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when they invaded in 2003. Such weapons were never found no matter how many years they occupied Iraq. Many conservatives so strongly believed this lie that many years later they still believed, entirely without evidence of course, that Saddam Hussein just kept moving the weapons to keep them out of sight of the occupying American army. George W. Bush, to his credit eventually admitted that they never found them. Though he didn’t admit they lied about it. More recently, Donald Trump has claimed the 2020 presidential election in the US was stolen fraudulently by the Democrats. He has never stopped spreading this lie because it is useful to him. He can use this to discredit the electoral system in case he is not elected. He has never provided evidence to support that claim. He just repeats it over and over again as if that is enough.  And many Republicans believe it even though they don’t have any credible evidence for it either.

 

In the film The Brain Washing of my Dad, Jonathan Schroeder professor of Communications at Rochester Institute of Technology  pointed out that often news media will claim a statistic that they cite out of thin air without saying who said it or where it came from. You have to know these things so you can tell if the statistic  is independent, created by recognized experts in the field and has been peer reviewed. If you don’t know the source you should not trust.

 

Fairleigh Dickenson University’s Public Minds survey asked 1,185 people nation wide what their news services were and then asked them about events in the US and abroad. Those news services were then evaluated on the basis of how many of the viewers of various sources got the right answer. The result were incredibly interesting: Here is the order from good to bad of those news services’ viewers:

 

NPR

Sunday Show,

Daily Show,

CNN,

MSNBC,

No News,

Fox News

 

You got it. Fox News viewers came last even behind viewers who watched no news at all! In other words, people got more reliable news without watching the news than they did watching Fox News!

 

I more or less would rank the news services in the same order though Comedy News is a comedy show.

 

Of course, to many on the right in America the only source they trust is Fox News and, of course, their own independent “research” on the Internet. I have watched it too, but find their opinions usually far-fetched. But I admit I don’t watch it often. I am referring particularly to the version of Fox News that includes their pundits like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Trump seems to believe everything he hears there and has in fact appointed a number of their pundits to his Cabinet or panel of advisors.

 

I know that others disagree, but Fox News, in my opinion, based admittedly on very limited experience,  is addicted to the Big lie because it sells. It gets people angry. And anger is the basis of their widespread support among the American right-wing. For what it’s worth that is my opinion.

When Murderous Regimes Meet

Extremism, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

Since the first day of the war in Gaza I have been saying that this would be a brutal war with very few if any limits. When I said that I based that on my limited knowledge that both groups were dominated by extremists. And then I was just thinking of Israel and Hamas. I did not think others would jump in, though I recognized that this would a real possibility.

 

Now there are a lot of more extremists involved. Since then, the United States jumped in on the side of Israel and Hezbollah on the side of Iran. As a result, we now have 4 murderous regimes in the war and make no mistake about it, 4 all are murderous regimes including the US under Donald Trump. When murderous regimes meet nothing good is likely to follow.

 

We must not flinch from pointing this out to even to our friends on any of those sides. The ugly truth must be faced.

 

And the result of a meeting of such 4 murderous states is guess what? Murderous words followed by murderous actions of course. And the result of all of this is bound to be unhappy.

 

Foad Izadi an associate professor at the University of Tehran pointed out an interesting fact to a Guardian reporter: “Trump and Netanyahu have managed to unite Iranians more than any Iranian politician could.”

 

Mehran Haghirian, director of research and development  at the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation in London said that the Islamic Republic  was not capable of change, as that required being open to the outside world.”  Does he think the other 3 regimes are any different?

 

Elham, an artist in Iran, made an interesting suggestion when she said, referring specifically to Iran but the suggestion is actually just as applicable to all of the 4 murderous regimes: “We have to build new coalitions. Whether you are a reformer or hardliner, everyone has to take a step forward towards each other.” This is a valuable insight. We must learn to step away from the extremists. Even those who support us.

 

That is what everyone must do. But when murderous regimes meet that seldom happens. But it should. By each of them

 

 

 

John Cleese and the Good Things about Extremism

Extremism

John Cleese, of Monty Python fame and  certainly one of England’s most learned philosophers, gave a talk given in 1987 in which he had some interesting things to say about extremism that fits in well with what Luke in the Bible and Will Braun, have said. Actuall,y it fits well with everything you have ever thought about extremists.

 

He started by acknowledging that a lot of people were complaining about extremism.  The airwaves were filled he said with people who were less friendly and more intolerant of others. People lacked respect for their opponents. Cleese did not disagree with that, but, he said, what about the other side? What about the good things about extremism?

 

“The biggest advantage of extremism,” Cleese said, “is that it makes you feel good, because it provides you with enemies. The best thing about enemies is that your can pretend that all the badness in the whole world is in your enemies and all the goodness in the whole world is in you!”

 

 

Cleese had more to add, as if that was not enough:

 

“If you have a lot of anger and resentment in you and you therefore enjoy abusing people, then you can pretend that the only reason you are doing what you do is that your enemies are such very bad persons and that if it weren’t for them you’d actually be good-natured, courteous, and a rational all the time. So if you want to feel good become an extremist. Now you have a choice.  If you join the hard left, they will give you a list of authorized enemies—almost all kinds of authority, especially the police, the city, the Americans, judges and multi-national corporations, public schools, furriers, newspaper owners, fox hunters, generals, class traitors, and, of course, moderates. Or, if you’d rather be an extremist on the hard right, no problem, fine no problem, you still get a lovely list of enemies, only a different one. Noisy minority groups, unions, Russia, weirdo, demonstrators, welfare spongers, meddlesome clergy, peaceniks, the BBC, [or I guess CBC in Canada] strikers, social workers, communists, and of course, moderates. Once you get this superlist of enemies you can be as nasty as you like and still feel your behavior is morally justified. So you can strut around abusing people telling them that you can eat them for breakfast, and still think of yourself as a champion of the truth. A fighter for the greater good. And not the rather sad paranoid schizoid that you really are.”

 

As a result, maybe extremism is not such a bad thing after all.

 

A Mixed Stew of Simmering Hatreds

Extremism, Hate, Polarization

 

Hatred and Extremism go together like love and marriage. Or should I say like hatred and marriage? Or as a friend of mine would say, pea and porcelain.

 

Recently, an Albertan radical posted a manifesto on line in which he said “women’s sole purpose is to reproduce and modern society is marginalizing men.” Clearly, he was aligned with the Incel movement. The Woe is me movement which attracts a lot of dissatisfied men. Besides, women, he also hated real estate developers, elites, pornographers, and Jews hence establishing his credentials as pretty omnibus hater. Perhaps we should call him an egalitarian hater. It surely was a simmering list of hatreds that could only spell trouble. And this is what it did.

 

I think hatred metastasizes. It spreads and brings cancer to everything on which it alights. And eventually, it brings death.

 

After publishing his manifesto on-line he travelled to Montreal to cause a ruckus. He visited the area that contained a number of powerful companies and began an incident in which a Montreal cop and an innocent bystander who happened to be Jewish, were shot and killed. I think I heard the bystander was actually shot by the cop.

 

All this accomplished was making it clear that Canada was home to domestic terrorism too. Perhaps our terrorists are just more incompetent than their American heroes. Certainly, no better.

The Definition of a Narcissist

Authoritarianism, Populism, Trump, Trumpism

 

Here is a short definition of “narcissistic personality disorder” based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5), the official psychological diagnosis manual:

 

Has a pervasive pattern of grandiosity. Needs and requires excessive admiration. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance. Exaggerates achievement and talents. Expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success. Has a sense of entitlement. Lacks empathy. Takes advantage of others to achieve his or her ends.

 

Does this not describe Donald Trump perfectly? What does it say about America that millions and millions of people think he should be the president of their country?

Are The Democrats as bad as the Republicans?

Extremism, Polarization

 

Democrats recently have been demonstrating that in many ways they are just as bad as the Republicans. This should hardly be surprising. Tribalism runs deep, particularly in the USA.

 

In the US the Democratic party has found itself in a moral quandary.  As we all know they want to win the upcoming mid-term elections badly. To do that most commentators believe they have to win the Senate race in Maine to defeat the Republican Lisa Colins Republican incumbent who is seeking a 6th term. Her seat is considered shaky because Democrats are strong in Maine.

 

At least until now, the leader in the race to gain the primary in Maine was harbor master Graham Platner who has more than a chequered record. Apparently he has a Nazi tattoo. He has faced a lot of claims of sexual harassment and now even an accusation of rape.  Platner was leading in the race with 72% support until he was forced out by the party elite and others to withdraw.  Until then the Democrats had a choice to support a much less than ideal candidate or lose the election to Platner.  Many Democrats were showing they were fully prepared to hold their noses and vote for Platner despite their long history of virtue signalling.

 

In November 2017, during his election campaign for U.S. Senate in Alabama as a Republican several public allegations of sexual misconduct were made against Roy Moore. 3 women stated that he sexually assaulted them when they were aged 14, 16, and 28. 6 other women reported that when he was in his thirties, he pursued sexual relations with them even though some were as young as 16. He denied assaulting them but acknowledged he had approached them.  None of this was sufficient to stop Donald Trump from endorsing him and that encouraged some Republicans to endorse him as well, but the lost the election to a Democrat. Democrats of course were quick to mock Republicans for their deplorable behaviour.

 

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Many Democrats were making it clear that they were quite prepared to ditch their morality in the hopes of defeating Collins but the damage to the Democrats’ reputations   has been done. They have demonstrated clearly that they are not much better in this respect than Republicans.

 

This is how tribalism works and it stinks to high heaven.

Hanging on to Hate

Extremism, Hate, Polarization

 

Who are we? Are we hanging on to the hate? Or are we trying to be more forgiving, more generous? Do I want to be on the side of Trump?  Not really. But we have be aware of our natural tendency to wallow in the hate, and judgement. So often that is where we want to go? Is that where we should go? Trump, as we know, cannot resist is impulses.  How about us? I don’t want to follow him down this path (or any other path for that matter).

 

Will Braun, our CMU instructor, said used an expression I have never heard before “hate reading.”  But I immediately thought I knew what he meant.

 

First, most of us like to read things, or watch things, that we agree with. I that is natural, but it is a tendency we should guard against. When I lived in the US I tried to watch Fox News, but shamefully, I found it very difficult to read.  They just seemed to have an entirely different definition of truth. Truth was what the right wanted to be true.

 

Journalist, Amanda Ripley says, “we soothe ourselves with the knowledge that all Republicans are racist rednecks or all Democrats are precious snowflakes who hate America.” Will Braun did not want to do that. He suggested we should guard against too easy feelings of superiority.  As Braun a professed Christian,  said, “Sometimes we move from loving our enemies, to loving to have enemies.” Another mistake.

 

Robert Talisse  an American philosopher, political theorist and chair of the Department of Philosophy said,

 

“People like to complain about political toxicity, and then just blame the other side.”  Isn’t that what toxicity is all about? It was what leaves their mouths; not ours. Talisse also said this: “We are not necessarily more divided, on actual issues but we hate each other more. We like disliking the other side. We like toxicity.” I agree. I don’t like to admit it, but I think I have felt that way. We don’t want to give up the hatred of the other side because we like it so much.

 

This is closely connected to what Braun called “hate reading.” We eagerly read something new when we think it might give us more ammunition against the other side.  If we can add it to the list of stupid things “they” have done, we are pleased. The more outrageous things the others say the better, because it justifies our hate. Again, I admit I do this. I am a sinner. How about you?

 

I have to admit I read a book by Kristen Kobess du Mez from this perspective called Jesus and John Wayne and in it she filled it with stupid things (in my opinion) Christian evangelicals had done and as I read I highlighted them. My bad. I wanted to remember these. They seemed like they might be valuable ammunition in my next encounter with evangelicals. Not really a great reason to read or enjoy a book. Does that make me a sinner?  My only defence, is that at least I never denied being a sinner.

 

Hate reading is reading for the wrong reasons and I should control that impulse.  I promise to curtail that impulse.

The governor of Utah at the funeral of Charlie Kirk said he would unplug from social media.  I know others have tried this too. That certainly is one way to avoid hate listening or watching or reading. We find the hate or the feelings of superiority entertaining. It shouldn’t be entertaining. This is not our best selves when we do that.

 

To say, and admit deeply, that we are all the children of God, requires hard work. It is not easy to think like this. It is hard. To be Christian, Braun suggests, requires such an attitude. Because I am Christian he said I have to do this hard work of avoiding hate.

 

Braun said he went to a spiritual retreat where most of the day was spent in silence, but each day they said a prayer that went something like this:

“God says we are a work of art crafted in fatherly and motherly care. God welcome us and celebrates us in love.”

 

This is the opposite attitude from that of the Pharisee who wanted to celebrate that he was not like other people.

Can we say that Donald Trump is a child of God? How about Hitler? My wife always reminds me that Hitler’s mother probably loved him. Is Hitler another child of God. Can we really say that? It’s pretty hard.

Braun’s view is that we must all work hard to avoid being judgmental because we are all children of God.

Who ever said being anti-polarizing would be easy?

 

Charlie Kirk and the Darkness within

Polarization

 

Will Braun in one of his classes at CMU, referred to something he called, “the darkness within.” And he wanted to take a peak at that darkness within each of us. No one is all sweetness and light. We all have some cruelty inside us. It is a part of us. Part of our nature.

 

Braun quoted a part of vicious attack on Charlie Kirk, a right-wing influencer much loved by the MAGA right particularly after he was shot. This is what the left-wing poster said about Kirk:

 

“He was an unrepentant racist, transphobe, homophobe, and misogynist who often wrapped his bigotry in Bible verses because there was no other way to pretend that it was morally right, as do many vile people.”

 

Braun asked us to consider what is the point of posting such a harsh diatribe about a dead man, who left behind a wife and children? I have to admit that when I read it, I agreed with it in large part, but acknowledged Braun had point. Braun said that “this was like posting, ‘God thank you for not making me like Charlie Kirk.’” Like the Pharisee Luke had talked about.  Yet should I think the guy who posted this complaint about Charlie is dumb and thank God that I am not like him?  That would be bad too. Superiority always comes natural to many of us, including me, sadly.

 

At the funeral for Charlie Kirk, his widow Erica said she forgave the man who killed her husband, the father of her children, who now don’t have a father. That is no small thing to forgive in such circumstances. Could I do it?  Trump on the other hand, immediately said he could not do it. He hated his opponents. He wanted vengeance and fought hard for it against not just the killer but everyone on the side of the evil left.

 

It is so natural for many of us to be judgmental. That is why we have to work hard to control the judgments.

 

A good friend of mine often reminds me of that wonderful comic where Homer Simpson prayed “Please God help me go to church regularly so I can learn to be more judgmental.” A lot of non-Christians of course are just as judgemental.  Sometimes it’s hard not to be judgemental. I admire those who can avoid it. I would like to be like them.

 

As Braun said, “she [Mrs. Kirk]  looked like the American evangelical Barbie and there she is forgiving Charlie Kirk’s killer when it was clearly not aligned with the mood of the event.” That took courage and strength.

 

The American right, including of course, J.D. Vance and Stephen Miller were out for vengeance against the left, which they called justice. But she looked like a shallow right-winger, but was forgiving him. Could we do that? Did we have any right to feel superior to her? I would suggest no.

 

Polarization is easy; empathy is hard. Or as Will Braun said, “It’s easy for us to enjoy the militant backwardness of others.”

 

That darkness within can get pretty ugly.