Limbaugh & Co. really doesn't get the point. But thank you anyway for the transcript of your December 1 show where you showed me the LA Times article, about the network's fear of losing credibility. Because to my Machiavellian cynicism the credibility of the media is far too valuable to the military liar and thief to be bandied about as carelessly as Dubya has done with Fallujah! Actually credibility is the true propagandist's real ally, and no good storyteller was ever careless with it. Back in World War II people were told the truth more often than they were lied to. Whenever a specific action was required, then at that moment people had the wool pulled over their eyes in order to ensure the success of the mission. They were not lied to constantly, or wastefully, and certainly not as part of social experiments. Fallujah, dear Rush was an example of how not to do it.
In war, when you lie to the people you may lie about the target of a mission to misdirect the eyes of the enemy. But once the outcome of the mission is given, the only concern planners must have is if the outcome would in any way reveal your method of acquiring the intelligence your mission was based on. In WWII upon which you base so much of your arguments, the British allowed the Germans to bomb Coventry to the ground so that they wouldn't give away to them the fact that they broke the Enigma code. As for psyops, the only population you really need to worry about convincing to surrender and cooperate is that of the enemy. What the homefront needs is emotional encouragement and justification. That means telling a version of the truth, yes you can narrow it down to the reasons that justify your war, just make sure you have at least one fact that can stand up to scrutiny please! Has Bush really done his job as far as propaganda at home and abroad are concerned? No. A good propaganda campaign will always convince the home front that "our cause" is just, and that the enemy is evil. It will always ensure that no emotional sympathy for the enemy will arise and there would be a great deal of satisfaction in vanquishing the enemy. On the psyops side the campaign must persuade the enemy's population that "we" are invincible, both in argument and means, and confrontation can only mean defeat.The fight is emotional and cerebral. "We" have the just cause not you. "You" are the criminals, "we" - the victims aroused to war. "We" are to be feared, do not try to maneuver, for "we" will outmaneuver you. Do not try to fool us for "we" will always outsmart you. "We" will outfight you, and leave you homeless.
There are three kinds of propaganda: "White Propaganda", or the kind that comes from an open source, "Gray Propaganda", which pretends to be from a neutral source but actually comes from the enemy, and "Black Propaganda", which pretends to come from a friendly source, but is actually from the enemy. Let me put it more succintly. "White Propaganda", is what you openly tell the enemy yourself, "Gray Propaganda", is when you piggyback your message from a so-called "neutral" source, for an opportunity to A give your side more credibility abroad, B isolate your enemy, and C make your enemy more credulous. "Black Propaganda", is when you try to plant your propaganda by gaining the enemie's trust using a source that the enemy will believe. In all three, the Bush neocon administration failed - miserably.
"White" propaganda is when you are talking to the world. It is you putting your voice to your arguments. Your first duty is to persuade your people that your cause is right. Then you persuade the world! George Bush failed in that. He based his argument for war against Iraq on the flimsiest of arguments that was a longshot to prove, thereby shredding his credibility in the first place. And when his representatives in the UN and Colin Powell shredded their credibility in front of the Security Council, he treated their failure as some kind of ideological success, and went ahead with the war anyway. As for "Gray" propaganda, after alienating just about everybody in the world, where could the Bush administration ever find any "neutral" source to carry water for him anywhere. Our only attempt at "Black" propaganda, Alhurra has no credibility. The Iraqis would no more believe a so-called "Arab" TV network operating from Springfield Illinois, than the British in WWII woould believe the ramblings of "Lord Haw Haw", coming straight from Nazi Berlin.
As for disinformation, was it really wise to tell the enemy 2 weeks in advance where you were going to attack him, and not bluff him as to the real target of your offensive? If you tell him that you are attacking Fallujah, then first attack Aadamiyah! Real disinformation takes advantage of the enemie's fears to misdirect them so they don't see the sucker punch! Again Rush, let's go back to WWII. The Allies used Hitler's fears to fool him into believing the Calais scam, when they were really gunning for Normandy! That's disinformation Rush, and yes we kept it secret, and by the way Eisenhower came down like a ton of bricks on anyone who hinted at what the true target was! I would not go announcing "Hey Zarquawi! we're gunning for Fallujah!" and give him a two week head start!
Rush Limbaugh - Psyops Transcript
LA Times - "PR Meets Psy-Ops in War on Terror"
Dezinformatsiya
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment