jawfish

Propaganda Technique Take 1
john posted in politics & culture on July 18th, 2005

The Big Lie

This article started as a pointer to a good piece by Robert Parry, on the propaganda history of the Bush family, especially the most recent attacks on Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame.

The Bush spokesmen are attempting to re-characterize the Joe Wilson’s original editorial in the Times, by claiming he made false statements. Oddly the administration flaks and their helpers in the press are so brazen that their own rebuttal contains a correct quote which proves them wrong.

Everybody expects an administration on either side of the Atlantic to spin news and even to spin the spin. That’s nothing new. There have always been uncritical press who act as repeaters for administration pronouncements. But to promote a Big Lie with a Little Lie which contains its own rebuttal is extraordinarily arrogant. It’s easy to see this as one more in a chain of Big Lies coming out of the White House, but there is more to the problem…

What is a Big Lie?
Hitler is credited in first outlining the technique in Mein Kampf, where he complains that the Jews used it. Goebbels is credited with more concise explanations:
( thanks to nationmaster )

The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous. - Joseph Goebbels, 12 January 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. – Joseph Goebbels (unknown primary source document)

But I found the Big Lie about the Big Lie:
When I went looking for source material, I quickly found that the accusation of using the Big Lie, can itself be a Big Lie.

Here is a site that breathlessly claims Timothy McVeigh and Slobodan Milosevic are victims. Ok, the Internet is packed with nutty sites. But try a Google search on “big lie.” Along with many sites commenting on the Bush administration. you’ll find opponents of stem cell research, holocaust and 9/11 and Evolution deniers, pro-smoker’s accusations, and on and on. The greater the consensus, the more likely somebody will call it a Big Lie.

Now I think that I can wade through the thicket of claims, and separate the nuts from reasonable, angry commentators. Sure, I can tell that the 9/11 plane really did crash into the Pentagon, that smoking is bad for you, and Slobodan Milosevic is a genocidal maniac. Unfortunately, the idea that I am using repeatable, testable methods to select is a Little Lie or maybe a Bit O’ Vanity.

All I am doing to separate truth from lies:

Valuing the consensus – that eliminates isolated nay-sayers

Evaluating coherence, and articulation – that favors skillful propaganda over crude ranting

Giving trust to organs that agree with me – that ignores contrary arguments from the other sides

Turning off at emotional presentation – that favors the cynic over the idealist

Downplaying simplistic or dualistic argument – may encourage dithering, when the account is actually clear

Exaggerating my own knowledge: when a publication gets something I know well very wrong, I discount the rest of what they say – this favors publications that get certain subjects right

Following the money – this assumes that everybody is corrupt

So this little expedition reminded me that claiming propaganda is at work, can itself be propaganda. The increasing cynicism among those who also see things this way, leads to a Karl Rove approach: decide what you want to achieve, then fax out the scripts. The content has no relationship to the facts, so you can change content 180 degrees without shame. (please see Orwell for the defintive description) If enough people think they have a fact which is damaging, in Goebbels words, “… the truth is the greatest enemy of the state,” then attack the foundation of the fact. If you have no shame, your confidence can weather the storm of protest. Eventually the frustrated protesters sound more and more shrill to the point where people stop listening.

Under this theory, Nixon didn’t have to step down. He could have delayed prosecution and served out the term, at which point attacking him would be moot. Reagan took this tack, to be sure he had a Republican Congress, while surviving the Iran-Contra and the Savings and Loan scandals. Clinton copied the Reagan geniality to fend off the critics, though he was only defending a peccadillo.

There is only one answer to this cynical muddle. We absolutely must return to a respect for verifiable truth, for service to community over greed, for compassion and kindness over arrogance and ruthlessness. We must value pragmatism over cronyism.

A friend was advocating a return to study of Socrates yesterday. He said we must value the strong argument over the weak, instead of giving emotional rhetoric weight over facts. This requires us to actually argue, to begin a discussion willing to change our mind. It also requires we possess a public sense of shame.

Politicians and henchmen who cannot be shamed, must not be tolerated.

---

Sources and further reading:
NationMaster not at all what it sounds like… FactBites a special search engine
German Propaganda Archive
SourceWatch
ConsortiumNews
BigEye