ryck'Z rantZ: More Lessons in Propaganda from the NYT: The Great Divide Phantasm.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

More Lessons in Propaganda from the NYT: The Great Divide Phantasm.

12/31/07

We can always rely on the New York Times, aka the Old Gray Lady, to instruct us on some of the finer elements in elementary propaganda. The quality varies from writer to writer in this ragzine, but Paul Krugman seems to best follow the old rusty groove demanded by the far leftist political stance of this so-called news paper. The NYT is a propaganda rag—not a ‘news’ paper. Proof follows.

In our current lesson, we look at a middle-grade structured piece of misinformation. Krugman has done better in the past, so we give him a B^- for this one.

In the title we read there is some Great Divide[1]. This is the conclusion being stated up front in classic circular logic format. The usual method is to start with your conclusion and make an outline of whatever is necessary to support the premise and then fill in the blanks at random like a chum chucker feeds the fish. The reader is now to be rewarded with a detailed and maudlin explanation of just how this obvious divide will affect the world. Next we look for a political lever to pull that amplifies the conclusion in the title and we find:

“Yesterday The Times published a highly informative chart laying out the positions of the presidential candidates on major issues. It was, I’d argue, a useful reality check for those who believe that the next president can somehow usher in a new era of bipartisan cooperation.”

Now, we have a definitive reference that will serve as some kind of reality filter to identify who can work with “bipartisan cooperation.” Recall that Nancy Pelosi refused to let Republicans even see much of her legislation in her ‘first 100 days.” That stance is actually an acceptable form of bipartisanism in the leftist or radical [2] lexicon. Why are we surprised to learn that liberals celebrate dictators like Castro [3], Kim, Chavez [4] and Ortega? Such a work is known as an apologia.

Next, the reading of this exciting ‘reference’ shows that the Republicans want to continue the War on Terrorism in Iraq while the Democrats want out with failure or whatever as a consequence as they did in Viet Nam and focus on higher taxes, more and free health care [5],even higher taxes, and the environment, which may be conveniently translated as the Global Warming Follies [6],[7].

We now have the players in two distinct camps and there can be no other choice but to vote for a Democrat! This is explained as:

“Because the G.O.P. is still controlled by a conservative movement that does not tolerate deviations from tax-cutting [8], free-market, greed-is-good orthodoxy.”

Nazification of the opposition is great politics in the radical camp and we see this crude smear used frequently in the construction of such propaganda pieces at the NYT. The opposition is intolerant. We can translate this as follows: the lefties are not part of the major corporate world, the World Trade Organization, have only half of Congress at best, nothing in the White House are short a vote or two in the Supreme Court and have no say so in the War in Iraq, so we have to grunt and grab some power!

The last string of accusations from the quote above [highlighted in red in honor of Lenin] can be translated as: the left cannot survive without massive taxes and really have no regard for the growth that tax cuts offer and profits are unnecessary to run a fine society like the USSR or Cuba. Vote against Republicans at all cost. Depression, political unrest, revolution and such are just fine with the left.

While the choice for any future elected person in the US is thusly limited to very few liberal Democrats, the author of this piece does mention the person who is least likely to win the national election. Mike Huckabee is viewed by the NYT as some kind of side-show religious freak that will alienate all Democrats and most moderates and become the Republican reincarnation of George McGovern. He will lose so Hillary or Obama can win. Edwards is a joke from the last round.

Now, the prior favorite of the NYT is shown in a strong brown light with this fluff:

“But Mr. McCain now says that he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Not only that: he’s become a convert to crude supply-side economics, claiming that cutting taxes actually increases revenues. That’s an assertion even Bush administration officials concede is false.”

The worm has turned! And he was John Kerry’s [9] pick for VP too! Traitor!

This is also a lie and, as such, is perfectly acceptable to the NYT [10]. The truth is relative in leftist speak and has little to do with the facts. There are no persons in the Bush groups or associated conservatives who are adept in economics that can deny that tax cuts do not spur revenues [11]. Remember Jimmy Carter? Krugman, a self-professed economist in his own mind, but not supported by his views, has probably never viewed the S&P 500 chart [12] since Ronald Reagan came into office and cut taxes spurred sustained growth. He cannot tolerate a guileless dialogue about tax cuts or the marginal propensity to save [MPS], the basis of investment inAmerica. This is merely the old stale mantra known as the Eternal Whine of the Tax Whores [13] or the tautological moans of the Tax Hike Zombie [14], the author of this piece. The criminals in the Clinton and Gore camps are not criticized.[15] Liberalism is based on many faults [16] and lies structure the most important part of this organization.

The Tax Hike Zombie ends the article with a surprising accurate conclusion:

“On economics, and on much else, there is no common ground between the parties.”

“There’s a fantasy, widely held inside the Beltway, that men and women of good will from both parties can be brought together to hammer out bipartisan solutions to the nation’s problems”

Those parts are actually correct. Sometimes, Paul does get something about right. But he did slip in some notions about good will and that ruined the thrust.

Missing from this elementary specimen of propaganda fluff are comments on racism, drug addiction, more ‘education,’ illegal aliens, terrorism [17],[18], diplomacy [19] or oil prices. Racism is the absolute bottom line of the Marxist propaganda machine that the NYT is based upon. They must have that precious voting edge in cities or their influence evaporates. The Walter Duranty Papers erred by several omissions in this particular issue.[20] They must try harder.

It is important to keep abreast of the mundane aspects of propaganda writings because the NYT might become even more frustrated and break into new political avenues. Stay tuned.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com