A Poster Is Worth A Thousand Words

“Nothing is easier than leading the people on a leash. I just hold up a dazzling campaign poster and they jump right through it.”
Joseph Goebbels

Aaron Delwiche has this definition of propaganda from Harold Lasswell:

“Not bombs nor bread, but words, pictures, songs, parades, and many similar devices are the typical means of making propaganda….propaganda relies on symbols to attain its end: the manipulation of collective attitudes.”

__________
Industrial Workers of the World 1911 propaganda poster. PD-US. Pre-dating World War I, this poster is obviously not Nazi propaganda, but it’s an excellent example of propaganda art. Class warfare summarized in images!
Goebbels quote from Nazi Propaganda Posters (4-page PDF).
Aaron Delwiche, World War I > Demons, atrocities, and lies. http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.demons.html

Rubio’s Lies & Legerdemain On Amnesty

Carolina Anole Color ChangeMarco Rubio has juggled his views on immigration laws for years, adapting to the political landscape to advance his career. I have been amazed that some pundits appear to be so mesmerized by his speaking ability and political skills, that they don’t critically appraise what he has said and done as they do with others.

We were living in Florida when Rubio ran for U. S. Senator. I voted for Rubio in that 2010 primary, but I won’t be voting for him in the 2016 presidential primary. Let me tell you why.

Last week Eagle Forum released a scorching report on Marco Rubio’s work on the Gang of Eight. His tenure as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives is mentioned as are his current activities as a U. S. Senator and a presidential candidate. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, first wrote a blog post on the report and later a full article. In the post he wrote:

“Eagle Forum has published a memo detailing Marco Rubio’s lies to conservatives in his effort to get Chuck Schumer’s immigration bill passed. “Lies” is a strong word, but it’s the only word that fits. This wasn’t the natural trimming of politicians, like Rubio’s justification of sugar subsidies in the service of his financial patrons the Fanjul brothers. From Cicero to Reagan, all successful politicians engage in misdirection or exploit ambiguity (including all the other current Republican hopefuls). In this case, though, Rubio led a Clintonian campaign of calculated falsehoods designed to sell Schumer’s Gang of Eight bill to conservatives.

In his article, Immigration Is a Deal-Breaker — No to Rubio 2016, he overviews the report, and concludes:

“To sum up: Rubio was anti-enforcement in the Florida legislature, then an enforcement hawk at election time in 2010, then Schumer’s cabana boy in 2013, then a hawk again at election time. Anyone can flip once — people really do change their minds, or even see political writing on the wall and embrace a new position. But flipping and flopping in time with the election cycle should be cause for skepticism, to say the least.”

I urge you to read the article and the report. If you’ve forgotten or were unaware of the in’s and out’s of the 2013 Gang of Eight bill, you should read them simply to see for yourself the staggering amount of misrepresentation and outright lying that Rubio has done.

Few ever go back to Rubio’s time as Florida House Speaker, and when you begin there, you realize that Rubio was not duped by Schumer nor was he naive. As Speaker, Rubio blocked popular immigration bills. It’s my opinion that he did this because he knew openly opposing the bills would hurt his future political ambitions. So he let them die on the vine.

This is from the Tampa Bay Tribune, April 8, 2008: Immigration bills face long odds in state House.

“The topic is ready-made for Republican lawmakers in an election year. And Tuesday, six bills were aired before a Florida House panel.

“Among the ideas: require police to report suspected undocumented immigrants, prohibit government benefits for adult undocumented immigrants, and even give criminals the option to be deported back to their home countries.

“But the efforts are going nowhere — a reality that reflects the state’s immigrant-dependent tourism and agricultural industries, and the political power of South Florida and its deep immigrant roots.

“There is nothing the state of Florida can do unilaterally to solve global warming. And there is nothing we can do unilaterally to solve immigration,” said Marco Rubio, the Miami Republican who is the first Cuban-American to become House speaker.”

If you go to the bottom of that column, these six bills are listed. As you read through them, it’s obvious that Rubio’s rationale was an excuse that doesn’t hold water.

Immigration bills in 2008 session

• HB 73, by Rep. Don Brown, R-DeFuniak Springs. Requires verification of immigration status of people stopped for a DUI; requires public employer and contractors to participate in federal program to verify status of newly hired employees. Related bill in Senate: SB 624.

• HB 159, by Rep. Sandra Adams, R-Orlando. Requires officials to verify status of anyone who applies for government benefits. Related bill in Senate: SB 388.

• HB 571, by Rep. Dick Kravitz, R-Jacksonville. Requires law enforcement officers, sheriffs, chief correctional officers and circuit court clerks to report suspected undocumented workers who have been arrested or detained. Identical Senate bill: SB 540.

• HB 577, by Rep. Trudi Williams, R-Fort Myers. Allows any undocumented immigrant who serves half a jail sentence to agree to be deported back to their country of origin. Related Senate bill: SB 540.

• HB 821, by Rep. Gayle Harrell, R-Stuart. Requires state agencies that provide benefits to verify citizenship of any person 14 years or older who applies for services. Related Senate bill: SB 388

• HB 1247, by Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach. Requires police, sheriff and other criminal intake centers to check status of suspected undocumented immigrants and report offenders. Identical Senate bill: SB 2738.

When Rubio ran against Charlie Crist in the 2010 Republican primary for the U. S. Senate, he went on record opposing amnesty as we saw on the tapes played during the late January debate. If you missed the debate, PowerLine documents four Senate campaign events with quotes from Rubio on amnesty and immigration in Did Marco Rubio Break His Promises to Florida Voters? All those promises were broken with the Gang of Eight.

As Florida House Speaker Rubio did a passive-aggressive feint on immigration, then during his Senate campaign he promised to be an immigration hawk. Later in the U. S. Senate he flipped and joined the Gang of Eight as its face, misrepresenting it and lying about it from beginning to end. He’s still busy with his legerdemain on immigration in the Senate and on the campaign trail.

This isn’t speculation. His record is there to read. It’s been extensively documented by Eagle Forum, and his latest work on amnesty and H1-B visas is extensively documented by Michelle Malkin.

Even if you agree with Rubio on these issues, doesn’t it give you pause that he has so openly backtracked and lied, and that he continues to do so during his presidential campaign? If he brazenly broke his promises, and continues to brazenly deny what he did, how do you know he will keep any promises made on any other policy or action? His lack of integrity is appalling.

As Krikorian said:

…Rubio led a Clintonian campaign of calculated falsehoods designed to sell Schumer’s Gang of Eight bill to conservatives.”

Don’t fall for his rhetoric. Look at the reality.
__________
Huhnra, Anolis carolinensis color change: CC BY-SA 4.0.

Lincoln On Liberty

Kevin Portteus, Lincoln’s Birthday Reflections His insights on liberty and tyranny still ring true today.

“Lincoln recognized and eloquently denounced tyranny, seeking to restore the nation to its foundation in “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” which he recognized as the only sure foundation for liberty, equality, and justice. He also understood, in a way that few American statesman ever have, the tyrannical impulse that underlay the affirmative defense of slavery…

“Lincoln asked, “What will convince them? This, and this only: “Cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right.” The opponents of slavery must abandon their opposition, turning their backs on their basic moral principles, and wholeheartedly adopt the ideology of slavery as a positive good.  No one may be allowed to question slavery.  The North must enthusiastically participate in the recovery of fugitive slaves, which it had hitherto resisted.  In the end, the free constitutions of the Northern states must be repealed, and slavery must be nationalized.”

Portteus is drawing from Lincoln’s Cooper Union Address. Here is a fuller quote of Lincoln’s words.

Abraham Lincoln November 1863“…what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them….

“…Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.

Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality – its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension – its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

Portteus draws the clear and very powerful analogy to the persecution and prosecution of those who stand for marriage and thus against its redefinition.

“…Today, the LGBT movement maintains that its liberty requires and allows the criminalization or ruin of anyone who disagrees, such as bakers, florists and photographers who refuse to service same-sex nuptials.

“As with slavery, acquiescence in the new morality is not enough. Wholehearted support is required.  As Lincoln noted, “Silence will not be tolerated. We must place ourselves avowedly with them.”

“This is the tyrannical impulse: The desire to reshape society and crush dissent, all in the name of a liberty that claims for itself the freedom to deprive others of their freedom.”

Lincoln closed with these words that are fully applicable to us today.

Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored – contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man – such as a policy of “don’t care” on a question about which all true men do care – such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance – such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.”

And let us consider Lincoln’s encouragement and exhortation in these last sentences and take them to heart.

“Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.

Forming Illusions For Power

To think that two and two are four

And neither five nor three

The heart of man has long been sore

And long ‘tis like to be.

– A. E. Houseman, Last Poems, xxv

Propaganda is a planted lie designed as a means to the end of power. Lies create a false reality, and propaganda is intended to form the illusion that two and two are no longer four. This false perception of reality is designed to provoke specific responses of emotion that will be strong enough to lead to actions that will have consequences the propagandist can use to gain power.

Lie → Responses → Actions → Consequences → Power

Propaganda forms illusions to gain power.

You can still find the word propaganda used in a neutral sense and taking on a benign or malignant meaning from its context, but after its use during the 20th century, the word has become tainted in its implications.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) was established in the United States in 1937 because of concern over increasing propaganda within the country:

“…for the purpose of assisting the public to detect and analyze propaganda. The IPA conducted research into the methods by which public opinion is influenced, published analyses of current problems, and promoted the establishment of study groups in public schools for detecting propaganda. It published a monthly bulletin, Propaganda Analysis, from 1937 to 1941. The organization was dormant during World War II and in 1950 all formal operations ceased.”

In a 1939 publication, the IPA wrote:

“If American citizens are to have a clear understanding of conditions and what to do about them, they must be able to recognize propaganda, to analyze it, and to appraise it. They must be able to discover whether it is propaganda in line with their own interests and the interests of our civilization or whether it is propaganda that may distort our views and threaten to undermine our civilization.

“Propaganda more than ever is an instrument of aggression, a new means for rendering a country defenseless in the face of an invading army. While it has been used in a halting way for centuries, within the past few years we have seen it prepare the way for Hitler to seize the Saar, Austria, the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. It is called a new instrument of aggression because development has given it an effectiveness never before experienced in the history of the world.

“Never before has there been so much propaganda. Never before have there been so many propagandas of such great importance to the lives of all of us. And never before have there been such powerfully implemented propagandas. The modern news-gathering systems of the newspapers and the gigantic radio broadcasting facilities of the world have made the chief differences, but refinements in propagandist methods have kept pace.

“As generally understood, propaganda is opinion expressed for the purpose of influencing actions of individuals or groups. More formally, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis has defined propaganda as “expression of opinion or action by individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence opinions or actions of other individuals or groups with reference to predetermined ends.””

In the eyes of some, the IPA’s work is now considered simplistic, but it provides an excellent foundation for building understanding of propaganda, and I’ll be going through their key definitions. The IPA’s hammer and nails have lain forgotten and unused, but even these ‘simplistic’ tools can render harmless much of today’s propaganda.

Propaganda is a planted lie used to shape perception of an individual or group or event. The lie is substituted for reality, and this maligning of truth is designed to be the first domino to fall and begin a cascade of planned consequences.

Propaganda is a planted lie used to shape a perception of reality. The propagandist never stops at swaying the individual. Persuasion is not his final goal. Propaganda is an illusion designed to make the first domino fall in a cascade of events with planned consequences that will be a means to the end of power.

The propagandist is forming illusions for power.
__________
Helen MacInnes, Neither Five Nor Three. Poem via America’s Marxist Media by David B. Jenkins.
“The Fine Art Of Propaganda; A Study of Father Coughlin’s Speeches” by The Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Edited by Alfred McClung Lee & Elizabeth Briant Lee, and published in 1939 by Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York via Phil Taylor’s Web Site, The Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds, UK.

Michelle Malkin Eviscerates Marco Rubio On Amnesty & H1-B Visas

Open borders, amnesty, and immigration are Michelle Malkin’s forte. These are her issues. She has written extensively on them in her columns and books. She has not just eviscerated Marco Rubio on his history on amnesty and H1-B visas, she has burned and scattered the ashes.

Below are quotes from three recent columns. The last was written not a week ago. Ongoing excuses for Rubio for the Gang of Eight bill include that he was duped by Chuck Schumer or that he was naive. He was not naive nor has he changed his mind. That’s quite clear after you read what Michelle has written.

Because Rubio has gone on to South Carolina to campaign, it’s very important that people see the reality behind his glossing over his history, past and present.

In December on the day after the debate dust-up between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, she wrote Open-borders money backs Marco Rubio (my emphases).

“Political analysis of the Las Vegas debate immigration dust-up between Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio is missing a key ingredient: the money factor.

“You can read the lips of the candidates till the cows come home. But you’ll get to the truth much faster when you learn where pro-amnesty power brokers have placed their bets and hitched their wagons.

“Rubio’s brazenly fraudulent campaign to paint Cruz as soft on illegal immigration is a flabbergasting attempt to distract from the Florida junior senator’s faithful allegiance to the open-borders donor class.

“Here’s what you need to know:

Facebook, Microsoft and Silicon Valley back Marco Rubio. Mark Zuckerberg is a social justice CEO who panders to Hispanics with his pro-amnesty, anti-deportation advocacy; Facebook is an H-1B visa dependent company working hard to obliterate hurdles to hiring an unlimited stream of cheap foreign tech workers. It’s no coincidence that Facebook’s lobbying outfit, FWD.us, was waging war on Sen. Cruz online this week in parallel with Sen. Rubio’s disingenuous onstage attack.

“The D.C. front group, which Zuckerberg seeded in 2013 with nearly $40 million during the Gang of Eight fight, has consistently provided political protection for Rubio as he carried their legislative water…

Paul Singer backs Marco Rubio…Amnesty is and always has been a top agenda item for Singer, who helped fund the National Immigration Forum along with fellow hedge fund billionaire George Soros.…”

Michelle goes on to provide many, many more details, and as she usually does, embeds links in her column to establish those details.

“Bottom line?

Cruz kept his promise to voters. He voted against the Gang of Eight giveaway. Period.

Rubio broke his promise

Rubio didn’t just vote for the bill. He and his staff were integral to crafting it, shilling for it, and cashing in on the legislative boondoggle dubbed a “permanent pension plan for immigration lawyers.”

“When you need the truth about which Beltway crapweasels are selling out America, always follow the money.

Michelle did not stop there. From January 18, Marco Rubio’s Second Worse Immigration bill is about Rubio and H1-B visas that allow companies to hire non-immigrant foreign workers in specialty occupations (her emphasis). Continue reading