Ya escribía ayer de los principios que orientan la acción politica del PP desde hace muchos años y uno de ellos, el principio de orquestación, es el que orienta esta táctica.

Es mentira que el gobierno no esté, nunca un mes de agosto hubo tantos Ministros "de guardia", como bien debería saber Rajoy, tan proclive al despiste cuando no mira nadie, de la misma forma que es mentira que el PP haya presentado ni una sola propuesta en materia económica que sea mínimamente seria.

Simular que uno trabaja, reuniéndose en agosto con los compañeros de partido, es un esfuerzo baldío cuando se comprueba que, por los datos que han puesto encima de la mesa, han ido a Madrid desde la playa para darle una vuelta a la casa, no vaya a ser que se les revuelva el patio.

No es serio faltar a la verdad y repetir las mentiras con una cadencia insufrible para la opinión pública, no es serio exigir a nadie que no descanse, mientras el que lo hace se harta de alvariño en cualquier playa de las Rías Baixas, fingiendo que trabaja al ritmo de una muñeira.

Cada día lo tengo más claro, esta oposición no vale ni las palabras que gastamos en criticar su obscena actitud en muchas cuestiones capitales para todos.

Según Arendt, Eichmann era un individuo cuya única anormalidad era ser aún más estrictamente normal que el grueso de las gentes. Sus motivaciones en la orquestación del asesinato de millones de personas desde la comodidad de su escritorio no eran patológicas, sino sencillamente de gris conveniencia personal. Eichmann no había ingresado en la feroz orden de las SS como resultado de su ciega fe en el credo nazi, sino con el nada espectacular (y más tarde, confeso) objetivo de forjarse una carrera en los promisorios y demandantes tiempos del régimen de Hitler. Su recatado puesto en la burocracia de la Endlösung le permitía mantenerse lejos de los albures de las batallas, beneficio adicional al que jamás renunció. Si la consecución de su propio bienestar y el de sus seres queridos era obstaculizado por la necesidad de obedecer instrucciones que implicaban la destrucción de los judíos de Europa, así como también la de los gitanos, eslavos, homosexuales, disidentes y demás malas compañías, no era ése asunto suyo.

Hombre de gustos sencillos, es imposible que Eichmann no hubiera presenciado una función de Die Grosse Liebe (El Gran Amor), el film más lucrativo de entre todos los producidos en los plomizos años del Tercer Reich. Joseph Goebbels, Ministro de Propaganda del gobierno nacionalsocialista alemán, ansioso por recuperar parte de la influencia sobre su Führer que le había sido arrebatada, irónicamente, por la consolidación del Partido Nazi en el poder (ya que, una vez aplastada la resistencia interna, Hitler se preparaba para la guerra en el exterior, lo cual le hacía recurrir en menor medida al cinismo de su paladín ideológico), había dado forma a su plan para dotar a Alemania de una industria cinematográfica capaz de competir -o tal cosa él suponía- con los gigantes de Hollywood. Goebbels opinaba acertadamente que el pueblo alemán sería más fácil de mantener en estado de permanente idiotización moral a través de películas superficiales, melodramas chirles y comicidad apta para toda la familia. La propaganda política agresiva sería reservada para los noticiarios y los films documentales, los que dotarían a la justificación pseudocientífica del racismo nazi de un aura de sapiencia.

El sueño de Goebbels era fundar un star system a la manera estadounidense. A la cabeza de este selecto grupo debía encontrarse a la máxima estrella alemana de ese entonces y actriz favorita del notable director Josef von Sternberg, Marlene Dietrich. La fascinación que Dietrich ejercía sobre el público no tenía parangón; sus comienzos como cantante de revista y vaudeville le otorgaban un aire donoso y ciertamente sensual, más apto para la extinta y liberal República de Weimar que para los puritanos escenarios del nazismo. Exiliada en los Estados Unidos junto a su mentor, Dietrich despreciaba públicamente la militarizada pompa del nacionalsocialismo. Aun así, Goebbels se afanó en tentarla con suculentos honorarios y privilegios; Dietrich no cedió. El enjuto ministro debió contentarse con una cantante sueca de operetas de apariencia algo menos nórdica, y de la que se rumoreaba tenía antepasados judíos: Zarah Leander.

Resulta curioso que la figura elegida para sustituir a la terca Marlene Dietrich llevase el nombre con el que se ridiculizaba a toda mujer de origen hebreo en la burlona jerga del nazismo. Zarah Leander firmó en 1936 un ventajoso contrato con la compañía cinematográfica Universum Film, controlada por Goebbels. Allí se estipulaban, además de sus cuantiosos emolumentos, su comportamiento dentro y fuera de los estudios de filmación, su vestimenta, el contenido de sus respuestas a los reporteros y, por sobre todo, su adhesión patriótica a la causa de la Alemania nazi. Al momento de estampar su firma, ya regían en el Reich las infames leyes de Nürnberg, que habían despojado a los judíos de todo derecho en la totalidad del suelo alemán, incluyendo el de ciudadanía. En 1938 asistió impasible, con cinco películas acabadas y exhibidas, al mayor pogrom antijudío del siglo pasado en Alemania: la Kristallnacht o Noche de los Cristales Rotos. Cien personas de origen judío fueron asesinadas, treinta mil deportadas a campos de concentración, dos mil sinagogas ardieron y decenas de miles de comercios y casas particulares fueron destrozados; todo ello en las largas horas de la noche del 9 al 10 de Noviembre. Goebbels distrajo unos minutos de sus ajetreadas ocupaciones para pronunciar un discurso en donde felicitó a los alemanes que habían colaborado en los estragos. Desde el otro lado del Atlántico, Dietrich arremetió contra la barbarie del nazismo. Leander simplemente se preparó para acometer su próximo proyecto fílmico en el más absoluto silencio.

El contraste entre las dos actrices no podía ser más brutal: Marlene Dietrich, abiertamente bisexual, desenfadada, en ocasiones andrógina, bellísima, mimada por directores como Von Sternberg, Wilder, Hitchcock y Welles, vocalmente antinazi y ferviente adepta al bando de los Aliados, admirada por escritores de la talla de Erich Maria Remarque, Ernest Hemingway y Noël Coward, condecorada con la Medal of Freedom de los Estados Unidos y Comandante de la Legión de Honor de la República Francesa por su apoyo a las tropas en los frentes de combate más peligrosos (en una de sus apariciones junto al general George Patton se encontraba a distancia de tiro de los obuses alemanes). Zarah Leander era, en cambio, correctamente femenina, prudente, reservada, gélida, de puntual sonrisa ante grupos de oficiales de las SS en varias portadas de la publicación propagandística Signal, requerida en persona para la firma de autógrafos con los que obsequiar a las tropas del Reich en la ocupada París, dirigida por cineastas de ínfima categoría a las órdenes de Goebbels en lo que eran repeticiones de un mismo personaje llevado hasta los extremos de la cursilería. Dietrich no vaciló en aceptar roles osados para su época, los que la pintaban ávida en la seducción de amantes o liándose a puñetazos con su ocasional rival en amores. Leander representó invariablemente el papel de la mujer ardiente en su sumisión al varón, a la guerra y al Estado, sumergida en púdica espera ante los deberes soldadescos de su prometido y siempre presta al sacrificio en favor de intereses comunitarios más altos. El ignominioso epítome de esta variante de consumo masivo de la cinematografía nazi es Die Grosse Liebe.

En verdad, el guión del film no será jamás atribuido erróneamente a Shakespeare. Un joven piloto de la Luftwaffe enviado al Norte de África conoce en una misión de enlace en Berlín a una cantante danesa (Dinamarca ya formaba parte de la Europa ocupada por los ejércitos de Hitler); se enamora a primera vista. Ella le corresponde, mas él debe partir para proseguir la pugna contra los fastidiosos británicos. Ella jura que castamente soportará esa dilación. La despedida es seguida por una sucesión de frustradas intentonas de reencuentro. Él propone matrimonio por carta; ella acepta. La noche anterior a la boda él debe volver a la lid. Alemania invade a la Unión Soviética. El piloto es en estos culminantes momentos imprescindible para el triunfo de su patria. Uno de sus amigos es muerto en acción. Él envía otra carta, despidiéndose de su amada, puesto que las misiones que se le encomiendan son cada vez más temerarias. Es herido y enviado a un hospital militar. Ella arriba; esa convalecencia los reúne definitivamente, preparados ambos para la fundación de un nuevo hogar y para persistir en la búsqueda de la victoria final. La escena última los muestra felices, observando las oleadas de bombarderos alemanes en ruta hacia sus objetivos en Rusia.

Al igual que la mayoría de las películas realizadas bajo la bota de cualquier totalitarismo, Die Grosse Liebe es más elocuente en sus silencios que en sus mal logradas secuencias bélicas. El gran amor no es, ciertamente, el que amarra a los protagonistas, sino el sentimiento del piloto por su Volk, su comunidad racial y política por la que debe combatir y, si es preciso, morir heroicamente. Su gran mérito es saber inculcar en la cantante y futura esposa ese mismo amor, ausente en la decadentes democracias occidentales hundidas en el hedonismo, la degenerada mezcla de razas y la carrera por una inmerecida felicidad personal. El mérito de ella es la paciente aceptación de esa fe.

El aspecto más terrorífico de este ejemplo de cine basura es, lógicamente, la característica más conspicua de la ordenada mente de Adolf Eichmann: la escalofriante normalidad. Los personajes caminan por las calles de una ciudad apenas aquejada por alguna que otra aislada alarma de ataque aéreo, usan automóviles, reciben y envían correspondencia, hablan por teléfono; en fin, llevan adelante sus vidas como si cientos de miles, más tarde millones, de judíos, gitanos, eslavos, homosexuales y disidentes no estuviesen siendo arrastrados frente a los pelotones de ejecución, a las rebosantes fosas comunes, a las cámaras de gas, a los laboratorios en donde se experimentaba con seres humanos, a los campos de exterminio mediante el trabajo forzado y a docenas de otros destinos quizás peores que la muerte. La cinta data de fines de 1941; fue estrenada en Berlín un año más tarde, en el período de mayor extensión del imperio nazi, con los mecanismos productores del Holocausto encaminándose a su apogeo en todas las porciones de la Europa avasallada. Los espectadores comprendieron el juego, el film à clef  propuesto por los servidores del Ministro de Propaganda y se plegaron a la ficción de normalidad que emanaba de la pantalla para que esas imágenes sustituyeran, en la adormilada conciencia de los alemanes, a la realidad  de una Alemania en donde todas esas atrocidades eran parte de la vida diaria de sus habitantes, pero que la mayoría fingía no ver.  

El desastre de Stalingrad hizo presentir al mundo la venidera derrota de Hitler. El gobierno sueco, hasta entonces temerosamente neutral pero de hecho sometido a las exigencias alemanas, comenzó a desprenderse lentamente de sus compromisos con el monstruoso vecino. Lo propio sucedió con Zarah Leander. Las sucesivas derrotas alemanas, sumadas a la destrucción de su mansión en Berlín durante un bombardeo, la convencieron de que habia llegado la hora de abandonar a su suerte a sus otrora todopoderosos protectores. Tras adornar las salas de proyección alemanas con once films de idéntica calidad, regresó a su país, donde no era aguardada con ansiedad. El fin de la pesadilla nazi la sorprendió añorando su popularidad perdida. Se le concedieron algunos papeles de ocasión en musicales y comedias, pero algo del extraviado éxito la acechaba de nuevo sólo en Alemania y Austria, territorios en los que su atildamiento no había sido olvidado por las incorregibles generaciones de la pre-guerra. En medio de la mayor apatía murió en Estocolmo en 1981. Marlene Dietrich, afortunadamente para nosotros, la sobreviviría por algo más de una década.

Zarah Leander, quizás concienzudamente, reiteraba en las infrecuentes entrevistas que le eran solicitadas que nunca había consentido en colaborar con el régimen nacionalsocialista, que era tan sólo una profesional de la actuación encargada de complacer a una audiencia entusiasta en momentos difíciles. Como disculpándose, con una expresión a medias bovina, agregaba: soy políticamente una idiota. Es imposible contradecir una aseveración tan exacta; no obstante, la multiplicidad de adverbios que son pasibles de ser usados en lugar del que figura en sus declaraciones incluye a aquél relacionado con la ética.

Imaginemos por un instante que existe un alma dentro de la frágil anatomía del animal humano, y que la escenografía de ultratumba concede la razón a los antiguos sacerdotes egipcios. Anubis, el dios con cabeza de chacal, tomará el corazón de Zarah Leander y lo colocará cuidadosamente en la divina balanza donde esos órganos son medidos respecto del peso de una pluma. El corazón de Zarah Leander, abrumado por demasiados actos de indiferencia para con las víctimas y demasiados actos de complicidad para con los verdugos, devendrá sólido y atolondrado como la roca. Anubis, dios severo pero justo, impedirá el paso del alma de Zarah Leander a regiones más diáfanas y la enviará a reencontrarse con sus viejos amigos, a los que deberá entretener hasta el tedio con su repertorio pueril, estén donde estén, por días sin fin.

Hadrian Bagration

Amorim lembrou que, em sua estratégia, Goebbels dizia que uma mentira contada muitas vezes acaba sendo aceita como verdade. Dada a sensibilidade do momento atual na economia global, em que se fala cada vez mais em protecionismo, um comentário desse tipo causou melindre àqueles que esperam qualquer desculpa para dificultar o processo de abertura.

Entenda o que é a Rodada Doha

Susan Schwab, a representante comercial dos EUA --e descendente de sobreviventes do holocausto-- foi a primeira a reagir, através de seu porta-voz Sean Spicer. Ela disse que "esse tipo de comentário maldoso não tem lugar nessas negociações". Amorim pediu desculpas ontem pela declaração. Mas o que tirou com uma mão, recolocou com outra, insistindo no conteúdo da idéia de Goebbels: "Mantenho: repetir uma distorção faz com que as pessoas acreditem que ela é a verdade".

Em um tom um pouco menos diplomático, mais crítico, Spicer disse que "no momento em que tentamos encontrar um resultado bem sucedido para as negociações, esse tipo de declaração é altamente infeliz". "Para alguém que é ministro de Relações Exteriores, ele devia estar mais atento para alguns pontos sensíveis."

Ele ainda afirmou: "[Amorim] fazer declarações desse tipo é incrivelmente errado. Elas são insultuosas."

Por mais inoportuno que tenha sido o comentário, as negociações comerciais já estavam estagnadas muito antes desse episódio. A obstrução de fato é causada pela dificuldade (ou desejo) que o governo norte-americano tem de enfrentar o lobby agrícola --um dos mais poderosos do país-- e cortar os subsídios aos produtores do país. Tanta atenção a um comentário mal colocado seria uma forma de desviar o foco do que realmente é o caso em Genebra: evitar que a rodada seja declarada oficialmente morta --como disse o prêmio Nobel de Economia de 2001, Joseph Stiglitz, em seu livro "Globalização: Como Dar Certo".

No sábado, Amorim disse que os líderes dos países ricos se baseiam em fórmulas diferentes de redução de alíquotas ao se referir às negociações, o que daria a entender que as concessões que poderão fazer em agricultura são muito maiores que as que os países em desenvolvimento estão dispostos a aceitar no capítulo industrial. "Essa é uma afirmação sob medida para aqueles que não querem fazer sua parte em agricultura", afirmou.

Ele disse ainda que é um "mito" a crença de que a questão agrícola já está fechada, e que a OMC só está à espera de que os países do Sul demonstrem sua boa vontade em relação aos produtos industrializados para que se alcance o acordo esperado. "Ainda resta muito a fazer na agricultura", ressaltou --prevendo que um fracasso da reunião ministerial iniciada hoje pode adiar a conclusão de um acordo de livre comércio em três ou quatro anos.

Repercussão

O diário americano "The Wall Street Journal" disse em um artigo que a declaração de Amorim é "absurda e realmente preocupante, vinda de um diplomata moderado".

Já o jornal americano "The New York Times" diz que a rodada está viva "através de aparelhos". O diário diz que a Índia e o Brasil "se recusam a reduzir suas tarifas devido ao medo das economias movidas a exportações, como a China".

O jornal "The New Zealand Herald" disse que a declaração de Amorim é "potencialmente um incidente diplomático". "O comentário motivou uma pronta resposta dos EUA, cuja representante comercial, Susan Schwab, é filha de sobreviventes do holocausto".

Folha online
Rizzolo: Como sublinha o jornal americano "The New York Times" a declaração de Amorim é absurda e preocupante, não é possível que um ministro mencione uma frase Joseph Goebbels, ainda insinuando que os EUA e a Europa se portam como nazi-fascistas em termos comerciais. É o cúmulo do politicamente incorreto, é lamentável. O que falta na realidade é preparo para negociar; é o tipo do comentário que qualquer empresa privada orientaria sua gestão a não fazer numa negociação internacional. Agora uma pergunta: o presidente Lula, o que acha desse comentário?

O infeliz insulto, formalizou-se para justificar o fato dos países ricos adotarem uma estratégia de desinformação similar na defesa de seus interesses. Segundo o chanceler, os países mais pobres demandam cortes nas tarifas agrícolas e nos subsídios concedidos pelos países ricos aos seus produtores, e segundo Amorim, a argumentação e a tática dos países mais ricos na manipulação das informações sobre as negociações da Rodada Doha, se assemelha as manobras nazistas.

Ora, não é possível que o chanceler não se antecedeu, ou não teve a percepção de que não seria de bom alvitre citar Goebbels na defesa de suas argumentações. Muitas vezes acredito que deve haver sim uma linguagem subliminar em declarações dessa natureza; estamos tratando de um Ministro das Relações Exteriores, que no mínimo possui toda rede de assessoria disponível no Planalto para que de boa forma e maneira, conduza as negociações sem, de forma alguma, macular a imagem do Brasil ou ferir os sentimentos de pessoas como a representante de Comércio da Casa Branca, associando tal prática a Susan Schwab, que é filha de sobreviventes do Holocausto. Isso fere não só a Susan Schwab, os países envolvidos, e o bom-senso; mas essa referência trazida para um momento atual de negociação internacional, dá margens á reboque, para um desconforto em toda a comunidade judaica dos EUA, Europa e Brasil.

O que não aconteceria em qualquer empresa privada, numa negociação internacional normal, acorreu com o Brasil na OMC. A falta de tato, de preparo do Brasil nas tratativas e abordagens internacionais, saltam aos olhos do mundo pela sua inépcia e deselegância; só não poderiamos imaginar que chegaríamos a tanto. As desculpas pelo " papelão" foram dadas como de praxe e costume, mas é bom lembrar citando Benjamin Franklin, e não Goebbels, que " Aquele que é bom para elaborar desculpas, raramente é bom em qualquer outra coisa ".

Fernando Rizzolo

“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.

The Guardian is supposed to have a good reputation for intelligent and factual reporting. We have this headline from 5 May 2007:

Tapas for two ... then parents' nightmare began

It creates the impression that the story starts with a meal, and then the tragedy happens. What if the story began a little while earlier? Let's say, for argument's sake, between 6 and 8pm?

The article has a subheading:

Police hunt three-year-old believed abducted from holiday apartment

Who believed Madeleine was abducted?

"But by the time Mr McCann picked up the phone to his sister in Dumbarton the thread of hope that Maddy had simply climbed out of the window and wandered off had been eclipsed by the growing certainty that she had been snatched while he and his wife ate tapas just 100 yards away within the holiday complex".

A search of the immediate area had failed to find Madeleine had simply just wandered off. Therefore, it is said, because nobody wanted to voice the supposedly unthinkable, that is, that the parents might have been in some way responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, the planted seed becomes a growing certainty in some minds.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes" - Mark Twain.

"The telephone rang at around 11pm at Trish Cameron's home near Glasgow. She picked it up to hear the voice of her younger brother. "He was distraught, breaking his heart," Mrs Cameron said. "He said: 'Madeleine's been abducted, she's been abducted.'"

The article continues: "On Thursday night the McCanns went out after 8pm, having put their three children into their pyjamas and seen them fall asleep in their bedroom in the apartment". Where is the supporting evidence that all 3 of their children were in their pyjamas and asleep in their bedroom? What if only 2 of the children were actually asleep?

The article continues: "They weren't out for long, and they could see the apartment from the restaurant" said Brian Healy, Madeleine's maternal grandfather. This comes across as being defensive and protective. What constitutes a long time? Leaving 2 year old twins, Home Alone, even for a few minutes could be construed as being too long a period. Child safety experts state that children of this age should never be left unsupervised for any period of time, certainly not between 30 minutes and 2 hours. The apartment block can be seen from the Tapas bar, but Apartment 5A from where the Tapas 9 were seated visibilty was very poor.

The article continues: "Mrs Cameron said the couple checked on the children every half hour; the last check was made after 9pm by Mr McCann. Some time between then and around 10pm when his wife walked into the room to find Madeleine missing, the family believes an intruder broke in and snatched the girl".

There is quite a bit of inconsistency between the versions of whether anybody checked at all, and who checked and at what times. There is no sighting of Madeleine by anyone outside of the McCann camp since 6pm, and there is no evidence to support Gerry McCann's claimed sighting of Madeleine at 9pm and Matthew Oldfield did not see Madeleine when he went to check at approximately 9.30pm. From just after 6pm until 10pm, when Kate McCann claims Madeleine had just vanished into thin air, only the McCanns claimed all was well in Apartment 5A. They also claimed that there had been a break in at their apartment, but this version of events was not supported by any evidence, on the contrary, there was evidence proving it not to be the case.

“A lie told often enough becomes truth” - Vladimir Lenin.

Grandfather: evidence that three-year old was snatched (Guardian 5 May 2007)

"The grandfather of a three-year-old snatched from her parents' holiday apartment in the Algarve said yesterday that there was clear evidence she had been abducted".

And what was the substance of this so-called clear evidence?

"Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone," said Mr Healy. "She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open".

So, what Gerry McCann claims to be the truth, is the truth. Personally, I would not call that clear evidence at all. What if there was a hidden agenda for Gerry McCann to make such a claim?

The article states: "Mark Warner, the holiday firm which runs the luxury resort, claimed last night there was no sign of a break in at the ground floor apartment overlooking the sea".

I think it is only fair to question Gerry McCann's version of events, given that he has been caught out telling a lie about a so-called break in. Why did he feel he needed to lie?

The article continues: "It is not right to say that they just left them," said Mr Healy.

Doesn't Mr Healy know the difference between right and wrong? If they didn't just leave the twins what did they do then? We know they did precisely that, leave the twins. They went out for drinks with their friends. We don't know what state Madeleine was left in. We don't know whether she was still in the apartment between 6 and 9pm.

It does not matter how often the McCann camp tell the same lie that Madeleine was abducted, I for one will not accept it as the truth. They are complete opposites. The McCanns may see their lie as their friend. However, their greatest enemy is the truth. And, there are far more truth seekers out there against the McCanns.

According to Dr. Bob Harmon, the director of the Duval County Health Department, "Tobacco and smoking are public health enemy number one and this brown plague must be brought under control."

Emotive use of words there, Bob.  Plague kind of implies that someone standing 25 yards away from a person smoking a cigarette is likely to be stricken instantly, or within a few days, by some deadly disease.  I wonder if Bob can back that up with some hard scientific facts?

He would be right out of luck if he was looking to the World Health Organization.  It conducted a study, just over a decade ago, to look at the link between passive smoking and lung cancer in seven European countries.  The report was suppressed in 1998, according to The Daily Telegraph and The Economist, when it emerged that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.  WHO immediately issued a press release saying that the British media had "misrepresented" the report and yet when the study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in October 1998, it showed a statistically insignificant small risk from spousal and workplace Environmental Tobacco Smoke and that ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer.

In 2003, a study by Dr. James Enstrom and Professor Geoffrey Kabat appeared in the British Medical Journal.  The study looked at the wives and husbands of 35,000 smokers over a period of 40 years and concluded that the link between passive smoking and disease "may be considerably weaker than generally believed."  Their research did not support the anti-smoking lobby's claim that passive smoking causes a 20 percent increased risk of lung cancer and a 30 percent increased risk of heart disease in people who live with smokers.

"Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30 percent increase in risk of coronary heart disease," Enstrom and Kabat concluded.  "It seems premature to conclude that environmental tobacco smoke causes death from coronary heart disease and lung cancer."

The American Cancer Society, whose data had been used by Enstrom and Kabat, levelled charges of scientific misconduct against Dr. Enstrom.  A subsequent investigation by the University of California cleared Dr. Enstrom of the charges.  The American Cancer Society did not apologize.

In 2007, Dr. Enstrom defended his research in Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations and showed that it was not "fatally flawed" or that he made "inappropriate use" of the underlying database. His paper also refutes the erroneous statements made by powerful U.S. epidemiologists and activists about him and his research, and defends legitimate research against illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it because it does not support their ideological and political agendas. 

But when someone is on a crusade, getting wrong results does not pose too much of a problem and the truth is all too easily jettisoned.  There is plenty of junk science for the anti-smoking zealots to seize upon, although it is frightening when the members of the medical profession suspend their critical faculties and allow prejudice to hold sway.

The hospital ban elicited a response yesterday from Timothy Davlantes, M.D., president of the Florida Academy of Family Physicians, on the Letters Page of The Jacksonville Joke aka The Florida Times-Union.

Dr. Davlantes wrote, "I would like to applaud these Jacksonville healthcare facilities for their decision to protect employees, patients and visitors by implementing a campus-wide tobacco-free policy."

Protect them from what?  Oh, it must be the "brown plague" the other good doctor was talking about.

It is a pity Dr. Davlantes did not use his letter to the editor to condemn the export of $158 million of cigarettes to Iran during the years George W. Bush has been in office.  I guess his Hippocratic oath and anti-smoking zeal do not apply outside the United States.

Is that cigarette smoke I smell?  No, just the whiff of hypocrisy and an attack on personal freedom.  Maybe it is time to heed the warning by John Stuart Mill in 1859 of the danger posed to liberty by "the tyranny of the majority."

Or should that, in the 21st Century, be the tyranny of the medical profession?  Doctors do have a tendency to come across as being all-knowing but the plain truth is that medicine is not a precise science governed by immutable laws.  It is based on science, uses science but, in essence, is an art.

A doctor may say that he or she thinks something may be occurring or may have an effect but cannot say with 100 percent certainty it is the case.  Take, for example, the recent acknowledgement that certain chemotherapy used in the past had no beneficial effect on patients.  Sounds to me that when doctors started using it, they must have been just stabbing in the dark.  But once a doctor dons the white coat, the rest of society assumes that they have god-like status and know all the answers.

Yes, it is true doctors can perform incredible things to save lives and the application of their skill relieves pain and suffering but they are not infallible; if they were, medical malpractice attorneys would not be in business.  And if doctors such as Harmon and Davlantes have got it so right, how come they can often be proved wrong?

A few days ago, The Daily Telegraph carried an interview with actress Diana Rigg, the delightful Emma Peel in The Avengers televison series.  The article revealed that Ms. Rigg, even at the age of 70, was still smoking 20 cigarettes a day.  According to medical thinking, she should have been dead 10, 15 or 20 years ago.  It may well be that lung cancer or heart disease eventually claims her but she will not have been cut down in her prime, unless 75 has become the new 35.

Her eventual death will, of course, be smoking related.  The way medical statistics are compiled, if I were to die tomorrow in a road accident, my death would somehow end up as being a smoking-related death because my health records show that I am a smoker.

Now, don't get me wrong about this hospital ban on smoking.  I would not want to see nurses and doctors walking along a hospital corridor, puffing on a cigarette.  I would be appalled if a surgeon conducted open-heart surgery with a Winston stuck in the corner of his mouth.  But banning smoking in the hospital grounds is just another curtailing of personal freedom, with no justification other than the wish by some people to eradicate tobacco from society.

It was Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, who said, "If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth."  The anti-smoking Nazis have learned that and learned it well.

[Joe Jackson, the English singer and musician, has written an excellent essay --  http://www.joejackson.com/smoking.php -- on anti-smoking hysteria and debunks the myths surrounding passive smoking.  Forces International -- http://www.forces.org/evidence/index.htm -- exposes the junk science used by the anti-smoking lobby to persecute people who happen to enjoy smoking cigarettes.  The United Pro Choice Smokers Newsletter -- http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4191 -- documents the Dr. Enstrom saga.]

We have been waiting exactly two weeks to the day for the Associated Press to write a report on the inhuman treatment that Mohammed Omer suffered at the hands (and feet) of Israel’s security officers when he crossed into Israel on his way home to Gaza. 

They just issued a report on the situation…. not the situation regarding Mohammed Omer, but rather on the Israeli government’s report denying the situation ever happened.  

At least now we know where AP stands…. on very shaky ground, to say the least. When the truth does come out, and it will…. AP and the likes of them will have allot of ’splaining to do Lucy’.

◄ Read the rest of this entry ►

Incidentally, remember when I complained that Bernd Freytag Von Loringhoven's memoir couldn't be about 'the last witness' because Rochus Misch was, as far as I knew, still alive? Well, not only is Misch still alive, but he's finally published his own memoir. In German, so I won't be reviewing it any time soon.

Anyway, one of the websites I found while procrastinating working has the trial documents of Irving v. Lipstadt, otherwise known as Holocaust denial on trial - though of course that was an unintentional side-effect, because it was Irving who brought the case for libel, rather than Lipstadt suing him for denial.

A few random thoughts:
- the trial which brought about Oscar Wilde's prison sentence and downfall was also brought by him for libel. I think the lesson to be learned is that you shouldn't sue people for libel if what they're saying is fundamentally true...though it's possible that not bringing a suit means you're tacitly accepting that they're saying the truth.
- Professor Lipstadt spent something like five years involved in this lawsuit, which no doubt played skittles with her research and publication schedule (at least one book was heavily delayed), but I wouldn't be surprised if the trial and publicity did more, fundamentally, to bring the issue of Holocaust denial into the public arena than any book she could have written. More power to her.

After the verdict, the Observer (who themselves were gearing up to be sued by Irving along the same lines) wrote an interesting response in which, among other things, they note that Irving has a gift for historical document digging-out. This does not mean library work or even well-catalogued archives:

...Irving's reputation has always been a double one: as a writer of history, but also a hunter of unknown, sensational documents. The first part - his reputation as an interpreter of those documents - lies in ruins. The second survives.

This is a shadowy underworld, hidden beneath the clean, bright places where scholars write books. Down in the cellar of Third Reich studies, con men and SS veterans, obsessive journalists and forgers and real historians stumble about in echoes of fantastic rumour. And here Irving is a dark prince.

Dunno about you, but that last phrase in particular is giving me Voldemort flashbacks.

Anyway, for the record, even if my German were so much improved that I could not read the memoirs of SS men but order them beer if I met them in person, I would be leaving the cellars to other people. I love archival work, and I can't think of anything more fascinating than piecing together something that had been covered up, because you pinpointed which dusty document boxes to go to. I also love talking to people who witnessed historical events - and if I run into Herr Misch during my trip to Berlin, I'll let you know.

But the thought of doing Irving's research creeps me out. Maybe that's a bit hypocritical, because we need the primary sources - not that they aren't problematic in and of themselves. One of Goebbels' diary entries, for instance, was debated in the trial - and unless J.G. had written 'I told the chief all about concentration camps and he thought it was a jolly good idea' interpretation and context was going to have to be the deciding factor.

But for one thing, the worry about forgeries certainly can't be set aside. And even more importantly, the sort of people who are that obsessed with the Third Reich are probably not only going to be interested in historical documents, and I would rather steer clear. Even if that means missing out on a few primary sources.

It is reported from the United States that the Americans have declared our patents void. That fits their mentality exactly. I have the impression anyway that the Americans participate in a European war every quarter century in order to be able to take for themselves as cheaply and easily as possible whatever cultural work has been done in Europe. The American continent is hardly in a position to bring forth anything of its own in the cultural realm. It is dependent upon imports from Europe, and as the Americans are so crazy about money they naturally like to take possession of the results of our creative and inventive labors as far as possible without paying for them.

Joseph Goebbels, Ph.D., in The Goebbels Diaries, April 23, 1942

Am văzut de curând The Goebbels Experiment. Partea „narativă” este o înlănţuire de fragmente din jurnalul sinistrului propagandist al lui Hitler, citite de Kenneth Branagh. Partea video este, în cea mai mare parte, un colaj de clipuri din epocă. Realizatorii trebuie să fi scotocit prin toate arhivele posibile ca să reconstituie atât de tulburător acea perioadă oribilă.

Joseph Goebbels e un om depresiv, care n-a crezut în nimic până să-l întâlnească pe Hitler. Era bântuit de un adevărat horror vacui. „Uneori mi-e teamă să mă dau jos din pat dimineaţa. Nu e nimic pentru care ar merita să mă trezesc.” A fost mereu convins că Germania are nevoie de o mână forte.

1924. Reputaţia lui ca orator începe să crească. Acum crede. Crede în sine însuşi „Credinţa în noi înşine ne va călăuzi spre victoria finală”.

1926. Despre Hitler: „Ne face să ne fie ruşine, cu bunătatea lui. Îl iubesc.”

1928. Goebbels ales în Reichstag. Naziştii obţin 12 locuri.

„Ce mai înseamnă creştinismul astăzi? Naţional socialismul este o religie. N-avem nevoie decât de un geniu religios capabil să smulgă din rădăcini practici religioase învechite şi să aşeze practici noi în locul lor. Ne lipsesc tradiţiile şi ritualurile. Într-o bună zi, curând, naţional-socialismul va fi religia tuturor germanilor. Partidul este biserica mea şi cred că îl slujesc pe Domnul cel mai bine dacă fac voia lui şi eliberez poporul meu oprimat din legăturile sclaviei. Asta este evanghelia mea!”

1930. La începutul anului şi-a pierdut credinţa în conducător, pe fondul unor intrigi care urmăreau să-l mazilească într-un post mai puţin important (de la Berlin, la München). „Hitler şi-a încălcat cuvântul faţă de mine de cinci ori, până acum.” În septembrie revine la gânduri mai bune. Partidul a câştigat 103 locuri în Reichstag.

1931. Întâlnirea cu Magda Quandt, nou izvor de inspiraţie şi motivaţie! „Ce minunat este să iubeşti o femeie frumoasă şi să ţi se răspundă cu aceeaşi dragoste!” [...] Partidul e pe primul loc [în viaţă], apoi Magda.” „Himmler mă urăşte. O să-l dobor! Trebuie să scăpăm de ticălosul ăsta lipsit de scrupule.”

1933. „Am reuşit. Hitler e cancelar. E ca un basm devenit realitate.” Într-un discurs radiodifuzat: „Epoca în care trăim are o importanţă istorică. Parcurgem încet o schimbare de proporţii incalculabile pentru Germania”.

„[Evreii] să ia seama, căci într-o bună zi răbdarea noastră se va sfârşi, iar atunci gurile lor obraznice şi pline de minciună vor fi astupate odată pentru totdeauna.”

Propaganda lui Goebbels dă rezultate excepţionale. „Acum vom arăta ce poate face maşinăria, dacă ştii cum s-o foloseşti!”

11 mai 1933. Se ard cărţi în public, la Berlin. Seara Goebbels ţine un discurs în Piaţa Operei, în faţa uriaşului foc care devorează cărţi.

1936. „Dra Riefenstahl se comportă cu mine foarte histrionic. Nici vorbă să pot lucra cu o asemenea lunatică. Acum vrea jumătate de milion să facă un al doilea film.”

1938. Discuţie tensionată şi umilitoare (pentru Goebbels) cu soţia, pe fondul unor „aventuri” ale acestuia. „Am nevoie de medicamente puternice, ca să pot dormi şi n-am mâncat nimic de 3 zile.”

1940. Goebbels sărbătoreşte a 43-a aniversare. Cei 5 copii frumoşi îi cântă şi îl felicită.

1941. „Cred că războiul împotriva Moscovei se va dovedi cea mai mare lovitură, psihologic şi probabil şi militar.” „Scopul nu este să ocupăm Moscova şi Leningrad. [Aceste oraşe] trebuie distruse şi terenul lor arat.”

1943. Discursul lui Goebbles în faţa unei audienţe enorme, în Palatul Sporturilor din Berlin: „Doriţi război total?” Urale şi ovaţii fulminante. „Doriţi, dacă va fi nevoie, ceva mai total şi radical decât ne-am putea imagina astăzi?” O sală în delir vrea „război total”, în urlete de „Heil!” Goebbels scrie în jurnal: „Naţiunea germană este pregătită să sacrifice totul pentru război şi pentru victorie. Mă voi asigura că războiul total nu rămâne o simplă teorie.”

21 aprilie 1945. Ultimul discurs radiodifuzat, adresat berlinezilor. Pe lângă îndemnurile de a lupta până la capăt, Goebbels spune premonitoriu: „Momentul adevărului a sosit”.

Ultima scenă din film: un interior cu trupuri neînsufleţite. Corpurile celor 6 copii îmbrăcaţi în alb şi trupurile carbonizate ale părinţilor. Joseph Goebbels, care dorise „război total”, îşi împlinea în sfârşit visul.

[P.S. Cei şase copii au fost injectaţi cu morfină de un medic nazist, iar Magda Goebbels i-a omorât zdrobindu-le între dinţi fiole de cianură, după care cei doi s-au sinucis. Lipsa motorinei a făcut ca trupurile lor să ardă incomplet.]

The Art Of The Riot I

by

R.E. Prindle

An estimated seventy Sikh protesters were arrested in Bombay (Mumbai), India after the offices of Sumner Redstone's (nee Rothstein) MTV were trashed in a demonstration against an MTV India publicity campaign that used posters portraying a young Sikh woman giving a male a "massage."  The posters advertized On the Job2, a Western style "reality show" along the lines of those that have plagued the Western world's media for the past decade.  The Sikhs were angered about media images that influence young people to abandon their traditional values.  (In the West, such sentiment is often labelled "racism," "homophobia," "intolerance" and the like.)

http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4976

2008-06-17 18:26:46

 

     The assault on the offices of Sumner Rothstein's (Redstone) MTV offices in India should not be construed as a reaction to Western values as the writer of this piece states.

     Rather one should consider it as a psychological invasive assault, an act of war, on the part of the Semito-Jews on Eastern cultures.  Having finally sucked the West dry proving it as weak a reed as Egypt was in the beginning the Semito-Jews must now abandon it in the hopes of fixing themselves on India and China as they have on the US and Europe.  They must transit to the apparently emerging powers.

     Thus they advance not Western values which they thoroughly corrupted by Marxo-Freudo-Einsteinian Semitic values by using Western technology which they had very little hand in inventing and developing.  Their role is simply manipulation.

     By employing psychological principles synthesized by Freud from Western psychological pioneers through tecnological media such as movies and TV it is possible to undermine any society and destroy its coherence.  This fact was recognized by Joseph Goebbels in Germany in 1933 when he confiscated Fritz Lang's corrupting movie The Testament Of Dr. Mabuse.

     The reaction of the Indian Sikhs to this warlike assault on their beliefs and culture by the Semito-Jews is entirely appropriate.   The approach should also be taken against Hollywood in the US.  As the political apparatus has been separated from the will of the people which Moslems, Africans and now Indians realize the will of the people has been emasculated and neutralized.

     The political elite resembling more and more the governing elite of Aldous Huxley's 1931 novel Brave New World will respond to nothing except violence.  Hence the relative success of African riots in the US and throughout the world and the continued rioting and terrorism of the Moslems.  The bombing of the WTC in New York was simply a very successful riot that got the attention of the governing elite.

     It would seem that in reacting against the elitist world government White US citizens have more in common with Africans, Moslem and Sikh rioters than they do with the elitist world government including its US division.  The Whites must cohere (excluding Liberals) and develop their own program of effective rioting.  To paraphrase the slogan of the African Stokeley Carmichael:  All power comes from the willingness to riot and destroy.  It is only the threat of being shut down that will bring the governing elite to the table.

Freedom Now!

War, Propaganda and the Media

How can the media be used to peddle propaganda in a liberal democracy?

The notorious Nazi Party Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, once said, “it is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion” (1948). He also likened the press to a “great keyboard on which the government can play.” Goebbels was a master of manipulation and is largely credited with selling the Nazi cause to the German populace.

In her 2007 book A Russian Diary, Anna Politkovskaya wrote of the overwhelming influence President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin had over all aspects of Russian society, from business, to individual lives, to the media. A journalist writing for the Russian newspaper Novaya gazeta, Politkovskaya described the pro-Putin stance of the media: “As election day approaches, the television news bulletins increasingly resemble heartening dispatches on Putin’s achievements”(2007, p. 67). She recalls occasions of press censorship, threats from political leaders and an occasion where journalists were even detained for filming an anti-Putin demonstration. Those in the media that do not apply self-censorship and question the Kremlin risk losing their jobs. “Where freedom is, there is low pay, irregularly paid. The big time is the mass media that play ball with the Kremlin”(2007 p.154). Politkovskaya made a name for herself as a journalist who would tell the truth no matter what, reporting on the situation in Chechnya and the Caucasus, and the truth behind scandals such as the Dubrovka theatre siege in 2002 and the Beslan school siege in 2005 (2007, p. 44-45). Refusing to be silenced ultimately took her life; Politkovskaya was murdered outside her Moscow apartment in October 2006.

However, in liberal democracies the overt propaganda of the sort Goebbels used to great effect in Germany, or the political pressure placed on journalists like Politkovskaya in Russia would not be possible. But it would naïve to believe democratic governments are unable to use the media to sell their policies to the voting masses. And as we have seen in recent years with the “War on Terror” and the Iraq War, the media can be as complicit as their governments in deceiving the public.

In the new introduction to their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky present the “propaganda model” as “an analytical framework that attempts to explain the performance of the US media in terms of the basic institutional structures and relationships within which they operate” (2002, p. xi). They argue the media “serve, and propagandise on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them”(2002, p. xi). This situation has arisen though changing social, political and economic factors that influence what news reaches us and how this news is presented. According the Herman and Chomsky: “The raw materials of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print”(1988, p.2) There are five of these filters: The size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass media firms; advertising as the primary income source for the mass media; the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business and “experts funded and provided by these primary sources and agents of power; “flak as a means of disciplining the media; and “anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism (1988, p. 2).

Herman and Chomsky argue the gradual centralisation and concentration of the ownership of the media has assisted the propaganda model. Ben Bagdikan notes in the 1983 edition of Media Monopoly that 50 giant firms own almost all of the United States media, which decreases down to only 23 firms in the 1990 edition (1983 & 1990, as cited by Herman and Chomsky, 2002, p. xiii). Now there are only really nine; Disney, AOL Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation, Bertelsmann, General Electric, Sony, AT&T-Liberty Media and Vivendi Universal (Herman & Chomsky, 2002). These large media companies have also diversified beyond the media field and non-media companies have established a strong presence in the mass media industry (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). For Herman and Chomsky, the ownership of the media by these large corporations poses a problem of conflict of interest. Considering media corporations are usually owned by larger parent companies who diversify and have interests in many different sectors, how do news outlets impartially and fairly report stories that involve or influence their parent companies? NBC is given as an example of this conflict, as the network is owned by RCA, which in turn is owned by General Electric. GE is a large multi-national corporation, with interests across the globe in several fields, including the nuclear power and arms industry. The corporation also contributes funding for the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank that supports intellectuals who promote pro-business messages (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). However GE need not be the only corporation singled out; all businesses are interested in tax rates, interest rates, labour policies and business laws, so the media owned by these companies will push the ideas that favour their interests. In essence, it is as though the business effectively lobbies the media.

The second filter is the use of advertising as the primary funding for mass media. Newspapers need advertiser to be able to sell newspapers under cost, without the support of advertisements, a paper would have to raise the price of their product and therefore be unable to compete with cheaper competition. So it is an imperative for newspapers to appeal to advertisers. Advertisers want to know there will be an audience for their advertisement, but not just any audience will do, they want an affluent audience who have the income to purchase their products. Working class and radical papers are therefore at a disadvantage (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). Herman and Chomsky provide an example from post World War Two Britain of how the advertising imperative can undermine the quality of the media. Despite having a readership of almost double that of The Times, the Guardian and the Financial Times combined, left wing paper the Daily Herald, as well as the News Chronicle and the Sunday Citizen, folded due to a lack of advertisers (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). When media require support from the business sector it is inevitable that social democrat and worker’s papers will lose out. The media risk losing their advertising if they broadcast or print something critical of multinationals. Herman and Chomsky argue this explains why there is, in their view, a lack of media attention and criticism of environmental degradation and war profiteering.

The third filter that determines what product news consumers receive from the media is sourcing. Herman and Chomsky state the media “need a steady, reliable flow of the raw material of news” (1988, p. 18). They argue media centralisation and the reduction in resources committed to journalism, through cost cutting, have made the news media “more dependent than ever on the primary definers who both make the news and subsidise the media by providing accessible and cheap copy” (Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p. xvii). In other words, press releases. As the media accepts it cannot afford to have reporters at all places where important stories break, they rely on press releases to fill the gap. To consolidate their position as sources of news, government agencies, business and lobby groups make a great effort to make things as easy for news organisations as possible. It is believed the use of press releases reduces the expense of investigative work, as information from government, corporate or established organisational sources is respected as credible (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). This information is then repackaged as a story, without the critique that is arguably required. They say this is common practice, arguing a significant proportion of news originates from public relations releases. As Herman and Chomsky cynically put it, “there are, by one count, 20,000 more public relations agents working to doctor the news than there are journalists writing it” (2002, p. xvii).

Criticism of the media is the fourth filter of the propaganda model: “Flak refers to negative responses to a media statement or programmes” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 26). These “negative responses” could be letters, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits or political criticism. If produced on a large enough scale, flak can become both uncomfortable and costly for the media, particular when businesses may pull their advertising. As Herman and Chomsky put it: “If certain kinds of fact, position, or programme are thought to elicit flak, this prospect is a deterrent” (1988, p. 26). They note the ability to produce flak, especially threatening and costly criticism, is related to power; in order to influence the media a critic must come from a privileged position, either in politics, business or a wealthy lobby group. Legal groups conservative media watch dogs have arisen, highlighting any criticisms of right wing economic or foreign policy to support the unfounded allegation of left wing bias within the media. Herman and Chomsky provide several examples of these conservative media lobby groups, including Freedom House, the Media Institute, the Centre for Media and Public Affairs, and Accuracy in Media (AIM). AIM was financed in the early 1980’s by corporate sponsorship, including at least eight separate oil companies (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). The annual income of AIM rose from $5000 in 1971 to $1.5 million in the early 1980’s. Herman and Chomsky believe this support explains what they argue is the function of AIM and other media lobby groups “to harass the media and put pressure on them to follow the corporate agenda and hard line, right wing foreign policy” (1988, p. 27).

Possibly the most effective way to silence and discredit left wing and anti-militarist ideology in the media is the final filter of the propaganda model, anti-communism. According to Herman and Chomsky: “Communism as the ultimate evil has always been the spectre haunting property owners, as it threatens the very root of their class position and superior status. The Soviet, Chinese and Cuban revolutions were traumas to Western elites, and the ongoing conflicts and well-publicised abuses of communist states have contributed to elevating opposition to communism to a first principle of Western ideology and politics” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 29). It is argued this helps to demonise the left, uniting the populace against not only those who support communist regimes abroad, but even those who advocate policies that threaten property rights or redistribution of wealth and resources. As a result the left has become fractured and discredited, as any party from the left can be written off as communist. And the accusation of being communist carried a cost during the Cold War, when a black and white mentality existed between the evil and oppression of Communism and the freedom of capitalist societies, a conflict of good and bad. The mass media reinforced the dichotomy of communism versus capitalism and “rooting for ‘our side’ was considered an entirely legitimate news practice” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 31). Herman and Chomsky believe the media were central to mobilising the public against communism using any information that was critical of the left. “Defectors, informers and assorted other opportunists move to centre stage as “experts” and they remain there even after their exposure as highly unreliable, if not downright liars” (1988, p. 30).

Written during the Cold War, Manufacturing Consent reflects the fears that existed during this period. However, with the fall of the Berlin Wall the “red scare” is no longer so persuasive, but perhaps the threat of international terrorism fills this void. Instead of allegations of sympathising with communists discrediting those on the left, now we see arguments the left are “soft on terror”, for example. Just as anti-communism could be argued to influence what gets media attention, anti-terrorism is just as persuasive in our post 911 world. Although referring to communism, Herman and Chomsky could easily be referring to militant Islam when they argue: “If the triumph of communism is the worst imaginable result, the support of fascism abroad is justified as a lesser evil”(1988, p. 29).

The result of the propaganda model is the status quo is reinforced. The media successfully pushes pro-business conservative ideology, whilst maintaining the illusion of impartiality, balance and fairness. They believe the dissent that is allowed is “kept within bounds and at the margins, so that while their presence shows the system is not monolithic, they are not large enough to interfere unduly with the domination of the official agenda” (Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p. xii).

Herman and Chomsky provide several examples of the propaganda model in action. Comparing popular media outlets in American, Herman and Chomsky compared the coverage of several different conflicts and human rights abuses around the world. They look at the use of language and the amount of coverage given to opposing sides in several respectable US newspapers and magazines: The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek and Time (Herman & Chomsky, 2002). If the propaganda model is to be credible, they must be able to identify examples of the way a conflict is framed in the media reflecting America’s relationships with the countries involved and whether any US businesses have interests in the region. Those countries America is friendly with, one should expect the media neglect to recognise their crimes, whereas one should expect the media to concentrate its efforts into criticisms of abuses by enemy countries.

Herman and Chomsky contrast the way the media approached human rights violations in Turkey, a US ally, and in communist Poland. The American government backed the Turkish martial-law government from its inception in 1980 and the business community supported the anti-communist movement in the country (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). Media attention to the torture of political prisoners and attacks on trade unionists in Turkey was hard to find, the issue only pressed by human rights activists and groups with little political influence. According to the propaganda model, if the media had chosen to cover the Turkish torture on its own people, it would have had to go to an extra expense to find and fact check its own information sources, as the US government was not obliging, they would receive flak from government, business and organised right-wing lobby groups and risk losing favour from their vital financial supporters, corporate advertisers (Herman & Chomsky, 1988).

Herman and Chomsky contrast this with similar abuses that occurred in Poland and the media coverage that followed. As the Reagan government saw protests over political prisoners and the violation of the rights of trade unionists as a noble cause and a great propaganda tool, the media expectedly followed suit. Official sources and Polish dissidents provided adequate information for the media to cover the stories with minimal effort. Applying the propaganda model, Herman and Chomsky argue sources did not receive the same scrutiny and the criticism of Poland did not receive the same flak criticism over Turkish abuses would have (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). And as Poland can be used in the propaganda war of the anti-communist era, the Polish abuses had more political use than those in the constitutionally secular Turkey.

As a result, Herman and Chomsky say there are worthy and unworthy victims as far as the media are concerned. The suffering of some people can be used as propaganda against unfriendly countries, whereas abuses against others are best neglected as they challenge the prevailing myth. If reported, unworthy victims are often dehumanised, reduced to statistics, on the other hand the human face of worthy victims is shown to suit the official agenda.

America’s special relationship with Turkey has led to other examples of selective reporting of abuses and the difference between worthy and unwanted victims. Bordering Iraq, Turkey and their southern neighbour share a tradition of persecuting their Kurdish minorities. A strategic ally for the West in the Middle East, Turkey’s has killed more than 30,000 in its conflict with the PKK, who seek an independent state (O’Toole, 2005). The PKK has been listed by the United States as a “terrorist group” so their persecution by the Turkish forces is easily justified by Western governments and the press. Saddam, although once a key ally for the US against the Ayatollah’s Iran, has been portrayed as the Hitler of our time, and was charged with gassing 5,000 Kurdish civilians to their deaths in 1988 (Penketh, & Verkaik, 2005). Saddam was executed in December 2006 for this crime. Despite Turkey’s treatment of its Kurds being in no way less barbarous than Iraq’s, its ethnic cleansing is categorised as “repression”, whereas Iraq engages in “genocide”. The ridiculous nature of this hypocrisy is summed up with a quote by former US Ambassador Peter Galbraith stating, “while Turkey represses its own Kurds, its cooperation is essential to an American-led mission to protect Iraq’s Kurds from renewed genocide at the hands of Saddam Hussein” (Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p. xx). Herman and Chomsky argue the word is used to demonise US enemies, but rarely applied to the Americans or their allies.

Like their support for apartheid South Africa, Saddam Hussein and the Afghani Taliban, America supported the military dictatorship of President Suharto in Indonesia because it suited their agenda, most notably anti-communist policies. Reaching power after massacring the popular communists, Suharto maintained a reign of terror over 30 years, persecuting Indonesian dissenters and the people of East Timor. With US support over 100,000 people are believed to have been killed in the conflict (Curtis, 2003, in Pilger, 2005), however the killings received minimal coverage in the media. Herman and Chomsky attribute this to Indonesia’s special relationship with the US, the strong ties the South East Asian nation has with American businesses and its position as a model for capitalism in the region.

This can be contrasted with the coverage of the Serbian killings of ethnic Albanians. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavian was in the media spotlight during the middle of 1990’s as the region disintegrated into conflict. With NATO planning air strikes against Serbia, Slobodan Milošević was accused of killing around 2000 Albanians in Kosovo (Herman Chomsky 2002). Although not belittling the horror of the crimes, it has been argued the death toll was over inflated in the media. Herman and Chomsky accuse the media of using the deaths to prepare the country for war. Both countries suppressing an ethnic minority in a similar manner, yet they are portrayed in the media in completely different ways, because of the interests of Western governments and multi-national corporations.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq presents an excellent case study in the propaganda model and the media’s ability to deceive. The propaganda model argues the media relies heavily on press releases, particularly from government departments. The carefully spun ‘truths’ disseminated from White House press secretaries were lapped up by a lazy media, who failed in their role to keep the United States Government accountable. This was evident during the build up to the invasion in March of 2003, with the media toeing the official line and not challenging the dubious claims made to justify the war, as they really ought to have.

It can be shown the media does report conflict with bias and reinforce the status quo through reporting propaganda as fact and this is bought about by corporate and political pressures, but what influence does this have on the media’s audience? Although Manufacturing Consent stressed the propaganda model describes the force that shapes what they media does and not the effect this has on the voting populace (Herman & Chomsky, 2002), it can be shown that such an effect does occur. Research conducted on the public’s knowledge of the war and the relationship this has with their support for the war, perfectly illustrates the ability of the media to corrupt debate with misinformation and undermine democracy.

The Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press has commissioned surveys into the media’s coverage of the Iraq War and the effect their coverage has had on the voting public. Released in October 2003, the Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War survey asked what unfounded beliefs Americans held about the conflict, the media’s role in propelling this misinformation and the impact these beliefs had on whether voters supported or opposed the war. Focusing on just those myths that may have influenced people’s decision to support the invasion, the survey asked participants whether they believed “weapons of mass destruction” had been found in Iraq, whether there were links between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and whether Saddam was linked to the September 11 attacks.

In February 2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations General Assembly and accused Iraq of deceiving the international community about its weapons programme (Guardian, 2003). Maintaining the belief Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, despite UN weapons inspectors finding no evidence of the purported weapons; Powell made the case for a military solution. However several years later no such weapons have actually been found, and the Bush Administration has acknowledged the information may have been flawed (The Age, 2004). Yet, the survey found 34 per cent of people believed weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found, with another seven per cent not sure (Kull, 2003). A substantial minority (22 per cent) even believed these weapons had been used during the recent war with the Americans (Kull, 2003).

It is not surprising this misperception remains. The first result that comes up if one Googles “WMD’s in Iraq” is a June 2006 Fox News story on two US Senators who claim “hundreds” of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the 2003 invasion (Fox News, 2006). In fact, survey respondents were far more likely to believe the weapons had been found if they watched Fox News as their dominant news outlet; 33 per cent of viewers compared to the next closest 23 per cent for CBS News (Kull, 2003). Long after the invasion, conservative bloggers and websites still maintain the elusive weapons have been proven to exist or even found (Procter, 2007). This is despite the lack of weapons actually found, and the Bush administration conceding the information “proving” the existence of the weapons was flawed as early as mid 2003 (CBS, 2003).

Another claim made to help garner public support for the invasion was the myth Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda. Despite it being well known Osama bin Laden hated the Baathist Iraqi regime and the fact that both parties had contrary worldviews, the myth was well supported in the media, and therefore held by the public. Fox News reinforced this myth by dishonestly displaying a “war on terror” banner across the screen whenever broadcasting a story on Iraq, despite there being no relationship between Saddam and Osama. The September 11 Commission concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, despite assertions from Vice President Dick Cheney only days before the release of the Commissions findings that links did exist (Milbank & Pincus, 2004). The administration has a history of making such ridiculous allegations; one need not look further than Bush’s “Axis of evil” 2003 State of the Union speech for another example. However, the media should be expected not to report such as allegations as the truth, although ideally the media should be able to rely on the authorities for credible information.

Even the accusation that Saddam was in some way responsible for the September 11 attacks in 2001 has been made in media. This myth has also been dismissed by the September 11 Commission stating, “we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States” (Milbank & Pincus, 2004). Remarkably, this was the misperception most commonly held by respondents. Only seven per cent believed (rightly) no connection existed, with the remaining respondents believing Iraq was either directly involved (22 per cent), gave substantial support to al Qaeda but was not involved in September 11 (35 per cent), or believing a few al Qaeda individuals met or contacted Iraqi officials (30 per cent) (Kull, 2003). Some respondents even claimed to have seen “conclusive evidence” of the link, despite the US intelligence communities back down on the allegation (Kull, 2003, p. 1).

Those who got their news from public broadcasters PBS or NPR were the most likely not to hold any of the misperceptions, with only 23 percent of PBS viewers and NPR listeners believers in the any of the myths. Those who watched Fox News (80 per cent) or CBS (71 per cent) were the most likely to believe one or more of the unfounded myths (Kull, 2003). The survey found that those who held one or more misperception were more likely to support the war; of those who had no misperceptions only 23 per cent supported the invasion of Iraq, whereas 53 per cent of those with one, 78 per cent of those with two and 86 per cent of those with three misperceptions supported the invasion of Iraq (Kull, 2003).

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has recently admitted the reasons to wage war against Iraq were flawed and the war should not have been declared, although stops short of accusing the Administration of deliberately misleading or deceiving the public (Fox News, 2008). A recently released report is not so kind; a US Senate committee report found the Administration repeated exaggerated what was known about Iraq’s weapons programme and intentionally made the erroneous link between Saddam and al Qaeda and September 11 to push the case for war (Pincus and Warrick, 2008).

In a debate over whether the media failed the public, prominent evening news anchors Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and Brian Williams disagreed over the charge the media had not asked the tough questions prior to the war (Celezic, 2008). One problem noted by Williams was the inability of the media to verify or challenge the government’s claims. Both Couric and Williams also cited examples of pressure from the administration to report the correct angle, or else face difficulty getting information in the future. They each acknowledge that in post-September 11 America, there was an overwhelming sense of patriotism and conformity.

In March of 2003, as America and its “Coalition of the willing” prepared to enter Iraq, public support for the war was remarkably high in the United States. According to Pew Research, 71 per cent of respondents believed the decision to use military force in Iraq was the right one, compared to 22 per cent who saw the decision as the wrong one. Since then the popularity of the war was on a gradual decline, although the capture of Hussein in late 2003 did momentarily boost support for the engagement. By late 2005, those who opposed the war and believed the troops should be withdrawn exceeded those who still supported the war.

As reports of how the Administration had deceived the public and their reasons for entering Iraq were gradually discredited in the media, support for the war declined. Coupled with scandals such as prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in 2004, studies illustrating international animosity towards the United States and increasing casualty numbers reported in the media, the support for the war subsequently plummeted, as did George W Bush’s approval rating as Commander in Chief.

As all the initial reasons for invading Iraq have been dismissed, the proponents for the war have turned to “regime change” and “liberation” as the justification for the invasion and subsequent occupation. However the accusations levelled at the Bush Administration as to the real reasons behind the invasion have retained their credibility. Critics of the race to war have cited oil profits and reconstruction contracts as the real reasons for the conflict, allegations that have recently gained credence with a recent report. Dick Cheney’s former company Halliburton obtained lucrative contracts in Iraq under dubious circumstances, as have other businesses with military and administration connections (Corbin, 2008). Accusations are also abound private contractors have been misappropriating billions of money earmarked for reconstruction (Corbin, 2008). This reinforces the propaganda model’s assertion that business interests drive the media agenda, and war is big business.

If it can be argued the media’s reporting of Iraq ultimately made it possible for the invasion of Iraq to receive public support, it does not bode well for Iran. As Western governments continue to accuse Iran of a nuclear programme that has not ultimately been proven to exist, the media appear to be making the same faults it did prior to the Iraq War. Much has been broadcast and published on the suspected nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, although it appears much is merely speculation. The media is selective in what is considered news worthy; Ahmadinejad’s oft repeated “wipe Israel off the map” comment is frequently referred to, to illustrate the Iranian President as a madman, despite the comment being taken completely out of context (Celalifer, 2005). On the other hand, Israel’s Deputy Defence Minster, Matan Vilnai, threatened the Palestinians with a “shoah” the Hebrew term for Holocaust, if rocket attacks did not cease, a comment that received very little coverage compared to Ahmadinejad’s threat (BBC, 2008). Again the coverage is hypocritical, especially considering Israel’s alleged 150 nuclear missiles, and arguably reflects not reality, but political and economic interests (Maddox, 2008).

The propaganda model is not without its critics, and many potential flaws can be found in some of its premises. Watergate affair is often admired as a case of remarkable investigative journalism, as the revelation that Richard Nixon was involved in a break-in at the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel complex, eventually resulting in his departure from office. This could certainly be held up as an example against the propaganda model, as the scandal targeted the pinnacle of the established elite, the President of the United States of America. Not so, says Herman and Chomsky.

“Powerful groups are capable of defending themselves, not surprisingly; and by media standards, it is a scandal when their position and rights are threatened. By contrast, as long as illegalities and violations of democratic substance are confined to marginal groups or distant victims of US military attack, or result in a diffused cost on the general population, media opposition is muted or absent altogether”. (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 300).

Nixon could do what he wanted, until he threatened the powerful. Break-ins also occurred at socialist political organisations during this era, but there was no scandal. It was not until the Democrats were targeted did the media take note, because the Democrats themselves also represent powerful elements of American society. Herman and Chomsky believe the argument actually reinforces the core idea of the model, of the overwhelming influence of power on the media, and state “the very examples offered in praise of the media for their independence, or criticism of their excessive zeal, illustrate exactly the opposite”. (1988, p. 301).

Does the propaganda model account for all the coverage of the Iraq War? How will the propaganda account for the coverage of recent human rights abuses by the American military? Surely the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, the accusations of torture surrounding Guantanamo Bay detention centre, as well as various other cases of violations of international and American constitutional law, cast doubt on the validity of the propaganda model. Herman and Chomsky do argue dissenting opinions are allowed to reinforce the illusion that the media is fair and impartial, however media criticism of US abuses has gone beyond simply being a dissenting voice. It appears the model still applies well to the Iraq War, although it looks as though there are times it falls short.

Arguably the internet has changed the situation, as mainstream media no longer has a complete monopoly over news. Although independent websites and bloggers have credibility issues, they do place pressure on the conventional media to cover all the stories. Perhaps the Bush Administrations waning influence at home and abroad, and the apparent failure of the Project for a New American Century, the rising influence of the internet and emerging superpowers China and India, all conspired to ensure the Administration has not the same influence over the media it had immediately after September 11.

Herman and Chomsky successfully apply the propaganda model to conflicts, scandals and dodgy elections from across the globe, from Africa, to the Middle East, from Europe to Asia, and across South and Central America. Although Herman and Chomsky do not ague the model means the public is always deceived by the propaganda, the Iraq War proves a well-reported lie can persuade the public to support an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Considering this, I think we can assume, with some confidence, that other examples given also led to misconceptions amongst a misinformed public, which in turn means democracy is undermined. As a result of the propaganda model, the role of the media is seriously thrown into question. Arguably, democracy can only work with an informed public, or else the system risks being corrupted by something akin to what Plato termed the “tyranny of the majority”. Herman and Chomsky posit the media as a tool for those who have influence to obtain more influence, which shockingly mirrors the view of Joseph Goebbels. Perhaps the author of the ever-relevant Nineteen-Eighty-Four, George Orwell, put it best: “The people will believe what the media tells them they believe” (1949).

Bibliography

The Age, (2004), US admits no WMD in Iraq, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089452364.html

BBC News, (2008), Israel warns of invasion of Gaza, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7270650.stm

Carruthers, S. L., (2000), The Media at War, London: Macmillan.

CBS News (2003), White House admits WMD error, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/09/iraq/main562312.shtml

Celalifer, A., (2005), Ahmadinejad did not say “wipe Israel off the map”, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12763.htm

Celezic, M., (2008), News Anchors differ on Iraq War coverage, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24855902/

Chomsky, H., & Herman, E. S., (1988), Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, New York: Pantheon Books.

Corbin, J., (2008), BBC uncovers lost Iraqi billions, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm

Fisk, R., (2008), The Age of the Warrior: Selected Writings, London: 4^th Estate.

Fox News, (2006), Hundreds of WMD found in Iraq, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Fox News (2008), White House Officials decry McClellan claims about Administration, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359600,00.html

Full text Colin Powell’s speech (2003), US secretary of state's address to the United Nations Security Council, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa

Goebbels, J., (1948), The Goebbels Diaries, London: Double Day.

Hirst, M., & Patching, R., (2007) Journalism Ethics: Arguments and Cases, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Kull, S., (2003). Misperception, the Media and the Iraq War, Baltimore: University of Maryland.

Maddox, B., (2008), Jimmy Carter says Israel had 150 Nuclear Weapons, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4004300.ece

Milbank, D., & Pincus, W., (2004), Al Qaeda-Hussein link is dismissed, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Orwell, G., (1949), Nineteen Eighty-four, London: Penguin Books.

O’Toole, P., (2005), Plight of Turkish Kurds continues, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4540535.stm

Penketh, A., & Verkaik, R., (2005), Dutch court says gassing of Iraqi Kurds was ‘genocide’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-court-says-gassing-of-iraqi-kurds-was-genocide-520599.html

Pilger, J., (ed.), (2005), Tell me no lies, London: Vintage.

Pincus, W., & Warrick, J., (2008), Bush inflated threat from Iraq’s banned weapons, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html

Politkovskaya, A., (2007) A Russian Diary, London: Harvill Secker.

Procter, A., (2007) New proof emerges that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction ambitions, http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2007/8/31/new-proof-emerges-that-saddam-had-no-wmd-ambitions.html

Seib, P., (2004), Beyond the Front Lines, New York: Palgrave.

Now, I'm going to assume that our friend the Wondering Junior meant the important people of WW2 and not the IRS clerks that developed the W2 form.  With that clarification out of the way we can continue.

Asking who the important people were in WW2 is a little like asking someone to name all the cast members in a war movie based on a Cornelius Ryan book;  the list is long and illustrious, full of prominent and familiar names.  So, we'll have to narrow things down a bit to prevent this post from needing the longest day to complete (Get it?  Cornelius Ryan? Longest Day?  I know, don't say it).  We'll look at a few major players from each of the major belligerents.  We'll pick at least on political and one military leader from Germany, Britain, the Soviet Union, Japan, Italy, and the US.  Let's start with the bad guys.

Germany

Adolph Hitler:  Nazi dictator of Germany - You've got to think that Hitler is one of the most recognizable names the world over.  You could make the argument that without Adolph Hitler there would not have been a World War 2, at least not on the scale of what is was.  He was a charismatic public speaker, rallying the German masses to support the Nazi cause of domination and ethnic purity.  His hatred for the Jews spawned the terrible "Final Solution" which included death camps, sterilization, and human experimentation, and lead to the extermination of about 6 million Jews and about 5 million other "undesirable" persons, such as Slavs and gypsies.  An Austrian by birth, he served in the German army in WWI, never rising above the rank of corporal, and yet he took command of the German wermacht, or armed forces, during the war.  Before his death by suicide in the wars final days, stress and paranoia had turned him into a raving, suspicious wreck, with uncontrollable trembles, bordering on dementia.

Joseph Goebbels:  Nazi propaganda minister - Goebbels lead Nazi Germany's campaign of propaganda to instill in the German people the "ideals" of the Nazi party.  He controlled all forms of communication in Germany.  He and his wife poisoned their seven children before committing suicide themselves as the Red Army closed in on Berlin.

Herman Goering:  Luftwaffe chief and Nazi party leader - Goering was a WWI flying ace who transformed the German air force, the Luftwaffe, into a formidable force.  Was the heir apparent to the Fuehrer, but was captured in the closing days of the war.  While on trial for war crimes at Nuremburg after the war, he committed suicide in his cell.

Erwin Rommel:  General and Field Marshall - Perhaps Germany's most well known general.  Scored early victories in the war in France and became famous for leading his Afrika Corps against the British in North Africa.  Implicated in a plot against Hitler later in the war, he was given the "opportunity" to commit suicide rather than be shot by firing squad.

 Did you notice a trend there on how things ended up for these guys?  On to Japan.

 Japan

Hideki Tojo:  General and Prime Minister - Tojo was a leader in the military junta that controlled Japan.  He led the Japanese army in its war with China and became Prime Minister just before the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  He was complicit in war crimes against those living in Japanese controlled areas of Asia, which included human experimentation.  He was captured, tried, and in 1948, hanged.

Hirohito:  Emperor - The Emperor at first sought to avoid war with the West, but was eventually swayed by the army and navy.  Ordered the Japanese surrender of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki against the will of many military commanders, some of who attempted a coup which failed.  Somewhat controversially, was not implicated or charged with any war crimes though some claim many of these were committed with his knowledge and even at his behest.  Died in 1989.

Isoroku Yamamoto:  Admiral - Yamamoto was the admiral who devised the Pearl Harbor attack plan.  He had opposed virtually all of Japan's aggressive maneuvers prior to that, including the invasion of Manchuria and the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, but in loyalty to his country fought on anyway.  While his famous "all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant" quote, referring to the attack on America at Pearl, is likely apocryphal, he is documented as warning, "I can run wild for six months ... after that, I have no expectation of success."  Yamamoto was killed when his plane was shot down by American P-38's while inspecting forward units

Italy

Benito Mussolini:  Fascist dictator of Italy - Mussolini was really the inventor of fascism, though his brand was initially a much less racist version than Hitler's.  Like Hitler, a talented orator and motivator.  Il Duce, as he was called, invaded Ethiopia and what is now Somalia in Africa.  Italy was not a strong military power, and had to be bailed out by Germany on several occasions.  After things deteriorated for Italy during the war, Mussolini was dismissed as Prime Minister and arrested by order of King Emmanuel.  He was later rescued by German special forces and set up by Hitler as a kind of puppet ruler in northern Italy.  Captured by communist partisans while attempting to flee Italy at the close of the war, he and his mistress were executed and their bodies hung upside down from a gas station.

Ok, I don't know any Italian military types.  You'll have to learn that on your own.  On to the allies and their communist partner.

Soviet Union

Joseph Stalin:  Communist dictator - Stalin initially made a pact with Hitler and jointly invaded Poland with the Nazis.  Pact ended when Germany invaded Russia.  Suffering early reversals, in no small part due to a depleted Red Army officer core due to his paranoid purges, Stalin employed a scorched earth policy as his predecessors had done when invaded by Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden.  Ironically framed the war against the Nazis as the Great Patriotic War and this morale booster coupled with the victory at Stalingrad helped to turn the tide.  Stalin was a thorn in the allies side immediately following Germany's surrender, refusing to give up territory his Red Army occupied to its rightful possessors.  Tensions soon escalated into the Cold War.  Stalin died in 1953 as a result of a stroke.

Georgy Zhukov:  General - Though he briefly fell out of favor with Stalin early in the war, his defense of Moscow put him back in good graces.  Zhukov was instrumental in many of the crucial Red Army victories, including Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk, and the invasion of Germany itself.  He died in 1974.

Vyacheslav Molotov:  Foreign Minister - Along with Joachim von Ribbentrop, the foreign minister of Nazi Germany, concluded the pact between Germany and the Soviet Union which called for the partition of Poland and the dividing up of the Baltic states.  In the resulting Soviet-Finnish war of 1939 the Fins coined the term Molotov cocktail for homemade bombs.  Throughout the wider war, Molotov was a tough negotiator with the other allies and secured their promise of a second front in Europe.  He died in 1986 at the age of 96.

Great Britain

Winston Churchill:  First Lord of the Admiralty & Prime Minister - Politically isolated before the war and one of the few who saw the danger of Hitler early one, became First Lord of the Admiralty when the war broke out.  Not long after was appointed Prime Minister.  Lead Britain with a steely resolve in the face of seemingly hopeless times, including during the Blitz and the Battle of Britain.  Pressed President Roosevelt for help, which helped lead to the Lend Lease Act.  Kept Britain in the fight until the US finally joined the war in 1941. 

Bernard Law Montgomery:  General - Skilled and boastful, Montgomery commanded the British army in North Africa to the first major allied land victory of the war, El Alamein.  He was in command of armies that invaded Sicily, where he and US general George Patton developed a rivalry that wasn't always friendly and which was further fueled by Montgomery's actions and comments during the Battle of the Bulge.  Operation Market Garden, a plan to cross into Germany via the Rhine River in Holland was his operation, though it was poorly planned and he ignored key intelligence.  The operation was an allied disaster, despite Monty's claim of it being "90% successful."  His armies did eventually cross the Rhine and Montgomery accepted the surrender of Germany in Denmark and Holland.

United States

Franklin D. Roosevelt:  President - Though the US was neutral at the war's outset, Roosevelt did everything short of actual fighting to aid the allies.  The Lend-Lease Act which provided Britain with badly needed supplies and equipment and the oil embargo on Japan in response to their aggression in Asia were major components of his policy.  His most controversial act as President was Executive Order 9066 which called for the internment of those of Japanese descent on the West Coast.  Met with Churchill, Stalin, and China's Chang Kai-shek on various occasions to discuss strategy and post-war plans.  Died after being elected to a fourth term in 1945.

Harry S. Truman:  Vice President  & President - Taking office after Roosevelt's death, Truman initially very little about FDR's war policies.  He had been largely kept in the dark.  A hard worker and quick learner, he rapidly got up to speed.  Alone made the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan to force their surrender.

Dwight D. Eisenhower:  General - Commander of all allied forces in Europe.  Presided over D-Day invasion of Normandy and was prepared to take full responsibility had it failed.  Had to manage enormous personalities and egos in the likes of Patton and Montgomery.  After the war became NATO commander and then President of the United States.

George S. Patton:  General - Brilliant, eccentric, and controversial.  A skilled tank commander, notoriously profane and religious.  Commanded a huge dummy army in England prior to the Normandy invasion.  Drove his tank battalions across central Europe after breaking out of France, all the way to Czechoslovakia.  Famously slapped a soldier in a military hospital who was suffering from shell shock and called him a coward.  He was forced to apologize for the incident.  Died from injuries suffered in a car crash in 1945.

Ok, so maybe this wasn't a quick post at all.  But now you've got a little bit of an idea of who a lot of the major players were in the greatest conflict in the history of the world.

In the US and Britain, there is a campaign to smear anybody who tries to describe the plight of the Palestinian people. It is an attempt to intimidate and silence – and to a large degree, it works. There is
nobody these self-appointed spokesmen for Israel will not attack as anti-Jewish: liberal Jews, rabbis, even Holocaust survivors.

My own case isn't especially important, but it illustrates how the wider process of intimidation works. I have worked undercover at both the Finsbury Park mosque and among neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers to expose the Jew-hatred there; when I went on the Islam Channel to challenge the anti-Semitism of Islamists, I received a rash of death threats calling me "a Jew-lover", "a Zionist-homo pig" and more.

Ah, but wait. I have also reported from Gaza and the West Bank. Last week, I wrote an article that described how untreated sewage was being pumped from illegal Israeli settlements on to Palestinian land, contaminating their reservoirs. This isn't controversial. It has been documented by Friends of the Earth, and I have seen it with my own eyes.

The response? There was little attempt to dispute the facts I offered. Instead, some of the most high profile "pro-Israel" writers and media monitoring groups – including Honest Reporting and Camera – said I an anti-Jewish bigot akin to Joseph Goebbels and Mahmoud Ahmadinejadh, while Melanie Phillips even linked the stabbing of two Jewish people in North London to articles like mine. Vast numbers of e-mails came flooding in calling for me to be sacked.

Any attempt to describe accurately the situation for Palestinians is met like this. If you recount the pumping of sewage onto Palestinian land, "Honest Reporting" claims you are reviving the anti-Semitic myth of Jews "poisoning the wells." If you interview a woman whose baby died in 2002 because she was detained – in labour – by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint within the West Bank, "Honest Reporting" will say you didn't explain "the real cause": the election of Hamas in, um, 2006. And on, and on.

Click to see full article here

Senator Obama has now finally responded to Reverend Wright's road show ... frankly much quicker than many thought he would ... if different people thought he would respond at all.

It appears that some of my sentiments about Reverend Wright's performance were shared by more than a few people ... apparently enough to stimulate Senator Obama to react ... if he isn't reacting to Wright's antics alone. I think Wright's antics were enough in and of themselves not to have to wait on anyone else's opinions to figure out what to do and even though Obama, in his typical style, took his time, I'm going to give him credit for reacting to the message and not public opinion about the message.

After listening to Obama today ... and after his interview with Chris Wallace Sunday ... I understand why so many people support and want to believe Obama. If he isn't sincere, he's very good at appearing sincere and genuine ... and I'm not saying right now that he isn't. Let's assume that he is.

Anyone that doesn't feel at least a little sympathy for him is totally heartless ... period. This guy is being crucified by his "friends" ... and I do use the term "friend" loosely. Let's assume that Senator's Obama's reference to "bitter" and "clinging to guns and religion" were "mistatements" not intended to be elitist. Let's make all of the assumptions we can to cut Barack all of the breaks we can give him.

Then, what do we have?

Well, we have a relatively young Harvard trained lawyer who has worked and spent most of his adult life sequestered in the south side of Chicago who knows very little about the rest of his country, much less the world and how it works. He reminds me more of a naive twenty something young adult with a lot of idealistic goals and little practical experience to see those goals to reality without getting beaten up a lot in the process of learning and quite frankly, as I see the seasoned Democratic heavyweights lining up behind him, I'm not too sure that they don't see him in exactly this light ... someone to be used, manipulated and bullied if necessary.

If we can trust anything that Jeremiah Wright says, his indication that it's his intention to try to bully Obama was very evident yesterday and any thought that Wright has any respect for Obama should have been dispelled.

This just doesn't bode well for Obama. If he can't command the respect of long time associates what are we to assume about him as president? Maybe we shouldn't use Wright as an example, but ... then ... why not? Wright was Obama's own choice.

And here's another thought ... just thrown in ...

Wright says he hates the American government, not the American people. Well, the government is "we, the people ..." and Wright knows this.

So, yesterday I wrote:

Did anyone miss the Jeremiah Wright Show that was held at the National Press Club on 28 April 2008? After watching the love fest between Bill Moyers and Wright last Friday night, I was hoping for a little better. I got the sense that Bill and Jeremiah really needed to get a room since they gave "tongue in cheek" journalism a new meaning. Yesterday, it was apparent that Reverend Wright wasn't completely sure that he would ge the same strokes from the National Press Club as he did from Moyer so he appeared to have brought his own cheering section to massage his altered ego.

For some reason Jeremiah Wright seems to think that military service is a bona fide for patriotism and has obviously primed his supporters to mimic that chant ... military service, patriotism, military service patriotism ...

Giving the respect due to the millions of Americans who have honorably served their country in a patriotic spirit, military service is one of the most honorable, as well as self sacrificing, ways to serve one's country patriotically. I have also served my country in the military and have a deep respect for many of the people I served with. It was a time in my life and experience that I would not trade for anything. I also realise that the military isn't for everyone and there can be other ways that people can serve their country. So, it's not a sine qua non for patriotism ... a point that wright and his pundits seem to be consciously or unconsciously ignoring. My suspicion is that his and their bend is conscious and self serving.

It should also be noted that military service isn't necessarily synonymous with patriotism. Benedict Arnold is a classic example. Even the Marine Corps has had its disappointments, ergo Lee Harvey Oswald. I'm not citing either of these people to suggest any correlation with Reverend Wright, but simply to point out that, so far, Reverend Wright's main, if not only , example of his patriotic fervor can be shot down fairly quickly and simply, something any high school junior with a "C" average should be able to do. I should think we would expect better from such a learned person with so many self proclaimed degrees.

Conversely, not serving in the military isn't necessarily a sign that a person isn't patriotic. Reverend Wright seems to take particular pleasure in pointing out Vice President Dick Cheney's lack of military service as a reason to question or lessen his patriotism or to minimize any service Cheney might have performed for the country. That might be considered a good talking point as far as he is concerned but it does nothing for Barack Obama who also "suffers", if you want to look at it that way, from a lack of military service. Does that make Obama's patriotism less?

Does Reverend Wright consider himself more patriotic than, say, someone like Franklin Roosevelt who also didn't serve in the military. Roosevelt dis serve as a state senator, New York governor,and assistant Secretary of the Navy before serving as a war time president. So ... there may be other ways to express one's patriotism in a positive way other than serving in the military despite Wright's apparent monolithic view which, once the surface is scratched also seems to be self serving.

Since so many of Jeremiah Wright's talking points seem to be so superficial and flawed, it seems that, if he ever had any great mental dexterity and acumen, he apparently lost it or let it get extrememly rusty by immersing himself in a pandering and unquestioning congregation or circle of friends who were either unwilling or unable to offer him any intellectual challenges.

So, rather than beat his old dead horses to a pulp repeatedly, maybe Wright can think up some new outrageous comments to make rather than reiterating the old. He might even try something novel and refreshing like occasionally saying something that's factual and/ or undistorted.

All of this makes it even more amazing that the National Press Club allowed itself to be so blatantly used by Wright's dog and pony show. Aren't it's member