Chapter Twenty-Six Continued: Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Before club-footed little Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels became Adolf Hitler's Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, he used to say that nothing was so good for a hostile editor as "one litre of castor oil." Lately Minister Goebbels' methods have grown less rudimentary. Last autumn, he "consecrated"' the German Press to Nazi service with a law that made it a crime to practice journalism in Germany except as a member of a nation-wide closed shop. (1)

The fact that Joseph Goebbels took complete control of the media in Germany should have been alarming to all German citizens. So why wasn't it?

Good Propaganda.

Good propaganda about the need for propaganda to be exact.

So much of the success of the neoconservative movement comes from deception, hidden meanings and yes even "doublespeak". And one common deceptive strategy is creating a persecution complex.

'Goebbels did not take over the media to control information. He did it because everyone else was against him'. But these claims wouldn't mean much coming from him so they had someone else come to his "defense". Enter Hans Fritzsche.

Hans George Fritzsche

"Nothing is more fatal to a people than the mania for great reforms, however excellent these reforms may appear theoretically." Gustave Le Bons

Han Fritzsche (1900-1953) was a Nazi propagandist working in the department of Joseph Goebbels, heading up the radio division. The image to the left was during his arrest but he was later acquitted because he had not taken part in the atrocities against Jewish citizens.

In fact, he tried to put a stop to their anti-Semitic publications. His interest was solely the movement and doing what he could to promote it and the German nation.

In 1934 Fritzsche wrote a piece defending Goebbel's ultimate control of the media, suggesting that his actions were necessary to counter liberal bias. Now he does blame the Jewish people to a certain extent, at least for their impact on the media.

But thanks to publications like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; communism, liberalism and Judaism were all twisted to mean the same thing.

Dr. Goebbels and his Ministry
by Hans Fritzsche

It is but five minutes from the dark and smoky business office of 1926, which had the mocking name opium den, to the Leopold Palace. The road took Dr. Joseph Goebbels through a sea of poison and hate and lies. Each old follower of Adolf Hitler, each old National Socialist, had to withstand battles that no young party member will have to endure, no matter how long he lives. But no one had to face as much hate as Dr. Goebbels.

It was almost open season on Dr. Goebbels during the six-and-a-half year battle for Berlin. At first he was called the "Chief Crook of Berlin" by the Communists — a title he accepted without embarrassment and made a title of honor. Soon the middle class newspapers and speakers declared open season on him too. He is a man of sharp phrases and pitiless language. The danger he represented had long been recognized. The entire artillery of the political battle, for which any means is justified, was turned on him. (2)

"That took Goebbels through a sea of poison and hate and lies"?

In today's neoconservative propaganda it's called Liberal Media Bias and it's a myth now, just as much as it was a myth then. And yet it's used constantly .

Eric Alterman wrote a piece for Nation Magazine entitled What Liberal Media?, and even the neoconservatives he interviewed agreed that it was part of the "big lie"

Republicans of all stripes have done quite well for themselves during the past five decades fulminating about the liberal cabal/ progressive thought police who spin, supplant and sometimes suppress the news we all consume ... But while some conservatives actually believe their own grumbles, the smart ones don't. They know mau-mauing the other side is just a good way to get their own ideas across-or perhaps prevent the other side from getting a fair hearing for theirs. On occasion, honest conservatives admit this.

... That the media were biased against the Reagan Administration is an article of faith among Republicans. Yet James Baker, perhaps the most media-savvy of them, owned up to the fact that any such complaint was decidedly misplaced. "There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about" ... Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in Republican history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage-all we could have asked.

And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." (3)

Ari Fleisher defended George Bush's decision to only answer pre-scripted questions as necessary to combat Liberal media bias. Liberal media bias that doesn't exist.

And when Stephen Harper shut out the National Press gallery he stated:

“Unfortunately, the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government,” Harper told a London TV station. “They don't ask questions at my press conferences now. We'll just get the message out on the road. There's lots of media in the country who do want to ask me questions and hear what the government is doing.” (4)

Despite the fact that even foreign newspapers were writing about the unprecedented control of the government's message under Stephen Harper, he turned it around to play the victim.

Fritzsche continues:

The results of the unprecedentedly bitter battle the organs of the Weimar [Liberal] state and the parties were different than they had expected: He [Goebbels] hardened his weapons in the fire of this battle, and the masses his enemies attempted to mobilize against him instead joined him. It is not surprising that those who feared the oncoming National Socialism attacked with poison and gall.

It is surprising that this man, mocked, ridiculed and insulted as no one else, did not fall into deep despair and spiritual misery after those years of struggle. (2)

It was and is a war of their own creation, and yet they play the victim masterfully.

So, what's with all the whining? It's all about preventing the media from doing their job. If reporters are allowed to ask questions and rebut spin, then the Conservatives' disinformation campaign is much less likely to succeed.

And, by planting the seed of the notion that there is a media bias against his government, Harper has already achieved two related objectives. First, he is making the media more likely to be over-cautious about any appearance of bias, which will lead to more favourable coverage. Likewise, when the media does get around to reporting on his government's failures, voters may well dismiss the reports as one more example of the media conspiracy against the Conservatives. (4)

Chapter Twenty-Six Continued: Law, Justice and the Reichstag Fire

Sources:

1. Nazi Merger, Time Magazine, December 11, 1933

2. Hans Fritzsche, "Dr. Goebbels und sein Ministerium," Munich: Verlag Max Steinebach, 1934, pg. 330-342.

3. What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman, The Nation magazine, February 24, 2003

4. The media conspiracy against Stephen Harper, By Scott Piatkowski, June 1, 2006

Chapter Twenty-Six: Joseph Goebbels and Manipulating the Masses

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"What do close advisers to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement." Donald Gutstein (1)

Those words are certainly true but I would also ask another question. What does Leo Strauss and the advisers to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing philosophy of Joseph Goebbels. And most of Joseph Goebbels brilliance as a propagandist came from reading Gustave Le Bon, and exploiting his study of mass mentality.

Gustave points out that individuals in a crowd may range in intellect, but when presented as a mass to a common cause they become homogenized: In the collective mind the intellectual aptitudes of the individuals, and in consequence their individuality, are weakened. The heterogeneous is swamped by the homogeneous, and the unconscious qualities obtain the upper hand ... This very fact that crowds possess in common ordinary qualities explains why they can never accomplish acts demanding a high degree of intelligence ... In crowds it is stupidity and not mother-wit that is accumulated. (2)

Hence the notion of not just the "masses" but the "ignorant masses", reduced to ignorance by a common agitator.

Leo Strauss would develop a philosophical argument which he called Reductio ad Hitlerum which included playing the Hitler card. But Strauss also contends that not everything Adolf Hitler did was bad, so it would be wrong to conclude that something is bad just because Hitler did it. Actions can become "darkened by the shadow of Hitler" he warned.

So when neoconservative philosophy is attributed to Strauss, it's OK. He taught at American universities, and no matter what he taught it is legitimized. But as soon as you compare neoconservative principles to Joesph Goebbels, they cry foul, despite the fact that much of what Strauss taught is pure Nazi propaganda, that has been "darkened by the shadow of Hitler". And of course also darkened by the shadow of the Holocaust.

I'm not going to deny that Leo Strauss was a brilliant man, but I believe that in many ways he was simply the conduit for Goebbels, which is why so many legitimate followers of Strauss will question much of what has been attributed to him, especially when it comes to the actions of the Bush administration.

In chapter twenty four I drew several comparisons to Goebbels and the Neocons, but in this chapter I'm going to remove the shadow of Hitler and the Holocaust and outline the techniques used by the ultimate propagandist, Joseph Paul Goebbels. The similarities between him and the advisers of most neoconservative politicians are simply too vast to ignore.

Phenomena of a Hypnotic Order

The difference between Leo Strauss and Joseph Goebbels, is that Strauss's theories were philosophic, while Goebbels were scientific. Strauss was inspired by other philosophers while Goebbels was inspired by a scientist, Gustave Le Bons.

As Le Bons himself states: I have endeavoured to examine the difficult problem presented by crowds in a purely scientific manner—that is, by making an effort to proceed with method, and without being influenced by opinions, theories, and doctrines. (2)

So scientifically speaking, when discussing crowd mentality,he suggests that individuals in the crowd are rendered unconscious, and it is this unconsciousness that becomes their collective strength. They are now devoid of reason and this is the best state for a skillful orator to do their work. Le Bons refers to this as the 'phenomena of hypnotic order'.

So ideally when trying to stir up the masses, you need to get them into an hypnotic state, and one way of doing this is with hand gestures. In the "mesmerizing trade" it's referred to as Covert Hypnotism. Goebbels mastered it. Look at his rhythmic hand gestures. Very unusual.

Of course Goebbels would say that the power comes from the "harmony of word, facial expressions and gestures", but at this particular rally he speaks of the mass as being in a state of "total spiritual mobilization". Aka: hypnotized.



Now watch Adolf Hitler, doing the same thing. He starts out in a humble stance and then builds up the momentum. But again watch his hands (Not too closely though. I wouldn't want you to start clucking like a chicken or anything)



The gravelly voice was the result of mustard gas during the war and Hitler's first handler, Dietrich Eckart taught him how to use it to his advantage. But every now and then he has to stop to cough. Eckart was a playwright and stage director, so gave him a flair for the dramatic.

Now just as kind of a funny aside, following is a video of Stephen Harper. I don't really know what his oratory style is because he rarely speaks to us, and certainly would not speak to us in this manner if he thought we were listening. This video was shot on the QT. But watch his hands and yes I am LMAO.



Chapter Twenty-Six Continued: Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment

Sources:

1. Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy. The Tyee, Donald Gutstein, November 29, 2009

2. A Study of the Popular Mind, By: Gustave Le Bon, Book One: The Mind of Crowds

Chapter Twenty-Four Continued: Controlling the Masses

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

He who controls the medium controls the message. He who controls the message controls the masses.
Joseph Goebbels

The notion of mob mentality is nothing new. Perhaps the best example is mustering armies for war. Soldiers become indoctrinated into not only hating their enemies but more importantly fearing them.

And while on the battlefield it becomes kill or be killed, to get men and women onto the battlefield, and with the acceptance of the public, there also has to be the fear that if you don't kill the enemy they will come after everything and everyone you love. So it now becomes noble. And if you can vest it with a "holy" purpose (and religious fervour), all the better.

But I'm getting into the "big lie" and "total war" later. I just wanted to briefly discuss one of the most powerful tools of the Neoconservative movement: Controlling the masses.

Leo Strauss considered this to be essential for success. He referred to us as the "ignorant masses", Friedrich Von Hayek called us "the wandering herd". To Goebbels we were simply "the masses".

But none of their theories were really ground breaking. In fact, many originated with a man by the name of Gustave Le Bon (in photo), a French social psychologist, sociologist and author of A Study of the Popular Mind.

Joseph Goebbels used his book religiously and Mussolini kept a copy of it beside his bed.

Le Bon discusses how varied individuals in a crowd are, and yet when they have a common goal or purpose, they become a single entity.

"... there is in no sort a summing-up of or an average struck between its elements. What really takes place is a combination followed by the creation of new characteristics, just as in chemistry certain elements, when brought into contact ... combine to form a new body possessing properties quite different from those of the bodies that have served to form it.

It is precisely these general qualities of character, governed by forces of which we are unconscious, and possessed by the majority of the normal individuals of a race in much the same degree—it is precisely these qualities, I say, that in crowds become common property. In the collective mind the intellectual aptitudes of the individuals, and in consequence their individuality, are weakened. The heterogeneous is swamped by the homogeneous, and the unconscious qualities obtain the upper hand.

This very fact that crowds possess in common ordinary qualities explains why they can never accomplish acts demanding a high degree of intelligence. The decisions affecting matters of general interest come to by an assembly of men of distinction, but specialists in different walks of life, are not sensibly superior to the decisions that would be adopted by a gathering of imbeciles. The truth is, they can only bring to bear in common on the work in hand those mediocre qualities which are the birthright of every average individual. In crowds it is stupidity and not mother-wit that is accumulated. (1) (all emphasis mine)

Hence crowd mentality is based on the intellect of the lowest members, and the real genius is in reducing the intellectuals to that lowest level. In that way, you are then superior to them all.

Goebbels understood that. Mussolini understood that. And Guy Giorno understands that.

"He Who Controls the Message, Controls the Masses"

In 2000, Ryerson Press published a lengthy article about former Ontario Premier Mike Harris and his unprecedented control of the media:

TV newsmakers need vivid images to illustrate their stories. Harris's Tories, easily the most communications-savvy provincial government this country has ever seen, are delighted to oblige — on their terms. They dodge negative coverage at every chance and will go to ridiculous lengths — giving preferential treatment to friendly reporters, shutting out critical ones and staging elaborate, unrelated events — to avoid it. Because they know the demands of getting on the news are a lot like the demands of the Miss Universe pageant: you've gotta be sexy, you've gotta have charm and you've better have something interesting (but not too complicated) to say.

With expectations so superficial, many television journalists are losing the incentive and initiative to go out and chase stories beyond the pre-packaged photo ops offered up by government communications staff. Even if they want to go beyond these prefab items, with shrinking political reporting staff and dwindling resources, they can only pursue one or two stories a day. Government PR people know this and are prepared to make it easy for journalists to get their precious pictures, provided the coverage doesn't end up being too hard on them. The result is political coverage that serves no purpose other than promoting a government that's already very good at promoting itself. (2) (all emphasis mine)

A message that is not too complicated with the right images to sell it to the "ignorant masses".

And the man behind this unprecedented control was Guy Giorno.

Governing for the Camera

That Stephen Harper has become the king of the photo-op is no longer debatable, but I think a good example of how he governs for the camera, is the handling of the Haiti crisis, which also leans toward the deception category.

Journalist Mia Rabsan wrote a column for the Winnipeg Free Press: Stop the photo op already, in which she says:

Late last night we got a photo from the prime minister's office of Stephen Harper on the telephone, presumably with UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, discussing the situation in Haiti. Today Defence Minister Peter Mackay is posing in Halifax as the HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Halifax leave for Haiti. At about the same time, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his wife, Laureen, were staging a photo op making a donation to the Canadian Red Cross.

Enough already. Stop posing for photo ops and just get on with the business of helping Haiti. Canadians want to know the ships are on their way and what we're
sending so we know Canada is doing what it can to help. A photo op of a minister can do little but delay the voyage.

The Canadian response to Haiti thus far has been prompt and thorough. Let's stop the photo ops and just keep the aid flowing. (3)

At the time Rabsan, like most Canadians, allowed the photos to tell the story. However, what we learned later, was that the whole thing was fabricated for political gain. The ships in the photo with MacKay did not have the much needed medical supplies, food and water that Harper assured us had been loaded. In fact they arrived almost empty.

OTTAWA — When HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Halifax were ordered to sail on a humanitarian mission to Haiti on Jan. 13, they worked through the night, passing boxes hand to hand, loading stores aboard the ships — everything they would need for the humanitarian mission.

But sailors didn’t take aboard much in the way of relief aid — food packages, medical supplies or shelters — for distribution to Haitians. During the voyage, some sailors wondered if the ships might have been better off staying in port a little longer — say 12 hours — to take on more relief supplies, food aid and medical equipment before sailing for Haiti. (4)

And two months after Rabsan wrote her story, the promised funds had not been delivered. Not one single penny. We might ask ourselves how that could be. We saw Stephen Harper handing over a cheque.

I called the agency yesterday with questions about the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund. You probably remember this. It’s where the Canadian government promises to match funds Canadians donate to Haiti to help with, among other things, “early recovery” and reconstruction. I had heard from a contact who does relief work in Haiti that no one who has applied for money from this fund had heard back from CIDA. Seemed a little strange. It’s been two months since the quake and one month since the donation window closed on February 12.

... I asked how much of the money raised through the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund has been spent. CIDA’s response included a paragraph about where Canada has spent money that doesn’t come from the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund, before adding the line: “Funds from the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund will be disbursed in the near future.” (5)

You see it wasn't about handling the Haiti crisis, but the appearance of handling the Haiti crisis. And the man behind this unprecedented media control is Guy Giorno. (6)

Chapter Twenty-Four Continued: Higher Learning

Sources:

1. A Study of the Popular Mind, By: Gutave Le Bon, Book One: The Mind of Crowds

2. How Mike Harris and his minions manipulate TV news, Ryerson Press, Summer 2000

3. Stop the photo op already By: Mia Rabson, Winnipeg Free Press, January 14, 2010

4. Chronicle Herald

5. CIDA’s Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund: millions raised, nothing spent.
by Michael Petrou, Macleans, March 10, 2010

6. Ex-aide to Mike Harris to run PM's office: The aide embroiled in 'NAFTA-gate' is out; to be replaced by former Harris chief of staff, By: Richard Brennan and Susan Delacourt, Toronto Star, May 22, 2008