Hiroshima Myth

"The principle of law in every civilized society has this in common: Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime...is guilty."
--Judge Dan Heywood (Judgment at Nuremburg)

On August 6, 1945, a United States B-29 dropped the world's first atomic bomb in Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later another A-bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. Japan surrendered later that month to end WWII.

An estimated 120,000 perished in the two blasts with hundreds of thousands subsequently maimed or killed from radiation exposure. The lion's share of casualties were civilians--mostly women and children.

The popular myth trotted out to justify this carnage is that, by bombing the Japanese mainland and inflicting death and destruction to a degree that forced a surrender, the US subsequently avoided more than a million additional military casualties that would have resulted from the ongoing conventional war campaign--including an inevitable invasion operation of Japan.

As discussed in this article, this amounts to little more than the rationalization of atrocity.

The fact is that Japanese officials signaled their willingness to conditionally surrender earlier in 1945. Their condition was that Japanese emperor Hirohito would remain in power and not be subjected to criminal investigations after the war. The idea was to preserve as much Japanese culture as possible, and to provide continuity to facilitate economic and social functioning in post-war Japan.

Sadly, President Truman and his lackeys were unwilling to accept anything other than unconditional surrender--quite ironic since after the war Hirohito was indeed permitted to remain as emperor until his death in 1989. 

Why, then, were the bombs dropped?

The answer is that Truman and his staff, particularly his confidante and future secretary of state James Byrnes, had their eyes on Russia. Using atomic weapons would demonstrate US military strength to Russia and keep Stalin & Co at bay as the superpowers entered a 'cold war.' A secondary reason was that Congress could be assured that its secret appropriation for the Manhattan Project was bearing fruit that created near and longer term benefits.

Following the bombings, however, many officials, including Commander of the Third Fleet Admiral Bill Halsey, Fleet Commander Chester Nimitz, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff William Leahy, and atomic theorist Albert Einstein, condemned the action. 

This is when the propaganda machinery got into gear. Editorials and articles began to hit the pages of newspapers and magazines about the military necessity of the bombings. The myth has been continually reinforced, usually around this time of year, by political leaders and a complicit media. 

Perhaps in a brief moment of conscience, Henry Stimson, who was secretary of war at the time and chief propagator of the subsequent Hiroshima myth, wrote in his memoirs, 

"Unfortunately, I have lived long enough to know that history is not what actually happened but what is recorded as such." 

Indeed, Mr Stimson. My sense is that you and many of your contemporaries will face, quite literally, the trial of your lives on Judgment Day.

Why Silence Speech?

"You can break a man's skull. You can arrest him. You can throw him into a dungeon. But how do you control what's up here? How do you fight an idea?"
--Sextus (Ben-Hur)

Why would people seek to silence speech they don't like? Several explanations are plausible.

One is that would-be censors simply can't handle the psychic pain of disagreement. Rather than reason with dissenters or simply walking away, they instead attempt to muzzle the unpleasantries.

Censors might also fear that those listening to dissenting voices are unable to think for themselves. When listening to independent viewpoints, those uncritical thinkers might believe what they hear even though, in the minds of the censors, that speech is obviously 'disinformation.' Because the censors believe that they have been enlightened to understand what the truth actually is, it is their duty to silence the disinformation and flood the pipes with 'facts.'

Of course, it is also possible that the censors fully understand that others are capable of thinking for themselves. They fear that, instead of blindly accepting the party line, listeners to opposing viewpoints will conclude that truth lies elsewhere--and that the truth will set them free. To keep people in the dark, censors seek to keep the light of truth switched off.

Finally, censoring is an essential tool of the propagandist. The central objective of propaganda is to undermine sense of truth. As successful propaganda campaigns have demonstrated, censoring seeks to keep truth out while lies are delivered in well insulated echo chambers. 

Censoring helps to keep the signal of the propagandists' message high compared to the noise of the truth.

Stepping on Gas

Down in the pleasure center
Hell bent or heaven sent
Listen to the propaganda
Listen to the latest slander
--Elvis Costello

...Speaking of oil, the administration announced this morning that, as part of the accumulating pile of sanctions levied against Russia, the US would ban Russian oil and gas imports (which amount to about 10% of total imports). Crude immediately shot higher on the news.

Domestic gas prices are now at record highs. In some places they are touching $7/gallon.

Two observations. One is that much of the recent craziness in commodity prices can be attributed to government intervention (read: force). Regulation, tariffs, sanctions, war of course. What we are seeing is not the outcome of people voluntarily and peacefully engaging in production and trade.

Stated differently, the craziness has been imposed.

The second observation is that, for an administration seeking to boost sagging poll numbers, forcibly raising gas prices in front of voters seems a strange approach...

position in CVX

Cancel Culture and War

Watch me clinging to the beat
I had to fight to make it mine
That religion you could sink it neat
Just move your feet and you'll feel fine
--Culture Club

As observed by ZeroHedge, during a war (or in any situation of conflict) you want to hear both from both sides in order to make more informed decisions--even if the 'other' side is wrong or lying. Discerning truth can be extra challenging when the war propaganda thickens.

And degree of difficulty rockets higher when info flow from the other side is shut down.

Western countries were quick to suppress Russian new outlets last week. Moscow has now reciprocated.

This tells you that both sides have things to hide. Or that each side does not want or trust its people to make informed decisions.

After coming of age during Trump, BLM, CV19, et al, mature cancel culture is ready for war.

War, Propaganda, and Politics

"War is a continuation of politics by other means...Von Clausewitz."
--Capt Frank Ramsey (Crimson Tide)

Doubt you'll find a better analysis of propaganda as applied to media coverage of the Ukraine situation. In the case of the US, this means that any pro-Ukraine or anti-Russian claim spreads rapidly while dissenters are vilified as traitors or Russian agents.

Emblematic of the situation was the 'Ghost of Kiev' meme which quickly went viral on social media. The Ghost was a rogue Ukranian pilot who, while protecting the skies over Kiev, shot down 6 Russian planes. Although the Ghost wasn't real, I doubt the Congressmen who helped perpetuate the fable cared much.

Meanwhile those questioning the fables are deemed apologists for the Kremlin.

However, all of this is nothing new. False narratives, censoring dissent, etc have been ratcheting higher thru Trump and CV19. 

Although truth has indeed been a casualty of this war, it had already been compromised for years.

Indeed, war is indeed a continuation of politics by other means.

Rose Peddling

Now that your rose is in bloom

A light hits the gloom

On the gray 

--Seal

While waiting for the early Bowl games to start yesterday, I caught the end of the Rose Bowl parade on TV. I rarely watch the networks anymore except for sporting events. The parade coverage reminded me why.

It was infested with leftist slant. But it went beyond the media. Floats and parade walkers conveyed political messages as well. One float had a giant image of nurse, fully masked, holding a syringe surrounded by people, also duly masked, encouraging people to vax up.

I began to wonder whether messages like this were being sent my way when I was a youngster but too naive to recognize overt propaganda. 

Probably. But the style of the peddlers has evolved. 

Subtle has given way to lurid.

Media Mindlessness

Shiver and say the words
Of every lie you've heard
--Echo & the Bunneymen

Independent thought decreases with increasing connection to mainstream media, particularly of the networked, social variety. It becomes an echo chamber of propaganda. 

Paraphrasing Matthew 5, if your connection to social media causes you to lose your independence, cut it off.

And be free.

Viral Thought

"You can break a man's skull. You can arrest him. You can throw him into a dungeon. But how do you control what's up here? How do you control an idea?"
--Sextus (Ben-Hur)

It has been this way since the beginning of civilized man. Authoritarians must engage in thought control, lest their subjects learn just how deranged the authoritarian arrangement is.

Propaganda, censoring, social isolation, jail and death threats. We're seeing it all live, played out before our very eyes.

The thing is, no matter how extreme the measures go, free thought and expression continue to plague the authoritarians.

Like a virus. 

Globalism and Ingsoc

"If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever."
--O'Brien (1984)

Informative account of how globalism was spawned by English socialism (or Ingsoc per Orwell's Nineteen Eight-Four). The point of origin was 19th century British imperialism which Victorian administrators projected world dominion as inevitable. The media was on board early promoting a 'Parliament of man' (Tennyson, 1842) under the rule of a 'Greater Britain' (NYT, 1897) composed of the UK, US, and other English-speaking countries.

Higher ed joined in as well. Oxford professor John Ruskin inspired generations of bureaucrats with his 'Reign or Die' lecture of 1870. He argued that the British Empire should conquer barbarous peoples and spread what amounted to socialist values across the globe. It should be noted that Ruskin called himself a Communist before Marx completed his seminal Das Kapital work.

Backed by the legitimacy of the professoriate, British statesman such as Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Miner lead the country's leadership down the globalization path. Miner established 'Round Table' groups to promote a worldwide federation of English-speaking countries. In each target country, local leaders were recruited as 'Judas goats' to lead their countries to the slaughter of WWI. The 'War that Will End War,' wrote novelist H.G. Wells in 1914, would result "in a Peace League that will control the globe." Wells, by the way, was among British mediates recruited by Britain's War Propaganda Bureau (a.k.a. Wellington House) as a secret operative.

British leaders knew that the Peace League would never come about without US support. Thus, British intelligence worked to penetrate the Wilson White House--an endeavor that proved easy. Among their top recruits was Edward House, a close advisor to the president with generational ties to England. House worked with British spies, including US station chief for the SIS Sir William Wiseman, to influence US policy toward participation in WWI and assembling the subsequent Peace League. British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey coined the term 'League of Nations' that, through the persuasive influence of House, Wilson proposed to the world. 

It should be plain, then, that counter to narrative of popular history, President Wilson was not the father of globalism. Instead, he was merely a high profile mouthpiece for an idea that had been nearly a century in the making.

Following WWI, House and Wiseman guided Wilson's every move at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. To the disdain of British globalists, however, Wilson could not persuade the US Senate to vote in favor of the League of Nations. Consequently, globalist sympathizers in the UK and US governments established groups, such as the US Council on Foreign Relations, to coordinate policy in a manner that kept the torch burning.

As we now know, Wells' War that Would End War didn't do the trick. In midst of WWII, Winston Churchill picked up the torch of globalism, calling for a 'special relationship' between US and UK to form a 'world organization' that prevent another world war. The United Nations was subsequently founded in 1945.

But how could there be peace without tools for war that would keep the peace? Churchill argued that yet another English-speaking groups authorized to make war was necessary to enforce the globalist vision. Thus, NATO in 1949.

And so became the British foundation for globalism foreseen by Orwell and in play today.

Saturation Bias

Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I'll be watching you
--The Police

I wonder this myself. It seems the media has pulled out all stops on this one. No pretense of objectivity.

watching cnn try to spin what literally looks to be the all clear signal into some sort of crisis is just embarrassing for them

this is way past innumeracy.

it's propaganda.

not they they enjoyed much trust before, but post covid, how can anyone ever take them seriously again? pic.twitter.com/at35NjM0Qw

— el gato malo (@boriquagato) August 27, 2020

Perhaps the market for bias has become saturated.

History is Rhyming

Then you say
Go slow
I fall behind
The second hand unwinds
--Cyndi Lauper

The Twitter analyst army continues to ask questions that the credentialed 'scientists' (and I do use that term loosely) should have already answered. e.g., "How does do CV19 patterns compare to past virus onsets?"

Comparisons to recent seasonal virus case counts in Germany. Answer: similar.

Everyone. Look at this graph. Understand it.

That's all you need to know. https://t.co/Vz3uoZ5xqA

— Ivor Cummins (@FatEmperor) August 18, 2020

Comparison to 2003 SARS in US states. Answer: similar. Also SARS fits the latitude/seasonal pattern.

Incredible match between this corona season epidemic curve and the one for 2003 SARS
This pattern was known already, and is the same for the others too. Fiercely seasonal, and herd immunity burnout inevitable.
There should be hell to pay for the mindless propaganda we've suffered https://t.co/zfsM5PRLDO

— Ivor Cummins (@FatEmperor) August 18, 2020

History is rhyming.

Virus of Propaganda

"I'm sure you've all heard the old wive's tale that no hypnotized subject may be forced to do that which is repellant to his moral nature, whatever that may be. Nonsense, of course."
--Dr Yen Lo (The Manchurian Candidate)

In times of war the US government has engaged in propaganda campaigns to influence public opinion and to create 'enthusiasm' about the war effort. FDR's administration did similar to shape sentiment surrounding his New Deal programs. Many of those propaganda campaigns were supported by corporate interests as well.

Now we're witnessing propaganda supporting draconian lockdown measures spreading faster than the coronavirus itself. Thru every media channel imaginable, people are being told that we're #AloneTogether and that together we can Stop the Spread.

Corporations have jumped in with both feet, overtly telling us how their altruistic actions are helping the effort along.

Does the American mind possess the wherewithal to stop the spread of this virus of propaganda?

Steeped in Aggression

All in all
It's just another brick in the wall
--Pink Floyd

Some claim that the current ESG movement, where investment decisions are being made according to the environmental, sustainability, and governance profiles of target corporations, is 'market driven.' After all, fund managers are allocating capital out of their own volition driven by their own ideals.

However, these ideals have not been formed freely. They flow from particular political ideologies. Government has funded programs that promote, for example, global warming and climate change, and public schools been indoctrinating young minds to these notions for years.

Because resources to fund these initiatives have been sourced from taxpayers, the ESG movement can be seen as an outcome stemming from another in a long line of government-sponsored propaganda campaigns. Rather than being peacefully driven, it is a movement steeped in aggression.

Spy Games

"What can I say? I'm a spy."
--Harry Tasker (True Lies)

When they face unpleasant situations, people on the left like to change the language associated with the problem to something that is friendlier to them. Governments don't spend. Rather, they 'invest.' Instead of global warming, it's 'climate change.' They are not illegal immigrants; they are 'dreamers.'

A popular one right now is that the Trump campaign was not spied upon. No, it was subject to 'unauthorized surveillance.'

I often wonder whether leftists truly believe that their use of positive substitute symbols, spin, propaganda, et al will actually alter viewpoints of others in their favor. Or whether these games are inwardly focused therapies to ease the pain of a collective psychosis.

Armistice of Destruction

"I fought the Germans in France. And I fought 'em in the trenches. And I pray to God no one ever has to see the things that I saw."
--Danny Walker's father (Pearl Harbor)

Today marks the 100th anniversary of armistice between the Allies and the Germans that ended the fighting in World War I. The war propaganda that still clouds historical memory paints WWI as an unavoidable conflict perpetrated by Imperial Germany.

Intelligent studies of the times suggest otherwise. The primary instigators were Britain and France. The British Empire, who controlled nearly one quarter of the world's surface, feared German commercial and naval competition. France sought revenge for its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War more than 40 years prior.

The Germans feared being crushed between two hostile powers--France and Russia. Germany began to sense that the longer they waited to respond to their border threats, the higher the military odds became stacked against them.

The ensuing bloodbath and its aftermath changed the course of history, ushering in dictators, economic depressions, and further wars that claimed multiples of the nearly 40 million lives lost in WWI.

In many ways the armistice struck one hundred years ago today merely signifies a momentary pause and redirection of a building wave of destruction.

Democracy and Propaganda

"Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?"
--Dr Yen Lo (The Manchurian Candidate)

Ron Paul observes that propaganda has conditioned Americans to believe that democracy is associated with freedom and liberty. It isn't, of course. In fact the opposite is true. Democracy, defined as a process for making political decisions by force based on the desires of the voting majority, compromises the freedom of some for the benefit of others.

A favorite tool of propagandists is to manipulate language to create 'positive substitute symbols.' Take a word that people value in a positive manner (liberty), and gradually connect it to a new word (democracy) initially associated with a concept that people are prone to dislike (democracy = system of decision-making by majority force). With enough repetition, the negative connotation linked to the new word is likely to decline in favor of a positive connotation (democracy is a component of liberty).

Presto, the new word becomes cherished and people are berated for treating it in a negative light.

Perversely, then, if you don't support democracy today, then you are viewed as an enemy of freedom.

Committee on Public Information

I want to know
What you're thinking
There are some things you can't hide
--Information Society

Nazi Germany's Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda headed by Joseph Goebbels is often held as the benchmark of state sponsored information production and manipulation. However, it is a good bet that Goebbels learned much from a previous propaganda machine commissioned by the US government during WWI.

In April, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed Executive Order 2594. The order established the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to be headed by journalist and politician George Creel. Because America was deeply divided over the prospect of going to war in Europe, an engagement that Wilson was seeking, the CPI was created to influence public opinion and to create 'enthusiasm' for the war effort.

The CPI engaged in multimedia campaigns to disseminate patriotic information and info about how citizens could contribute to the war effort. Millions of posters, pamphlets, newspaper releases, films, and magazine advertisements were created. The CPI also trained 75,000 volunteers to deliver short patriotic speeches in theaters, churches, town halls, et al. These people became known as the 'Four Minute Men.'

The CPI also worked with government agencies such as the post office to censor what was viewed as seditious anti-war counter propaganda. It sought to pressure people into supporting the war effort and expose those who resisted. For instance, the CPI worked with local newspapers to publish names of people and families who bought war bonds and participated in rationing programs. Lists of those who did not engage in such programs were also published. Patriotic organizations such as the National Security League used these lists to strong arm holdouts into supporting the war effort.

State-sponsored speech is never free speech because resources to fund it are taken under conditions of force. Moreover, state speech crowds out speech that is legitimately free. And, as demonstrated by the Committee on Public Information, entities that act as agencies of state information are prone to engage in more overt acts of suppression as well.

Evaluating Healthcare Policy Consequences

I read the news today, oh boy
Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
--The Beatles

One of the best books someone can read to improve their economic thought process, particularly w.r.t. evaluating economic policy, is Henry Hazlitt's classic Economics in One Lesson.

Using various policy topics (e.g., minimum wage, tariffs, welfare programs), Hazlitt repeatedly demonstrates how to apply Bastiat's analysis of 'that which is seen and that which is not seen.' Hazlitt prompts the reader to look beyond outcomes that typically make headlines (e.g., "layoffs resulting from process automation") to the less discussed but usually important consequences (e.g., long run effects on prosperity from productivity improvement projects).

Such perspective is invaluable when making sense of public policy issues, such as the current healthcare debate. Proponents of state-run healthcare splash headlines with threats that millions of people will die, or at least lose their healthcare coverage, if Obamacare is repealed and/or replaced. Such claims, of course, are dubious to begin with (e.g., here, here, here) and smacks of emotional capture propaganda.

But even if those claims contained elements of truth, a complete and honest analysis involves evaluating other policy. What has been the effect of Obamacare on jobs, for instance? On the availability of healthcare resources? On health insurance premiums? On healthcare productivity and innovation?

Consider as well the social consequences of forcing some people to produce healthcare resources for the benefit of others? And what would have happened had those resources not been forcibly diverted?

Small minds respond to what is fed to them about healthcare. Inquiring minds go beyond.

Gaslighting

"I am mad. I'm always losing things and hiding things. And I can never find them. I don't know where I've put them."
--Paula Anton (Gaslight)

In the classic 1944 film, Gaslight, Gregory Anton (played by Charles Boyer) tries to get his recent bride Paula (played by Ingrid Bergman) to believe that her perception of reality is wrong and that she is going mad. For example, Gregory moves things in the house and then claims that Paula did it even though she has no recollection of it. He also isolates Paula so that she has little contact with people outside of the house.

The film's title refers to the gaslights that illuminate the couple's old London townhouse previously owned by Paula's rich aunt. Paula occasionally hears footsteps up in the attic, the door to which is locked. Whenever she hears the footsteps, the gaslights dim. Whenever Paula tells Gregory about this, he tells her that she must be imagining it.

Over time, the reinforcement that her perceptions of reality are wrong coupled with little exposure to outsiders leads Paula to doubt her sanity.

It turns out that Gregory had murdered his wife's rich aunt before he and Paula were married, and is snooping around the attic to look for the aunt's valuable jewels that he is convinced are there. Whenever he climbs into the attic thru a roof-side window and turns on the attic lights, the gaslights dim on the floors below.

Ultimately, Scotland Yard investigator Brian Cameron (played by Joseph Cotton) intervenes. He pegs Gregory for the murder/thief that he is, and sneaks into the house one night to see Paula while Gregory is up in the attic. He demonstrates the cause and effect of the footstep/gaslight phenomenon which helps restore Paula's sanity. Cameron, of course, subsequently gets his man--and perhaps, we are lead to believe, the girl as well.

This article describes the psychological tactic of 'gaslighting' as practiced by the political Left. Gaslighting is defined as a form of mental and emotional abuse in which a domineering person denies the memories and perceptions of an intended victim until the victim begins to doubt his perception of reality. The article suggests that the Left's version of gaslighting is to push a false view of reality and then try to convince mainstream Americans that their views are extreme and not grounded in reality.

Benghazi, Obamacare, racism, global warming, Islamophobia, Trump's election, Russian hacking. Most if not all major narratives chanted by the Left contain gaslighting features.

Of course, the Left owns no monopoly on gaslighting methodology. For example, the national security state construct coddled by Neocons is pushed by a great deal of gaslighting as well.

How to counter gaslighting? Develop capacity for processing information and be confident in your ability to reason. Shun dependence on strong, mesmerizing personalities who can sway your thinking. Avoid excessive socializing with narrow groups so that you can grow your mind, and develop and test plausible rival hypotheses.

Gaslighting can be seen as a form of propaganda. Strengthen your mind to avoid succumbing to narrative-driven propaganda that gaslighting promotes.

Election Interference

"Don't ever risk you life for an asset. If it comes down to you or them...send flowers."
--Nathan Muir (Spy Game)

LA Times article cites research of Carnegie Mellon poly sci prof Dov Levin who estimates that the US government has interfered with presidential elections in foreign countries at least 80 times since the end of WWII.

Levin defines electoral intervention as "a costly act which is designed to determine the election results in favor of one of two sides. He estimates that these actions have been carried out in secret about two thirds of the time and included campaign funding of particular political parties, disseminating misinformation and propaganda, training of one side in campaigning techniques, helping one side design campaign materials, making public pronouncements or threats against opposing candidates, and providing/withdrawing foreign aid.

Levin's database excludes coups or regime change efforts following the election of candidates that the US didn't like.

Separately, Ron Paul observes that that the US is interfering with elections around the world all time. Looking at our history of interference in the political affairs of other countries, he suggests that "we don't have much room for condemning anybody else."

Of course, condemning others for behavior similar to one's own is a favorite is why hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand.