How progressive censorship corrupts students’ minds
September 4, 2018 (American Thinker) – In 1937, an editorial in The New York Times declared that "what is truly vicious is not propaganda but a monopoly of it." Thus begins an article titled "Propaganda Techniques of German Fascism," written by Clyde R. Miller and reprinted in the fifth edition of Modern English Readings (1946). This text was used by college students. There is nothing dealing with gender, white privilege, social justice, the religion of peace, or alleged microaggressions.
When pundits discuss the culture wars, it is essential to see how so many present-day textbooks have contributed to generations of young people who have, for the most part, never been exposed to how America's ideals have shaped the country. Instead, students are indoctrinated by public school teachers with connections to Antifa. More chilling is that these same teachers publicly acknowledge they would not protect the rights of students who disagree with them.
Thus, the article by Miller is quite apropos at a time when the education establishment, as well as the hi-tech companies' "monoculture," seeks to monopolize the information highway. As Jeremy Carl writes:
The evidence of Silicon Valley's hostility to the Right is everywhere. Prominent conservatives from Michelle Malkin to William Jacobson to Dennis Prager ... – and an even greater proportion of those whose politics lean farther to the right, many of whom do not have access to mainstream media and rely on social media to fund their work – have seen themselves banned from major Internet platforms or had their content censored or demonetized. In most cases they are not even given grounds for their punishment or means of appealing it. While some more 'mainstream' conservatives may not feel excessively troubled by the banning of more provocative voices farther to the right, in taking this attitude they make a tactical, strategic, and moral mistake. They do not understand how the left operates. When voices farther to the right are removed, mainstream conservatives become the new 'far-right extremists' – and they will be banned with equal alacrity.
Then there is Project War Path, a clothing company owned by Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces combat veterans, which "has been permanently suspended from Facebook's Instagram platform for 'hate speech' after criticizing NFL players who kneel during the national anthem."
In fact, as Miller asserts, "the extent to which the propaganda machinery of a country has been brought under the control of one organization or a group of related organizations is a useful measure of the degree to which absolutism dominates it, of the extent to which democracy has been eliminated."
But "when ... this monopoly aspect of propaganda is held in check by rivalries between competing organizations, then political, economic, educational, and religious spokesmen are able to and actually do disseminate rival propagandas. This gives those at whom the rival propagandas are directed some freedom of choice among the alternatives offered them."
That is why to any freedom-loving American, the spectacle of censoring speakers such as Candace Owens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, David Horowitz, and others is so terrifying. Yet, "on Feb. 1, 2017, the University of California, Berkeley erupted into violence. Former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was set to speak and an estimated 1,500 people showed up to protest, some with the goal of shutting down the speech 'by any means necessary.' Protesters set fires, hurled Molotov cocktails, and allegedly assaulted other members of the crowd. Their efforts were successful. The speech was canceled. There was $100,000 worth of damage. In an essay for the Berkeley student newspaper, one student wrote, 'Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students[.]'"
These students ignore the words of Zechariah Chafee, Jr., who wrote in 1941, "freedom of speech creates the happiest kind of country. It is the best way to make men and women love their country."
The "power of propaganda increases as its control becomes more centralized, as the trend to monopoly increases." Moreover, "this process is stimulated by the centralization of the control of the economic structure of a country." This is the real reason why the Democrat/Socialist Party decries the economic success of Trump and the American people – "the ability of individuals and organizations in democracies to enter their special viewpoints into the rivalry of propagandas is restricted chiefly by economic considerations. Professional propagandists, public relations counselors and individuals and groups with large financial resources have an advantage over those with small resources." It is why George Soros's fingerprints are all over any progressive message.
But when the little guy gets a chance at capturing the brass ring, this infuriates the progressive socialist leanings of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Andrew Gillum, both supported by Bernie Sanders. They and others who espouse centralized control pose an economic existential threat to America. As Miller asserts:
Fascism is the outcome of economic and political instability. It is an undemocratic means for dealing with the mass unemployment of city workers, the economic distress of the middle classes, the impoverishment of farmers and the efforts of those groups for economic reforms.
Miller writes that fascist Germany "helped convince the people of the efficiency of the national Socialist solution for the country's political and economic problems." It was also "reinforced by an army of storm troops that weakened opposition through terrorism."
Antifa, Black Lives Matter, La Raza all seek to harm America through any means possible. They are the latter-day storm troops.
The term "economics precedes politics" is often quoted, but in Nazi Germany and, I daresay, any dictatorial environment, it seems to work the other way around. Miller contends (emphasis mine) that under Nazism, "political control dominated economic control and capitalism as free enterprise became a Glittering Generality [a device by which the propagandist identifies his program with virtue words such as love, generosity and brotherhood]." When one considers the suicidal path of socialist/communist countries, e.g., Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, it is clear that people grievously suffer. Constantly publicized as a means to assist the common man, socialism always fails to improve the general welfare as the government conceives it."
During Hitler's reign, American newspaper correspondents would point out (emphasis mine) that "Hitler's addresses [were] often unintelligible [yet] large numbers of his listeners apparently listen[ed] with their emotions. When their tension [became] high, they intercept[ed] the speech by emotional outbursts[.] Here we see the force of language with or without meaning as a molder of public opinion. Only intelligent citizens skilled in analysis of propaganda and immunized against the wiles of the orator were unaffected by Hitler."
A "master propagandist to be effective, must be keyed to the desires, hopes, hatreds, loves, fears, and prejudices of the people." He knows "that most human beings crave a scapegoat to take the blame of disaster and to bolster their own pride." In Nazi Germany, it was the Jews; in Communist China, it was the intellectuals. In America, it is the one percent or the people who cling to their guns and Bibles. Thus, it is imperative that impressionable people learn about the dire results of socialism.
It was Ronald Reagan in 1975 who warned that "if Fascism ever comes to America, it will be in the name of Liberalism." You can add the terms "socialism," "progressivism," and "democratic socialism" to the brew. They all add up to the same ultimate misery.
Eileen can be reached at [email protected].
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.