What Every Saudi Schoolchild Knows

[Bernie Gunther]

To put it a way that might make more sense to you JC, it's a bit like being asked to take part in some peculiar sounding investment scheme by someone that you know is a convicted con-artist.

There's not much point in talking about missed opportunities that I might have had if I had trusted his bullshit.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

To put it a way that might make more sense to you JC, it's a bit like being asked to take part in some peculiar sounding investment scheme by someone that you know is a convicted con-artist.

There's not much point in talking about missed opportunities that I might have had if I had trusted his bullshit.

Yes, it's a perfect analogy: someone with an idea that a muslim country is promulgating anti-jewish ideas, is akin to someone trying to sell you the Brooklyn bridge.

Both ideas are as farfetched as the other.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Go ahead and ignore it. It's an easy way to close your mind to anything not consistent with your previously held beliefs.

Are you that afraid of being wrong?

Shame you can't apply the same logic to your own views about certain subjects.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Shame you can't apply the same logic to your own views about certain subjects.

I've changed my views before, and admitted I've been wrong. Can't say I recall seeing any of the hard core left wing types around here ever doing either.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That may or may not be true, but I'll never find out which it is by listening to Benador associates and their ilk because they are already convicted con-artists and I therefore cannot trust any given thing that they say to be true.

This means I will not know how much of that article is truth and how much is false. After all, a key feature of propaganda is to mix truth with falsehood.

With the mainstream media, at least most of the time, I don't think they're trying to put over a deliberate deception. With academic sources, you have a reasonable degree of safeguards against deliberate deception built into the peer-review process.

With Benador I know that they are trying to lie to me.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That may or may not be true, but I'll never find out which it is by listening to Benador associates and their ilk because they are already convicted con-artists and I therefore cannot trust any given thing that they say to be true.

This means I will not know how much of that article is truth and how much is false. After all, a key feature of propaganda is to mix truth with falsehood.

With the mainstream media, at least most of the time, I don't think they're trying to put over a deliberate deception. With academic sources, you have a reasonable degree of safeguards against deliberate deception built into the peer-review process.

With Benador I know that they are trying to lie to me.

I'll hold you to what you just said about the mainstream media.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'll hold you to what you just said about the mainstream media.

That's my view. In general, they don't deliberately lie. I've had a few friends who worked in the media, journalists and TV producers etc, particularly when I lived in London. They generally don't tell deliberate lies. The 'propaganda model' of Chomsky and Herman describes, as far as I can tell fairly accurately, the way in which they nonetheless become complict in deliberate propaganda efforts, but it's people like Benador who put that propaganda into circulation in the first place and that's the difference. The flaws of the media are exploited by propaganda.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You do, of course, know what Benador Associates is?

It's a speaker's roster. You contact them if you want a speaker for your function.

If people listen to your innuendo, you'll have them believing that they're the same as the Trilateral Commision or something. Because most people won't check, will they?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I put the links there for them to check. They can make their own minds up.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benador_Associates

http://www.benadorassociates.com/

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-17-2005/0003027867

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It's a bit like when you see someone link to something like rense.com.

Maybe there's some truth in there, but it's so mixed up with known bullshit and comes from a source with a history of such bullshit that it's pointless taking any of it seriously because you'll never be sure which bits are true.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's a bit like when you see someone link to something like rense.com.

Maybe there's some truth in there, but it's so mixed up with known bullshit and comes from a source with a history of such bullshit that it's pointless taking any of it seriously because you'll never be sure which bits are true.

That's true of many sources, including indymedia. What I like to do, is take the idea, then see how it plays out against other sources of information. I find that dismissing things out of hand without inquiry, just serves to keep me in the dark.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

JC, only last week some Benador-promoted pundit spread a totally false story about Iranian jews being made to wear yellow stars or something. AIPAC sent out a big mailshot to the press spreading the word (links on previous page), they do stuff like that all the time, so please let's not try to pretend that Benador pundits are a reliable source.

Michael fucking Ledeen, Richard Perle?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

JC, only last week some Benador-promoted pundit spread a totally false story about Iranian jews being made to wear yellow stars or something. AIPAC sent out a big mailshot to the press spreading the word (links on previous page), they do stuff like that all the time, so please let's not try to pretend that Benador pundits are a reliable source.

Link?


That seems a pretty easy thing to discount if it wasn't true. Surely the cleverest neocons in the world wouldn't make that big a gaffe.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That's true of many sources, including indymedia. What I like to do, is take the idea, then see how it plays out against other sources of information. I find that dismissing things out of hand without inquiry, just serves to keep me in the dark.

As I said before, it's not dismissing the possibility that there might be some truth in there, it's knowing that any such truth is going to be liberally mixed with agenda-serving bullshit.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As I said before, it's not dismissing the possibility that there might be some truth in there, it's knowing that any such truth is going to be liberally mixed with agenda-serving bullshit.

So you accept the possibility that what is said about the Saudi curriculum might be true?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So you accept the possibility that what is said about the Saudi curriculum might be true?

Great Cthulu might be running the universe too, but I'll never know one way or the other by reading rense.com. If New Scientist says so, and it isn't April 1st then I might take the possibility seriously.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Great Cthulu might be running the universe too, but I'll never know one way or the other by reading rense.

So you are dismissing it out of hand.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I've changed my views before, and admitted I've been wrong. Can't say I recall seeing any of the hard core left wing types around here ever doing either.

I'd hardly class Bernie as being 'hard left'(!) he just tries to use some critical thought in my experience of his posts. I've not time for any of the 'hard left' types, just as Ive no time for any 'hard right' types. Two sides of the same coin in my opinion. I might agree with their sentiment and points in proving the hypocrisy of those on the right but that doesn't mean I agree with their methods or ideals.

I wouldn't claim there isn't any truth in in your original post, but like Bernie I wouldn't take it as gospel coming from people with a vested interest in promoting those views. The degree of truth is what matters and how people end up forming those views. In the case of people on the 'left' and 'right' their views all come from the same places - people in positions of power who use populations to further their own bigoted views and agendas.

See through this and in my view you don't look at the world in the same way. Continue to argue for one or the other and you're stuck in the same old loop of killing, hatred and violence. It's your choice.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So you are dismissing it out of hand.

I am dismissing anything from a source with a clear history of fraudulent bullshit out of hand, yes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I wouldn't claim there isn't any truth in in your original post, but like Bernie I wouldn't take it as gospel coming from people with a vested interest in promoting those views. The degree of truth is what matters and how people end up forming those views. In the case of people on the 'left' and 'right' their views all come from the same places - people in positions of power who use populations to further their own bigoted views and agendas. .

I can't verify it for gospel; I merely put it out as a discussion piece. I've never been to Saudi Arabia, much less sat in on a lesson.

I accept that it might be true, just as I accept that it might be blatant propaganda. But when taken together with the pervasive evidence of widespread anti-jewishness in many islamic countries, I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The history of fraud is the key issue. When propaganda is planted in the press it usually takes quite a while to be exposed beyond doubt. When you see stuff in the press you can't always know for sure if it's true or false at the time. It's only later that the truth of the matter sometimes becomes clear. For example, the issue of the non-existent Iraqi WMD over which the invasion was staged wasn't really resolved for months after that invasion had succeeded. What we do know is that organisations like Benador, Freedom House, AIPAC and AEI all played clearly dishonest roles in creating, publishing and promoting the lies.

So it is imprudent to trust anything they say, given their history of telling lies.

If you find that a story originates with people who have such a history, then I recommend dismissing it out of hand. That doesn't guarantee that you haven't been exposed to other propaganda that passed this simple test, but it has some value, just like not trusting stuff you read at e.g. rense.com has value.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The history of fraud is the key issue. When propaganda is planted in the press it usually takes quite a while to be exposed beyond doubt. When you see stuff in the press you can't always know for sure if it's true or false at the time. It's only later that the truth of the matter sometimes becomes clear. For example, the issue of the non-existent Iraqi WMD over which the invasion was staged wasn't really resolved for months after that invasion had succeeded. What we do know is that organisations like Benador, Freedom House, AIPAC and AEI all played clearly dishonest roles in creating, publishing and promoting the lies.

So it is imprudent to trust anything they say, given their history of telling lies.

If you find that a story originates with people who have such a history, then I recommend dismissing it out of hand. That doesn't guarantee that you haven't been exposed to other propaganda that passed this simple test, but it has some value, just like not trusting stuff you read at e.g. rense.com has value.

\

All well and good. Where's the 'yellow star' link?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You keep saying they lie. Prove it. Should be easy to do.

A media story saying "Benador caught spreading lies" should do it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I can't verify it for gospel; I merely put it out as a discussion piece. I've never been to Saudi Arabia, much less sat in on a lesson.

I accept that it might be true, just as I accept that it might be blatant propaganda. But when taken together with the pervasive evidence of widespread anti-jewishness in many islamic countries, I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

Why not produce evidence based on sources that don't have a documented history of pushing propaganda?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

JC I linked a bunch of evidence to that effect a couple of pages back.

If you're too lazy to go and look, I don't propose to spoon-feed you.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I don't disagree, but it's important to see everything in the same way otherwise you're just looking at one side of the coin. Apply the same logic to all arguments that you are (or were) in favour of and you can toss the coin away and declare it a fake. Then you just make sure don't go picking up the same coin again

“I think there is a good reason why the propaganda system works that way. It recognizes that the public will not support the actual policies. Therefore it is important to prevent any knowledge or understanding of them.”

 

[subversplat]

Why not produce evidence based on sources that don't have a documented history of pushing propaganda?

Got shown this the other day on . Made me

Also made me wonder whether it was true or not though - anybody speak the language and verify?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That video's opening titles credit it to MEMRI.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=MEMRI

 

[laptop]

The horrible, horrible thing about this kind of propaganda is that it will work - at least among those who subscribe to certain groupthinks, more dangerously if it is accepted more widely.

That is, the withdrawal of the "yellow star" story by the National Post (controlled until last year by Conrad Black) - this will have no effect on those who wanted to believe it in the first place. Only on the reality-based community

* Goes back to the book chapter in which a leading physicist confesses to succumbing to groupthink - and recovers *