The Anti-Propaganda Propaganda Machine & The People Who Are Conditioning You to Hate Hillary Clinton’s Critics

This grew out of a response to a reposting of another shitty editorial blog about why those who don’t support Hillary Clinton are hopelessly mistaken victims, ignorant or just plain wrong. I decided my efforts might be best spent in making it more publicly searchable. Esp as I know I am not alone in my frustration. So. If you don’t want to increase the circulation of the offending link, to “The People Who Conditioned You to Hate Hillary, Part II: Citizens United”,  I’ll say that the author limits their discussion of propaganda to only the efforts of the right, and includes

Conditioned response is what caused Pavlov’s dog to drool.  The great Russian physiologist famously found that he could get his dog to salivate just by ringing a bell, by teaching the dog to associate the sound of the bell with the serving of food.

Since then, the idea of conditioning the public to make desired associations has proven a commercial and political goldmine.  Take for example the political value of associating the name Hillary Clinton with such descriptors as “untrustworthy”, “criminal”, etc. Once that conditioned response has been achieved, one has only to mention her name to provoke well-trained audiences to drooling fury.

A phalanx of right-wing organizations has made a career of keeping such associations alive.  Sadly, these carefully cultivated cons have taken in some progressives in the process.  That’s why it is so important to expose these practitioners and their smear campaigns, which the media – happily mining their propaganda for clickbait – rarely bothers to do.

Followed by much discussion of the book Slick Willie, of Citizens United, and something called Hillary the Movie, before calling the usual bogeymen forth (Gingrich and Coulter), then, finally, resorting to the bugbear non grata that is always invoked as the utmost reason one must support Clinton where one is not so inclined. Before concluding:

It’s critical to understand the history here. Citizens United and their allies have for two and a half decades now pounded the media with their slanted version of events, designed to undermine Hillary (and other Democratic targets).  They will spend years on a particular phony “scandal”, say the death of Vincent Foster, using their conspiracy theories about events to tarnish her reputation; then, after countless investigations have proven that “scandal” to be utterly baseless, they will simply move on to the next one, finding a new set of allegations to maintain their unchanging message that she is not to be trusted.  The fact that all the previous “scandals” were manufactured and trumped up for public consumption does not seem to impact many viewers’ Pavlovian response to her.

The bottom line, wherever you stand politically, is to avoid being taken in by well-marketed caricatures, but rather to learn to look through them to grasp the more nuanced realities that lie beneath.  Unlike Pavlov’s dog, we have the capability to unlearn our conditioned responses and replace them with conscious responses based on new, more sophisticated layers of information.

So please take a little time to look into the facts and adjust your preconceptions accordingly.  If nothing else, that extra work may help us avoid electing a fascist to be our next president.

Sigh. So. At least when I have to once again make a case for reasoned critique of any potential candidate, I can just link to this entry. 

“I don’t see how these writers can so consistently generalise the way they do, with the glaring omissions they overlook. Because unless the “people” we’re cautioned off include Bill and Hillary, their rhetoric, or Bill’s policies during his presidency (reducing fed funding for welfare/public housing and applying it to ‘correction facilities’), or her performance as Secretary of State (Honduras, Haiti, Libya), or ANY of my aforementioned grievances in other threads (which don’t seem to dovetail with the right’s preoccupations (e.g Benghazi)), these summary dismissals are missing something. And I resent the idea that they represent my position, just as she largely does not answer my concerns as a representative.

My dislike and distrust of her go way back. And is consistently based on what the Clintons have said publicly vs their policy. They have no one else to blame. And I am so tired of the explicit accusations I keep hearing, that I am a victim of the patriarchy or some right-wing propaganda machine for my noncompliance. <<So please take a little time to look into the facts and adjust your preconceptions accordingly.>> Indeed. If the article touched on any of the real disconnect, my actual grounds for finding her suspect and untrustworthy, I could relax. But the fact that I am bad/wrong and nowhere does anyone acknowledge the real grounds for my and others’  concern. Well, that’s a kind of propaganda worth considering, yes.”

The first person to respond to me writes “You don’t think ‘Benghazi’ dovetails with the right?”

“Please reread my comment. I said I am not concerned with the things the right is preoccupied with, e.g. Benghazi.

My other concerns have consistently been ignored by all the Hillary holdouts are traitors without grounds for their positions arguments. While I have to then have the far right’s crap disputed as proof for why my position must be wrong. And I am tired of this conflation.”

This may not be a direct effort to distract from the more legit critics of Hillary’s role within the State Department, the real ramifications of her server fiasco, or the Panama Papers, but it is getting really hard to not suspect that possibility.

As a little treat, something that the anti-propaganda propaganda machine eschews: Stanford University’s campaign 2016 voter fraud study. Enjoy.

additional reading, and you’ll find many of the subheadings interrelate:


“A vote for Hillary Clinton means further corruption, further death and destruction for our people,” said Dahoud Andre, a radio show host in New York who has helped organize protests against the Clintons. “It means more Haitians leaving Haiti and not being able to live in our country.”

The post-quake “gold rush” described by Ambassador Merten began as Haitians were still being pulled from the rubble. Since then, USAID has doled out nearly $200 million in relief and reconstruction contracts. By this April, just 2.5 percent of the money had gone to Haitian firms, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Five years after the hemisphere’s deadliest single natural disaster, when both Clintons assumed leading roles in the rebuilding efforts, little progress has been made on many core problems in Haiti, and the government that Hillary Clinton helped put in power during that January 2011 trip—and that both Clintons have backed strongly since—has proven itself unworthy of that trust.
Chelsea’s insightful email to Mom, Dad
Haiti as microcosm for breadth of U.S. political tampering, U.S. corporate interest, and efficacy of grassroots resistance, “What emerges is an extraordinary portrait of Washington’s aggressive management of Latin America’s first sovereign nation—and its bare-knuckled tactics on behalf of US corporate interests there. But the cables also show how Washington’s designs are met with fierce resistance from the Haitian people.”
Though the former secretary of state was quick to denounce the Panama Papers revelations, describing them as “outrageous tax havens and loopholes that super-rich people across the world are exploiting,” some of those found in the 11.5 million documents have connections with the Clintons dating back four decades.
I’m noticing a pattern within these anti-prop prop blogs: thesis, much discussion of “evidence” one should contextualise and further research, then a wrap up where in you congratulate your reader for having already performed their due diligence while casting the differing views they might otherwise research in a remarkably unflattering (and unsubstanciated) light,  “The popular appetite for branding every controversy or disagreement as a scandal — and accepting the notion of “equivalency” as precept of objective journalism — enables partisan mischief-makers to ply their trade. Those interested in truth and fairness will take the time to examine the facts.” As if anyone is going to feel a need to keep digging after that?
Boulos cites the private sector’s “behind the doors actions” as having “played a major role” in getting the elections “back on track” by getting Préval to “request the OAS mission, by publicly denouncing the results of the 1st round, and as late as yesterday morning (3 hours meeting with Preval) by convincing him to drop the idea of annulment of the elections.” Boulos boasted: “Everyone in the diplomatic circles and among the Haitian political leaders will confirm the role played by the Private Sector Economic Forum over the past 6 months.”
To understand the gravity of these issues, it is important to recognize that this is not just an “email scandal.” It is an “email + server + foundation” scandal.” Secretary Clinton didn’t just send sensitive (and now-classified) emails over open lines, she stored them on private servers that didn’t meet the government’s cyber-security standards for sensitive documents. On its face, retaining classified materials in such vulnerable settings is a criminal violation. Senior intelligence officials have been charged for less – far less. Storing some 1,300 classified documents on a personal server, and doing it for years, poses a special problem because it shows the mishandling was not inadvertent. It was Clinton’s standard operating procedure.
The above esp. in response to the following greased weasel, who really knows his onions, and that I bet, if he were prosecuting where the defense relied on the Nixon Defense, or worse: “Human nature being what it is, it would be astonishing if people did not sometimes send messages referencing classified matters using ordinary channels, and thinking that if they were cryptic enough in their references, they were doing no harm”? He would fucking chew them a new one. Asshole.
Because, quite simply:
The report says, “According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further.” The same director reportedly “instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”
But the report notes that interviews with officials from the Under Secretary for Management and the Office of the Legal Adviser found “no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff” of the server. Oops.
“But then comes a straight lie: it says that in December 2008, Hamas renewed rocket firing, and therefore Israel had to attack in self-defense. Now, the ambassador surely is aware — there must be somebody in the American embassy who reads the Israeli press, the mainstream Israeli press, in which case the embassy is surely aware that it’s exactly the opposite: Hamas was calling for a renewal of the ceasefire. Israel considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to bomb rather than to have security. Also omitted is that while Israel never observed the ceasefire, it maintained the siege in violation of the truce agreement. On November 4th, the U.S. election, 2008, the Israeli army entered Gaza, killed — invaded Gaza and killed half a dozen Hamas militants, which did lead to an exchange of fire, in which all the casualties, as usual, are Palestinian. Then in December, Hamas — when the truce officially ended, Hamas called for renewing it. Israel refused, and the U.S. and Israel chose to launch the war. What the embassy reported is a gross falsification and a very significant one, since it has to do with the justification for this murderous attack, which means either the embassy hasn’t a clue what’s going on or else they’re lying outright.”
“Take for instance Libya: she was the one pressing the hardest for bombing, and look at what happened. They not only destroyed the country, but Libya has become the center for jihad all over Africa and the Middle East.  It’s a total disaster in every respect, but it does not matter.”
“They won’t inform the public when a US Secretary of State, and her boss the US President, are the persons actually behind a sarin gas attack they’re blaming on a foreign leader the US aristocrats and their allied foreign aristocrats are determined to topple and replace.”

After all of this work, after years of investigations, after however many millions of dollars poured down the drain, the GOP has not found the controversy it was looking for. Ironically, its efforts have precipitated numerous actual controversies — most notably Clinton’s potentially illegal use of private email servers, among others — but not the particular smoking gun it insists is there. In its laser-like probing into the Benghazi tree, however, Republicans have ignored the much larger forest: The U.S. destruction of Libya.



The memo’s language put her at the center of everything: ‘HRC announces … HRC directs … HRC travels … HRC engages,’ it read.”

These days, however, out on the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton is not quite so eager to take ownership of what can only be characterized as an unmitigated disaster, a case history dramatizing the perils of “liberal” interventionism from inception to bloody denouement.

Libya: How Hillary Clinton Destroyed a Country


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s