I have just finished reading Colonel Patrick Lang’s post The Propaganda of the Word and I am VERY curious about a number of things that are contained in it.
I want more information.
Col. Lang writes:
PIOs have the job of releasing what is thought to be the truth to media outlets. The information is often laden with the values, point of view and hopes of the releasing headquarters but it is, nevertheless, not a deliberate attempt to deceive.
and
OK…let’s take it from there.
My Christmas info list continues below.
Read on.
Col. Lang writes:
Please. Can someone tell me exactly where this law is written? I am serious here. Because if it DOES exists, then it has been broken so many times between the assassination of JFK and the attempt to promote and continue the Iraq war under totally false pretenses that we could quite conceivably indict almost the entire media power structure and vast numbers of the people who have served in the information arms of the military, the CIA and the federal government as co-conspirators in the most massive conspiracy ever to have existed in the history of mankind. In practice, the “fundamental principle” under which the Operation Mockingbird owned and influenced media has worked has been the exact opposite of this. It has directed nothing BUT propaganda at the American electorate in such massive quantities and in a situation that almost totally excludes the general distribution of any opposing information that the general run of American people simply have had no choice BUT to accept it as fact.
As it stands today, the domestic American mass media is the most effective propaganda machine that has ever existed. Better than that of the Catholic Church in its heyday, better than Hitler’s, better than that of the U.S.S.R.
If laws have been broken…let’s hang `em all.
He writes:
This is a very complex sentence. Does it mean that “the CIA” has NOT indulged in this sort of action? Or whether that question simply should not be asked? It goes on to say that we SHOULD ask if there have been people within other intelligence organizations who have engaged in such activities.
Fine.
Personally, it is my point of view that since being “in the CIA” is a non-subject…I mean, if it is classified information and there are levels upon levels upon levels of secrecy, then who really knows WHO is “CIA” and who is not…then we should engage in the “quacks like a duck” approach here. Regardless of WHO has promoted this propaganda, who has propagated it, or what organizations to which they do or do not owe their allegiance, if it lies like a hustler it IS a hustler.
Once again…let’s hang `em all.
And, if Col. Lang actually knows who some of these “…enthusiasts and `cultists’ within the `information operations’ and `psychological warfare’ area of military activities” may be, then it is his patriotic duty to step forward and name names.
Has he taken an oath of secrecy of some kind?
Yes, you BET he has.
But if that oath was taken under false pretenses…if large and effective elements of the system under which he worked have systematically broken this “fundamental principal of such action under American law that it [propaganda] should not be directed at the American electorate”, should he not step up and blow some whistles?
Whistles with NAMES ON THEM?
Now I appreciate his dilemma here. If what he is saying is true, people have been known to disappear for less. But he has already made himself a pretty good target by publicly appearing as an ex-insider critic of this system and here he still is, so it appears that he must have some sort of protection. Some powerful support within that system. Within SOME system, for sure. If I…a civilian with no contacts in that system whatsoever…were to suddenly magically discover on my doorstep a Fed Ex containing absolutely unchallengeable names, dates, places, recordings and videos of such actions occurring at the highest levels of power and I tried to go public with them…how long do you think I would last?
My 15 minutes of fame would be over in a NY NANO-second.
Names and dates, please.
And then…then he gets REALLY spooky. Spooky well past the usual “spook” description used on intel people. He begins to sound like something out of my favorite blog, Rigorous Intuition”.
He writes that after the defeat in Vietnam,
Telepathy, telekinesis, firewalking, spoonbending, distant viewing, political warfare and propaganda against both hostile and friendly targets were all studied and experimented in by men who under normal circumstances were more stable and certainly less imaginative. … continued below …
(See the interesting work, “The Men Who Stare at Goats”)
In the end the Army rejected all this and returned to its usual preoccupation, but the tendency survived in the persons of several officers who have risen to high rank. Some have been high officials in the counter-terrorism and homeland defense fields. Some are now major media figures and others officials of the Department of Defense, but outside the “mainstream” of the Army. None are in the intelligence business.
As a result of the continued existence of this “tendency,” the Bush Administration has been influenced in the direction of manipulation of public opinion here and abroad as an instrument of warfare.
OK Colonel.
Time to name some names.
Most of us who are well read on the subject of intelligence operations in America over the past 50 years or so are familiar with these studies. Information about them is easily accessed on the net and in many, many books. But you have just taken a GIGANTIC step here. Please continue.
You write about how this “tendency survived in the persons of several officers who have risen to high rank.’
Who?
“Some have been high officials in the counter-terrorism and homeland defense fields.”
Who?
“Some are now major media figures and others officials of the Department of Defense, but outside the `mainstream’ of the Army.”
For GOD’S sake…WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
And of course…'”None are in the intelligence business.”
Good.
I am SO relieved to hear THAT, anyway.
Further…
“As a result of the continued existence of this `tendency’, the Bush Administration has been influenced in the direction of manipulation of public opinion here and abroad as an instrument of warfare.”
That’s a crime, isn’t it? If indeed there IS existing law that states “It is a fundamental principal of such action under American law that it should not be directed at the American electorate.” (See my first query above.)
Let’s hang `em all.
But how CAN we hang them all without names and dates, Colonel?
We can’t.
You write:
“We are now beginning to witness the results of such foolishness.”
Well, I personally believe that “the results of such foolishness” have been increasingly with us since 1963 or thereabouts (and began to drastically escalate during the Reagan figurehead/Bush I controller years), but then again, I am not the intel insider that you are. I would certainly settle for taking down the current regime lock, stock and pentagram, myself.
But we need real information.
Is it Cheney and Rumsfeld? (My own guess. Just for starters.) But my “guesses”…and those of many, many others…hold no water whatsoever, We’re just amateurs. But you, sir…you are a pro. Been there, seen that. So let’s get the real deal here. Let’s go whole hog plus postage.
Who ARE these people who have “risen to high rank”? People who are “high officials in the counter-terrorism and homeland defense fields”? Who are “now major media figures” and “officials of the Department of Defense”?, Who are “outside the `mainstream’ of the Army” but are not “in the intelligence business”?
Who belongs to this coven of plotters, sir?
The future of the United States and possibly of the rest of the world hangs on your answers.
You could blow this thing right out of the water.
Will you?
We shall see.
AG
Nice one, AG!
Haven’t been posting much on your diaries lately — just wanted you to know that I’m still reading!
I do not want ANYONE to consider this post an attack on Col. Lang. It is NOT. I was harshly warned by Booman and others…unfairly harshly, in my own opinion…that I had been disrespecting Col. Lang on this blog when in fact I had only been questioning some of his opinions. I once again want to state uncategorically that I am not reflexively anti-intelligence OR anti-military. I hold the honorable segments of the military and intelligence establishments of the United States in the highest regard, and in point of fact my own father…one of the most honorable men that I have ever known… was a Naval officer and pilot who later became an aeronautical engineer and designer of weaponry, someone who held the highest of security clearances and never divulged a damned THING that he knew right through the moment that he passed away.
But we are in grave danger here, and we deserve to know more than unsubstantiated allegations. I believe that Col. Lang knows what he is talking about, and for the sake of the survival of this country and perhaps the rest of the world as well, I want to know more.
I am amazed that no one else asked these questions on the original thread, but I get progressively LESS amazed at the essential passivity of the left the more I frequent these blogs.
These questions need answers. If in asking for these answers I find myself banned from this blog…so it goes.
They need asking.
AG
Banned for posing questions? Won’t happen.
Thanks for posting the clarification though, some may be hypersensitive (pun intended??) when it comes to Col. Lang. Does he take comments on his own blog? It may get more of a response — I know that Susan sometimes posts his articles for him….
I’ve always tried to treat both with the respect due and try to thank them for their participation. I think the intel services are necessary but they need to operate with some measure of accountability.
I’ve asked several questions on the threads here by both of them and generally never receive any responses.
“Banned for posing questions? Won’t happen.”
Have you read below?
“Hypersensitive”?
THAT’S an understatement.
AG
Will answer your questions — and may I say, it’ll probably be the only asnwers you get?
😉
We shall see, indeed!
Sorry, brinnainne.
I am afraid that I do not understand this comment.
If you do not wish to post the explanation in public, please contact me at the address that is available on my settings site here.
Thanks…
AG
Sorry, didn’t mean to be cryptic — I was referring to the time stamps that accomany each posted comment and implying that if you look at when I posted my comments on this thread that, yes, I had read upthread re: hypersensitivity …. nothing earth-shattering!
Too many questions and too few answers, for now.
I hope there’s a lot of participation in this discussion. Can we go ahead and start guessing the names he*coughchertoffcough* might be referring to?
This bothered me though
I tend to think they have silently conguered the private sector in a global empire of sorts.
That “SO relieved” statement MAY have been just a little…shall we say, cynical…on my part.
Just a smidgen, of course…
And yes, Chertoff came to mind immediately.
Not that he LOOKS the part or anything…
AG
Man,…he sure looks wicked evil enough.
Too many questions and too few answers, for now
Yes.
But answers aren’t what are desired here. Piling on is what is desired.
Machine-gunning other people’s perspectives is what is desired here.
Arthur doesn’t know shit about intelligence, otherwise he’d have more than a laundry list of vague accusations and innuendo.
Arthur, you waste my time.
NO, goddamnit!!!
What is WRONG with you, Susan?
I want NO piling on.
I AM NOT ATTACKiNG COL. LANG HERE!!! Not in any way, shape, .manner or form.
I BELIEVE him.
How clearly can I say this?
This is NOT a criticism.
It is a reasoned request for more information.
Nothing more.
AG
I sent you an e-mail, Arthur. Please read it.
I’m not aware of problems between posters here but your statement also does a disservice to people like me. I have nothing to go by except the information I can gather and my ability to reason. There are too many areas of vague references where intelligence professionals are concerned but yet we are expected to believe every claim they make as truth?
Of course we question. This is an ongoing problem, however, with Mr. Gilroy and his attacks that has nothing to do with your own serious questions and concerns, Rumi.
I’m glad there isn’t any problem. I’ll say again I have no problems with anyone here regardless of differences in opinion. Sometimes intent can be lost in the flat realm of text only communication. My first impression was that you thought I was piling on in criticizing and that wasn’t my intent at all.
I appreciate the professional’s input and I realize they’re taking a risk in taking a stand. However, many times it’s a relatively safe stand they take in vaguely confirming information many of us have found elsewhere and found long ago.
I didn’t understand your hostile reaction to AG’s long posts (Oui posts long stuff all the time and doesn’t (and shouldn’t, imo) get called out on the carpet the way AG did), and now this reaction, I also don’t get? Where the accusation in this diary? I don’t see it? What’s up?
Kinda caught me by surprise too. I’m a bit puzzled by what would be “out of line” with the diary.
That response is a little strong, to put it mildly.
Does AG have his own in-your-face style of commentary? Yes. But I didn’t see an invitation to “pile on” in his diary, and in his comments he seems at pains to be respectful. (or do you think he’s being disingenuous?)
And – this isn’t meant in an unfriendly or disrespectful way – saying someone “doesn’t know shit” and “is a waste of your time” borders really close to violating Boo’s first commandment.
I guess I’ll be getting an email…
do you think he’s being disingenuous?
exactly. Some of my skills are better than others, but one of my never-fail built-in skills is a great instinct for such things. i hate it because it’s very uncomfortable and leads me to unpleasant conclusions. It’s the same, repetitive attack cloaked in pseudo-reasonable terms, and it makes all of my alarms goes off.
Your alarms are wrong, Susan.
THIS “never-fail built-in skill” is WAY off here.
Sorry…
AG
As I stated in my comment on Col. Lang’s original diary regarding this subject:
NATIONAL attention.
Those of you who frequent other blogs, please link to this article by Col. Lang . It raises ENORMOUS issues.
Please do so if you agree.
I would LOVE to see this diary linked on dKos.
AG
There are operatives on every message board, both western and non. Some work for the warlords, some work for politicians, some work for corporations.
But what difference does it make?
There was a diary the other day on the subject of changing peoples’ minds, and the consensus was, it is not likely.
People may access information and change their own minds, and yes, there may be people who cannot spot virals with the same acuity as others, but there are also people who cannot add 2 and 2 and extrapolate with the same acuity as others.
In the propaganda arena, the internets are no match for TV, if for no other reason because of the interactivity.