Before the internet you listened to the elites. You had little alternative. That’s all there was except for word of mouth and local issues that established elites cared little about unless someone got very uppity. They controlled most other primary information flows.
The elites in each nation had a monopoly on what was factual. What they said went, via each vehicle present at that time which meant not so long ago, only a very few newspapers. Manipulation of the news stream was easy. All editors deferred to either royalty or politicians or their minions and enforcers such as the church and military. Alternative viewpoints could be expressed in book form which if too objectionable or too great a threat to the elites of the time could well be banned.
Before the advent of newspapers many different scenarios prevailed which ensured the elites and “the rest” remained distance with the elites always able to manipulate any given situation to their satisfaction.
Furthest back in time the elites used the most basic of all methods against those who threatened their power by organizing themselves to change things. They would be executed. Every now and then things would get so bad that people revolted against the powers of that time. Sometimes, as in the case of the French and later Russian revolution they would win out. In other cases such as The Peasant’s Revolt in England they were duped into believing their grievances would be dealt with by the king or other elites then the ringleaders would be found and hanged as an example. At that time of course most of the population were serfs, essentially slaves who were owned by their masters. In later times, after serfdom ended most were still tied to some master or other, then named gentlemen, men who need not work as they had others to do the work for them and guarantee their income.
The powerful elites of these times used religion as a useful tool to keep populations in line and docile as required. Strict rules of belief and etiquette prevailed. Church and state worked more or less in tandem to manipulate the masses. For them these were highly irrational masses who required to be restrained from running amok by demanding greater rights. it was not only profits that were at stake but the level of control their “betters” had over these “lesser mortals".
With the industrial revolution the processes that would eventually lead to our present day access to diverse forms of information and the diminution and partial disregard of manipulative elite messaging began.
The Sixties in the West saw the turn of the tide against the elites who had, had a fairly comfortable ride to that time presiding over what had been to that time a rather conformist milieu where sons and daughters varied little from their fathers and mothers in attitudes, dress sense and much else besides. The revolt against the establishment began in earnest mid-way through the decade and has continued in some form or other to this day. Naturally western elites have done everything in their power to offset this unwelcome trend. Security forces were applied ruthlessly to teach those who insisted on change that it would certainly not come through them. Tokenism was also used to tamp down the revolts, protests and riots and this continues to be the main weapon used by western politicians to assuage would be revolutionaries. Their greatest asset in this is the liberal class who talk of change but are in fact the guardians of the status quo, working always to minimize the effects of radical activity demanding fundamental changes.
It has only been in the last decade or two, with the advent of the internet and social media that the mechanisms the elites had to control their populations began to break down and the use of liberals to hold the line became paramount.
Then Trump came along and threw a giant spanner into the workings of the liberal elites. A rise in internet use with alternate views being provided and sought out produced a dangerous schism between the predominant elites and those they wished to manipulate as they had always done. They had to develop new tactics to undermine the growing discontent and deviation from their narratives.
Several primary solutions were developed. One was the substitution of the term ‘fake news’ for ‘opinions’ or the more pejorative term ‘verbiage’. Down through history people had opinionated on this and that quite freely as long as it didn’t seem to contain a threat to the established powers. Mythology exists in every nation, fireside tales of derring-do passed down from one generation to the next. Religion itself was almost entirely composed of unbelievable myths that people were often made to accept as unassailable truths. Rumors would spread from time to time down through the ages and elites would often use these to demonize enemies they needed to raise armies against. Nearer our time a whole industry of fabrication arose with novels and films becoming hugely popular. So the fabrication of alternate realities is not new, and when it was not threatening to the elites, when in fact it assisted them in that it kept the masses docile, it was of course fully accepted and profited from.
The problem with social media for the elites is not that there is fake news on it, it is that there are alternate views on it, views that do not reflect their narratives, narratives that they need to maintain in order to keep control. The liberal press and media were the two primary weapons against those insisting on having an alternate opinion to that of the elites. Their opinions would be termed ‘fake news’, they themselves would be denigrated as trolls, bots and as near as dammit, traitors. This was all quite premeditated. All those with an alternate opinion to those in power were to be rubbished, denigrated and their reputations ruined wherever and whenever possible. And the liberals who controlled most of the mainstream milieu, within media and across the worlds of academia, art and other intellectual pursuits were extremely happy to help with this as their position was also threatened as arbiters of what was acceptable and what was not.
The case of Stephen F. Cohen was a case in point. It was unacceptable for even such an erudite person well-respected in his field as an emeritus professor of Russian studies at two of the USA most prominent universities to express views not in line with prevailing elite narratives. For merely having an informed opinion on events surrounding Russia he was ruthlessly and publicly denigrated from multiple sources and on many mediums. Mr Cohen’s views did not tally whatsoever with the believable lies the liberal elites within the Democratic Party required the American public to believe. Therefore he was labeled as ‘Putin’s Puppet’ and worse in an effort to stifle him and to spread the concept far and wide that he was not to be trusted.
Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, both threats in their own ways to the established order of the elites were treated in similar fashion to Stephen F. Cohen by the use of key concepts to demean and negate them as challengers. False accusations of thuggery in their support base was one, Vladimir Putin being partial to their campaigns was another and finally antisemitism. The established elites supposedly on the left are just as ruthless and dirty in their tactics than those on the right when it comes to their self-preservation.
This is the sole aim of the ‘fake news’ tool developed by the liberal elites and those they maintain in power, to reduce the respect given, as much as humanly possible, to all views that do not coincide with required elite narratives. Naturally there must always be some elements of truth in any propaganda operation and the field of conspiracy theory provides a certain power to the ‘fake news’ motif. However, people have always speculated in such terms, it is nothing new and whether more people are exposed to these speculations now is no business of the elites, the only reason they are active at all on the subject is their need to constantly assert as full control over all narratives as possible. Therefore to denigrate all unhelpful speculations across the board the concept of ‘fake news’ was developed.
Now, with the almost certain defeat of Donald Trump it seems certain we will see an ever greater attempt by western elites to bear down hard on all views and narratives but their own. I predict cancel culture will go into overdrive with any and all alternative voices being silenced or attempted to be silenced starting with the most popular and frequently listened to voices such as Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Jimmy Dore and many others. They will be demonized in the context of a “free world” at war with powerful foreign “enemies” where false flag events will be arranged to motivate solidarity in the general public against all such voices. 9/11 caused this chilling effect which prevailed for years thereafter. But western elites need ever more false flag events to maintain their dominance. The regime change targets western elites wish to render weak if not totally destroyed will be demonized through such events and similar propaganda to that used during Russiagate will be deployed to demonize also those who do not toe the establishment line. The discrediting of insightful observers will become commonplace as the endless effort of those in power to stay in power and maintain the status quo continues in fiercer form than ever.
The order to listen and obey will be more insistent than ever in an age where freedom of speech has become a major threat to those who would keep us controlled.
No comments:
Post a Comment