In short, official propaganda is not designed to deceive the public (no more than the speeches in an actor’s script are intended to deceive the actor who speaks them). It is designed to be absorbed and repeated, no matter how implausible or preposterous it might be. Actually, it is often most effective when those who are forced to robotically repeat it know that it is utter nonsense, as the humiliation of having to do so cements their allegiance to the ruling classes (this phenomenon being a standard feature of the classic Stockholm Syndrome model, and authoritarian conditioning generally). The current “Russian hacking” hysteria is a perfect example of how this works. No one aside from total morons actually believes this official narrative (the substance of which is beyond ridiculous), not even the stooges selling it to us. This, however, is not a problem, because it isn’t intended to be believed … it is intended to be accepted and repeated, more or less like religious dogma. (It doesn’t matter what actually happened, i.e., whether the “hack” was a hack or a leak, or who the hackers or leakers were, or who they may have been working for, or what whoever’s motives may have been. What matters is that the ruling classes have issued a new official narrative and are demanding that every “normal” American stand up and swear allegiance to it.)The responses to Mrs Mays Statement yesterday in Parliament with the notable exception of One, Jeremy Corbyn, demonstrated the above thesis perfectly, for a weaker example look at the debate where all of the speakers prefaced their points with **I Believe in Free Markets, similar pledges usually preface comments on Climate Change.Foucault’s notion of the Epistime is also something of the sort getting at the same point.”I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific.” Michel Foucault.
@6mins 28 secs
Question: Sorry, when you say “highly likely”, you mean the assessment that chemical weapons were used in Douma by the Assad government forces?
Sergey Lavrov: No, I said “highly likely” as a new invention of the British diplomacy to describe why they punish people – because these people are highly likely guilty, like in Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll – when he described a trial. And when they discovered that the jury could be engaged, then the King said “Let’s ask the jury” and the Queen shouted “No jury! Sentence first – verdict afterwards.” That’s the logic of “highly likely”.
The Russian Ambassador to the Un made his statement which was professional and credible Nicki Hayley the US ambassador was risible and unconvincing, The BBC has not rushed to use this statement preferring the Bond Villain Smirk of Vlad the Impaler Putin at some sort of Russian Hyacinth Bouquet indoors outdoors party somewhere in Russia, Not quite a hollowed out mountain and stroking a cat whilst flinging peasants in the shark pool, if the BBC had that footage we would surely see it. For the other sides to this developing Conspiracy theory in the making. See my Twitter Feed.
— Roger Glyndwr Lewis (@RogerGLewis) March 15, 2018