The German mainstream is collapsing

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Thomas Fazi


Resize text-+=

The German mainstream is collapsing

Fazi notes that a new left-right populist spectrum is emerging in Germany, but the phenom is not seen just in Germany, but hroughout the collective West, including, quite possibly, the United States.



This weekend’s regional elections in Saxony and Thuringia have revealed significant shifts in the German political landscape, reflecting a country grappling with multiple crises. Although these were only regional elections, their outcomes carry national implications, particularly given the participation of nearly three-quarters of the five-million electorate. Here are the main takeaways:

The political mainstream has collapsed

The main opposition party, the centre-right CDU, maintained its dominant position in Saxony by a tiny margin. But the party now faces a choice: change or continue to shed votes to the AfD. The CDU’s involvement in centrist coalitions, driven by the necessity of excluding the AfD, has diluted its political identity. Also quite paradoxically, the rise of the AfD has been fuelled precisely by the migration policies of former CDU chancellor Angela Merkel.

The CDU now finds itself weakened, unable to form coalitions without compromising its traditional stances, and without striking alliances that would have been unthinkable a few years ago, such as with the newly formed left-populist Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) — an option that is currently being explored by both parties. Incredibly, the BSW is now the third-largest party in both states — an impressive feat for a party that was launched just a few months ago.

For a deep dive into the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance, and how her blend of old-school leftist economics, pro-peace and anti-NATO foreign policy, and conservative cultural outlook is redefining populism — and upending German politics — see this recent article of mine. (It is reproduced as an addendum below.—Ed)

The transplantation of the FRG’s economic order into the former GDR was the most brutal neoliberal shock therapy ever implemented in a European country...The first instrument of this shock therapy was monetary integration, which involved the former GDR’s adoption of the West-German mark, which was highly overvalued relative to the fundamentals of the East-German economy.

Migration and war: the central issues

The vote has confirmed that migration remains the “mother of all domestic policy problems”. The inability to manage migration effectively has eroded public trust in traditional parties. The AfD’s success can be attributed largely to its hardline stance on immigration, a position that has gained traction even among former left-wing voters who now support the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance. This development suggests that migration will dominate the upcoming federal elections, turning them into a de facto referendum on Germany’s immigration policies. But opposition to war and to the government’s belligerent approach to the Russia-Ukraine crisis clearly also played a role, especially among young people. Sahra Wagenknecht, in particular, has put opposition to NATO and to the deployment US long-range missiles on German territory, and the question of détente with Russia, at the centre of her party’s platform. 

A new left-right populist spectrum  

The most interesting takeaway from the elections is probably the emergence of a new, and unique in the European panorama, left-right populist spectrum, in the form of the AfD and the BSW, which collectively make up almost 50 percent of the votes. This underscores that dissatisfaction with the established parties is even larger than what right-populists parties alone are able to capture: a lesson for other countries as well. For now the BSW has ruled out forming regional coalition governments with the AfD, which is understandable from a tactical standpoint: many disaffected voters from the centre and the left are turning to the BSW precisely because it is not the AfD. But in the future the mood might shift: if the establishment refuses to respond to popular concerns, the demand for a left-right populist front could grow. Meanwhile, the fact that both ends of the political spectrum are converging on similar migration policies suggests that this issue may hopefully be approached more pragmatically, rather than through the lens of morality.

An increasingly divided country

One cannot understand the populist uprising sweeping eastern Germany without understanding the economic, social and political trauma that reunification — or better, the East’s annexation by the West — was for many eastern Germans, and how this legacy continues to this day. As I recently wrote in Compact:

The transplantation of the FRG’s economic order into the former GDR was the most brutal neoliberal shock therapy ever implemented in a European country.

The first instrument of this shock therapy was monetary integration, which involved the former GDR’s adoption of the West-German mark, which was highly overvalued relative to the fundamentals of the East-German economy. This shattered the profitability of East-German firms, which quickly became insolvent, resulting in the immediate collapse of GDP and a sharp rise in unemployment. Most ominously, it kicked off what one study described as a “dramatic process of de-industrialization”.  

The second instrument was the mass privatization of state-owned firms, houses, and land by the infamous Treuhandanstalt, a West-German government-controlled trust agency that took control of almost all the assets of the former GDR with the aim of privatizing them as quickly as possible. By 1992, more than 80 percent of firms had already been privatized or closed. The overwhelming majority of the firms were sold to West German investors and companies—at bargain prices, of course. 

In other words, virtually the entire economy of the former socialist state passed into the hands of West-German capitalists.

[This is reflected in] the stark economic disparities that persist between West and East Germany more than three decades after reunification, when the territories of the GDR were incorporated into the FRG in 1990. The states that make up the former East Germany generally have lower GDP per capita and wages, higher unemployment and poverty rates, and poorer infrastructure and public services than those in the West. In 2017, net national income per capita in East Germany was still only 73 percent of what it was in West Germany. 

A wake-up call

In conclusion, the recent regional elections serve as a wake-up call for Germany. They highlight the urgent need for political realignment and the dangers of ignoring the concerns of significant portions of the electorate. The implications extend beyond Germany, affecting its role in the European Union and the broader geopolitical landscape.

This is a longer version of an article that appeared in UnHerd.

Thanks for reading. Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.

Thomas Fazi

Website: thomasfazi.net
Twitter: @battleforeurope 

Latest book: The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left (co-authored with Toby Green)



Addendum
Who’s afraid of Sahra Wagenknecht? Germany's 'left-conservative' has redefined populism

Sahra Wagenknecht

Sahra Wagenknecht: her inteligent political formula may actually represent salvation for Germany and the continent—if the US-aligned satrap establishment will allow.

AUGUST 31, 2024

Few would have predicted that Germany, long known for having the continent’s most boring politics, would become the epicentre of Europe’s new populist revolt — let alone one coming from both the Right and the Left. And yet, that is exactly what is happening.

In the recent European elections, as amply expected, the Right-populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party overtook the centre-left SPD for the first time, becoming the country’s second-largest party after the centre-right CDU/CSU alliance. Meanwhile, the two major parties between them gained less than 45% of the votes — down from 70% just 20 years ago. It was the biggest collapse of the German political mainstream since reunification.

More than anything, the elections revealed that post-reunification Germany remains neatly divided along its former border: while western Germans are also signalling growing dissatisfaction with the current SPD-Greens-FDP coalition, but remaining within the bounds of mainstream politics, eastern Germans are revolting against the political establishment itself.

Thus, with state elections taking place in three eastern states over the next month — in Saxony and Thuringia this weekend, and in Brandenburg on September 22 — it’s no wonder the German centre is bracing itself for collapse. But while it’s a foregone conclusion that the AfD will make massive gains, with the party leading the polls in two of the three states, the real surprise may prove to be, once again, Sahra Wagenknecht’s new party, which is currently polling between 11% and 19%.

For now, Wagenknecht has ruled out forming regional coalition governments with the AfD, as well as with any party that supports arms deliveries to Ukraine (which means most mainstream parties). But her mere presence on the ballot will further erode support for the ruling coalition — and make it very hard, if not impossible, for the latter to form centrist coalition governments at the state level.

The Wagenknecht phenomenon is fascinating — and unique — for several reasons. Not only has she managed to establish the BSW as one of the country’s major political forces in a matter of months, but she’s also running on a platform that is unique in the Western political panorama, at least among electorally relevant parties. Though Wagenknecht tends to avoid framing her party in tired Left-Right terms, its platform can best be described as left-conservative.

In short, this means it mixes demands that would once have been associated with the socialist-labour Left — interventionist and redistributive government policies to regulate capitalist market forces, higher pensions and minimum wages, generous welfare and social security policies, taxes on wealth — with positions that today would be characterised as culturally conservative: first and foremost, a recognition of the importance of preserving and fostering traditions, stability, security and a sense of community.

Flailing Germany is the future of Europe

This inevitably entails more restrictive immigration policies and a rejection of the multiculturalist dogma, in which minorities refuse to recognise the superiority of common rules, threatening social cohesion. As the party’s founding text reads: “Immigration and the coexistence of different cultures can be enriching. However, this only applies as long as the influx remains limited to a level that does not overburden our country and its infrastructure, and as long as integration is actively promoted and successful.” What this looks like in practice became clear in 2015, when Wagenknecht strongly criticised then-Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow in hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers, invoking the mantra “Wir schaffen das!” (“We can do it!”). A year later, after a series of terror attacks perpetrated by migrants, Wagenknecht released a statement that read: “The reception and integration of a large number of refugees and immigrants is associated with considerable problems and is more difficult than Merkel’s frivolous ‘We can do it!’.”

More recently, following a fatal knife attack in Mannheim, Wagenknecht again lashed out at the government’s immigration policies: “We basically financed [the migrant attacker’s] radicalisation as well. He lived off us, off the money of the citizens.” Her focus on benefits here is crucial. For Wagenknecht, the promotion of social cohesion, including by restricting immigration flows, shouldn’t just be seen as a positive end in and of itself, such as for reasons of public safety, but also as a precondition for the pursuit of economically redistributive policies, and even of democracy itself. Only a political community defined by a collective identity — a demos — is capable of committing itself to a democratic discourse and to a related decision-making process, and of generating the affective ties and bonds of solidarity that are needed to legitimise and sustain redistributive policies between classes and/or regions. Simply put, if there is no demos, there can be no effective democracy, let alone a social democracy.

This is also why Wagenknecht places a strong emphasis on the importance of national sovereignty, and is highly critical of the European Union: not only because the EU is fundamentally anti-democratic and prone to oligarchic capture [actually captured ab initio by the globalist oligarchy.—Ed] , but because it cannot be otherwise, given that today the nation-state remains the main source of people’s collective identity and sense of belonging, and therefore the only territorial institution (or at least the largest) through which it is possible to organise democracy and achieve social balance. As she has said: “The call for ‘an end to the nation-state’ is ultimately a call for ‘an end to democracy and the welfare state’”.

In short, Sahra Wagenknecht is anything but your typical Western Leftist. Now, this is partly to do with the fact that she was born on the other side of the Iron Curtain, in former East Germany in 1969. She became interested in philosophy and Marxist economics as a teenager, but the end of the socialist GDR, in 1989, was, according to her biographer Christian Schneider, “the moment in time when the politician Wagenknecht was born”. She experienced it as a “unique horror”: like many East Germans, she believed in a reformed socialism, not in embracing West Germany’s capitalist path.

 

In short, Sahra Wagenknecht is anything but your typical Western Leftist.

That same year she joined the East German communist party, shortly before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and then, following reunification, became one of the leading figures of the party’s successor, the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS). Even back then, she stood out as being both more radical and more conservative than her communist peers. “There was now this young woman who desperately wanted to go back to the old days” of the GDR, as one former leader of the PDS put it.

When, in 2007, the PDS merged with a splinter of the SPD to give birth to Die Linke (The Left), Wagenknecht quickly emerged as one of the party’s leading voices — and the face of the German radical Left. Die Linke’s support rocketed to 12% of the vote in 2009’s elections to the Bundestag, and remained close to there for nearly a decade. Wagenknecht also became a key figure in the German parliament, serving as parliamentary co-chairwoman of her party from 2015 to 2019 and as leader of the opposition (against Chancellor Angela Merkel’s grand coalition) until 2017. It was there that she earned a reputation for her powerful rhetoric and ability to challenge mainstream political narratives.

Her relationship with Die Linke, however, grew increasingly strained over the years: while the party became captured by the kind of “progressive neoliberalism” that has infected, to one degree or another, all Western Left-wing parties, Wagenknecht remained true to her old-school socialist roots. Her views on immigration and other issues — which would once have been completely non-controversial in socialist circles — were quickly becoming anathema on the Left. Eventually, in November 2019, Wagenknecht announced her resignation as parliamentary leader, citing burnout. Two years later, in the federal elections, Die Linkegarnered less than 5% of ballots and lost nearly half its seats — its worst result ever. For Wagenknecht, this was not a surprise.

Will East Germans ever feel at home?

For Wagenknecht, this new movement’s authoritarian shade became clear during the pandemic. Unlike virtually all her colleagues — and most of the German Left — Wagenknecht became a sharp critic of the government’s “endless lockdowns” and coercive mass vaccination programme (she refused to take the vaccine herself). Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Wagenknecht has also emerged as the most vocal critic of Germany’s military support for Ukraine and the sanctions regime. This escalated her rift with Die Linke, which voted in favour of economic sanctions against Russia.

At that point, their break-up became inevitable — and finally, late last year, Wagenknecht announced the launch of her new party. The choice led to the unravelling of Die Linke, which was forced to dissolve its parliamentary faction, and has now virtually disappeared from the political map, receiving only 2.7% of the votes in June’s European elections.

Since the launch of BSW, Wagenknecht has put the question of détente with Russia at the centre of her party’s platform. On several occasions, she has highlighted how Germany’s subordination to the US-Nato proxy war strategy in Ukraine, and refusal to engage in diplomatic talks with Russia, is self-defeating from an economic as well as a geopolitical standpoint. Not only is the oil and gas embargo against Russia the main reason for Germany’s collapsing economy, but the government is, she told the Bundestag, “negligently playing with the security and in the worst case the lives of millions of people in Germany”. More recently, she has strongly condemned the government’s plan to deploy US long-range missiles on German territory and, perhaps most dramatically, challenged the omerta surrounding the Nord Stream attack. Indeed, following recent revelations about the German government’s possible cover-up of Ukrainian involvement, she called for a public inquiry, saying that, “should German authorities have known in advance about the attack plan on Nord Stream 1 and 2, then we would have the scandal of the century in German politics”.

It’s important to note that Wagenknecht views opposition to the proxy war against Russia as part of a much deeper rethinking of Germany’s geopolitical strategy. Its aim, as Wolfgang Streeck has written, is to “free it from the geostrategic grip of the United States, guided by German national survival interests instead of Nibelungentreue, or loyalty, to America’s claim to global political domination”. This necessarily entails re-establishing long-term political and economic relations with Russia, which could potentially lay the groundwork for a new Eurasian security architecture, and even a Eurasian community of states and economies.

Elsewhere, Wagenknecht has criticised the government’s “green” and gender-affirming policies, arguing that “Germany’s energy supply cannot currently be ensured by renewable energies alone”, and voting against a bill passed by the German parliament earlier this year to make it easier to change one’s legal gender. “Your law turns parents and children into guinea pigs for an ideology that only benefits the pharmaceutical lobby,” she said.

Germany's authoritarian turn

If that seems blunt, that’s because it is. But taken together, Wagenknecht’s old-school leftist economics, pro-peace and anti-Nato foreign policy, and conservative cultural outlook is resonating with voters. And as a result, she now finds herself in the crosshairs of both the establishment and her populist competitors. Indeed, on the Right in particular, the common criticism levelled at her is that, by drawing voters away from the AfD, she is weakening and dividing Germany’s populist front.

Yet the evidence for this is somewhat shaky. Rather, opinion polls show that the emergence of the BSW does not seem to have overly affected the AfD, which continues to maintain a 30% vote share in several eastern German states and 20% nationally. In fact, according to a recent study by the Hans Böckler Foundation, the BSW is actually drawing voters mostly from the centre and the Left — Die Linke and the SPD — rather than the AfD. The BSW’s staunchly Left-wing economic agenda, which puts it at odds with the neoliberal economic policy of the AfD, would appear to be key here: the study shows that the BSW draws support mainly from socially marginalised and low-income groups — traditionally, the classic target group of social-democratic parties. It also explains why she enjoys much stronger support in eastern Germany, which has significantly lower GDP per capita and wages, and higher unemployment and poverty rates than western Germany.

This suggests that Wagenknecht’s left-conservative agenda is filling a political space that was previously vacant, hoovering up German voters who are disillusioned with mainstream politics, and even very critical of immigration, but nonetheless feel uncomfortable voting for a party that has undeniably xenophobic or racist traits. The BSW, by contrast, represents a much more palatable “non-extremist” option for these would-be populist voters. This is further confirmed by the fact that, despite its tough stance on immigration, the BSW appears to be winning over an above-average number of voters from migrant backgrounds, a demographic that has traditionally voted for centre-left parties. In short, the evidence suggests that Wagenknecht is actually broadening the populist front rather than simply crowding out the existing populist pool.

It is this, along with the fact that Wagenknecht is among the top three most popular politicians in Germany, that explains why the establishment has decided to go on the attack. In recent weeks, the media there has launched a relentless campaign against Wagenknecht and the BSW, predictably focused on claims that she is a “Russian propagandist” — or “Vladimir Putinova”, as one article called her. Even more desperately, some have attempted to paint Wagenknecht, a literal communist, as a “far-Right extremist”. Only this week, Politico, which is owned by German media titan Axel Springer, unironically asked: “Is Germany’s rising superstar so far-Left she’s far-Right?”

The answer, of course, is a boring nein. And no doubt a far more interesting question will be thrown up by this weekend’s results: with a general election scheduled for next year, has Germany finally found a politician capable of breaking through its ideological wall?


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.


SELECT COMMENT
Gpcus

2 hrs ago

"Uno spettro si aggira per l'Europa: lo spettro del populismo destro-sinistro. Tutte i leader della vecchia Europa si sono coalizzati in una sacra caccia alle streghe contro questo spettro: da Mario Draghi a Ursula Von der Layen, da Macron a Scholz, liberali francesi e centristi tedeschi"... non si vedeva tanta agitazione nelle nostre elites politico-accademico-mediatiche dai moti del 1848 e la stesura del Manifesto, ahahaha!
 


Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




THE SOUND OF ENFORCED SILENCE

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.




Resize text-+=

Kamala Harris: Not running on a program, but simply "good vibes".


Is there some connection, — not quite official but it may as well be— between censorship and presidential politics? I pose the question as a survivor of the Russiagate years, when illiberal liberals started talking about “free-speech absolutists,” and when corporate journalists cheered the censoring of unincorporated journalists so long as it was called “content moderation.”

I cannot answer my own question, honestly. But as this November’s elections draw near, a new and aggressive campaign to suppress dissent — in social media, at airports, on campuses, and elsewhere — is hard upon us. This is a trans–Atlantic, trans-national operation. Let us not fail to take note.

Straight off the top, you probably noticed that the Democratic Party’s openly undemocratic elite refused to allow any speaker of Palestinian background to address the convention in Chicago last week. We can read this, disgraceful in itself, as an indication of how the Democrats intend to deal with the Gaza crisis and other such foreign policy matters if they succeed in extending their power another four years.

Yes, they will continue supporting terrorist Israel and the Nazi-infested regime in Ukraine just as they have to date, but they will avoid talking to you and me about the imperium’s gruesome business as they conduct it. Silence on such matters will be as gold to these people, especially between now and Nov. 5. Kamala Harris, or the cynical operatives busily inventing Kamala Harris, are selling “joy” this political season, not any kind of sober, responsible view of our circumstances. Harris is supposed to ride into the White House on a carpet of good vibes. Gaza, the war in Ukraine, Washington’s provocations at the other end of the Pacific: Nah: All such questions are bad vibes.

One of the things the Russiagate years exposed was the close collaboration between the Democratic Party and the national-security state. People who know their history have long understood that “the intelligence community” — so odious, this term — has been, from its beginnings in the late–1940s, more liberal than conservative in its culture and sensibilities. Hillary Clinton’s embarrassing defeat in 2016 consolidated this relationship. It is now hard to tell where the Democratic Party ends and the national-security state begins.

I have been, since the Russiagate years, perfectly comfortable with the term “Deep State.” And here it comes again, reliant as always upon its appendages in the Big Tech social media platforms and the more repellant quadrants of corporate media as they attempt to extinguish all other-than-approved opinions and perspectives.

Of the many recent incidents of censorship, suppression and intimidation, the one that got me to the keyboard concerns Sharmine Narwani, who founded, three years ago this month, an online journal of news and comment called The Cradle, as in “the cradle of civilization.” Narwani, based in Beirut, now writes columns regularly and edits features for the English-language version of the site. She calls The Cradle a collective effort, “an online magazine covering the geopolitics of West Asia from within the region.” Those last four words are the ones that matter most to me.

Last week — on the first day of the Democratic National Convention, indeed — Meta permanently banned The Cradle from Facebook and Instagram, the holding company’s most trafficked social media properties. Narwani now stands accused of “praising terrorist organizations” and engaging in “incitement to violence.” This ruling came without warning. All Narwani got was this:

Your account, or activity on it, does not follow our community guidelines. No one can see or find your account and you can’t use it. All your information will be permanently deleted. You cannot request a review of this decision.

How’s this for the sound of liberal authoritarianism? Big Brother could not have got down the poetry of fascistic finality any better.

Narwani, who earned a master’s degree at Columbia University in international affairs before joining the Great Craft, writes forthrightly and without regard for however much her reporting may shock the comfortably misinformed. Hers is not the stuff of beach reading, which is where its strength lies. Narwani’s investigations at the height of the CIA’s covert operation in Syria were especially distinguished but proved simply too honest for American media — The New York Times, The Guardian, Salon, and so on — to continue taking. When Huffington Post stopped accepting her work, it scrubbed her entire archive.

I published a long, two-part interview with Narwani in 2019, shortly before she seems to have concluded, very wisely, that there is no getting truthful reporting of her kind into a mainstream media scene wholly given over to the imperium’s propaganda machine. It was Narwani who first taught me that “the Middle East” is better understood as “West Asia.” I saw in The Cradle’s pages, in other words, the true power of perspective when it is decentered — or, better put, properly recentered.

Losing alternative perspectives is precisely what is at stake in this new round of censorship. Narwani wrote last week (the italics are hers):

Meta’s accusations of [The Cradle] “praising terrorist organizations” and engaging in “incitement to violence” largely stem from posts and videos that relay information or quotes from West Asian resistance movements like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansarallah — blacklisted by many western governments — who are an essential part of the news stories unfolding in a region on the precipice of a major war.

It is also essential to recognize that these are major West Asian political organizations that have deep institutional and civic roots within Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen and are part of the very fabric of these societies. They are represented in governance, run schools, hospitals, and utilities, and disperse salaries to millions of civilian workers.

I am very pleased Narwani made this important point. We lose all such density of understanding when power—political power, media power, Big Tech power—affixes the label “terrorist” to an organization, a person or a group of people. All are thenceforth rendered two-dimensional, while we are rendered ignorant—precisely the intended state. And in this new wave of censorship, the drift is that journalists, too, can be accused as terrorists or of acting as their accomplices.

Just as I was thinking through Meta’s permanent ban of The Cradle, I came (a little late) to the case of Andrew Napolitano, who, in a previous life, was a Superior Court judge sitting on the New Jersey bench. Judge N.’s daily webcast, Judging Freedom, has become must viewing in my household (and many others, by the numbers). Napolitano has a gift for clipped, succinct questions that call forth the insightful replies of an extraordinary list of returning guests. Ray McGovern, Chas Freeman, Jeffrey Sachs, Alistair Crooke, John Mearsheimer, Larry Johnson — these are top-drawer names, all of them unwelcome in corporate media.

The censors arrived in June, when YouTube, a Google property, took a segment of Napolitano’s program off the air and assigned it a “first strike.” Get three of these and YouTube, long distinguished as one of the most aggressive censors of dissenting opinion, will remove your webcast permanently, with Meta-style courtesy.

When I asked Napolitano about this the other day he replied in a note:

We were told by YT — with no notice — that the strike was due to an on-air conversation I had with a guest back in June of this year. The 20–second conversation addressed the well-known and well-documented Nazi origins of the Ukrainian Azov Battalion and the propensity of many of its members to bear swastika tattoos. The same subject has been addressed in the NY Times and on CNN and elsewhere.

YT called it hate speech. We ran it through standard and respected AI platforms, and all concluded that this was not hate speech. Of course, Google agreed with its offspring.

There are a couple of things to note about this—three, now I think of it.

One, it is by now tiresome in the extreme to have people in the propaganda apparatus pretending there are no neo–Nazis active in Ukraine when the Kiev regime is shot through with them and when Azov and other such groups, driven by a visceral hatred of Russia and its people, lead the most effective battalions in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. As I and numerous others have pointed out, and as Napolitano suggests, the country’s neo–Nazi elements have appeared and disappeared in mainstream Western media according to passing geopolitical exigencies. Judge N. got paddled for making reference to common knowledge.

Two, when we consider the caliber of Napolitano’s regular guests we have to conclude that the operators of the censorship machine are shifting gears. What has been until now a somewhat spotty, swatting-flies operation shapes up to be a pervasive threat to free speech and the right to dissenting opinion from which not even our most distinguished minds are immune.

Finally, I will take this opportunity to assert that the notion of “hate speech” and all efforts to outlaw it are wholly objectionable in any society purporting to be democratic and come to, at the horizon, nothing short of thought control. Contempt may be a nobler sentiment, but hatred is an altogether human emotion and we all have a right to it. The Germans, who are way ahead of Americans in this line, are a good indicator of where the suppression of “hate speech” leads: It leads to a polity that no longer knows itself because its people, fearful of prison or fines, no longer live their lives, so to say, publicly. All becomes furtive.

When Scott Ritter was pulled off a plane in June, just as he began a journey to St. Petersburg, Russia, to attend an annual conference, it was obvious there was a degree of performance or demonstration in the conduct of the New York police and the State Department, which authorized the operation. Ritter, once a U.N. weapons inspector and now a commentator on military and foreign affairs, had his passport confiscated and cannot, for the moment, travel. State could have got this done without all the theater at Kennedy.

Who knew at the time where this would lead? Who knew it was the front edge of an effort to intimidate journalists of various kinds with the direct threat of prison on charges of terrorism or working as an agent of a foreign power or who knows what?

Earlier this month, while Ritter was marooned in his suburb of Albany, the FBI raided his home and removed all his electronic communication devices, along with many crates of documents. As The Times subsequently reported, this is part of an investigation into whether Ritter acts as a foreign agent when he writes for RT International, Russia’s equivalent of the BBC, or participates in some of RT’s broadcasts.

The operative statute is the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and the question at issue is whether Ritter transgressed when he failed to register as an agent of the Russian Federation. “More searches are expected soon,” The Times reported, citing officials. “Criminal charges are also possible.”

Now just a damn minute. More searches? Criminal charges? When the BBC’s U.S. correspondents are similarly investigated — unthinkable, of course — I will take this invocation of FARA seriously. But our censors, as the record shows again and again, have no special concern about acting in a serious manner. Power has no such obligation.

I must now fear for people such as Chris Hedges, who had a program on RT America before the U.S. government effectively shut the network down — and at which point YouTube deleted the six-year archive of Hedges’s RT America program, “On Contact.” I have my own views of the wisdom or otherwise of working for RT International, if not RT America, which in practice served as a haven for dissident Americans of various stripes, but will set these thoughts aside for now. The idea that Hedges, top-to-bottom a professional the whole of his career, could get marked down as a foreign agent is simply preposterous.

Did I say “preposterous”? Ah, I come to the case of Richard Medhurst.

Medhurst, born in Syria and a British subject, has an enviable knowledge of West Asian affairs and is a vigorously outspoken critic of Zionist Israel’s terrorizing campaign against the Palestinians of Gaza. Traveling through London last week—he resides in Vienna—Medhurst was not detained at Heathrow: He was arrested and held in solitary for nearly 24 hours under Article 12 of Britain’s Terrorism Act. He has not been charged with any crime—and I reckon he won’t be, so farcical is this exercise—but he will remain under investigation for three months.

Here is Hedges on the Medhurst case, and I hope he will forgive my ellipses:

The arrest of the reporter Richard Medhurst, who has been one of the most ardent critics of the genocide in Gaza and Israeli apartheid state … is part of the steady march towards the criminalization of journalism….

It is designed to have a chilling effect on reporting that elucidates Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza and increasingly the West Bank, as well as the active collaboration in this extermination of the Palestinian people by the U.S. and U.K. governments….

If we do not vigorously oppose Medhurst’s arrest, if we do not denounce the use of terrorism laws to attempt to silence journalists… Medhurst’s arrest will become the “norm.”

There is more where all this comes from. John Kiriakou, a CIA whistleblower who was convicted of exposing the CIA’s torture program, was recently escorted to his connecting flight in Toronto and detained in Washington as he flew home from Athens via Canada. “There’s no good news in these stories,” Kiriakou writes in a review of his and other cases in a Consortium News piece published Tuesday under the headline, “The Slide into Authoritarianism.” “This is the future, unless we stand up to fight it.”

My mind drifts back to the Democratic National Convention as I consider these events. I think of all those dreamy, worshipful faces, eyes uplifted, to which the cameras turned in the course of the speeches delivered by various party elites, and, of course, Kamala Harris when she formally accepted her nomination last Thursday evening. How innocently eager they seemed to have something, someone, they can believe in. How lost they were to the world as it is all around them. And how cynical the illiberal liberals who run the party as they manipulate the emotions of these people while condemning them to ignorance of the imperium the party is committed to sustaining.

Edward Luce, formerly the Financial Times’s Washington bureau chief and now one of the FT’s more readable commentators, ran a column on the convention under the headline, “‘Gaza’ is the word Democrats dare not whisper in Chicago.” A day into the proceedings, The Intercept put out an item headed, “Democratic Party Unites Under Banner of Silence on Gaza Genocide.”

That is how it was, more or less, at the DNC in Chicago. There was plenty of talk of AIPAC, the antidemocratic American Israel Public Affairs Committee — a foreign agent if ever there was one — but only in the streets outside the convention hall. Harris finally raised the Gaza crisis, during her acceptance speech, but boyo, did she blow through that topic with haste. This was “strategic vagueness”—that adorable phrase The New York Times has coined to make a virtue of Harris’s weather-vane vacuousness—at its very finest.

It was the usual thing when Harris devoted a few sentences to Gaza: Her White House will shed more crocodile tears for the suffering of Palestinians, but the unwavering, unconditional support the “Biden–Harris administration” extends to apartheid Israel will remain unwavering and unconditional. When you hear Harris say, “I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself,” as she stated last Thursday, it is the recipient of AIPAC funds speaking in the code the Israel lobby understands: Worry not. You will get what you have paid for.

Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




Acclaimed Journalist Charged With ‘Anti-Semitism’

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Joe Lauria
CONSORTIUM NEWS


Resize text-+=

Acclaimed Journalist Charged With ‘Anti-Semitism’

Mary Kostakidis appearing on CN Live!, where she has been a frequent guest. (CN Live!)


 
Special to Consortium News

For retweeting two tweets on X critical of Israel, famed Australian journalist Mary Kostakidis is facing charges of allegedly violating the country’s Racial Discrimination Act.

The complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission from Alon Cassuto, the CEO of the Zionist Federation of Australia, highlights just two Kostakidis retweets from January this year, both of which contain a video of a speech by Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah in which he allegedly called for the ethnic cleansing of Israel. 

One of the retweets is from independent British journalist Richie Medhurst, who was arrested at Heathrow airport and held for nearly 24 hours under the U.K. Terrorism Act this month.  Medhurst is one of the most vocal critics of Israel’s war on Gaza. The other tweet is from a user named Censored Men. 

The complaint was levelled under Section 18C(1) of the Racial Discrimination Act, which says:

“it is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

 (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

 (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.”

Cassuto says Kostakidis should have made clear in her retweet of Nasrallah’s video that she did not agree or endorse it. He says Nasrallah was calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel. 

In the retweeted video, the Hezbollah leader says: “Here, you don’t have a future, and from the river to the sea, the land of Palestine is for the Palestinian people and for the Palestinian people only …” 

Above that Nasrallah quote in the Censored Men retweet, Kostakidis wrote: “Israeli govt getting some of its own medicine. Israel has started something it can’t finish with this genocide.” 

Cassuto told a press conference: “Those like Mary Kostakidis who have a status and a platform and a responsibility to lead, need to promote cohesion not division.”    

Zionist Federation President Jeremy Leibler added: “Mary Kostakidis has misused her platform to spread ‘conspiracy theories’ to deny the use of sexual violence by Hamas on the 7th of October.” 

However, Kostakidis cites in another retweet the conclusion of an exhaustive U.N. investigation that found no evidence of sexual violence by Hamas. 

If the matter is not resolved at the Human Rights Commission the Zionist Federation could file civil charges in court. Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, however,  ‘is drafting hate speech laws to include criminal rather than civil penalties,” The Australian newspaper reported in an article about the Kostakidis case. 

Kostakidis Responds

Kostakidis has denied the charges, tweeting that they amount to an “attempt to frame me as a rape and Holocaust denier.” She wrote on X:

“This because I have been sharing the reports of extremely highly regarded independent journalists who have written about the absence of credible evidence of the claims of ‘systemic, widespread rape’ by Hamas on Oct 7.

“To be clear, I have never said there was No Rape. It is something I could never say – it would be a nonsense for anyone to make such a definitive statement.”

An exemption under the Racial Discrimination Act says:

“18D Exemptions

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith: … (c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.”

Regarding the retweet of Nasrallah’s video, Kostakidis told The Sydney Morning Herald: “What are you saying, that we shouldn’t hear what the other side has to say? The point of that tweet was to say that Israel is inviting an escalation, it’s inviting retribution because it is conducting a genocide.”

Kostakidis’ lawyers tweeted today: 

“XD Law are proud to defend Mary Kostakidis from the charges brought against her by the Zionist Federation of Australia under s18c of the Racial Discrimination Act … for sharing tweets about Gaza.

We filed her defence at the Human Rights Commission this week. Her instructions are clear – she will not be intimidated, she will not be gagged, she will not stop covering international events as she has her entire career. And that includes Israel, warts and all. 

‘The Australian Zionist Federation is weaponising Australian law in an attempt to curb criticism of Israel for its acts of genocide. I won’t be intimidated by them in the face of the slaughter of tens of thousands of children, hundreds of doctors, nurses, journalists and other civilians.’” — MK

The statement goes on to say: 

“Since the conflict in Gaza began Mary has been a force on Social Media giving live updates, sharing reports on the devastation there and accounts of ordinary people trying to survive it. And she is still at it.

Over the past 40 years Mary, the face of SBS news for 20 of them, has been a central figure in building a tolerant multicultural Australia. It is that reputation that her opponents are seeking to tear down because she has dared criticise Israel. 

‘Imagine a situation where we can criticise our own government’s policies and actions but not those of another state, depending on how powerful and cashed up their lobby groups are. They will continue to defame me in the press but please remember this is happening to journalists, academics and others all over the western world. We are on the right side of history and international law. I have no trouble standing up to bullies.’ — MK

Mary first heard that the complaint had been filed through an astonishing press conference conducted by the CEO of the Zionist Federation and a partner at the law firm bringing the action. Side by side they attacked her, her reputation and her life’s work without restraint.

Clearly her opponents have an eye to score public hits upon Mary irrespective of the commission proceedings. We have her covered in the courts.

There is no fundraiser yet but if you want to help defend Mary now do it in the public spaces where she is under attack. Defend free speech for all Australians. Defend social media. Defend Mary Kostakidis.”

Sawsan Madina, a former Head of SBS Television, wrote:

“The attempt to silence Mary Kostakidis has alarming implications for all of us. If a complaint can be lodged against a high profile journalist like Kostakidis, for publishing newsworthy information, what will this do to freedom of the press? How many journalists will self-censor? Will we be treated as children who are only allowed to read material deemed acceptable to the government or powerful vested interests?”  



Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




The Abuse of Personal Identity

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Billy Bob's Blowback Roundtable
THE WORLD THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT LEFT LENS


Resize text-+=


Plus: Solidarity Forever
8/23/2024 Episode 106 of Blowback: Exposing Imperial Decline with special guest Dust James.

The system continues to look for ways to weaken and eliminate the pro-Palestinian movement. 


The panel discusses—among many other things of pressing interest—the DNC convention and how many liberals covered their ears as some pro=Palestine protesters read the names of Zionist victims murdered in Gaza. Also, the DNC/Harris campaign refusal to give any details of their program, "waiting to be elected to spell out what the Democrat plan for the nation is." (Which both cynical and absurd. • Billy Bob and Ian Kummer zero in on the choice of Kamala as a tool to divide the pro-Palestinian movement and Black America, since many black Americans are beginning to resent protesters at Kamala's events. Billy Bob notes that notorious Dem/MICIMATT operative Malcolm Nance has already been agitating along those lines. 

News 2739
  • If you approve of this article, please share it with your friends and kin.
  • Help us expand our reach. Defeat appalling hypocrisy. Lies cost countless lives.
  • We must act together to smash the VILE Western disinformation machine.
  • This is the Lying Machine that protects the greatest evil humanity has ever seen.
  • YOU know what we are talking about.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCE
Billy Bob is a dedicated anti-imperialist activist and blogger. He hosts the Blowback roundatable.  You can reach him at his Facebook page HERE.


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.


Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW



 


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]


Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




Recapturing White Rhetoric For Socialist Agitating

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Bruce Lerro



Resize text-+=


Orientation

Leninist and anarchist shortcomings in relation to rhetoric

A little over three years ago I wrote an article about how bad Mordor Leninists and anarchists are about knowing about, let alone using rhetorical rhetoric. The article is titled Socialist Rhetorical and Dialectical Communication: Overcoming Brainwashing, Propaganda and Entertainment

These areas of bumbling included:

  • Initiation engagement
  • Holding attention
  • Time and timing
  • Setting the right atmosphere
  • The use of the five canons of rhetoric
  • Importance of charisma
  • Adjusting to neutral and hostile audiences
  • Defining key terms
  • Use of Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle
  • Appealing to short-term self-interest in the audience
  • Making predictions
  • Having transition plans
  • Distinguishing competitive as opposed to cooperative argumentation

Purpose of this article

The aim of this article is six-fold:

  • First, to challenge the negative associations about what rhetoric is so that its techniques can freely be used by all socialists. To do this I contrast “Light” with “Dark” rhetoric across thirteen categories.
  • Second, to point out that light rhetoric has been undermined by the use of electronic media beginning in the second half of the 19th century.  I will be referring to Kathleen Jameson’s great book Eloquence in the Electronic Age as I pointed out from a previous article.
  • Third, I will point out that at least since the Middle Ages the ruling circles of Europe (whether it be Church, State or capitalists) have used propaganda to influence people. This propaganda has used dark rhetoric for its purposes.
  • Fourth, I emphasize the value of light rhetoric further by contrasting it to propaganda.
  • Lastly, I show how white rhetoric can be criticized using the “ideological” school of criticism developed by Marxists like Terry Eagleton any Raymond Williams.

Defining rhetoric

Let me begin with a controversial definition of rhetoric. Rhetoric is the systematic and overt study of the process of how speakers influence public to either convince or persuade an audience on a controversial issue. This is done through the use of Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle which consists of logos (facts, reasons), ethos (credible sources) and pathos (use of emotions and imagination). Typically, it is practiced in law courts, political debates (city council meetings, unions, workers co-ops), or scientific conferences.

Conditions of rhetoric

First, the issue in contention must be controversial. If the issue is trite, there won’t be any reason for using rhetoric because the answer is more or less decided. On the other hand, if the issue is outlandish not enough of the audience will be interested in being engaged or curious enough about the outcome. Second, the issues must have an urgency. Both the speaker and the audience are interdependent and no one can walk away. Parties also must have a great deal of commonality so the issue can be resolved, even though they might not admit the commonality at first. The third condition of rhetoric is that risks are accepted. The parties in a rhetorical situation know they can be publicly proven wrong and they may have to alter their claim. The fourth characteristic of rhetoric is that the best solution we come up with is probable.Unlike in formal logic, no certainty is possible. The fifth and last condition of rhetoric is that the power bases used cannot be force, economics, politics or sexual seduction. Only competency, legitimacy or dialectic may be used.

Why is my definition of rhetoric controversial?

Where does rhetoric take place? Usually, rhetoric is dated back to classical Greek civilization. But George Kennedy has shown that cross-culturally rhetoric is much older. I know from my study of social evolution that rhetoric was practiced all the way back to hunting and gathering societies. Recently some feminists have tried to argue that conversations in the interpersonal world or family life should be included. At the other extreme, thanks to mass communication, some rhetoricians have attempted to do rhetorical analysis based on radio, film and television. For purposes of this article, I am avoiding both the micro and macro attempts to apply rhetoric. The reason is because the places that I hope it is used is in public situations. These include city council meetings, union discussions or in workers co-op’s general assemblies

As we know, most of human communication is analogical, not digital and many analogical messages occur below the level of consciousness. When a person convinces or persuades someone unconsciously through body language or utterances not intended, does that count as rhetoric? My definition says it should not. Unconscious body language would fit in the field of influence. Influence is a larger category than rhetoric or persuasion. Rhetoric is a specific type of influence.

What is the range of mediums that should be permissible? I am drawing the line at oral and written. To be sure, the use of the alphabet and the printing press certainly changed oral rhetoric in certain ways, but it is with the medium of mass communication that propaganda overwhelms too many of the original features of rhetoric to be included. It is at this point in history that the field of propaganda begins to merge with or marginalize rhetoric.

Up until now in all categories I have tried to define rhetoric narrowly as opposed to broadly. But in this last case I would like to define rhetoric more broadly. In all pre-state societies (hunter-gatherers, simple complex horticulture societies and herding societies) rhetoric was used to come to decisions cooperatively.With the rise of agricultural states and social classes cooperative rhetoric was marginalized. At this stage the ruling elites made decisions that were no longer subject to communal debate. The invention of propaganda arose out of the need of the ruling classes to justify why so many people should accept being ruled by so few. But in the time of classical Greece and Rome there were still rulers who propagandized their population. However, rhetoric returned in the form of competitive debates in law courts and in democratic councils. Unfortunately, most of the history of rhetoric has only been presented in the form of competitive debates. It is mostly thanks to feminists that the ancient tradition of cooperative argumentation has returned. So I will argue that rhetoric should be used for both competitive and cooperative goals.


Light Vs Dark Rhetoric

Arousing the audience

“Step right up the Big Top, where seeing is believing. Right over here to the freak show”. This is an example of dark rhetoric in operation. These attention grabbers of dark rhetoric are in the business of creating awe, making thunderstruck or frightening the audience by horror. There is no suspense but plenty of special effects. Whatever their claim, it is hidden and the audience is manipulated to do things without the speaker’s intentions ever being consciously stated

In light rhetoric, attention is drawn in gradually through questions that are within the range of the audience’s curiosity. A light rhetorical speaker has made a study of his audience’s demographics before the speech itself. In dark rhetoric, audiences are considered as all the same – stupid. In light rhetoric audiences are drawn in and suspense is created so the audience does not quite know what the speaker will conclude. The claim is always made explicit to the audience, but the speaker will determine whether it is best to make the claim in the beginning, middle or end of the argument

Quality of reasoning

Dark rhetoricians do not think much of reason or providing evidence. They are notorious for committing reasoning fallacies such as ad hominin (attacking the person), guilt by association, confusing wholes with parts either-or thinking and many faulty appeals to emotions. In white rhetoric speakers are very aware of human fallacies all the way back to Aristotle and do their best to make their arguments be fallacy-free. However, they may still make mistakes but it is not with the intention of tricking the audience

Use of imagination vs fantasy

In light rhetoric, the imagination is used to create reasonable alternative futures that are based on science. The method can be though stories, analogies or vivid imagery. In dark rhetoric, fantasies that are impossible in real life are concocted. Their belief about their audience is that what freedom entails is making impossible things possible. It is an appeal to the unnatural.


Speaker ethos: charisma vs character

In dark rhetoric a speaker with charisma is essential. Dark rhetoric needs a charmer who has the spirit to inspire people. The speaker appeals to what I call the Darwinian unconscious. In other words, speakers who are tall, have a shape that indicates they have good genes (see Evolutionary Psychologyby David Buss), facial symmetry, hair sheen, a sense of theatrics and are articulate and funny. Dark rhetoricians want the audience to be swept away. In light rhetoric, the speaker has to have character. This means the speaker has legitimate authority, has a good reputation, is trustworthy and competent. S/he has to exude good will and be articulate. Humor always helps, but the speaker wants the audience to be grounded, not swept away.

The relationship between the speaker and the message

In dark rhetoric, speakers will be engaged in character assassination. The speaker is enmeshed with the message. A good speaker will be claimed to have a good message and a bad speaker a bad message. In light rhetoric, the speaker and the message will be differentiated. It will be acknowledged that a bad speaker might have a good message and a good speaker might have a weak message.

Competition vs cooperation

In many of the textbooks on argumentation they show people in competitive debates. One book even showed arguers on the verge of a fist fights. But as I pointed about above, rhetoric can be used cooperatively among union members deciding whether or not to strike or participate in a city council meeting while attempting to persuade the city council to oppose a national war. Cooperative argumentation can also be used in a worker’s co-op on deciding what the ratio in salary should be between managers and workers.

Short-term vs long-term self-interest

Dark rhetoric practitioners use demagoguery. They appeal to the worst in people. They are not above spreading gossip, name dropping and meanness at the expense of the weak. They play to people’s pettiness, prejudices, and myopia. They appeal to people wanting to keep up with the Joneses, as well wishing to be superior to others. They appeal to the audience’s infantile wishes like losing weight while eating whatever they want. Dark rhetoric speakers appeal to the audience’s crude superstitions as well as the desire to take the path of least resistance. Their appeal is to short-term self-interest – pleasure, comfort or acquiring wealth without working for it. On the other hand, in the glow of light rhetoric, speakers appeal to depthful emotions, loving the stranger (agape). Emotional appeals include kindness, generosity, foresight, altruism, heroism and hope. They speak of what is good for humanity in the long-run even when it is less than popular.

Range of audience

Dark rhetors do not go where the audiences are either neutral or hostile because their cheap tricks will not work there. Trump would not do well against an audience who is neutral or hostile because he is not trained as a politician and knows nothing about how to move an audience who is not already a member of the club. Even as smooth a person as Obama, fully trained in rhetoric as a Harvard lawyer, would not do well against an angry working class crowd because his rhetorical tricks such as telling individual stories of Horatio Alger won’t fly. A practitioner of light rhetoric relishes dealing with a hostile audience and knows what it takes to change a hostile audience. Their success is not to move an audience from a hostile to a sympathetic audience, for that is too much to expect. However, they will modestly hope to influence a cynical audience to became skeptical. That is realistic.

How is the audience treated?

Dark rhetoricians treat their audiences as dupes. They will water down a speech to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They will flatter the audience. In light rhetoric, audiences are treated as active participants. The speaker creates a dialectic with the audience giving them some of what they want but also giving them more than they bargained for. In light rhetoric, the very way the audience responds changes the speaker and makes the speaker improvise what they had originally prepared.

Truth as a means to an end or an end in itself?

The standard of truth as an end in itself, regardless of time, place and circumstance is an overly idealist aspiration of Plato. Both Aristotle and the Sophists agreed that striving for the truth was admirable but most of the time it has to be parceled out because audiences are often not mature enough for the whole truth. For the Sophists, what matters in an argument is being effective. Winning them over to taking an action matters more than telling them the truth while getting no cooperation. For the Sophists truth was a means to an end, but most of the time the truth was also effective. Dark rhetoric is much more extreme than anything the Sophists did. Dark rhetoric does not care for the truth. They peddle lies, but the lies may work because there are some lies that people want to hear.

What is the relationship between form and content?

One of the stereotypical criticisms of rhetoric is that it is all fluff, all smoke and mirrors, all bombast. In other words, form without content. The opposite extreme of this is what Plato aspires to. If the content of a subject is true, the form is irrelevant. Light rhetoricians say form and content are dialectically related. When something is true, it should produce good form and good form is grounded in the truth. For example, evolutionary Darwinists have pointed out that what the human species finds beautiful is connected to outdoor scenes where there is water and landscapes of prospect (being able to see while not being seen). This also serves to increase the chances of survival.

What are the most important parts of a speech?

As many of you know, in classical rhetoric there are five cannons of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, delivery and memory. In dark rhetoric, all that matters in moving an audience is arrangement of the parts of the argument and style which consists of eloquence, body language and voice tone. In dark rhetoric, the invention part of the argument is irrelevant.  If you have style you can sell anything. In light rhetoric the invention of the argument and the arrangement of the argument is most important. As Aristotle pointed out the invention of a good argument has logos (facts, statistics, reasons) ethos (creditable sources) and pathos (emotion and imagination). Light rhetoricians do care how these reasons are arranged depending on the audience. The other parts of the canon matter, but not as much.


What is the relationship between the reasoning process and taking action or behaving?


In dark rhetoric, rhetors don’t care about changing minds (convincing audiences) because it is too difficult and unnecessary. Dark rhetoric is interested in getting people to do things (persuasion) – buy a product or vote. They don’t care if this happens consciously or unconsciously. In dark rhetoric rhetors think the audiences must be entertained to get them to do anything. In light rhetoric, the speaker is committed to engaging and changing the mind. The rhetor wants to persuade his audience but only after the mind is changed. Entertaining may be a byproduct but is not essential. In my teaching I was often complimented, not just being convincing but being entertaining. I never had this as a goal but it was gravy.

Sophists are our guide for white rhetoric, not Plato

Going back to the Greeks, Plato was mostly the enemy of rhetoric and thought for the most part the only kind of rhetoric was dark. Aristotle, as usual, occupied a middle position. On one hand he was a very serious formal logician but on the other hand he appreciated rhetoric and even categorized the most common mistakes using rhetoric. Contrary to Plato the rhetoric of the Sophists was middle tone or sometimes even white rhetoric. Plato, with his insistence on Truth regardless of time, place and circumstance gave rhetoric a bad name while  throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Please see my table for a summary of light and dark rhetoric.

Table 1 Light vs Dark Rhetoric

Light Rhetoric Category of Comparison Dark Rhetoric
Moved gradually, with questions w/in the range of curiosity Arousing the audience Aweing, making people feel thunderstruck or in horror
Creative suspense, avoidance of special effects   No suspense, special effects freak shows
Always explicit Claims Never stated
Awareness of history of fallacies
Makea mistakes but not in the service of tricking the audience
Quality of reasoning Doesn’t provide evidence
Imagination in the service of reasonable futures based on science
Use of imagination vs fantasy Fantasies that are impossible in real life

 

Appeals to the audiences idea of freedom as the impossible becoming possible

Character – legitimate authority, has a good reputation, trustworthy, competent and appears to have good will Speaking ethos Charisma

 

Charm people by appealing to “the Darwinian unconscious”

Speaker and message are differentiated
Good speakers can have weak messages

Weak speakers can have truthful messages
Relationship of speaker to message Character assassination
Fuses speaker with message

Cooperation or competition
Win-win is possible. We all learn together
Process of arguing Competition
Zero-sum game
Long term self-interest
Appeal to depthful emotion, Altruism and humanity at its best
Range of self-interest Demagogy
Short-term self-interest
Gossip, name dropping, pettiness, prejudices, keeping up with the Joneses, desire to feel superior, infantile wishes, superstitions, path of least resistance
Can move neutral or even hostile audiences Range of audiences Limited to a sympathetic audience
Active participants – giving audiences partly what they want but giving them more than they bargained for
Audience has the power to change the speaker’s message
How audiences are treated Dupes

 

Stupid people

Truth is important but effectiveness may require time, space and circumstance considerations to be effective Truth as means to an end
or irrelevant
Truth is irrelevant
What matters is getting audiences to act
Form and content are dialectically related

 

When something is true, it should have good form
When something has good form it must be at least partly true

What is the relationship between form and content Form is what matters – content is not relevant
Invention, arrangement What are the most important of the five canons of rhetoric Style delivery, arrangement
Convincing first, then persuading to act What is the relationship between changing the mind and action Persuading them to behave through entertaining and amusement
Convincing the mind is a waste of time
A scrupulous lawyer Examples An unscrupulous lawyer
A union meeting of rank-and- file workers deciding whether or not to strike   A barker at a carnival or a side show
Worker co-op meetings to decide on the ratio of salaries between workers and management   A used car dealer
    Radio, magazine, television
advertisements


The Decline of Rhetoric in the Electronic Age

Fame vs Celebrity: Movies, Music Sports and Politics, I discussed the impact electronic media has on the formation of celebrities as it applied to politics. It was in this age that we can see the decline of rhetoric as applied to politics.

Oration in Yankeedom before the electronic age

In politics before the electronic age, Yankee politicians boarded trains and gave speeches in the hot sun for 90 minutes to two hours. The public walked for miles to hear these speeches. These orators wrote their own speeches and went through all five of the canons of rhetoric. They defined their terms and they were loaded with evidence which they arranged carefully in an order that might be conductive to the audience. They laid out all possible positions in an argument to the audience the way a lawyer builds a case before his speech.  The speaker was well-rounded and had command of the great speeches of the past, using poetry at times to make his point. His entire speech was committed to memory. These orators did not have to account to the public for problems in their personal lives. After all, this was politics. Their use of pathos was episodic and used to strike fear at times. They were well trained to create images from words. Lastly, for these politicians their party and their program came first. There was no cult of personality.

Oration in Yankeedom during the electronic age of television

For the most part, the use of electronic media, especially television, had a debilitating impact on political rhetoric. The number of outdoor speeches declined as the politician was followed by television cameras inside the studios. The public now had to make much less effort to hear a speech as they could now watch it on television. For various reasons, over the years the attention span of the public got shorter and shorter in part because there was a lot to see on television and also because the pace of life quickened. The owners of television networks were not willing to give a presidential speech 90-minutes to two hours of air time. The speeches of candidates got shorter, often less than thirty minutes.  Gone were the parts of the argument such as defining key terms and presenting 3-5 views on a subject. Argument sides was flattened to two sides. Providing massive evidence to support a claim cost too much time and committing the speech to memory were no longer necessary. Their speech could be read off cue cards.

The political candidates no longer wrote their own speeches and the content of the speech changed as well. Since it was the nuclear family that gravitated towards television, the speeches themselves were more conversational and homier as the expectation that politicians had to appeal to women in a way they did not have to do in pre-electronic age politics. This is because woman had household responsibilities that would make travelling for hours to hear speeches less likely. The speakers continued to speak about their party but they allowed their personal opinion or personal stories to creep in. Gone was the poetry and the memorization of historical events.

Summing up the last two sections, we suspect that socialists are critical of rhetoric because they think all rhetoric is dark rhetoric and all political rhetoric is what was on TV. These are good reasons to be skeptical or even cynical.

Dark Rhetoric in the Service of Propaganda

Defining propaganda


Let me begin this section with a qualification. The fact that rhetoric became weaker in the electronic age does not mean it turned into dark rhetoric. What I want to ask and answer now is what is the relationship between rhetoric and propaganda? From my article Socialist Rhetorical and DialecticalCommunications: Overcoming Brainwashing, Propaganda and Entertainment “Paraphrasing Jowett and O’Donnell’s book Propaganda and Persuasion, propaganda is the deliberate, systematic and often covert attempt by institutional elites to control perceptions, emotions and behavior cognitions. Who are they controlling? Millions of people through mass media while censoring, hiding, restricting, distorting or exaggerating the claims and evidence of their opposition. Propaganda can be white, gray, or black. Propaganda can be easily found during political election campaigns, inaugural speeches, religious recruiting, news reporting, film and, some say, sports”.

What was the relationship between rhetoric and propaganda before mass communication?

As a reminder, there was propaganda in Yankeedom all the way back to the plantation owners since all ruling classes need to justify their dominant existence some way. But before mass communication propaganda and rhetoric existed side by side. Surely the ruling classes of the 17th-19th centuries knew about rhetoric but the lack of access to mass communication made their power limited to the use of monumental architecture and warmed-over religious symbology. More importantly, it was still possible for lawyers and writers to use rhetoric not directly connected to ruling class propaganda. After the electronic age this changed.

The impact of Black Rhetoric on mass propaganda

Before beginning this section, I want to clarify the difference between White and Black propaganda. White propaganda presents facts, but it twists the interpretation of facts in its favor. White propaganda works well because it doesn’t draw attention to itself. Black Rhetoric is used when elites are in trouble. It makes up facts because its impact on the subject population is failing. Black Rhetoric of aweing and making people thunderstruck or feeling horrible, using special effects while never stating its claim works beautifully with black propaganda. Black propaganda has the same bad quality of reasoning as Black Rhetoric and is guilty of the same kind of fallacies. While the Black Rhetoric technique of creating fantasies that may be impossible in real life may not be used in black political propaganda, it could be used in entertaining black propaganda such as Walt Disney productions. Both white and black propaganda benefit from having speakers who have charisma. Black political propaganda is right at home with the Black Rhetoric technique of character assassination.

In Dark Rhetoric there are only winners and losers, determined by competition. This fits very well with the part of capitalist propaganda that promotes competition between capitalists as the only way an economy can be run. The entertainment division of propaganda such as reality television programs works very well with the worst superficial and petty side of the population and their short-term and infantile hopes. The limitations Black Rhetoric has to a sympathetic audience does not apply to propaganda because propaganda has to attempt to reach the entire population even those who are cynical because it has to control them. While advertising propaganda is used to treat people as dupes just as propagandists do, advertising that comes off the internet treats people as having specialized needs.

The impact of mass propaganda on Black Rhetoric

Mass propaganda explodes black rhetoric on the scale at which Black Rhetoric can be produced, the times it can be made available to people as well as the number of people it can reach. Black rhetoricians can hide their identity because its sources are elite institutions in which they will be well-protected. Black rhetoricians are much better able to time when their message gets out because it has mass media coordination. While Black Rhetoric is not usually linked to a mythology or ideology under the wing of propaganda it could be harnessed to make it even more powerful. Propaganda has power bases that are linked to political parties, economic systems well beyond the solitary reach of a typical black rhetorician, whether it be a side show barker or used car dealer. The control of some of information flow is less with propaganda than in Black Rhetoric because the Black Rhetoric loses the feedback from performing for a public audience. In Table 2, all the categories beginning with the place of controversy, propaganda doesn’t amplify Black Rhetoric. It just supports it.

                    Table 2 Light Rhetoric vs Propaganda

Light Rhetoric Category compared Propaganda
Interpersonal arguments
(persuading your romantic partner to go to a particular movie)
Public debate, public talks Face to face
Scale  of appeal Appeal to larger masses of people who are spatially dispersed
Usually not backed by power institutions
Single individual
Presence of power institutions Backed by large social institutions controlled by elites
Alternative sources available
though not always presented fairly
No censorship
Are alternative sources of information available Alternative sources of information discouraged
Either demonized, marginalized or censored
Usually visible – overt Visibility of source Usually concealed—covert
No mass media.
Media is five
senses or print
Place of Mass media Use of newspapers, film radio, movies, television
Open-ended information flow Production and distribution of information Withheld, releasing information at predetermined time
Manufacturing information, communicating information to selective audiences, distorting information
New information may contrast message with an audience’s existing body of knowledge Relationship between existing knowledge and new information New information is attempted to be smuggled into the audiences’ existing body of knowledge
Usually not linked to an ideology or mythology Presence of an ideology or a mythology Linked to a clear institutional ideology or political mythology capitalism/communism
Charisma, legitimacy,
Competency, manipulation
Leading power bases Politics, economics
charisma, seduction
legitimacy
Stated up front Place of controversy Controversy hidden
Dominated by the speaker but built in opportunity for audience to respond Direction of information flow Lopsided from propagandist to a passive audience
Attempts to control information flow
Monitors public opinion with polls, focus groups
Either friends, acquaintances some strangers Strength of social bonds Large, anonymous masses
of strangers
Sought voluntarily Does the audience seek to be influenced Not sought voluntarily—maybe discovered later
Deliberate Is the communication unintentional or intentional Deliberate
Monologue, q and a

 

Turn taking – dialogue

Process of communicating One-sided
Monologue, bombardment
Slower, time to think, reason, write Speed of interaction arresting symbols
Sensory bombardment
Slogans, architecture
Longer – 30-90 minutes Length of messages Short –30 seconds to 5 minutes
Convincing (changing minds) and persuading
(actions)
Outcomes
What is each trying to achieve
Persuasion, control
Ideally satisfy both speaker and audience needs Whose needs are satisfied? Satisfy needs of propagandist and not necessarily in the interest of the audience
Typically liberal values Political ideological values Conservatives, fascists
Socialists

Left-wing Ideological Criticism of White Rhetoric

What is Marxian ideological criticism of rhetoric?


The field of White Rhetoric makes a separation between communication theory on one hand and politics and economics on the other. Marxians do not accept this separation. Marxian ideological criticism analyzes rhetorical communication messages for their obvious and subtle moves to control relationships in political and economic ways. It examines rhetorical situations and acts for the way in which they can be linked to material conditions of society, like technology, economics or politics. Marxian ideological criticism is bold. For some it is too bold. It claims that all other approaches: liberal, conservative or fascist can be explained by it. It claims that other schools of rhetorical approaches themselves are ideological.

White Rhetoric takes place in a hegemonic capitalist society

Liberal rhetoric operates in a system of capitalist hegemony. Hegemony is the process by which the ruling class gained the willing consent of subordinate groups without the use of force, coercion or bribery. Furthermore, once hegemony is attained it must be reproduced. It is here that White Rhetoric is either part of the problem or a small part of a socialist solution. The goal of the Marxist rhetoric critic is to identify rhetorical acts that legitimate the hegemonic views of the ruling or upper classes. Most Marxist rhetoric has focused on studying mass media – film and TV because of their mass impact on working class life. Our criticism is ideological as it evaluates rhetorical activity in order to discover how the powerful vested interests in a society benefit from policies

The class basis of White Rhetoric 

Just a reminder that the purpose of this article is to capture white rhetoric for socialists. So it is the traditions of white rhetoric that I attempt to win over though it also must be criticized. Marxist Ideology criticism claims that mainstream rhetoric appeals to middle class and upper middle-class audiences and they generally exclude working class people. This is due to the liberal origins of debating in politics and law. Without necessarily hoping to white rhetoric can create false consciousness in the working class. On top of this we have to face that working class people are complicit in their own subjugation (class-in-itself).


Questions to use in the analysis of white rhetorical situations

  • Consider all four variables of criticism in the analysis: source-message-environment-critic
  • What is the historical, social, political and economic context in which the rhetorical situation or act exists?
  • How might the rhetorical situation or act reflect the ideology of the dominant class?
  • Does it articulate the ideology directly? In what ways does it legitimize support or sustain it in some way?
  • What evidence of the subjugation or exploitation of the working class does the rhetorical situation or act not show?
  • In what ways, consciously or unconsciously, does the rhetorical situation or act divide the working class in order to fragment it?
  • How might the rhetorical situation or act attempt to create an imaginary unity into the hegemonic ideology?
  • Are there any rhetorical acts which demonstrate class conflict favorable to the working class?
  • Where is the ideology in the criticism of the other rhetorical approaches to the text?

These questions involve a “critique” that is more than interpretation or evaluation. It is judgment relative to the liberation from the grips of false consciousness of the working class and empowerment, changes in social action and personal identity.

The shortcomings of Marxian ideological rhetorical criticism

Ideological criticism is not unique to Marxists. Ideological criticism can come from conservatives as well. The weaknesses of ideological criticism is that we assume we already know how the world really works. For example, time and again capitalists have survived economic crises that Marxists swore would be the last one. Secondly, doing ideological criticism also creates a danger of becoming paranoid and believing rhetorical forces have intended harm when many of the results of circumstances are unintentional. Third, Marxist critics have known to be reductionist, thinking that every single White Rhetoric artifact can be reduced to an ideological criticism. Fourth, the socialist commitment can lead to a lack of objectivity in evaluating White Rhetoric produced by various liberal rhetoricians. Fifth, it fails to consider the ruling classes are not always conscious, cynical manipulators. They may be themselves imprisoned by the same false consciousness. The constant image of hooded puppeteers twisting and turning the masses at will does not do justice to the subtleties of power and control. Finally, the will of the individual tends to get lost in the shuffle of economics and politics structures. The counter to the individualism in a capitalist society is not to ignore the individual but to identify their social identity not just as a product, but as a co-producer. Fortunately, the work of Terry Eagleton, Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall in cultural studies has addressed some of these criticisms.

Conclusion

My article began experientially with a list of thirteen ways in which anarchists and Leninists fail to use basic rhetorical skills. In part 2 I’ve explained the left’s lack of interest in rhetoric as originating from the bad reputation the field of rhetoric has. To counter this I compared Light to Dark Rhetoric across fifteen categories and claimed that Light Rhetoric can be successfully implemented by socialists. Then I discussed the weakening of White Rhetoric which came about with the electronic age, especially television.

All rhetoric traditions black or white have not been very sensitive to the existence of propaganda and how it interacts with rhetoric. In the service of clarifying this, I differentiate the interaction between rhetoric and propaganda before and after mass communication. I show how black rhetoric techniques are amplified when they have propaganda to support it. Further, I show how propaganda can  benefit from the knowledge of Black Rhetoric techniques.

I close my article by defending the use of White Rhetoric by socialists provided it can withstand Marxian ideological criticism. This includes an awareness that all rhetoric takes place in a capitalist society riddled by class struggles. Nine questions are provided for Marxians to use in criticizing White Rhetoric. I suggest the work of Terry Eagleton and Raymond Williams in carrying out Marxian rhetorical criticism and I close with six criticisms of the Marxian ideological school of rhetorical criticism.



Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS