Chris Wallace: Propagandist

 

Lifesite News reports:

"While reviews for both President Donald Trump’s and former Vice President Joe Biden’s performances in Wednesday night’s first presidential debate are largely negative, much of conservatives’ ire was focused on the apparent pro-Biden bias of the moderator, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace.

The debate was a raucous affair, with Wallace frequently interjecting to try to get the candidates to stop talking over each other. Amid it all, though, many identified numerous instances of Wallace going well beyond that.

After the debate, the Trump campaign accused Wallace of interrupting Trump 76 times, but Biden only 15. One of Wallace’s own Fox colleagues, Brian Kilmeade, complained about Wallace giving Biden a longer leash than Trump."

_______________________________

This should not surprise anyone.  For Chris Wallace is a propagandist who cares nothing for the demands of truth.  He is an ideologue, bent on cramming his ideas down the throats of his listeners.

In his critically important work Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

We witness such a fanaticism in Rudolf Hess, who became deputy leader of the Third Reich, and who said: "It was granted to me for many years of my life to live and work under the greatest son whom my nation has produced in the thousand years of its history. Even if I could I would not expunge this period from my existence. I regret nothing. If I were standing once more at the beginning I should act once again as I did then, even if I knew that at the end I should be burnt at the stake. No matter what men do, I shall one day stand before the judgment seat of the Almighty. I shall answer to him, and I know that he will acquit me."

Many of those who produce our mainstream media have succumbed to satanic pride.  They look upon consumers of their publications or news broadcasts as "deplorable," the unwashed masses who need to be told what to believe.

Have nothing to do with their products.  Say no to their manipulation.

Francis' Vatican engages in the same Fake News and media manipulation which he has condemned

Lifesite News reports:

One of the world’s leading news agencies has said the Vatican breached journalistic standards by doctoring a photo of a letter from Benedict XVI praising Pope Francis. According to the Associated Press, the doctoring affected the meaning of the letter.

The AP has reported the Vatican admitted on Wednesday that it digitally manipulated a photo sent out to media outlets to rebut critics of Pope Francis, who believe some aspects of his teaching represent a rupture with Pope Benedict’s, and with the Tradition of the Church.

On Monday, the eve of the fifth anniversary of Pope Francis’ election, the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications released the photo of a thank you letter Benedict XVI had written to the head of Vatican communications, Monsignor Dario Viganò, for the gift of an 11 volume set on the theology of Pope Francis.

At the press conference to launch the book project, Msgr. Viganò cited a portion of the letter that is legible in the photo, in which Benedict says he applauds the new volumes which are intended to oppose the “foolish prejudice” that paints Pope Francis only as  “a practical man without any particular theological or philosophical training,” and Pope Benedict as “only a theorist of theology who has little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today.”

Benedict also said the book project “helps to show the interior continuity between the two pontificates, although with all the differences in style and temperament.”

But the attempt seems to have backfired, with the Vatican admitting on Wednesday that it blurred the final two lines of the first page, where Benedict begins to explain that he didn’t actually read the books in question.

On the second page of the letter, which is not visible in the photo, the Pope emeritus goes on to explain that he cannot contribute a theological assessment of Francis as requested by Viganò due to “physical reasons” and because he is occupied with other projects.

The Vatican offered no explanation as to why it blurred the lines, except to say it never intended for the full letter to be released. In fact, the entire second page of the letter is covered by a stack of books in the photo, with just Benedict’s tiny signature showing, apparently to prove its authenticity.

Associated Press journalist Nicole Winfield said that the missing content “significantly altered the meaning of the quotes the Vatican chose to highlight, which were widely picked up by the media.”

“Those quotes suggested that Benedict had read the volume, agreed with it and given it his full endorsement and assessment. The doctoring of the photo is significant because news media rely on Vatican photographers for images of the pope at events that are closed to independent media,” she said.

It’s unclear why the Vatican did not publish the full text but only an altered photo of the first page, with the final paragraph on the second page covered by the 11 books and Benedict’s signature at the bottom. Msgr. Viganò did read out the full text of the letter at Monday’s presentation. Veteran Vaticanist Sandro Magister transcribed the portions Vigano had read and posted them on his blog on Tuesday.

Regarding the doctored image, the Associated Press said that, like most media outlets, it follows strict standards that forbid digital manipulation of photos. AP standards dictate that “No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph.”

In January, Pope Francis denounced “Fake News” in his Message for the 52nd World Day of Communications, saying it employs the same strategy as the snake in the Garden of Eden.

______________________________

Recall that Francis has said that:


"Communication is part of God’s plan for us and an essential way to experience fellowship. Made in the image and likeness of our Creator, we are able to express and share all that is true, good, and beautiful. We are able to describe our own experiences and the world around us, and thus to create historical memory and the understanding of events. But when we yield to our own pride and selfishness, we can also distort the way we use our ability to communicate. This can be seen from the earliest times, in the biblical stories of Cain and Abel and the Tower of Babel (cf. Gen 4:4-16; 11:1-9). The capacity to twist the truth is symptomatic of our condition, both as individuals and communities. On the other hand, when we are faithful to God’s plan, communication becomes an effective expression of our responsible search for truth and our pursuit of goodness.

In today’s fast-changing world of communications and digital systems, we are witnessing the spread of what has come to be known as “fake news”. This calls for reflection, which is why I have decided to return in this World Communications Day Message to the issue of truth, which was raised time and time again by my predecessors, beginning with Pope Paul VI, whose 1972 Message took as its theme: “Social Communications at the Service of Truth”. In this way, I would like to contribute to our shared commitment to stemming the spread of fake news and to rediscovering the dignity of journalism and the personal responsibility of journalists to communicate the truth.

1. What is “fake” about fake news?

The term “fake news” has been the object of great discussion and debate. In general, it refers to the spreading of disinformation on line or in the traditional media. It has to do with false information based on non-existent or distorted data meant to deceive and manipulate the reader. Spreading fake news can serve to advance specific goals, influence political decisions, and serve economic interests.

The effectiveness of fake news is primarily due to its ability to mimic real news, to seem plausible. Secondly, this false but believable news is “captious”, inasmuch as it grasps people’s attention by appealing to stereotypes and common social prejudices, and exploiting instantaneous emotions like anxiety, contempt, anger and frustration. The ability to spread such fake news often relies on a manipulative use of the social networks and the way they function. Untrue stories can spread so quickly that even authoritative denials fail to contain the damage.

The difficulty of unmasking and eliminating fake news is due also to the fact that many people interact in homogeneous digital environments impervious to differing perspectives and opinions. Disinformation thus thrives on the absence of healthy confrontation with other sources of information that could effectively challenge prejudices and generate constructive dialogue; instead, it risks turning people into unwilling accomplices in spreading biased and baseless ideas. The tragedy of disinformation is that it discredits others, presenting them as enemies, to the point of demonizing them and fomenting conflict. Fake news is a sign of intolerant and hypersensitive attitudes, and leads only to the spread of arrogance and hatred. That is the end result of untruth..."


Father Dominic Mary, MFVA, in the first of three homilies which draws from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the role of truth in the vocation of the Christian, explains that:


"In today’s Gospel Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life.”

I. To Live the Truth

CCC, 2466 In Jesus Christ, the whole of God's truth has been made manifest. "Full of grace and truth," he came as the "light of the world," he is the Truth. "Whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness." The disciple of Jesus continues in his word so as to know "the truth [that] will make you free" and that sanctifies. To follow Jesus is to live in "the Spirit of truth," whom the Father sends in his name and who leads "into all the truth."

CCC, 2464 [To represent the truth correctly …] flows from [our] vocation [as Christians] to bear witness to God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of [our] covenan[tal relationship].

CCC, 2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it. [As the Second Vatican Council said]: "It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth."

CCC, 2468 Truth as uprightness in human action and speech is called truthfulness, sincerity, or candor. Truth or truthfulness is the virtue which consists in showing oneself true in deeds and truthful in words, and in guarding against [the following which are very similar to each other]:

— duplicity: [“contradictory doubleness of thought, speech or action” (Webster’s Dictionary)]
— dissimulation: “to hide under a false appearance” (Webster’s Dictionary)
— hypocrisy: “to effect virtues that one really does not have” OR “the false appearance of the virtue of religion” (Webster’s Dictionary)

CCC, 2469 [As St. Thomas wrote,] "men could not live with one another if there were not mutual confidence that they were being truthful to one another." The virtue of truth gives another his just due. Truthfulness … entails honesty and discretion.

CCC, 2470 The disciple of Christ consents to "live in the truth," that is, in the simplicity of a life in conformity with the Lord's example, abiding in his truth. "If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth."

Bearing this in mind, what must we think of Francis in Rome, who warns of false prophets, duplicity and hypocrisy while exhibiting these very offenses against truth and charity?

Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated their contempt for the American people

The New Orleans Advocate reports:

"NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who apologized on the air Wednesday night for lying about an experience covering the Iraq War, is now facing scrutiny over his gripping accounts of Hurricane Katrina, the disaster that burnished his nightly news bona fides almost a decade ago.

Williams’ account of seeing a body float by in the French Quarter — which remained largely dry — and even a claim of catching dysentery from drinking Katrina floodwaters have raised eyebrows among bloggers and elsewhere since he took it on the chin this week over a claim that he rode in a helicopter that was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq."

Jesse Walker, at his Hit and Run Blog, recalls a story which some of us conservatives remember all too well. He notes that, "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on [March 25, 2008, that] she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady.

In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia.

Several news outlets disputed the claim, and a video of the trip showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.

"I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently," Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a "different memory" about the landing.

In her speech, Clinton had claimed: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Lying to promote one's own image and to manipulate others.  And this from two individuals who spend their lives in the pursuit of influencing public opinion.

In Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

But fanaticism is precisely what we find in the Democratic Party and those liberals who pretty much dominate every corner of the mainstream media which long ago buried any remains of journalistic integrity and objectivity.

This is nothing less than a moral tragedy. When communicating with others, we all have certain responsibilities.  For example, we all have a responsibility to submit ourselves to truth when communicating.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, “As creatures, human persons are utterly dependent on God.  Their freedom and action presuppose realities whose meaning and value cannot be changed.  Therefore, human fulfillment requires knowing and conforming to the truth, and especially to the truth about what is good.  But since genuine community is cooperation in seeking common fulfillment, it depends on submission to truth. Consequently, since all parties to communication should be open to genuine community, they should submit themselves to truth.  The alternative is pursuing what they want regardless of truth, caring about no common good beyond themselves, and so, while using means of communication, failing to promote genuine community.”

This is exactly what Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton have shown.  They care not so much for the common good as they do for their own good and their desire to control and manipulate others.

Another lying atheist exposed: "Catholic Internet Watch" Blog created by a virulently anti-Catholic atheist

In the comments section of my post "Persecution?  What persecution?", Mr. Michael Cole, writing about an individual who has been attacking myself and other orthodox Catholics at the Blog "Catholic" Internet Watch, writes:

"Brian Bridson is "Scout." At another Blog, this atheist from the UK writes:


Excommunication and Defection from the Catholic Church

First of all, there is a very real difference between excommunication and defection. Excommunication is an action taken by the Roman Catholic Church that comes close to fully removing you from the Church, but, in typical Catholic fashion, they leave you with the option of repenting and reclaiming your good standing with the Church. So even if you are excommunicated, you are still counted as a member of the flock.

Defection is different. Also known as Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, grants the person seeking it the right to have their name removed from records of the Catholic Church and nullifies your baptismal certificate. Of course, when seeking Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, it would be good to include the rationale for your defection. You will also want to know where and when you were baptized.

I first called the priest servicing the Church in which I was baptized to inform him that I would be pursuing the issue. He spoke with the bishop about it and confirmed that all I need to do is provide the priest with a letter, stating my intention to defect, with my baptismal information and reasons for defection. He will then take the letter to the Bishop of the Diocese, have it processed, and I will receive a letter in the mail confirming my defection.

Below is the text, minus personally identifiable information, that I provided to the priest stating my intention to defect (submitted Monday, March 21, 2011):

My name is Brian Bridson. I was baptized at xxxx Catholic Church, in xxxx, Ontario, during late August or early September in xxxx. Becoming Catholic, much less confession, communion and confirmation, were never decisions I made myself; I never chose to be Catholic.

Due to the fact that I never chose to be Catholic, and because I believe that not once has any evidence for the existence of any gods, much less the Christian or Catholic one, I hereby request a formal defection from the Catholic Church (Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica).

Please send record of my formal defection from the Catholic Church to the address below:


Brian Bridson

xxxxxxxxxx


Thank you for submitting my Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica.

Brian Bridson

It is short and simple, but all that was needed. Don’t forget to sign (include your signature in) your letter. I will post the letter I receive from the Church when I get it."

http://philosophershaze.com/?page_id=7


There are links to many atheist and secular humanist websites at this blog of his. And in a post on "Catholislam," one of his tags is "catholic internet watch," which, surprise - is the title of his new anti-Catholic blog.

I've copied all of this should he decide to delete the pages. More on the atheist Brian Bridson here:

http://philosophershaze.com/?page_id=127


Here's what Brian Bridson - the "grandson of three Catholic grandparents" - has to say about the Church in his post entitled "Catholislam":

The catholic church isn’t interested in educating its followers, much less encouraging them to be able to have genuine conversations with atheists and agnostics. This attitude is summed up rather nicely by Suzanne Scotconi of the archdiocese of Toronto, who said that “We rather like the weak ones.” (See this post for more information about Scotconi’s remark.) What the church really wants in a bunch of mindless sheep that are too scared to think for themselves and who are unable to have honest, genuine conversations with others who haven’t drank their kool-aid.

And what does this do? Well, with great ignorance comes great misunderstanding. These sheep, especially the good ones who have given over the entire substance of their being to this vampiric organization, become unable to enter into honest dialogues with those who have competing or greatly different outlooks on the world. And this misunderstanding, as it grows, often leads to open animosity towards these various “others”.

Don’t forget though – this is a church of understanding.

Then think about the manner in which the church treats members of the TBLGQ communities. In fact, the contempt is so great for these people that in the UN the church, via the Vatican, tried to strike down a motion that would designate them as having special status under international human rights legislation. And why would they seek to deny ensuring this discriminated group of individuals be given special status? Because their “holy book” tells them that these people are akin to evil monsters; swine even.."

Full anti-Catholic post here:

http://philosophershaze.com/?p=2125


Now, Mr. Bridson (a.k.a. "Scout") just left another post at his new Blog "Catholic" Internet Watch, in which he writes: "A commenter at Paul Anthony Melanson's gay-hating La Salette Journey blog is claiming that I am Brian Bridson. This is not true, and there are no reasonable grounds for such a suspicion outside of the frenziedly paranoid, intellectually dysfunctional little Catholic bubble inhabited by the La Salette Journey set. I left them a comment to correct the mistake, although I rather expect it to be deleted."
Now astute readers of this Blog - and this would exclude mindless atheists such as Brian Bridson - know full well that I have no hatred whatsoever for homosexual persons.  Only the sin of homosexuality.  Astute individuals will also find it interesting that Brian Bridson says that he grew up in London "during the 1980s and 1990s."  In fact he uses the exact phrase which "Scout" uses at "Catholic" Internet Watch: "Growing up in London during the 1980s and 1990s."  In a post at that Blog dated October 26, 2011, "Scout" (a.k.a. Brian Bridson) writes:

"Some complain Catholic Internet Watch is "anti-Catholic". It is not. I am the grandson of three Catholic grandparents and count Catholics amongst my friends. Real anti-Catholic prejudice is something I deplore. Growing up in London during the 1980s and 1990s, I remember the suspicion against Catholics at the time of the IRA bombing campaign.

Critics ask me, "Why focus just on Catholics?" It is true that narrow-mindedness can be found amongst the members of other belief systems. I could start a blog called "Protestant Internet Watch", "Muslim Internet Watch" or "Atheist Internet Watch" and find much of legitimate concern to blog about. If I wanted to be even-handed, I could do an "Everybody Internet Watch" and devote each week to a different misbehaving group.

The fact of the matter is, though, that my time and knowledge is limited, and as the old dictum goes, "it is best to write about what you know best". I believe I am, or hope I am, well-placed to study Catholic internet goings-on because I was immersed in that world for a while myself. But that does not make me "anti-Catholic". In fact, I admire the more beautiful aspects of Catholicism, and was at one time very personally interested in the religion on a positive level.

What eventually turned me off was the effect Catholicism has on so many of its followers. That is why Catholic Internet Watch was born. The internet is a largely anonymous forest where you can often best gauge what people are really like and what they are really thinking. It is here that I learnt about the darker side of the collective Catholic mind, and I believe it has to be exposed if people are to become aware of the problem that exists. In many ways, the Catholic leadership fails to deal with or even encourages bad thinking and bad behaviour, and this is also something that needs to be exposed." (See here).

Mr. Bridson has his own anti-Catholic agenda.  And he is obviously willing to lie and deceive to advance that agenda.  Manipulation is manipulation.  And Mr. Bridson (a.k.a. "Scout"), is a manipulator.

"Without the media's support, humanism could not possibly have made such an overwhelming inroad into an entire society in such a short period of time

In his book entitled "Images: Exposing Subliminal Attack in the Last Days," John W. Tranter writes, "Historian James Hitchcock states that the mass media is more responsible than anything else for the rise of secularism in our country.  Without the media's support, humanism could not possibly have made such an overwhelming inroad into an entire society in such a short period of time...When we take a closer look at how our attitudes are altered, we see that the constant saturation of media desensitizes us in certain areas (sex, violence, etc).  Different associations are given that eventually take the place of our previous attitudes.  Things that once startled or offended us may now bring us humor.  This type of conditioning has produced dangerous possibilities for our nation's future.  One author questions, 'What are the symbols that will call forth the citizen's allegiance, devotion, and reverential love?'  We should become even more alarmed when we realize that our children learn more about these types of values from TV than they do from school...

Another powerful tool of the mass media is its ability to define what is real and what isn't.  This has become very important in today's world because there has been a significant breakdown in traditional institutions, such as the family, church, and school.  Mass media is increasingly looked to for definitions of reality.  Far too many people live according to a media image of happiness, and they try to imitate media stars.

We are told what to eat, what to wear, what is news, what is acceptable, what is good, what is bad - and many other values traditionally instilled by the family...More and more, media is usurping the parental role in the education and socialization of children.  And when it comes to training your kids, the media's motives are widely different than your own." (Images: Exposing Subliminal Attack in the Last Days, pp. 43-44).

Remember the decent television programming of the past?  I grew up watching television series such as Petticoat Junction, Lassie, Bonanza, The Rifleman and Bozo's Big Top.  These programs all celebrated traditional values and family.  But those days are gone.  Instead television celebrates promiscuity (both heterosexual and homosexual), graphic violence, obscenity and virtually every form of degradation imaginable.  Preparation for the Reign of Antichrist.  People's minds must be desensitized and manipulated into accepting evils which in the past would have been unthinkable.

Where is all of this going?  Vance Packard, in his important work The Hidden Persuaders, writes, "The goal is mind molding itself.  No longer is the aim just to play on our subconscious to persuade us to buy a refrigerator or a new motorboat that we may not need.  The aim now is nothing less than to influence the state of our mind and to channel our behavior as citizens." (p 166).

How we lie to ourselves today.  We argue that we have "come of age."  We are "smarter and more sophisticated."  But are we?  Or is it that we are just angrier, more cynical and self-important, and desensitized to sin?  Have we become better people or simply immoral people who can no longer recognize truth, goodness and beauty?

I'll stick with the programming of the past.  That which celebrates the very values which so many today scoff at.  For me, Father did know best.  And we were happier.

Pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak: White House Pressuring Me to Keep Quiet on Abortion Language in Senate Health Bill

From WhiteHouse.gov:

Transparency and Open Government

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public..."

- Barack Obama

So much for promises of accountability and transparency. The forces behind a New World Order and the Moloch State promise these while they lead us through the murky waters of deception and manipulation.

More background on the emerging Moloch State here and here.

The Wall Street Journal online on Reid and Pelosi and the ObamaCare push; no transparency and accountability.

The decline of local newspapers...

John Gapper writes, "Many American journalists, facing job losses and the death of an industry they loved, regard it as a tragedy not just for them but for society. They fear that television, radio and blogs can never replace what newspapers provided for readers." And what exactly would that be?

In a meeting with communications specialists in the United States, Pope John Paul II explained that, "...the Church recognizes the need for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, just as does your Constitution. But she goes further. Rights imply corresponding duties. The proper exercise of the right to information demands that the content of what is communicated be true and - within the limits set by justice and charity - complete (see Inter Mirifica, No. 5). Your very profession invites you to reflect on this obligation to truth and its completeness. Included here is the obligation to avoid any manipulation of truth for any reason. This manipulation in fact takes place when certain issues are deliberately passed over in silence, in order that others may be unduly emphasized. It also occurs when information is altered or withheld so that society will be less able to resist the imposition of a given ideology."

Many newspapers have exhibited a strong penchant for such manipulation. See here for example. There are many factors contributing to the death of local newspapers. But one which is so often overlooked is that readers have grown tired of newspaper editors and journalists who have abandoned their obligation to truth and its completeness.

Will the death of local newspapers represent a "tragedy" for society in general? I honestly don't see how this could be the case. Many gave up on these newspapers a long time ago. As one individual said at this Blog, "...liberal bias hasn't exactly helped these papers either. If a paper isn't even going to try to remain objective, I don't want to read it."

Precisely. This isn't a tragedy. It's a comedy of errors (minus the happy resolution at the end). The newspaper industry is only reaping what it has sown.

Related reading: Shameless in Massachusetts - the Telegram & Gazette's pro-homosexual bias examined here.

The real and deep purpose of propaganda...

In Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

We witness such a fanaticism in Rudolf Hess, who became deputy leader of the Third Reich, and who said: "It was granted to me for many years of my life to live and work under the greatest son whom my nation has produced in the thousand years of its history. Even if I could I would not expunge this period from my existence. I regret nothing. If I were standing once more at the beginning I should act once again as I did then, even if I knew that at the end I should be burnt at the stake. No matter what men do, I shall one day stand before the judgment seat of the Almighty. I shall answer to him, and I know that he will acquit me."

For such a fanatic, the State is beyond criticism. Its realm is utterly sacred. And even if one should have convictions which run counter to those of the State, these must be subordinated to the State. Hermann Goring expressed this belief when he said, "I have no conscience! Adolf Hitler is my conscience!" and "It is not I who live, but the Fuhrer who lives in me."

As Dusty Sklar notes, "In the suggestible state, the proselyte may attribute divine powers to his leader and accept dogmas which he might have rejected in a more normal state [see here for example]. Some of the men closest to Hitler, for example, acknowledged that they believed in his divinity. Himmler's masseur, Felix Kersten, relates that he once answered the phone and heard Hitler's voice before passing the phone on to Himmler, who exclaimed" 'You have been listening to the voice of the Fuhrer, you're a very lucky man.' Himmler told Kersten that Hitler's commands came 'from a world transcending this one.' and that they should be 'saved' by 'a figure of the greatest brilliance' which had 'become incarnate' in Hitler's person." (The Nazis and the Occult, p. 157).

Even intelligent people are not immune from the desire to conform. As Sklar notes, "We 'catch' ideas, too, because we want to be like others, particularly when we want not to be our despised selves. If we're satisfied, we don't need to conform, but if we're not, we imitate people whom we admire for having greater judgment, taste, or good fortune than we do. Obedience itself is a kind of imitation. Through conformity, the person who feels inferior is in no danger of being exposed. He's indistinguishable from the others. No one can single him out and examine his unique being. Conformity, in turn, sets him up to be further canceled out as an individual, to have no life apart from his collective purpose. This gives a movement tremendous power over the individual...Hoffer [Eric Hoffer] observes: 'Above all, he [the true believer] must never feel alone. Though stranded on a desert island, he must still feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the group should be equivalent to being cut off from life. This is undoubtedly a primitive state of being, and its most perfect examples are found among primitive tribes. Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection, and we are not imagining things when the anti-individual bias of contemporary mass movements strikes us as a throwback to the primitive.'" (Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, citing Eric Hoffer, p. 158).

What is a Christian to do when faced with a mass movement which seeks to subjugate the individual to the collective? A movement which "refuses to recognize the competence of individual judgment" and to enslave all in a prison of absolute conformity to the State? The Christian must prepare himself or herself by relinquishing the fear of public opinion and to pray for the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude.

It was the Cure of Ars [St. Jean Vianney, patron saint of parish priests] who said: "Do not try to please everybody. Try to please God, the angels, and the saints - they are your public." To which he added: "If you are afraid of other people's opinion, you should not have become a Christian."

There is always a price to be paid for following Jesus. Those committed to their Christian faith must expect a certain amount of unpopularity. God knows I live with this unpopularity every day. So be it. What difference does this make? It was St. Gerard Majella who asked, "Who except God can give you peace? Has the world ever been able to satisfy the heart?" To which I would add: look closely at the photograph at the top of this post. Think of the masses who succumbed to Hitler's propaganda of a "thousand year Reich" which would transform the world. Were these throngs of people any happier at the end of the war? Did the world satisfy their hearts? Were these people not left with the bitter and empty taste of defeat?

What is the absolute worse the world can do to us? Why do we fear the world so much? We must recall the words of Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., as he faced his firing squad: Viva Christo Rey! Long live Christ the King! For, as St. Paul of the Cross has told us, "The aversions that you experience, the ridicule, the scorn, the jokes, etc., should be received with great gratitude toward God. These serve as the pyre of love on which the victim of love is burned..."

The soul that gives itself completely to God can expect to be persecuted. Even killed. But what of it? We should remember the words of Jesus: "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more. I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one. Are not five sparrows sold for two small coins? Yet not one of them has escaped the notice of God. Even the hairs of your head have all been counted. Do not be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows." (Luke 12: 4-7).

Related: Mount Hope Church in Lansing Michigan attacked, read here.

Related: Father Frank Pavone receives death threat, read here.