Black Political Exodus

Blog

“Fact”-Checking and Propaganda

                                                   Democratic Party “Fact”-Checking as Propaganda

The Democratic Party’s recent obsession with fact-checking is also part of the patriotic myth. It, too, is an old propaganda strategy once used by the former Soviet Union to appear as though they were equally progressing by way of production on par with the United States. They argued at the time that “facts” must be as accurate as possible. Yet, they should be discussed out of context and made as ambiguous as possible. Democratic political strategists (propogandist) returned to this old Soviet Union propaganda technique during the 2016 presidential debate when Hillary was losing badly to Trump, who was considered a political novelty. The fact checking was intended to slow his rhythm, but to no avail. Political strategists who use fact-checking as a propaganda tool have politicized “facts” to approximate ultimate reality. The strategists who operate with this propaganda medium believe that “facts in and of themselves, provide evidence and proof, and they (the public) willingly subordinate value to them.”

Ponsonby wrote in Falsehood in Wartime that “when war is declared truth is the first victim.” Dr. Goebbels also used ‘facts” as a propaganda tool and stated that facts should be used to convince the masses that a government-planned event was actually in their best interests. The soviets used “facts” to construct creative lies, which were proven to be much better than outright lying. When using “facts” as a political weapon truth is commensurate with facts, which are usually manufactured by the state, especially in a propaganda-controlled democracy. The manipulation of “facts” works quite effectively within a media-oligarchic controlled political system, where there is a marked difference between a “fact” and how it is interpreted.

For example, when there is no reason to “suppress a fact . . . tell it. . . never tell a lie which can be discovered.” This is an important rule that all political propaganda strategists must follow, because the “truth that pays is always within the realm of facts.” 

Also, within this fabricated realm of facts resides a host of multiple interpretive frameworks, which are used to interpret facts. Such as, local facts are interpreted differently from international facts. Some facts are untrue, but can be accepted as truth to serve a particular agenda.

More importantly, how facts are interpreted and then presented is more important than the fact itself. The correct presentation of facts is perhaps the sign of a mature strategist and yet, every effective politician and propagandist must become highly skilled at mastering the skill of manipulating facts. Facts must always be presented in their most abstract format and political facts must be discussed with the utmost of care. 

When facts are used for propaganda the use of ambiguous phrases should be sprinkled throughout the discourse, so that the listener is left unsure of what they are hearing. Political facts can only be effective when presented out of context. For example, a figure “may be given without reference to anything, without a correlation or a percentage or reference to a ration.” In media-propaganda systems of democracy, only the bald-face lie must be avoided. According to Dr. Goebbels, “lies must not be told except about completely unverifiable facts.”

The Democratic Party fact-checking strategy is an ultra-rightwing communist tactic that is  already having many unintended outcomes. Since its recent arrival during the 2016 presidential campaign, the de-platforming of thousands of voices differing with the neoliberal agenda have been removed from social media platforms. 

The Democratic Party has revised McCarthyism to the degree that the ole’ senator would blush. The misuse of technology, and the demonic programming of algorithms by the Democratic Party machinery, and especially the oligarchs who control the major social media platforms, may have inadvertently opened the gates of hell.

The silencing of opposition by using fabricated fact-checkers is an outdated propagandistic oppressive apparatus that is actually designed to prevent real facts from surfacing. “Facts” have never endangered the politician’s stranglehold over his constituents. Why would the Democratic Party now want to start fact-checking, when it was not a problem under the Clinton, Bush, or Obama administrations? It is not simply facts that frighten the political establishment, but it is “well known facts” that present the most difficulty for politicians. 

Well known facts threaten the political strategist’s ability to manipulate and control the masses. Well-known facts, and those who reveal them to the public with overwhelming evidence, especially in democratic regimes, seem to disappear. Sometimes well-known facts can be modified by the state if caught early before widespread dissemination. If they can be modified to fit a different narrative, they may be spared and perhaps used later within a completely different context.

Fact-checking is not on the side of the democratic strategists who are using this tool for purposes of manipulating the undecided voter. The decision to weaponize fact-checking may prove to bring more harm to the democrats than the republicans. After all, Hillary’s loss to Trump in 2016 had nothing to do with the misuse of information both candidates were using. All politicians must be skilled at using “facts” out of context, which increases their chance of winning. Trump, in part, triumphed over Hillary who supposedly was more politically skilled, by beating her at the game which she spent her adult life playing.

The use of fact-checking as a propaganda tool is not an effective use of this persuasive science. The fight for the ultimate political prize is won be appealing to one’s emotions and bypassing the cognitive process. Facts are only meaningful when carefully chosen by analysts from a pre-existing “array of facts,”  which are favorable to the candidate, “distorted,” and used “out of context.” Facts have little or no place in political battles where the winner must shoot every arrow to hit the center of the bullseye. Each time the arrow leaves the archers bow, its only objective is to hit the target. Effectiveness is all that matters in politics. “Cleverly presented truth” is the heart of all effective political campaigns. Facts are for losers.

American journalists have long ago abandoned the use of facts as the primary criteria to disseminate information. Approximately presented facts or selective facts that have a certain degree of truth are presented to the public. How the information is interpreted is the primary focus of the journalist. Its truthfulness is never open for discussion. Media oligarchs present all information as true. No explanation is ever needed. For example, Hitler spoke a lot about peace and said little of war. Even though he did manage to get England into a war, he did not start the war.

Fact-checking functions as an “inversion of the interpretation of facts.” That may have been its original intention, along with the de-platforming of millions from social media, who have rejected the neoliberal worldview. The use of fact-checking as the ultimate measure of thought or to curtail discussion is demonic. It requires or demands “pseudo-rational” proof, which is all that is needed to excommunicate one’s enemy from the social sphere, which for many may be their only connection to human activity.

Fact-obsession has been raised to the level of sacred and one must now prostrate themselves before this most unholy deity. Yet, who exactly is this god? Fact-checking is McCarthyism on steroids. Like McCarthy, it aims to force a particular perspective on those whose worldview is different than the one replicated across the social media platforms, which is controlled by liberal oligarchs. 

This undemocratic approach to force a worldview down the throats of all Americans is demonic. Fact-checking has nothing to do with discovering truth, but is a political tool designed to force one to change their worldview. It aims at capturing the undecided voters and cares little about truth, since neoliberalism has no ethical values to which it subscribes.

Excerpts from Black Political Exodus 2020: How African American Politicians and White Liberals Destroyed the Black Community by Douglas E. Thomas

Available at amazon

The Death of Black Leadership

       Manufactured Black Leaders

This Year of Remembranceis an important time for African Americans and should start with an honest evaluation of the Black community in the United States. This critical analysis is the most important step Black people must take before they can fully embrace their humanity, and free themselves from continually cursing untold generations. Direct confrontation with the political forces of injustice ended with the death of King. Many mistakenly believed that Dr. King’s primary struggle was focused on fighting segregation. Yet, on several occasions, King stated that a re-evaluation of oneself, and the destiny of African Americans, was the core of his philosophy. Direct Confrontation was Kings method of engagement, which [DS1] is avoided by most Black politicians today. Instead of engaging the enemies of Black growth and development, all the major Black politician, focus exclusively on what they can personally gain by supporting their handlers positions; however detrimental they may be to the Black Collective. Many of these politicians, especially Obama, speak highly of King, but fail to adopt his philosophy of direct engagement with the forces of oppression. King’s overall strategy to confront white barbarism, was direct engagement of oppressive forces, and most importantly, his philosophy was community centered.

Therefore, a genuine critique of African American progress should not begin by measuring the success of the celebrity class. An authentic evaluation of Black progress must begin by measuring how far the collective in the Black community has moved up the ladder of success, which is a more accurate assessment of the community’s health. The success of African Americans must not be measured by how many Blacks are given political positions within the corporate-controlled economic system (a virtual sliver of a minority of Black Americans). The success of African Americans is better determined by measuring communal growth and development (What is the state of the local school? Is there clean nutritious food available in the neighborhood? Do families have access to safe and clean housing?) The assessment of progress based solely on the individual is, at best, an illusion and worse, used as a psychological weapon to confuse the collective into believing in a false progression, while in reality, the Black community is regressing and under vicious attack unlike any other time in history.

The obsession with individual advancement, at the expense of ignoring communal growth, is an alien value that has negative repercussions for real Black growth and development. No individual can exist in any meaningful way outside of a nurturing community. In many ways, the individual is incapable of embracing their full humanity, outside of their primal community. An alien community, no matter how honorable it appears to be, is incapable of completing one’s unique evolutionary process, which is a product of culture. Our evolution and growth as human beings will develop more naturally from the cultural nutrients only available within an individual’s primary culture. This is the place par excellence where the building blocks necessary for human growth and development reside.

African Americans’ growth and development has been stunted because they have exclusively searched for cultural nutrients outside their primal culture. Essential life-building nutrients are available only from within one’s own cultural milieu. This partly explains why the African Americans who are celebrated by White liberals are separated from their culture and in many ways forced to ignore their history. The Black celebrated class is vetted by neoliberals who do not represent their constituents. Only after being vetted by neoliberals do they become eligible for funding for their political aspirations or to advance their careers. This is especially true for those in politics and the celebrity class in general who must also pass a vetting process before they are allowed to advance in their profession. Once in position, their primary agenda is not to represent the interests of the Black community, but to uphold the agenda of those who are responsible for their success. Black politicians and celebrities could reject this unholy alliance and appeal directly to the community for support. They do not have to betray the community but do so out of greed and fear.

Black politicians are the greatest obstacle to real growth in the Black community. They shamelessly deceive Black voters into embracing what King called “the fanatical death throes of a dying system.” Malcolm X described this dying system more clearly when he questioned why any sensible African American would integrate into a burning ship that is sinking before one’s eyes? Another highly effective neoliberal deception is the lie that only the democrats can protect African Americans, a lie perpetuated by mainstream media. This paternalistic relationship was addressed during the civil rights movement and articulated most clearly by Dr. King, who said: “One of the most damaging effects on the personality of the Negro may well be that he has been victimized with the delusion that others should be more concerned than himself about his citizenship.”

Disregarding the historical record, which reveals that white liberals have always chosen whiteness over justice. Still, African Americans continue to believe the myth that someone is coming to save them, when history clearly shows that White liberals in general, have never valued Black life. Black Americans have always been viewed by the neoliberal political class as nothing more than a number used to keep white elites in power. After taking office, the liberal politician shows his real face, revealing that his concern for Black people is indistinguishable from the ultra-right, who have no regard for Black life.

*

In this sacred Year of Remembrance, African Americans remain as estranged from real political power, as they are from themselves. The collective has made no real gains in four hundred years. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Brown case in 1954 were greatly exaggerated regarding any real impact on Black life. These legal decisions misled millions into believing that Black people would be protected by law and could finally be respected as people of sacred worth. This has not happened and still, even today, African Americans remain prisoners to what King called the “myth of time.”

*

In this Year of Remembrance and Re-Evaluation,the time has come to check the historical record and accept reality. It is a major challenge to convince Black people that the Democratic Party has deceived them and that they must look elsewhere for an exit strategy and develop a genuine path to freedom and salvation. This will be painful for most African Americans, and as Mark Twain reminded us with his pithy saying, “It is much easier to tell a lie than to convince someone they have been lied too.” The refusal to evaluate unwarranted support for a political party that does not value Black life is akin to cultural suicide.

*

In this Year of Evaluation, African Americans must address one of the most important questions in their four-hundred-year history in North America. What does the White neoliberal really think of them? For some, the answer to this question is obvious. On the other hand, the Black middle class finds little value in addressing this question at all. They fear what it would do to their privileged status. How would it impact their money? Therefore, it’s better to continue pretending that someday the people of goodwill will do the right thing.

Self-denial does not invalidate the truth. The relationship between African Americans and White neoliberals has been one that a parent has for their problem child. Their paternalistic behavior is not unlike the relationship between the overseer and enslaved Africans on southern plantations. The overseer had complete authority over the enslaved and prevented him from making any moves without his approval. This is the real relationship between African Americans and the Democratic Party. The White liberal controls their every movement, which is not unlike the role of the slave master on the plantations. African Americans only have value as voters and not as human beings. Their value ends once the liberal is placed into power where he continues to keep the masses in the same oppressive system that many incorrectly believed had been dismantled.

*

In this Year of Remembrance, African Americans must free themselves from the illusion that they are free. This distortion of perception is fueled by neoliberals who seem to have some strange power over African Americans. Most African Americans are uncritical in their devotion to the Democratic Party, because Black leadership no longer exists in the community. Their uncritical attachment to the Democratic Party prevents them from adequately critiquing it. Yet, this is the moment history has provided them to wake up and confront the forces that have prevented them from experiencing real freedom.

This brief moment of awakening may be the last opportunity for African Americans to free themselves from neoliberals who have taken over the positions of power once held by the southern planter-class. Once awakened, African Americans can begin the long journey of freeing themselves from the strongholds that imprison their spirit. They will never overcome these strongholds without first recognizing that they are held captive by liberals to political myths of salvation designed to give them only the illusion of freedom. In reality, African Americans have never experienced political freedom and although Dr. King attempted to provide them with a portrait of what it meant to be free, he knew that most African Americans were incapable of understanding how it feels to be free. Thus, he struggled in earnest, trying to provide them an example of what real freedom looked like.



Dr. Martin L. King Jr. On Black and Jewish Unity

         

                                                     The Myth of Jewish and Black Unity

On April 4, 1968, an assassin’s bullet ripped through Martin Luther King Jr’s body and ended his brief life. That dreadful day also marked the end of independent Black leadership in the United States. From that moment, the African American community has been without authentic leadership. In fact, there has not arisen a single Black leader since King’s death. At least not one has arisen before us with the power to galvanize the masses on his level. None of the “manufactured leaders” of today, reflect his commitment to fighting for African Americans. He loved his people so much, that he willingly laid down his life for them. Washington is right in the Introduction of A Testament of Hope that, “No other Black leader has quite equaled the rich social and religious artistry of Martin Luther King Jr. He was indeed a world historical figure. He captured the spotlight of history precisely at the right time, and responded with a blueprint for what America could become if it trusted its democratic legacy. His dream proved to be too threatening.”

Leadership requires courage, a rare commodity. Not even our best institutions of higher learning can teach how to acquire this precious attribute. King was gifted with courage and it is reflected in his ability to directly confront the major issues of his day challenging the Black community. For instance, in an interview with the Jewish community he proved to be a man of great courage and one guided by truth. The interview appeared in “Conservative Judaism” in the spring of 1968. It reveals the courage and commitment King had to his people and his trust in the community he represented. Under heavy scrutiny and no doubt pressure to be less radical for this sensitive interview, King maintained his commitment to speak truthfully on behalf of millions of Black people whose voices were otherwise marginalized and maligned.

King’s conversation with the Jewish rabbis was focused on the broken ties between liberal Jews and conservative African American leaders. Dr. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel invited King to this discussion and opened the dialogue by comparing King to the Hebrew prophets:  “Where in America, today, do we hear a voice like the voice of the prophets of Israel? Martin Luther King is a sign that God has not forsaken the USA. God has sent him to us. His presence is the hope of America. His mission is sacred, his leadership of supreme importance to every one of us. Martin Luther King is a voice, a vison and a way. I call upon each of every Jew to harken to his voice, to share his vision, to follow in his way. The whole future of America will depend upon the impact and influence of Dr. King.”

King began his dialogue by stating that he was very concerned about the religious communities across America and that they showed little concern over the government’s mistreatment of African Americans: “All too often the religious community has been a taillight instead of a headlight,” said King. He responded to several questions raised by the rabbis that were of major concern for the Jewish community who wanted to know how to repair the broken relationship between the Black and Jewish communities. His opening remarks reveal that he was in no way timid and was willing to jeopardize offending the source of his greatest financial contributors. “I am not going to make a speech. We must get right to your questions. I simply want to say that we do confront a crisis in our nation, a crisis born of many problems. We see on every hand the restlessness of the comfortable and discontent of the affluent, and somehow it seems that this mammoth ship of state is not moving toward new and more secured shores but toward destructive rocks.”

His opening response and particularly, the boldness of his speech is relevant for us in 2020. King placed the question in the now moment by stating that the problem confronting the two communities is one of perspective. One group is committed to moving toward “new and more secured shores,” while the other group refuses to accept change and is steering toward “destructive rocks.” This is what we see happening today within the Democratic Party, which has controlled the political and social fate of African Americans for six decades. The Party refuses to accept the new reality which would bring us closer to economic and social parity. Instead, it has selected Joe Biden as their representative to maintain the status quo, which will prolong the suffering of Black people, and certainly steer the country directly into the “destructive rocks” King wanted us to avoid. Biden is a regressive character who represents the status quo and the old ways that are extremely oppressive and anti-democratic. Their selection of Biden proves that the Democratic Party will do anything to avoid steering the ship toward “more secured shores” and will go to any length to keep neoliberalism alive, howbeit on its deathbed.

King would argue elsewhere that voters in 1968 needed an alternative to the candidate the Democratic Party was supporting. “I do think the voters of our nation need an alternative in the 1968 election, but I think we are in bad shape finding that alternative with simply Johnson on the one hand and Nixon on the other.” The Democratic Party did not provide the voter with an alternative in the 1968 Presidential election and we all know the outcome. Today, in 2020, with Biden heading the ticket it looks like deja vu all over again. As usual, the Democratic Party machinery remains committed to the dictates from their financial oligarchic and have little interest in attending to the needs of their poor constituents.

For example, billionaire Mike Bloomberg just proved to the world that the political investment theory articulated by economist Thomas Ferguson and others is in full effect. The poor and working-class voter is no longer needed when one super-rich investor can purchase the nomination without the financial or moral support of the people. The Democratic Party is hedging their bet on an even weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton but, unlike in 2016, they now have the complete backing of the media. With one hundred percent support from the media, they should be able to place their man in the White House, regardless of his numerous flaws and rapid cognitive decline. The Democratic Party is controlled by white wealthy oligarchs and neoliberal fanatics who refuse to accept the death of their failed ideology. Neoliberalism has failed the common people wherever it has been adopted throughout the world. Several former eastern European countries that briefly experimented with this ideology are beginning to reject it. Even though they were being choked to death by communism, they have once again been betrayed, and some are returning to a similar form of authoritarianism not unlike the communism they rejected.

King reminded his Jewish audience that his philosophy of direct confrontation and nonviolence was a “potent weapon” to fight against White supremacy. Those who accused him of being a moderate completely misunderstood the effectiveness of this “potent weapon.” He further stated, regarding being labeled a moderate by some African American leaders, that this, too, was due to a misunderstanding of his philosophy. “ I think non-violence, militantly conceived and executed, well-organized, is the most potent weapon available to the Black man in his struggle for freedom and human dignity.”

The rabbis continued to question King, led by Rabbi Gendler, who asked how could he associate himself with individuals or civil right organizations like Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), who were in open conflict with his core ideology. King responded by saying he did speak with the leader of SNCC, Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Tore), about his use of the slogan “Black Power”, “Let’s not use this slogan,” said King. “Let’s get the power. A lot of ethnic groups have power, and I didn’t hear them marching around talking about Irish power or Jewish power; they just went out and got the power; let’s go out and get the power.”

King continued to elaborate upon his perspective on the slogan “Black Power,” by reminding his Jewish brethren that the phrase also had many positive attributes that should not be ignored or misconstrued. “Black Power, in the positive sense,” said King, “is a psychological call to manhood. This is desperately needed in the Black community, because for all too many years, Black people have been ashamed of themselves. It is a psychological call to manhood and Black dignity. Black Power is pooling Black political resources in order to achieve our legitimate goals . . . it is absolutely necessary for the Black people of America to achieve political power by pooling political resources.”

Those revisionist historians who claim that King was a moderate and disconnected from the more radical ideologues will have to revise their assessment of him. He was clearly connected to the Carmichaels and other so-called extremists whose views frightened those white liberals, who were offended by those independent thinking Black men and women who decided how best to wage their struggle against the forces of White supremacists. Furthermore, King argued that Black people could use politics to access power if they voted in unity on issues that were meaningful and could empower them financially. He urged African Americans to form alliances with progressive Whites and Puerto Ricans and vote together as a bloc for policies that equally benefited each group. “Black Power,” as a slogan, was problematic for King who was a philosopher and focused more on substance than rhetoric. Thus, Black Power in its most meaningful and beneficial aspect of uniting Black people to control their economic destiny was needed to “achieve legitimate power.”

Those who are interested in studying the philosophy of Dr. King must not stop at the 1963 Dream Speech, concluding his views were confined to the abstract. One must study the writings and speeches of King during the years 1965 to 1968, when his views dramatically changed and became in some ways inseparable from the pan Africanists. The post Dream King underwent a dramatic change and became more radicalized. For example, his views on integration underwent a radical change, reflected in his writings and speeches after 1965. Integration was not simply confined to petitioning the government to allow Black people to use the same restroom and water fountains as Whites, or even attending the same public schools and universities. 

By 1968, King had long recognized that since the Brown decision in 1954, many southern schools remained segregated and that the federal government lacked the will and commitment to force them to comply with the law. After his view of integration had become devoid of its illusory cover, he was able to conduct an even deeper analysis of the potential of Black empowerment. If the schools would never fully integrate mattered little now because without real power, economic power, African Americans could never compete with the inhospitable forces that were arrayed against them. They needed economic power to overcome the ravishes. . .

Excerpts from Black Political Exodus 2020: How African American Politicians and White Liberals Destroyed the Black Community by Douglas E. Thomas. 

Purchase on Amazon.

1 2 3 6