SK directed us all to a link, 6 Brainwashing Techniques They’re Using On You Right Now on another blog last week. These are the six techniques listed:

• #6. Chanting Slogans.
• #5. Slipping Bullshit Into Your Subconscious
• #4. Controlling What You Watch and Read
• #3. Keeping You In Line With Shame
• #2. Black and White Choices
• #1. “Us vs. Them”

There’s enough there for all of us, so I won’t offer that these techniques work on some of us better than others. #4, for example, translates into “I read only sources I trust.” #5 is about the power of suggestion, or implanting ideas in our minds via back door channels.

We’re all manipulated by media in one form or another. It is when we reach a point of hubris (the state of being of the typical American journalist) that we are most vulnerable.

The author of the piece, David Wong, likely feels that he’s above the battle because he is able to spot these manipulations. He’s not. He’s been taken down via #5, though he’d be the last to know that. He should have listed the following:

• #7. “Maybe they get to you, but not to me.”

Years ago I was engaged in a boys club of sorts, an exclusive Yahoo email address wherein four or five people engaged in thoughtful discussions – I’ve lost track of all of them, and was overshadowed by some tall intellects anyway. My only remaining connection there is a link to the right to a blog called “Sohum Parlance,” where Erik Kirk still plods along.

Sometime in those discussions I discovered that by association of various phrases, I could easily explore any topic on a search engine, thereby giving me an advantage over the others. I quickly learned that they had the same advantage, so that even with Google at my side (there were several available and Google was not the most used), I was still outgunned.

Worse yet, they easily spotted anything I said that was the result of a casual search engine query. Days would go by as my visits to that address became less frequent – it was just too much work. Each session would take at least an hour, as the comments strings were long and involved. Importantly, I was exposed to people of high intellect who brought different world views to my attention, most importantly that of the high-minded right-winger. This was Jim Versluys of Houston, who exposed me to what I regarded as heartless analysis of US foreign policy stripped of any pretenses of democracy or humanity. In the face of such a powerful force, my soft-hearted liberalism shriveled.

For instance, the photos below are of the infamous “Turkey Shoot,” or “Highway of Death” after the first US attack on Iraq in 1991. General Schwarzkopf gave the Iraqis permission to withdraw from Kuwait, and once they did, US bombers cut off the head and tail of the convoy, and destroyed everything and slaughtered everyone in between.

Reporters commented that fighter pilots, able to fire on an easy target without fear of flak, often had erections when returning from sorties. They were told that such a physical manifestation was a result of their deep “patriotism.” I wrote about the duplicity and barbarity of the event, and Jim laughed. It was simply standard practice in war, he said, to get the enemy to expose himself so you can destroy him.

I had to cede that argument, as there was no moral high ground, that is, the moral high ground was not something anyone cared about. It was simply an overlap of two worlds, mine of ethics and humanity, his of cold and cruel Machiavellian means to ends. He was impermeable to any soft reasoning, in fact laughed at it.

It was a good exchange, well worth the psychic pain such intellectual battering gave me. I saw the world from another viewpoint. It was cold and ugly, and I wanted no part of it, but I had to acknowledge its existence with or without my approval. It is there. It is how countries behave. It is how the military functions.

The Internet allowed me to know the gentlemen of that caliber, and to gain some self-awareness by doing combat with them. I didn’t win but I learned about how the other side thinks. It is good to know about them. I cannot be part of their world. It is too cold, but don’t get me wrong: It is not Sparta. These gentlemen appreciate the finer things of life, including art and humor. They are not thugs. They are simply men of the world.

I suppose it was inevitable that the Internet would degrade with such easy access. These past few days I’ve been engaged with Larry Kurtz and Big Swede, trying to pin them down, see what makes them tick. Where one time, long before it became the “Google” we know, I tried using a search engine to score some points with true intellectuals, I now see that The Google also operates as a flashlight for people who cannot read. Stripped of the search engine, neither Swede nor Kurtz have an ounce of native intelligence. They are also too typical of what the Internet as viewed through the blogs has become – a food fight among low brows and retards.

So many have left the blogging game, only a few left of maybe a score eight years ago. Those that stand have to put up with the likes of these two and Norma. I’m not issuing ultimatums or threatening to change anything, as my own desire to write drives me to carry on here. I am just offering some hard and cold analysis: Stupid people make blogging a chore. I am being careful here to avoid using names in the last paragraph so that the objects of scorn don’t know they are being talked about. What follows is a close to the opening paragraph that will assure us that the two in question do not see they are the object of hard and cold analysis.

I heard from Jim on occasion over the years, but lost track of him. No doubt he’s still kicking somewhere down in Houston, engaged in lively debate among people of his caliber intellect. I should Google him and see what he’s up to. But I cannot get drawn into debate with him, as he has a way of absorbing all of the light in a room into himself, as a black hole does. I need some light for myself. I cannot be in the same room with him, as I drown in his darkness.

One of the main features of American news is its ability to demonize any enemy of choice, making them into grotesque characters with blood dripping off their fingers. It helps if they object of the demonization has a mustache. It also helps if the object of demonization says a thing or two that can be wildly misinterpreted, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s never-uttered desire to “wipe Israel off the map.” Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has been most uncooperative in this regard. He’s a reasonable man who dresses in western attire and speaks in measured tone.

Consequently, I doubt that an interview with Paris Match, transcribed and reprinted in English here, will get much traction here in the land of the free. The interviewer, Régis Le Sommier, is hostile and confrontational, repeating every item of Western propaganda as if it were factual. Assad parries with him, never loses his cool, and strikes a tone of utter resignation to the preservation of the State of Syria in the face of Western-sponsored terror emanating mostly from France and Turkey.

Here are a few snippets:

Paris Match: Mr. President, three years into this war, and considering how things have turned out, do you regret that you haven’t managed things differently at the beginning, with the appearance of the first signs of the revolution in March 2011? Do you feel that you are responsible for what happened?
Bashar el Assad: Even in the first days of the events, there were martyrs from the army and the police; so, since the first days of this crisis we have been facing terrorism. It is true that there were demonstrations, but they were not large in number. In such a case, there is no choice but to defend your people against terrorists. There’s no other choice. We cannot say that we regret fighting terrorism since the early days of this crisis. However, this doesn’t mean that there weren’t mistakes made in practice. There are always mistakes. Let’s be honest: had Qatar not paid money to those terrorists at that time, and had Turkey not supported them logistically, and had not the West supported them politically, things would have been different. If we in Syria had problems and mistakes before the crisis, which is normal, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the events had internal causes.

This accusatory tone will appear throughout, with Le Sommier insisting that the Western-backed terrorist assault on Syria beginning shortly after the fall of Libya in 2011 is spontaneous and internal.

Paris Match: Many people say that the solution lies in your departure. Do you believe that your departure is the solution?
Bashar el Assad : The president of any state in the world takes office through constitutional measures and leaves office through constitutional measures as well. No President can be installed or deposed through chaos. The tangible evidence for this is the outcome of the French policy when they attacked Gaddafi. What was the result? Chaos ensued after Gaddafi’s departure. So, was his departure the solution? Have things improved, and has Libya become a democracy? The state is like a ship; and when there is a storm, the captain doesn’t run away and leave his ship to sink. If passengers on that ship decided to leave, the captain should be the last one to leave, not the first.

Western states are uniform in demanding regime change in Syria even as its government is entrenched and popular, more so in the wake of the terrorist attack. Assad has more support among his people, more of whom turn out to vote, than Barack Obama here in our fake democracy. No one calls for regime change here in the US. (I’d like to see it, but our comical switching back and forth between two bought parties doesn’t get it done.)

Paris Match: Let’s talk about ISIS. Some people say that the Syrian regime encouraged the rise of Islamic extremists in order to divide the opposition. How do you respond to that?
Bashar el Assad: In Syria we have a state, not a regime. Let’s agree on the terms first. Second, assuming that what you are saying is true, that we supported ISIS, this means that we have asked this organization to attack us, attack military airports, kill hundreds of soldiers, and occupy cities and villages. Where is the logic in that? What do we gain from it? Dividing and weakening the opposition, as you are saying? We do not need to undermine those elements of the opposition. The West itself is saying that it was a fake opposition. This is what Obama himself said. So, this supposition is wrong, but what is the truth? The truth is that ISIS was created in Iraq in 2006. It was the United States which occupied Iraq, not Syria. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was in American prisons, not in Syrian prisons. So, who created ISIS, Syria or the United States?

In American propaganda, any government we want overthrown, no matter how popular or democratic, becomes a “regime.” Any leader, no matter how he comes to power, becomes a “strongman” or “dictator.” I was glad to see Assad correct Le Sommier on that matter. As to the origin of ISIS, it takes some thought and reading to understand that a full-fledged fighting force, armed and well-financed, is not birthed as an adult. Cui bono? Certainly not Syria.

Paris Match: But U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry accuses you of violating the agreement because you used chlorine. Is that true?
Bashar el Assad : You can find chlorine in any house in Syria. Everyone has chlorine, and any group can use it. But we haven’t used it because we have traditional weapons which are more effective than chlorine, and we do not need to use it. We are fighting terrorists, and using traditional weapons without concealing that or being shy about it. So, we don’t need chlorine. These accusations do not surprise us; for when did the Americans say anything true about the crisis in Syria?

Indeed. When have the Americans said anything true about anything?

It is a powerful interview and won’t be widely disseminated here in the land of the free. It won’t be featured on Fox or NPR or NY Times, our entire spectrum, far right to less-far right. It won’t fall into the lap of the average American news consumer. All will be shielded. So I urge you to read the whole thing, make your own judgments. Takes about ten minutes.