Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Matt 24 watch, 178: A real-world example of Alinskyite ridicule and censorship in action -- a warning about the utter want of integrity of too many media figures

Some years ago, I came to the conclusion that something is very wrong with the way the media commonly  present information in our day, right up to and including the vaunted BBC. (I note that the BBC is now undergoing a scandal about hushed up sexual abuse of young girls over years by a leading personality, and on other matters, now issuing in resignation of the top manager after only fifty-four days in office.)

Accordingly, I constructed a media spin rating system, to help us see what is going wrong:

>>I believe the following analytical "straight or spin" grid will be helpful in assessing the quality of news, commentary and education we are exposed to in our region:

(a) Headline & Lead
(b) Story &/or Views presented
(c) Characterisation of People &/or Institutions
(d) Context: underlying Issues, Alternatives and Historical Setting
(1) Factually Accurate?
(2) Fair, or Just?
(3) Kind or Gracious?
(4) Balanced, or provides a Counter - balance?

Fig. 1: News, Education and Views: "Straight or Spin?" [Key: Y, "yes" = 1; N, "no" = 0]

. . . . It is a reasonable expectation that, consistently, the answer should be YES, for all components of a news, educational or commentary item, or a presentation or even a sermon. However, to err is human, so there might be an occasional slip that requires minor correction. So, we can now grade the quality of our news, education and commentary services:
      • B to A: Consistent Score 13 - 16: a reasonably good to excellent service, but if errors keep on cropping up in any one square (e.g. cells 1a, 2c, 3b or 4d), there is a systematic problem (e.g.; 1a: inaccurate headings and leads, 2c: unfair or unjust characterisations of people or institutions, 3b: unkind (say, through sensationalism that exploits people's pain) presentation of stories, 4d: biased context), and corrective action is obviously needed. [The examples make the "structured common-sense" approach plain: do you wish to consume information from sources that are consistently inaccurate in how they headline and lead stories on issues and news? Or, from one that often slanders people or institutions it does not like? Or, tries to make money off sensationalising the suffering of others? Or, tells only half the story through suppressing materially relevant context? Etc.?]

      • D to C: Consistent Score 8 - 12: This source has a major, systematic problem with at least one of the four requirements of sound, straight information, and is probably pushing an agenda counter to the interests of the people of God and the wider community. The source and the editorial policy require major reformation.

      • F: Consistent Score 7 or less: Do not trust this source, period. Warn others about the evident distortion, bias, deception and agenda. If the source has significant institutional power and is unwilling to be corrected, make the creation of an alternative that will consistently correct and expose the errors and agenda a top priority.
Unfortunately, for far too many local, regional and international sources of news, entertainment, commentary and even education available in or to the Caribbean, the proper assessment in this post-modern relativistic age is: F.>>

Unfortunately, in our day, this problem has been compounded by the rise of cynical, calculatedly destructive Alinsky-ite neo-Marxist nihilism and its destructive rules for radicals, especially:

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. [--> In reality, Alinsky is discussing cruel mockery, an extreme form of ridicule . . . ] It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." . . . . 
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."

The cynical wickedness in the above is obvious when put in cold words, but that may not capture how this actually works on the ground.

At the beginning of the interview
programme, according to Geller,
Mr Brand --knowing what
he was about to do -- insisted on
a deceitful hug (Cf Geller's account)
Thanks to Robert Spencer, we have in hand a particularly disgusting case study, with TV host Russell Brand and Pam Geller. 

(And yes, I find Ms Geller sometimes shrill, but she is highlighting something that the major news sources -- for obvious reasons -- refuse to address, something that is pivotal, the rise of Jihadism and the way the "progressive" left has gone along for the ride. That does not excuse addressing her by a pornography term for attractive mature women used in 2008 to turn Mrs Palin into a target for ridicule and it does not excuse what is documented below.)

Spencer first observes, on the context of this latest media lynching:
. . .  we live now in essentially a one-party state, in which the loyal opposition hastens to assure the public that its positions are based on the same core philosophy as that of the majority, but it just has a cleverer or more effective or cheaper way of implementing the majority's will. Those who dare go so far as to question that core philosophy are immediately subjected to opprobrium designed to brand them as Enemies of the People, shunned as quickly and viciously as were the victims of Stalin's show trials.

And so it was that my colleague Pamela Geller appeared recently on Russell Brand's BrandX, in an appearance that clearly Brand, who is apparently a fashionable personality of some note, had designed to use as a teaching moment, so as to warn his dimwitted followers that they must not resist the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, on pain of being read out of polite company and subjected to the ridicule and derision to which he subjected Geller . . . .

Brand had Geller on not to discuss issues with her, or to hear her out at all. He would not have a fair and open discussion with her because he could not do so; after all, he is an actor, a professional liar, and she tells the unvarnished and unwelcome truth. But even had he been as informed and committed as anyone on the Left, he could not refute her, since the facts are on her side. So her ideological deviancy, her straying from the straight path, had to be exposed in other ways . . .
 His key step was to recklessly endanger her life, as he must know that she has been seriously threatened:
Brand chose to illustrate Geller's heresy by planting a Muslim heckler in the audience with a printed sign reading, "Pamela's Racism KILLS" (what race is jihad terror and Islamic supremacism again)? He lauded the heckler and even brought him up onto the stage, while agitatedly ordering that a microphone be moved away from a woman in the audience who stood up to defend Geller . . .
I think an aside is in order.

Should one be confronted with a stunt like this, one should move immediately into fighting retreat mode, with a counter-offensive as backup.

Instead of sitting passively there with a potential threat to her life on stage, Ms Geller should have given a pre-arranged signal to her bodyguards; who should have been in studio and within easy reach, at her insistence. Then, she should immediately have got up to leave, saying something like: you have just recklessly endangered my life, as I am the subject of credible threats. I am terminating this interview forthwith, and am leaving this building under protective escort. You must not intervene. You will be hearing from my lawyers. Have a nice day with whatever propaganda stunt you intended to play.

Then, she should have left under clearly deadly serious protective escort.

However, Ms Geller did not do this. And, with the potentially life-threatening planted heckler as a prop, Brand proceeded to distort Ms Geller's views and smear her:
Brand's producer, Charles Davis, published a piece that supposedly showed how Geller, when she was allowed to speak on the show at all, had contradicted positions she had taken at her blog, AtlasShrugs.com. Davis could only establish this, of course, by willfully misreading and misrepresenting what Geller actually said, but, as in the old Soviet Union, ideological deviants are not to be accorded any greater courtesy than that in any case.
Geller fought back valiantly, challenging Brand to debate the issues rationally, explaining her positions, and responding to even the most vicious and unfair of Brand's (and the Muslim heckler's) assertions . . .
 So, what was done with her attempts to respond on points?

Simple, they were ruthlessly edited out in what was aired, making her appear to have been silenced:
virtually everything that she said ended up on the cutting-room floor. If Brand had any integrity (ah, but there I am already setting the bar too high), he would release the full video of the Geller interview.
 But it is extremely unlikely that he will do that, as it would not serve his ideological purpose.
In this age of Obama, this is what passes for public debate: the politically incorrect one is subjected to scorn and ridicule, is not allowed to respond, and the Leftists who are doing the ridiculing then congratulate themselves on their moral and intellectual superiority. It is not debate, but rather anti-debate, the absence of discussion, the parody of discourse. The point, in fact, is not to refute the assertions and claims of the ideological deviant in question, but merely to signal to the ideologically obedient that this person is to be shunned, is not to be listened to, not to be taken seriously, and above all not to be believed or emulated.
Of course, Geller has called for the full tape to be aired, but absent a court order to do so, or pressure from media bosses, you can rest assured that the full truth will not be told to  the audiences for such media. As for a genuine apology and amending of such ways, absent a miracle forget it.  

BTW, this grounds a demand for independent, separate taping of any media appearance we do in today's day and age, with the separate tape being under our control. Given the evil nature of some of these, I frankly would quietly tape the interview myself, perhaps using one of those mini digital recorders that are so small they look like a pen. Liars will twist and distort record, and if they poison the well by smearing you sufficiently ahead of your chance to speak for yourself, unless you have the sort of evidence of a separate tape or the now famous semen- stained blue dress, we will be viciously slandered and dismissed. I would also carry (for preference) a tablet or netbook PC with relevant files cued up and organised, with key quotes and counterpoints, also backup references a click away. A small folder with files and tablets to take to pages of note wouldn't hurt either. An advantage of a tablet is that it is a camera and an unobtrusive recording device. I would insist on the documented right of separate record as a condition of such a potentially hostile or manipulative media appearance.

We may know better than the lies, but the dupes of such manipulators don't, and the dupes are being programmed and agitated to be the foot soldiers of an agenda that is built on lies and smears, justifying contempt and hate to those set up as scapegoats.

We have seen this before, but somehow, we so often refuse to learn from history.

(BTW, did you notice on the 180 video of a few days back, how few of the young even know about Hitler, much less the details we need to know on how that demonic madman subverted one of the leading countries in our civilisation, wreaking havoc that shattered a continent and cost perhaps forty million lives?)

In short, that sort of vicious Brown-Shirt Nazi thug tactics, folks, is what we are now up against. And the young people who are being taken in by it have not got a clue as to where such tactics have already led. As in, those who forget the horrific past are doomed to repeat its worst chapters.

How do we counter such vicious deception?

First, we must learn to grade the media (and course materials, and textbooks, and schools etc etc etc . . . ) and recognise that we are being manipulated. That way, we will understand our times and know how to stand.

That demands that we make the effort to create and support alternatives that do not shun to expose and correct, gently but firmly, and that go on to lay out the truth plainly on the terms that the Apostle Paul laid out long ago now:
2 Cor 4: . . . since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. [NIV]

2 Cor 10: For the weapons of our warfare are not physical [weapons of flesh and blood], but they are mighty before God for the overthrow and destruction of strongholds,[Inasmuch as we] refute arguments and theories and reasonings and every proud and lofty thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God; and we lead every thought and purpose away captive into the obedience of Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) . . .[AMP]
 That means we have to study, learn and develop our skills to analyse and to speak and present the truth effectively.

It also means that we have to realise that we are in a spiritual war with an enemy who is the father of lies, and that deception is his number one weapon. 

His number two weapon, worldliness, pivots on cultivating a world system of dupes living by the lusts of the flesh, the pride of life and the lusts of the eyes. So, we have to wake up, and so nurture ourselves on the word of truth that we will more and more live by the sincere milk of the word, not the tainting, toxic lies of the worldly media and the systems that present themselves to us as knowledge, falsely so-called.

And, increasingly, this is going to be hard to do, as the tidal wave of dechristianisation's surges pound on our shores from the North and as the similar wave of Islamisation pounds on our shores from the east.

But, we must determine that we will stand, and we must be diligent to learn and live by the well-warranted and life-changing truth of the gospel in love and power and purity, by the grace of God in the risen Christ. END