This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Big Lie: As Effective in FINANCIAL As In MILITARY Warfare

George Washington's picture




 

Washington’s Blog

Many of the world's top economists and financial experts have said
that the too big to fail banks are destroying the world economy, that
they must be broken up in order to restore stability, and that small
banks can easily pick up the slack and make all of the loans which are
needed needs. See this, this and this.

And yet many people still believe the myth that the giant banks have to be saved at all costs.

How could that be?

Well, as Adolph Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility;
because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted
in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or
voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they
more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since
they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be
ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods
. It would never come
into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not
believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so
infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be
brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this
world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

Similarly, Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, wrote:

That
is of course rather painful for those involved. One should not as a
rule reveal one's secrets, since one does not know if and when one may
need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend
on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid
thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

Science has now helped to explain why the big lie is effective.

As I've previously pointed out in another context:

 

 

Psychologists
and sociologists show us that people will rationalize what their
leaders are doing, even when it makes no sense ....

Sociologists
from four major research institutions investigated why so many
Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it
became obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

The researchers found, as described in an article in the journal Sociological Inquiry (and re-printed by Newsweek):

  • Many Americans felt an urgent need to seek justification for a war already in progress
  • Rather
    than search rationally for information that either confirms or
    disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information
    that confirms what they already believe.
  • "For the most part people completely ignore contrary information."
  • "The study demonstrates voters' ability to develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information"
  • People
    get deeply attached to their beliefs, and form emotional attachments
    that get wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality,
    irrespective of the facts of the matter.
  • "We
    refer to this as 'inferred justification, because for these voters,
    the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search
    for a justification for that war.
  • "People were basically making up justifications for the fact that we were at war"
  • "They
    wanted to believe in the link [between 9/11 and Iraq] because it
    helped them make sense of a current reality. So voters' ability to
    develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information, whether
    we think that is good or bad for democratic practice, does at least
    demonstrate an impressive form of creativity.

An article
yesterday in Alternet discussing the Sociological Inquiry article
helps us to understand that the key to people's active participation in
searching for excuses for actions by the big boys is fear:

Subjects
were presented during one-on-one interviews with a newspaper clip of
this Bush quote: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks
were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda."

 

The Sept. 11 Commission, too, found no such link, the subjects were told.

 

"Well,
I bet they say that the commission didn't have any proof of it," one
subject responded, "but I guess we still can have our opinions and
feel that way even though they say that."

 

Reasoned another: "Saddam, I can't judge if he did what he's being accused of, but if Bush thinks he did it, then he did it."

 

Others declined to engage the information at all. Most
curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that
Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the
Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?

 

The desire to believe this was more powerful, according to the researchers, than any active campaign to plant the idea.

 

Such a campaign did exist in the run-up to the war...

 

He won't credit [politicians spouting misinformation] alone for the

phenomenon, though.

 

"That
kind of puts the idea out there, but what people then do with the
idea ... " he said. "Our argument is that people aren't just empty
vessels. You don't just sort of open up their brains and dump false
information in and they regurgitate it. They're actually active
processing cognitive agents"...

 

The alternate explanation raises queasy questions for the rest of society.

 

"I
think we'd all like to believe that when people come across
disconfirming evidence, what they tend to do is to update their
opinions,"
said Andrew Perrin, an associate professor at UNC and another author of the study...

 

"The
implications for how democracy works are quite profound, there's no
question in my mind about that," Perrin said. "What it means is that we
have to think about the emotional states in which citizens find
themselves that then lead them to reason and deliberate in particular
ways."

 

Evidence suggests people are more likely to pay attention to facts within certain emotional states and social situations. Some may never change their minds. For others, policy-makers could better identify those states, for example minimizing the fear that often clouds a person's ability to assess facts ...

The Alternet article links to a must-read interview with psychology professor Sheldon Solomon, who explains:

A
large body of evidence shows that momentarily [raising fear of
death], typically by asking people to think about themselves dying,
intensifies people's strivings to protect and bolster aspects of their
worldviews, and to bolster their self-esteem. The most common finding
is that [fear of death] increases positive reactions to those who
share cherished aspects of one's cultural worldview, and negative
reactions toward those who violate cherished cultural values or are
merely different.

I would argue that the fact that the governments of the world have given trillions to the giant banks has invoked the same mental process - and susceptibility to propaganda - as the war in Iraq.

Specifically, many people assume that because the government has launched a war to prop up the giant banks, it must have a good reason for doing so.

Why
else would trillions in taxpayer dollars be thrown at the giant banks?
Why else would the government say that saving the big boys is vital?

And
I would argue that the fear of another Great Depression (an economic
death, if you will) is analogous to the fear of death triggered in many
Americans by 9/11.

This creates a regression towards
old-fashioned thinking about such things as banks and the financial
system, even though the giant banks actually do very little traditional banking these days.

In other words, the big lie appears to be as effective in financial as in military warfare.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 11/29/2010 - 18:37 | 762804 flacorps
flacorps's picture

Interesting that Goebbels and Hitler claimed England had created "The Big Lie" since it was the German boogeyman of the moment. Of course, Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emporers' New Clothes" illustrated the big lie rather well, and it was based on much older Spanish works that were themselves of Arab origin.

The Big Lie's most destructive outing in the recent past has got to be Saddam Hussein's use of it to make Iran think his NBC weapons programs were operational. Of course, it set off intelligence agencies throughout the world, and eventually provided the cassus belli to attack him. And assuming the White House knew the actual truth, his big lie provided the foundation for a bigger lie.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:09 | 761286 GoingLoonie
GoingLoonie's picture

Good one George!  All levels of government are now in a competition to see who can lie the largest and maintain that lie the longest, as no one is ever held accountable and sent to jail.  Oh!  Sorry, I forgot about the private in the army that is responsible for every Federal Government leak we have or may ever have.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:37 | 761383 Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

You nailed it GL. We need a game show in a Monty Python presentation style: "The Biggest Liar" What would be a good grand prize for the winner?

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:08 | 761283 bubba1231
bubba1231's picture

 

GW ,

 

Until you profusely APOLOGIZE to all the victims and families of 9/11 victims but supporting conspiracy theororists stating OBL did NOT carry out the attacks you should be banned from the site.   You are no better than a Holocaust denier etc...  You have crapped upon 9/11 family members...

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 18:39 | 762811 flacorps
flacorps's picture

Maybe OBL did it. But who ran OBL? And who left all the gates unlocked?

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:35 | 761370 Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

Bubba, shut down the nitrous tank. It's Monday and you just had a 4 day holiday! WTF!

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:26 | 761335 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Get the hell out you government disinformation troll. 9/11 was a government op- the proof is plain to all. The government killed Americans to cover up criminal activity. 

GW continues to serve his country, while you attempt to destroy it. Bugger off you asshole from hell.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:21 | 761319 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Sounds like bubba1231 wants everyone to be deaf, dumb and blind.

Why aren't you asking all the various private and public shills, bag men and professional liars to profusely apologize for covering up the 9/11 atrocities?

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:15 | 761302 George Washington
George Washington's picture

Bubba, you keep on posting off-topic posts, and then not even reading the replies.  As I posted last time you said this:

First of all, your comment is off-topic, just like comments about the Gulf are off-topic in economic posts.

Second, WATCH THIS. more...

Third, this is old (so some links may be broken), but important:

Isn't it disrespectful to the victims of 9/11 and their families to question the events of that day?

No. Many of the families of the victims question the official story and are demanding that the truth be disclosed. The same is true of many dying heroes - the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11 - and are soon to become victims of the 9/11 attacks themselves.

Disrespectful to the Victims

A common tactic that 9/11 apologists use for changing the subject away from 9/11 truth is to claim that questioning the official version is "disrespectful to the victims and their families".

In fact, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:37 | 761385 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

it's not just 1/2 the victim's families, half of New Yorkers believe our government knew in advance and consciously failed to act

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040830120349841

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:45 | 761417 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

You insult the concept of intelligence by using a link to a 9/11 "truth" site as evidence to support your BS lies.

And one more time, even if half of New Yorkers were that stupid it's a logical fallacy to lend any weight to that (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority )

 

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:46 | 761692 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

You question sources and then quote wikipedia? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:56 | 761665 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

hmmm, are you saying that a new yorker or a family member does not have the interest or motivation to do more homework than the average citizen? 

are you saying a website, any website, has more interest, motivation, and resource to sell propaganda than your government? 

Are you saying governments have never attacked their own people?

Are you saying our government is different?

Are you saying you're an expert on NORAD, architecture, explosions, melting points, pentagon defense systems, federal laws on terrorist evidence site clean up, airline crash debris, and a large host of other physical evidence and expert categories?

Are you saying Tower 7 fell from fire, the owner didn't say he "pulled it" and the BBC did not tell us it fell 15 min early?

side note: despite what mother said, you do not define a "BS liar" as anyone who disagrees with you. Wait, wasn't that the argument you were just making? Wait, I agreed with you on another subject / post. Does that make me a 1/2 time liar or a speaker of 1/2 truths? God, this is complicated. Better form a government committee to investigate and get down to the bottom of it. 

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:57 | 761465 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:15 | 761555 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

Impressive!  

Thank you for highlighting my post like this - more people will read it.

Next discussion: is the guy who yells loudest right? 

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:20 | 761577 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Thank you for highlighting my post like this - more people will read it.

Finally we get to the real purpose behind your posts.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 15:16 | 761801 cosmictrainwreck
cosmictrainwreck's picture

well, CogDis, ya gotta hand it to the guy.... at least hes has some sense of humor (I junked him too)

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:29 | 761626 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

Wow...you've got it figured out now.  I am The Powers That Be <blushes>.

 

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:29 | 761342 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

Had no idea you were a 9/11 liar also!!!

You so-called truthers traffic in little other than a "big lie" yourselves.  You post this total BS saying "half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside job" .. that's untrue and would be irrelevant even if it was true (it's a blatant argumentum ad vercundiam fallacy, not that I expect your brain is capable of understanding formal logic).

 

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:06 | 761513 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Let's see, FEMA was in NY on 9/10 in order to do a disaster drill with high-jacked planes crashing in the city. Same thing was true during the London bombings, there was a terror drill that day with buses and subways involved in the drill actually being the ones to blow up.

Now, most coherent people would look at these facts, and start to wonder what really went on. But you, you go ahead and promote the flimsy conspiracy theory that 19 jihadists with box-cutters carried out 9/11, all while ignoring these facts that have astronomical odds of merely being coincidental.

So, TeamAmerica, did you just out yourself as a troll, or an idiot? Either way, your time spent here is no longer of value to yourself, as you obviously know nothing but incoherence (a.k.a. "conventional wisdom"). You are officially moot.

Thanks for playing!

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:26 | 761607 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

Most coherent people wouldn't accept any of that as fact without context.   Most people realize that the odds of any particular set of events occurring are astronomical, and yet each and every day we get a specific set of events.  WHAT ARE THE ODDS!?!   

We do have a point of agreement, being that arguing with morons is a waste of my time.   You go ahead and play without me.

Keep one thing in mind though...just exactly what is TeamAmerica and what function does it serve?   Neither a troll nor an idiot (except for the time waste) so here's a big fat hint:  it just might be that I'm collecting information.  Have a nice day. :-)

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:44 | 761687 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Both a troll and an idiot. You think you're one of them? What an ego. If you take the time to study a little you will find just how disposable you are. 

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:53 | 761449 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

You could at least spell it right....


Argumentum ad Verecundiam

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:14 | 761549 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

Well, shit.  I'm 30 years out of college and I probably couldn't spell it properly back then anyway.  And the ZH spell checker wasn't any help at all, LOL.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:48 | 761429 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Oh, I get it now. You spike the propagnada Kool-Aid with vodka to get it down. Try some cod liver oil.

God bless you TeamAmerica.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:09 | 761529 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

TeamAmerica lives with eyes wide open and perceives objective reality.  The real world is highly chaotic, and those who attempt to explain the chaos by postulating hyper-competent agencies or omnipotent forces defy common sense. 

Sometimes we have to live with a bit of cognitive dissonance rather than looking for neat theories to explain the chaos.   Kinda thought you would realize that having picked that a a screen name, but apparently you just need meds.  Wash 'em down with the Kool-Aid flavor of your choice.

 

 

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:42 | 761679 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Hey, Mr Objective- watch the freefall of building 7 into it's own footprint or listen to the recently released tape of firefighters who heard bomb explosions. What a disinformation pissant. 

Don't begin to think you are one of the masters, you are just a foot soldier to be used and disposed of. They just make you think your special in your tiny little mind.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:22 | 761584 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Keep sucking TeamAmerica. Keep sucking it down.

God bless you TeamAmerica for doing God's work.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:43 | 761408 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Had no idea you were an unsufferable pissant working for the WH disinformation service. The US government, under the leadership of George Bush murdered 2800+ Americans. Then proceeded to spread disinformation about asbestos in the air and in homes which will kill thousands more and create tremendous suffering. 

You despiccable piece of shit. There is no place in hell deep enough for the likes of you.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:47 | 761422 George Washington
George Washington's picture

He's just trying to

Herd the Sheep

Don't be too tough on him.  It's a hard job trying to sell snake oil to such a smart crowd ...

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 16:41 | 762360 Cistercian
Cistercian's picture

 Whatever you do GW,don't write an article about heroin from Afghanistan, and who profits from it.It would be an epic troll fest!

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:55 | 761455 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

These are the people who do the dirty work of their masters. We cannot be too tough on them. They deserve to be shot for complicity. Sorry, GW, but I have had enough of these criminals. 

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 12:43 | 761198 Beard of Zeus
Beard of Zeus's picture

Excellent. This would also apply to the American people's stubborn belief in racial equality, and the alleged benefits of mass immigration and multiculturalism--despite growing evidence to the contrary.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 12:39 | 761173 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

"I would arguably that the fact that the governments of the world have given trillions to the giant banks has invoked the same mental process - and susceptibility to propaganda - as the war in Iraq."

This ignores the difference between giving and loaning.   Here in the US, the TARP has already been mostly repaid with interest (AIG being the notable exception). 

The idea that the US taxpayer gave away a trillion dollars to the banks is a myth.  Odd that a myth is posed as evidence of "the big lie"...isn't it?

 

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:18 | 761311 GoingLoonie
GoingLoonie's picture

Let me see TA, we give "loan" trillions to the banks.  Then we say if you deposit it with us we will pay you for the use of that money.  After hundreds of billions more are made, we make you pay back the initial "loan".  Oh, I get it.  The money made was just good business.  You must be in la-la land.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:34 | 761364 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

Nope - Texas, which is a bit of a la-la land these days.

You argue that the TARP was somehow not repaid because the banks used the borrowed money to make profits before paying it back.  Seriously...that's your argument???

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:39 | 761391 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Exactly who else is allowed to use such a system without it being prosecuted as fraud? Every other business in America would have been forced into bankruptcy. As corporations are now citizens (via the corporate SCOTUS) that is a violation of the 14th amendment.

Of course, this has also allowed two years of the biggest bonuses on wall street. Banker Troll. 

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:43 | 761407 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

Everyone!   Have you ever heard of buying on margin?   Care to guess how many people here on ZH are engaged in such "fraud" at this very moment?

There is no law against using borrowed money to make profits.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:52 | 761447 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The difference is the money exists on margin and can be called.It is a loan. The FED creates money out of thin air. Money that has nothing of value to back it up. This is fraud

Banker troll.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:39 | 761666 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

Econ 101:  go back and read the pages on "fractional-reserve banking".   When a bank issues you a loan, only a fraction of the amount (the reserve) is held as actual money.  The rest is created out of thin air.  That's how banks work.

When a trader buys on margin he is taking out a loan.  The money does not "exist" in any more real sense than any other loan.  

Of course, I'm a banker...so I know this stuff by heart.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 15:42 | 761922 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

But a margin trade is not a bank loan. You're attempt at obfuscation is pathetic. Thanks for agreeing on the fraud issue. That's how banks work. 

A margin trade is more like gambling with the house's money, but responsible for your losses through clawbacks. The house has made a risk assessment and allowed you to play accordingly. 

Fractional Reserve banking has nothing to do with a loan. Loans are subject to risk management. Banks conduct no risk management on funds received from the FED window. They merely are required to keep a reserve of miniscule proportions depending on risk in the economy and set by the FED. They then lend out this money to another bank essentially that then uses it again, less the reserve and ad infinitum. 

If you are a banker, then you better get  a new job. You don't know the difference between a loan and monetarism? Guess that's why your here, they can't let you near the money...

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 12:59 | 761249 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

What was the governmental cost to create the economic conditions necessary for the tarp recipients to repay the loans?  It's six of one, half dozen of another...

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:03 | 761267 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

Bull.   The government issued debt and it was repaid, save $30B that remains in doubt.

So do tell, aside from the moral hazard that so insults the devotees of the free market religion, what exactly was the cost?

Methinks the cost was damage to the concept that all government intervention is evil.

 

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:22 | 761325 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

You are also forgeting to add on the leveraged money this additional TARP bought them at the FED window- money used to create opportunities in FX and the stockmarket to make the money to pay it back. It also allowed them to strengthen their balance sheets which allowed for bond issues that they used to pay the money back. More debt to pay old debt that will come due-another bailout? 

Banker Trolls.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:48 | 761393 TeamAmerica
TeamAmerica's picture

Big difference between public debt and private debt, don't you think?  Having the banks issue their own debt rather than keeping the taxpayers on the hook is a very desirable outcome.  

If I read you right, you are saying you dislike the TARP because it saved the banks, not because it didn't work.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:50 | 761441 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Not where the banks are concerned. Their debt is only private until it requires the public to bail it out. Which it will. Banker troll.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 14:37 | 761657 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The treasury and fed are tied at the hip.  There is no material difference.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:18 | 761306 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Of course, let's not look too closely at how it was repaid. I love what they're doing at GM these days. I'll lend you more money so you can pay back the first money. And let's not forget all that essentially free money the Fed is handing the TBTF's in order for them to pay their TARP bills and bonuses.

God bless you TeamAmerica.

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:47 | 761428 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

1. I loan you $10.

2. You steal my watch and hock it.

3. You pay me back my $10.

4. What a system!

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 13:51 | 761442 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Not quite.

1. I loan you $10

2. You steal my watch and then sell it back to me at an inflated price.

3. You pay me back my $10

4. Repeat endlessly.

:>)

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!