This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Big Lie: As Effective in FINANCIAL As In MILITARY Warfare
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 -


You presume I'm stupid enough to buy back my own watch.
No, wait...
"by George, I think he's got it!"
And one hell of an exception, isn't it? Why make the exception at all? TARP has not been fully paid back yet. And unless you can show me that the interest paid equals or exceeds what AIG still owes (NOPE) the exception is not warranted unless there is a good chance AIG will pay it back.
Unlikely.
There's one hell of a difference between the current expectation of a $30B loss on the TARP vs. ONE TRILLION. The point is that the oft-cited TRILLION is a big lie.
Failing to make such a differentiation is again falling into the mind trap of adopting a political position and resisting evidence to the contrary.
The TARP worked - time to embrace the moral hazard and admit it.
TARP was show-biz shuffling of electronic fiatso's around the banking system while they perfected and deployed "mark to fantasy" accounting.
If you believe otherwise, you are mis-informed.
Except you are forgeting the over one trillion dollars in toxic BS bought by the FED. This is a bailout as well, as the assets are now the responsibility of the taxpayer. Go back to your banker hole troll.
God bless you TeamAmerica.
BTW.....The TRAP worked.
It Is Real Simple:
"And that is what systemic corruption is all about, Charlie Brown..."
Linus Van Pelt
"One must only keep the small secrets. The big secrets will be kept with incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan (brillant Professor and noted Canucklehead)
--------
Deny Deny Deny
Until you believe!
Big lies are really not necessary.
Obama Nation or Obamination
looks like tiger woods if you ask me.
y'all might want to look into hitler's stint at the tavistock institute.
ever wonder why they called goebbels 'the rabbi' during his school days?
looks like adolf was a colossal lie himself, whoda thunk it?
http://adolf-hitler-founder-of-israel-kardel-4454242.cooga.net/
you can tell who isnt controlled opposition by the publicity
they dont get/bullets they catch. wikileaks will shortly be the excuse
needed to shut down the net/shelve 1st amend/bomb iran into ww3.
Saw this on your blog, and I wondered when it would be here.
Excellent!
These scientists are the guinea pigs of their own experiments.
The Iraq situation needed to make sense? But it made sense by itself.
These scientists delude themselves here into thinking that the US People did not substitute the meaning of the war in Iraq by another one, more comfortable to allow themselves to pursue their goals.
Fear? Iraq was a lethal threat to the US? Delusional. There was no fear to distort the perception by the US citizens.
These scientists try to provide rationalization and a cover up for the actions of the US citizens.
Currently, people enlisting in the US army to take a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan are either:
-people who want to get their fun. The US society is a very oppressive one and Iraqis are easy. Doing 1:100th of what can be possibly done in Iraq would grant somebody a lifetime in jail.
-religious fighters. Time to kill unbelievers as ordered by the Christian god.
- people living off what was called in the ancient times blood money.
They take a tour to get an access to free tuitions, free healthcare, the glorified status of veterancy.
They believe the lies because it allows them the opportunities to pursue their goals.
Nice piece GW. Natural tie-ins: The Aspen Institute and The Rand Corp - mind control of the masses. The resources of the elites are mind numbing.
Godwin Uber Alles
2012 the end of an error!
If GW is going to use the big Bush lie, in all fairness he should note the bigger Al Gore lie. BTW, that POS really disappeared from the scene, didn't he. Even the CCX, the next big planned Ponzi has been quietly sold off to the Europeans.
Al Gore did not invent climate change. He is only one of many people pointing out the problem. Climatologists were postulating global warming at least back to the 1950's. Even the misguided hype over a new ice age back in the 70's was at least a recognition that something was happening.
Those who choose not to engage in study of the facts surrounding "global warming" are exactly what this post is about. You fix your position and ignore all evidence and argument to the contrary. Most disturbing...you either ignore the evidence of your own eyes or are incredibly blind to the changing world around you.
Blinding people by posing a strawman (e.g. hating Al Gore) is part of the big lie process. You have bitten the hook and swallowed the sinker.
I think some folks (certainly me) have more against Gore for how he positioned himself to profit from the panic he was promoting. In some arenas it's known as "conflict of interest". BTW, what about all those leaked e-mails demonstrably documenting our illustrious "scientists" cooking the books?
debunked. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html
'demonstrably' false even.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
You didn't find the timing of that 'controversy' at all interesting? Right before Copenhagen?
And I thought you all loved a good conspiracy here.
But hey, an incredible 3% of scientists can't be wrong!
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/17102/Ball/
From Winnipeg, I believe! Nice.
"CFP.. Because without America there is no free world"
Hahahahaahha!
Ah, ok, so the "new ice age" prognostications back in the 70's support your belief in "global warming", because it's also some kind of climate change.
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.
Thanks for giving us another prime example of that approach.
Well said. I love how they give Al Gore more power than he could possibly ever have. Just ask the women in Portland, he's just a horny politician like the rest of them. Like everything else and the philosophy of this site, expect every side to have a bias. Do your own homework. Use common sense and think about all the established interests. The fact that people or corrupt governments are trying to make money or impose a tax on it does very little to prove either side. They all do that. Thing is (like most others) time is gonna sort out the truth on this one. Like our ruined country, hope we're not too late.
I know, the way Al paid off all those animals, plants & thermometers is pretty low.
Indeud; and David Suzuki was only ever in it for the money, along with the other credible 97% of scientists.
I guess every expert witness in every trial is worthless. Tyler better not be making any money off these ads
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p-2_Irving.html
In length discussion of the diary of Joseph Goebbels, as researched by world war historian David Irving , information acquired from the Soviet Archives in the early 1990's. Interesting read.
lie:
one is hard to conjugate the other is simple to propagate
if you perform one meaning, you accomplish all the others
some people get so close to the truth that they should have someone else start their car
Believe what we tell you, not what you see. Always has been a suckers play as the wife makes up the spare bedroom so the girl friend can have the master. Classic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0Lg_ISGGW4
"Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" - Marx (Chico)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023969/quotes?qt0361602
All of these behaviors are a result of upbringing. As such, the parents and siblings of any individual will have the strongest effect on how that individual will process information when they become an adult. Families which stress hierarchical management will lead to individuals who look to a central authority to provide the rationale for actions they see around them. I don't remember which author it was (perhaps more than one) who said, "everything important that I write about happened to me before I was ten."
+10
Agreed! We continue to develop the models that we use for dealing with the world, but the response pattern can only be modified by long term psychotherapy.
+10
I have to generally agree. We continue to develop models for handling the world but the basis is set.
I think this is kind of funny coming from the poster who believed "Toyota's accelerate on their own". Hey George, why aren't you focusing on the current stories about Honda doing the same thing now? Public not buying it this time? I guess they are starting to understand how Government Motors works.
A Liar's Paradoxical Syllogism....
Major Premise: Everything the government says is a lie.
Minor Premise: While chronicling the lies of the government, everything GW says is a lie.
Conclusion: They're both full of shit.
The art of persuasion. Marketing has been at it for decades and has learned a few things about how the brain processes information.
The tactics to sell you war or a financial invesment aren't really that different.
Great post. Also explains why nobody ever seems to change their mind about anything despite mountains (or molehills) of evidence.
South Korea admits provoking latest confrontation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O33sfN00oDk
We want war because the good ol USA has told us they will back us and it will be a good thing.
"Daddy, tell me another lie so that I may believe it's the truth."
Humans like to view themselves as logical machines, but how far from it are they
"You can bring a horse to the river but you can't make it drink"
Samuel Clemens:
"...and ain't we got half the fools on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town?"
Regards
Another GW thought masterpiece.
Martin Armstrong points out re bank slaver usury:
if we eliminate the compounding interest part of the $14 T public debt,
it would be measured in billions, not trillions
Bailing out big bad banks does not benefit workers, but parasites
They need to go before year end.
Bank Run
Bank Run
Bank Run
Bankrupt
Bankrupt
Bankrupt
You're so cute, but in reality it's impossible. It's a shame that banks can already freeze all of your assets in money markets, IRAs, CMAs, and savings accounts. I guess you can withdraw money from your checkbook, but most americans don't have any cash anyways. Good luck though.
The better idea is not to "run" to remove money from banks...
Just stop the inflow by withholding payments on any where the end recipient is a bank. Mortgages, car loans, credit cards and personal loans.
We dont need the PTB to do it for us. People have the power.
If the blind could only see.
Agreed, but I add: work both sides of the balance sheet. There is nothing quite so precarious as a bank or insurance company balance sheet.
Unfortuantely, credit cards are very handy. I pay cash for smaller purchases but carrying enough cash for larger purchases is inconvenient. In addition, my wife, who keeps the checkbook so that she will record all checks she writes, has been known to occasionally create an overdraft.
Otherwise, at this stage in life, we have no debt. When Greenspan went to 1% discount rate in 03/04, why did he do that? My response was close out our non credit card debt. I was, of course, expecting a Volker type of move.
It would have been painful for the country but we wouldn't have had the kind of problems we have had.