by O Society Jan 15, 2019
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
~ Joseph Goebbels
Which one is the Big Liar here?
Donald Trump’s vanquished 2016 Democratic opponent appears to be relishing his recent difficulties with news reports about his relationship with Russia.
“Like I said: A puppet,” Hillary Clinton tweeted Monday, January 14, 2019. Just in case you forgot, she started Russiagate. She’s referencing an infamous exchange between her and Trump during their third and final presidential debate.
On Oct 19, 2016, Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin did not respect former secretary of state Clinton.
“Well, that’s because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States,” Clinton replied.
“No puppet,” Trump said, talking over her. “You’re the puppet. No, you’re the puppet.”
Clinton’s tweet reiterating her claim Trump is a Russian puppet comes after news reports over the weekend added fuel to the debate over Trump’s Russia ties.
The New York Times reported Friday the FBI investigated whether or not Trump was working on Putin’s behalf after he fired director James Comey.
Embedded within this NYTimes story is a small print disclaimer of the kind the spokesperson rips off at the end of a pharmaceutical commercial, warning us of all the heinous side effects. May cause anal leakage, and so on:
Which means, Hillary’s “I told you so!” doesn’t mean anything more than it did when she first said it two years ago at the debate. There’s still no public evidence. Just her repeating the accusation. The illusory truth effect from repeating Goebbel’s big lie.
And on Sunday, The Washington Post reported Trump went to “extraordinary lengths” to conceal details from his conversations with Putin.
These “extraordinary lengths” mean we don’t know what the conversations with Putin are about. Well, let’s guess then! Back to the NYT statement of “no evidence.”
According to the aforementioned Washington Post article, Trump said, “he was persuaded by Putin’s powerful denial of election interference.”
Well hell, if Trump didn’t collude with Russia and Putin, why would he have to ask Putin whether or not he colluded with Russia and Putin?
Moreover, why are the people at the Washington Post going to believe anything Trump says publicly in the first place, be it an affirmation or a denial of any of this?
I don’t. You shouldn’t. Why do we persist in this charade? What Trump says is no longer newsworthy. It’s gibberish. Intentional word salad.
Then again, Trump also said, ““I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place.”
Trump contradicted himself. Trump says he believes Russia “did it” when he’s supposed to side with the intelligence community, and Trump says Russia “didn’t do it” when he’s supposed to side with Putin at their meeting in Helsinki.
Trump always does this. For instance, he contradicted himself over why he fired James Comey too Was it because of the investigation into Trump? Investigating Hillary? Who knows? Trump says it all!
Which leads anyone with any sense to formulate a law. Trump’s Law. It goes like this:
For every statement Donald Trump makes, there is an equal and opposite re-statement he has made or will make soon.
Why then, do we insist on pretending we’re holding Trump to one version of anything and that this version is meaningful? We don’t. It isn’t. He says everything at least once. This is not proof of collusion with Russia. It’s proof Trump is dishonest and/or mentally ill. We knew all of this already. The NYTimes and Washington Post weekend “bombshells” are reheated leftovers, as is Hillary’s commentary on them.
Why does he do it? Generate massive amounts of fake news? Why? Ask Leslie Stahl.
“You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.”
Trump intentionally says both sides of an argument (Yea and Nay) so the listener can believe anything he/ she wants to believe. Want Trump to withdraw troops from Syria? There’s a quote for that. Want Trump to bomb the shit out of Syria? There’s a quote for that too.
The point is, Trump demolishes the sense there is a TRUTH. There is no ground to stand on with Trump because everything is both true and false simultaneously in Trump Town.
So let’s stop pretending otherwise. Anyone who believes anything that comes of Trump’s mouth is an idiot. This much is clear and has been, since at least 1980-something.
So back to the beginning of this article. How about Clinton? Well, she’s lying too.
She’s gotten the world to spend the last two years looking for “Nicole’s Killer” on the golf course, I mean, ah… “Putin’s puppet colluding with Russia” with what evidence? That’s right. None. Zero. It’s the big lie.
Hillary Clinton is manufacturing consent for the coming war with Russia, handicapping Trump’s regime with impeachment (just as her husband’s administration was hobbled by impeachment), and placing blame for her own election loss to the worst presidential candidate of all time (except for perhaps, herself) on Russia.
Clinton wants war with Russia and Trump wants there to be no truth from which to attack him, so he can do whatever he wants.
They’re both lying. Maybe Goebbles is lying. Maybe I am lying now. The question is, why would anyone be credulous enough to believe this mendacity?
Well, as we’ve discussed here at O Society, there is this concept of locus of control. Human beings tend to enjoy placing blame for crappy events on a factor external to themselves. For Hillary, it’s Russia. For Trump, it’s immigrants.
Therefore, it can’t be Hillary’s fault; Russia did it.
It can’t be Trump’s fault; we need a wall to keep out the immigrants.
Can’t be internal loci of control. Can’t have that. Can’t be Americans did it. Got to be foreigners. So you don’t notice how corrupt our own politicians are and how guilty of all sorts of things our leaders are, it must be them. THEM! I tell you!
If you don’t agree, you are not a patriot. Boo, hiss, we put you in the stocks and throw tomatoes at you when you are not a patriot. Treason! Firing squads!!! Sound familiar?
Don’t kid yourself. It can happen here. It works the same way in any country.
Göring: Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.