Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00099)

Bart Lidofsky wrote:

> leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> > What Is Happening In America? By Eliot Weinberger
>
> Translation by Bart Lidofsky

"What Bart Lidofsky actually knew but was afraid to consider"
an essay in doublespeak by Theo Paijmans

> > This article, one of the best short analyses of the Bush
> > administration's policies, was first published by "Vorwarts," Germany
>
> Translation: He published it in a country that is working very hard to
> undermine America's influence.

What Bart actually is saying: contrary to democracy, you will not criticise America
in any way. Hermann Goering's words spring to mind: 'who is not for us, is against
us.'

> > exceptions have been Thatcher and Reagan, but even their programs of
> > dismantling systems of social welfare seem, in retrospect, mild
> > compared to what is happening in the United States under George
> > Bush-- or more exactly, the ruling junta that tells Bush what to do
> > and say.
>
> Translation: I don't like the results of the last election.

There were no results of that election enforced, else Gore would have been in the
WHite House. The election clearly was a simple coup d'etat. That Bush clearly is
steered by those behind the screens, is a logical conclusion of the way the power
structure in America is conctructed.

> > It is unquestionably the most radical government in modern American
> > history, one whose ideology and actions have become so pervasive, and
> > are so unquestionably mirrored by the mass media here, that the
> > population seems to have forgotten what "normal" is.
>
> Translation: I don't agree with his policies.

Meaning: here we skirt the issue by cleverly avoiding discussion over content and
focussing on form. Note: Bart offers no rebuttal of the claims of the author.

> > Church and State George Bush is the first unelected President of the
> > United States, installed by a right-wing Supreme Court in a kind of
> > judicial coup d'etat.
>
> Translation: I am so far to the left that I even consider the three
> liberal members of the Supreme Court to be right wing (all the
> conservatives, all the moderates, and one of the liberals voted in
> Bush's favor). Also, I disagree with the founding fathers, and believe
> that the electoral college should not be valid.

Bart's 'Translation' in this case means 'interpretation', with the effect in mind to
discredit the writer and issue some good ol' propaganda. Obviously one cannot find a
single reference in this part of the author's article about his political beliefs
('so far to the left'), his ideas on the founding fathers or the electoral college,
because they are not there. It recalls one of Stalin's show trials with mocked up
charges.

> > He is the first to actively subvert one of the pillars of American
> > democracy: the separation of church and state. There are now daily
> > prayer meetings and Bible study groups in every branch of the
> > government, and religious organizations are being given funds to take
> > over educational and welfare programs that have always been the
> > domain of the state.
>
> Translation: I love to tell half-truths and out-and-out lies if it fits
> my agenda.

Again the same tactics: Bart's 'Translation' is in reality a crude form of
propaganda and the discrediting of the use of free speech: noewhere does Bart offer
any proof as to his allegations that the author is lying, that the author is telling
half truth, that the author has a hidden agenda. In jurisprudence this tactic is
called 'slander'.

> > Bush is the first president to invoke the specific "Jesus Christ"
> > rather than an ecumenical "God," and he has surrounded himself with
> > evangelical Christians, including his Attorney General, who attends a
> > church where he talks in tongues.
>
> Translation: I disagree with the U.S. Constitution, and believe there
> SHOULD be a religious test for serving public office. Just make sure
> it's MY version of religion.

Again Bart repeats the by now worn method of demonising the author, with whom he
clearly disagrees. That again, he offers no evidence to actually demonstrate that
his 'translation' is in fact a correct *interpretation*, only unveils his method
even more.

> > It is the first administration to openly declare a policy of
> > unilateral aggression, a "Pax Americana" where the presence of allies
> > (whether England or Bulgaria) is agreeable but unimportant; where
> > international treaties no longer apply to the United States; and
> > where-- for the first time in history-- this country reserves the
> > right to non-defensive, "pre-emptive" strikes against any nation on
> > earth, for whatever reason it declares.
>
> Translation: Paramilitary attacks against the United States don't count.

Here Bart uses a somewhat other tactic: the simple "two wrongs hopefully make my
viewpoint right" method. Discriminating readers of course are aware that the author
has not written at all that "paramilitary attacks against the USA are okay", but by
accusing the author hereof, Bart hopes to a) discredit the author b) gain sympathy
for his opposing viewpoint c) find an excuse for the the actions of the USA abroad
with the two wrongs make a right method, often used by convicts and criminals by the
way.

> Race Laws

> >
> > It is the first-- since the internment of Japanese-Americans in World
> > War II-- to enact special laws for a specific ethnic group.
> > Non-citizen young Muslim men are now required to register and subject
> > themselves to interrogation.
>
> Translation: How DARE the United States do what ANY other country would
> do in the same position, and scrutinize non-citizen members of countries
> or alliances that have declared war against it.

Again the convict method. While it would be easy to see parallels with the German
racial laws as to Jews, we need not use such a clear example. Bart could simply
explain which muslim nation currently is at war with the USA - because as far as I
am aware, there is none.

> > Many hundreds have been arrested and held without
> > trial or access to legal assistance-- a violation of another pillar
> > of American democracy: habeas corpus.
>
> Translation: Oops! Forgot to mention that these are non-citizens, and
> that the right of habeus corpus has NEVER existed in ANY country in the
> world for non-citizens. And I didn't mention that the people were
> allowed to have legal assistance if they wanted it. After all, we can't
> let those uncomfortable truths interfere with my case.

Here Bart shows something of his inner mind: there are übercitizens and lesser
people, Orwell's famous "some are more equal than others"springs immediately into
mind. Besides, by cleverly using the verbs "uncomfortable truths", Bart pretends
there are some issues that would really convince us all. However, he does not name
them, nor does he delve into these points, thereby downgrading what could become a
discussion on pragmatic arguments to the point that it is a morass of underbelly
agit-prop, aimed at our base emotions.

> > Many have been taken from their
> > families and deported on minor technical immigration violations; the
> > whereabouts of many others are still unknown. And, in Guantanamo Bay,
> > where it is said that they are now preparing execution chambers,
> > hundreds of foreign nationals -- including a 13-year-old and a man
> > who claims to be 100-- have been kept for almost two years in a limbo
> > that clearly contravenes the Geneva Convention.
>
> Translation: in spite of the fact that these were non-uniformed members
> of an army that declared war against the United States, and, as such,
> are being treated according to the Geneva Convention rules for such
> forces, I think they should be treated according to the rules for
> uniformed sources. And I am reporting rumor (the 13 year old) as fact.
> And I am mixing those who are being executed with those who are being
> held until they can find a non-belligerent country that will patriate
> them and all those in between as if they ALL were going to be executed.

Bart here uses the age old tactic "just call the nastiest facts a rumor" and avoids
the issues of extermination chambers, in effect making Guantanamo Bay an
extermination camp. Also note that his answer here is fairly long, without actually
saying something other than that "rest assured, not everybody is going to goosestep
into the death chambers"

> > Similar to the Reagan era, it is an administration openly devoted to
> > helping the rich and ignoring the poor, one that has turned the
> > surplus of the Clinton years into a massive deficit through its
> > combination of enormous tax cuts for the wealthy (particularly those
> > who earn more than a million dollars a year) and increases in defense
> > spending.
>
> Translation: I am ignoring the fact that Clinton favored the rich just
> as much, and that a war against the United States, which Clinton allowed
> to go on unchallenged, was escalated. I am also ignoring the effects of
> the dotcom crash, an event of which the Clinton administration carefully
> hid the early signs, while overstating the health of the U.S. economy by
> a third during the Presidential election.

Here Bart for the first time uses some pragmatic arguments, but, of course, in the
"two wrongs make it right"method. In effect Bart is not even disgreeing that Bush is
doing badly, Bart just says, "yeah, but Clinton was doing badly too".

> > (And, although Republicans always campaign on "less government," it
> > has created the largest new government bureaucracy in history: the
> > Department of Homeland Security.) The Financial Times of England,
> > hardly a hotbed of leftists, has categorized this economic policy as
> > "the lunatics taking over the asylum."
>
> Translation: I am ignoring the fact that there is a war going on.

Here Bart uses the age old tactic of "create the problem (war) offer the solution
(more war)". While one cannot see any war going on at this time, the question
remains. War on terror? War in Iraq? Also note that Bart here offers no firm
rebuttal of the claims of the author.

> > Undermining Law
> > But more than Reagan-- whose policies tended to benefit the rich in
> > general-- most of Bush's legislation specifically enriches those in
> > his lifelong inner circle from the oil, mining, logging, construction,
> > and pharmaceutical industries.
>
> Translation: I am crossing out Clinton's name and putting Bush n it's
> place.

Again, the "two wrongs will make it right" method.

> > At the middle level of the bureaucracy, where laws may be issued
> > without Congressional approval, hundreds of regulations have been
> > changed to lower standards of pollution or safety in the workplace, to
> > open up wilderness areas for exploitation, or to eliminate the testing
> > of drugs..
>
> Translation: I don't know the difference between a law and a
> regulation. Or I do, but I'm purposely trying to confuse people who
> don't. And I also like to confuse labels with that which is labeled.

Here Bart uses another tactic: that of humbling the author by trying to paint him as
a dimwit who doesn't know what he is talking about. Very favourable in academic
circles, it is said. Simple abbreviation: "shut the fuck up, you don't know what you
are talking about."

> > Corporate Kickbacks Billions in government contracts have been
> > awarded, without competition, to corporations formerly run by
> > administration officials.
>
> Translation: I don't know what a kickback is, and I am not considering
> whether or not the contracts were valid.

Again, see above.

> > Undermining Law - II
> > In a country where the most significant social changes are enacted by
> > court rulings, rather than by legislation, the Bush administration
> > has been filling every level of the complex judicial system with
> > ultra-right ideologues, especially those who have protected
> > corporations from lawsuits by individuals or environmental groups,
> > and those who are opposed to women's reproductive rights. It remains
> > to be seen how far they can push their antipathy to contraception and
> > abortion.
>
> Translation: I think Bush should put judges who disagree with him on
> the bench.

Here Bart distorts the message of the author by a process of needlessly simplifying
parts of the message, leaving other linguistic options out of the equation, thus
reducing the message to a nice propaganda ploy. I think we call this "twisting of
words"

> > They have already banned a rare form of late-term abortion that is
> > only given when the health of the mother is endangered or the fetus
> > is terribly deformed, and a large portion of Bush's heralded billions
> > to Africa to fight AIDS will be devoted to so-called "abstinence"
> > education.
>
> Translation: I'm ignoring the fact that it only stops ELECTIVE
> late-term abortions; medically necessary abortions are STILL allowed.
> And how DARE Bush try to push the most effective way of stopping AIDS!!!!

Another good one: demonising the author by slyly suggesting by word choice that he
in fact is pro-AIDS.

> > Totalitarian America
> >
> > Most of all, America doesn't feel like America any more. The climate
> > of militarism and fear, similar to any totalitarian state,
>
> Translation: Any government I disagree with is totalitarian.

Here Bart again distorts the message of the author by simplifying parts of the
message, leaving other linguistic options out of the equation, reducing what is left
to a nice propaganda ploy. The "twisting of words" method.

> > permeates everything. Bush is the first American president in memory
> > to swagger around in a military uniform, though he himself-- like all
> > of his most militant advisers-- evaded the Vietnam War.
>
> Translation: I am lying. Bush war a military outfit, but it was NOT a
> uniform; there was no sign of rank on it. The military outfit was the
> only kind manufactured for the purpose. In addition, I consider serving
> in the armed forces outside of Vietnam the same thing as running off to
> England.

Again Bart uses the The "twisting of words" method, and in the process nicely skirts
the issues the author touches upon, by drawing the limelight to his (Bart's)
accusation.

> > (Even Eisenhower, a general and a war hero, never wore his uniform
> > while he was president).
>
> Translation: I am inserting an irrelevant historical point.

Here Bart uses the method of humbling the opponent by humbling his words.

> > In the airports of provincial cities, there are frequent
> > announcements in that assuring, disembodied voice of science-fiction
> > films:
> >
> > "The Department of Homeland Security advises that the Terror Alert is
> > now. . . Code Orange." Every few weeks there is an announcement that
> > another terrorist attack is imminent, and citizens are urged to take
> > ludicrous measures, like sealing their windows against biological and
> > chemical attacks, and to report the "suspicious" activities of their
> > neighbors.
>
> Translation: I'm telling half-truths again. Not to mention out and out
> lies.

Here Bart goes into demonisation and slander method mode: slander because Bart is
not demonstrating where the author "lies"and writes "half-truths". Demonisation
because, if the author is lying, then clearly he must be of ill repute and we cannot
possible take his words seriously now, can we?

> > The Pentagon institutes the "Total Information Awareness" program to
> > collect data on the ordinary activities of ordinary citizens (credit
> > card charges, library book withdrawals, university course enrollments)
> > and when this is perceived as going too far, they change the name to
> > "Terrorist Information Awareness" and continue to do the same things.
>
> Translation: The Pentagon is doing what the Pentagon has ALWAYS done.

Here Bart uses the "humble the author method" by reducing this part of his text -
which has a sense of urgency in it - to a simple "shrug the shoulders" passage. Note
how Bart cleverly avoids any statement as to the value of this part. Is it a good
thing? Is it a bad thing? If so, why? These are issues that Bart does not touch
upon.

> > Millions are listed in airport security computers as potential
> > terrorists, including antiwar demonstrators and pacifists. Critics are
> > warned to "watch what they say" and lists of "traitors" are posted on
> > the internet.
>
> Translation: Bush is doing what people, especially on the left, have
> been complaining he didn't do before 9/11. In addition, people are
> posting bullshit on the Internet. Not unlike my article.

Here Bart uses the part of the author's text to smear leftist sentiments. Clever: in
effect acknowledging that what the authr states is indeed a bad thing, but
connecting it to leftwing politics, Bart is conjuring the suggestion that "bad
things come from the left".

> > The war in Iraq has been the most extreme manifestation of this new
> > America, and almost a casebook study in totalitarian techniques;
> > First, an Enemy is created by blatant lies that are endlessly
> > repeated until the population believes it: in this case, that Iraq
> > was linked to the attack on the World Trade Center, and that it
> > possesses vast "weapons of mass destruction" that threaten the world.
>
> Translation: I am concentrating on a single issue, which the entire
> world believed BEFORE it was brought up by the United States (the
> disagreement was not on whether the weapons existed, but how to best
> divest Iraq of them), and ignoring all the other issues brought up,
> including Saddam Hussein's own statements.

Here Bart in effect gives his method away by writing: "I am concentrating on a
single issue", which is a very good method often used in text books: an author gives
phletora of arguments and reasons, all the opponent has to do is to harvest all the
elements of a speech or written article, combine them into one single issue by
picking one out, and focussing on that single aspect. That Bart then does not
discredit that single issue by force of pragmatic reasoning is a pity, he uses the
level one approach: grab the single issue and use it to cast a cloud of suspicion on
the knowledge and abilities of the author to do some reasoning.

> > Then, a War of Liberation, entirely portrayed by the mass media in
> > terms of our Heroic Troops, with little or no imagery of casualties
> > and devastation, and with morale-inspiring, scripted "news"
> > scenes--such as the toppling of the Saddam statue and the heroic
> > "rescue" of Private Lynch-- worthy of Soviet cinema.
>
> Translation: I think the United States is trying to use my tactics.

Here Bart is using the demonise, stigmatise and two wrongs make a right tactics all
combined. The outcome is of course slander, since the author nowhere writes: 'hey,
The USA is using my tactics!"

>
> > Finally, as has happened with Afghanistan, very little news of the
> > chaos that has followed the Great Victory. Instead, the propaganda
> > machine moves on to a new Enemy-- this time, Iran.
>
> Translation: I don't pay attention to the news.

(actually, the BBC news at this moment now treats the false Bush allegations of WMD)
Here Bart uses the humble the author tactic: I am a dumbass, I don't watch the telly
doctrine.

> > It is very difficult to speak of what is happening in America without
> > resorting to the hyperbolic cliches of anti-Americanism that have
> > lost their meaning after so many decades, but that have now finally
> > come true.
>
> Translation: My anti-American tripe no longer works. Wahhhhhhh!

Here Bart uses the simple, make fun of your opponent tactic by painting a comic book
presentation of what the author means. Humour is a very effective weapon, as Reagon
time and again demonstrated. That the real issue, that what the author discusses, is
lost amidst the laughter, is the desired effect.

> > Perhaps one can only recite the facts, and I have mentioned only some
> > of them here. This is, quite simply, the most frightening American
> > administration in modern times, one that is appalling both to the
> > left and to traditional conservatives. This junta is unabashed in its
> > imperialist ambitions; it is enacting an Orwellian state of Perpetual
> > War; it is dismantling, or attempting to dismantle, some of the most
> > fundamental tenets of American democracy; it is acting without
> > opposition within the government, and is operating so quickly on so
> > many fronts that it has overwhelmed and exhausted any popular
> > opposition.
>
> Translation: I love to use Stalinist buzzwords.

Here Bart uses for his "demonise and stigmatise"routine the McCarthy Communist witch
hunt tactics that worked so well in the fifties and did a great job in
Latin-America not too long ago: subtly paint the author between the lines as a
hardass commie, as the conditioned reaction of most people to the words "communist"
are well nurtured in the long period of the cold war.

> > Perhaps it cannot be stopped, but the first step toward slowing it
> > down is the recognition that this is an American government unlike any
> > other in this country's history, and one for whom democracy is an
> > obstacle.
>
> Translation: We must go forward to create a destruction of Western
> Civilization to create an anarchy which, as we all know, will result in
> a Communist Paradise.

Same as above. And adding slander, demonisation and ridiculisation.

>
>
> Bart Lidofsky
>

Boy, I'd wonder what kind of discussion the two gentlemen would have had if in a
talkshow.

Theo