Episode 17: Propaganda: Could It Happen Here?

My goodness, this guy is pedantic.

William Stearns

There's a good discussion after that with just Ben and me. He is not a bad guy, but I am still not sure what Bessner was trying to do here.

Aaron Good

I had to tap out at 17 minutes.. Daniel Bessner is too cringe.

Ryan Pritchett

Awesome! Episode 15 also deals with propaganda--Pentagon and CIA in Hollywood, specifically!

Aaron Good

...also, I think about Lance all the time.

Aaron Good

Became a Patreon to hear this Ep. It did not disappoint!

Aidan powell

I know, it's wild. The huge crimes like CIA drug scandals and the 1960s assassinations are just too much. The mainstream of academia and even most of the alternative media can't really absorb or process what they point to.

Aaron Good

Really enjoyed the discussion, I think the examples of how supposedly left-liberal media outlets handled issues like Gary Webb and JKF really proved the point. I don't understand what, in his view, a materialist approach to public persuasion would involve. If trying to expose how much the interests of capital and the military shape the way the vast majority of people interpret every event in the news. If there is not an effort to make people more skeptical of what is obviously propaganda, they will be happy to see the US go to war over Ukraine or Taiwan, the new cold war with China is ramping up every day.

Jesse

Look, Bessner is a nice guy and we're friendly. I disagree with him, but after making it through my doctoral program, I am used to disagreeing with people much more strongly than I do with him. And I give him credit for having the discussion in the first place. Peace!

Aaron Good

Harry Fosdick

Well, as you say, when smart people can't be forthcoming, it speaks volumes. The academy is a pillar of the Establishment and our Establishment presides over a lawless, imperial regime that operates under a cover story of liberty, democracy and the rule of law. So I think basically to stay in the acceptable parameters of the discipline (PoliSci) under these circumstances, one must make novel arguments and see what sticks, maybe. But to say in America 2022 that there's not much propaganda is like a fish in the ocean trying to say that there's no water...and then defending that position by changing the definition of water.

Aaron Good

Was amazed he thought Bernays was not as important as this other scholar - I’ll check it out

John McElroy

A couple things First, I think this conversation (as DB put it, “between two PhDs”) is emblematic of the gatekeeper role in academia (when pushing back like you did Aaron, DB relents but with all theses caveats) and when you confront directly but not harshly with examples (I.e. Hollywood, Russiagate, setting up the public for years with Wisner et al) there is backtracking and protection of HIS status via deflection and the appearance of minor issues of disagreement. The irony for me is that DB has not consumed Democracy Now or followed much of the evidence for the shitstorm of propaganda that has engulfed our culture - hanging chads, Robbo-signed forgeries, foamed runways, weapons of mass destruction, no response to the 6-7 coups we’ve up to this decade. When smart people can’t be forthcoming - it speaks volumes. And when he does not reference his sources in debate, asking us to check out his book - it makes you feel that he has this paywallled knowledge (university privilege) that is hard to access and process. Second, his point about propaganda being a poor location to address the powerful really angered me - as he’s already made up his mind about the probability of success. I prefer the curious scholar to the one who knows how this thing is going to end. Fair enough, but it’s like I want to yell at him through the podcast to read your Chris Hedges (all of the levers of power have been seized) - any real confrontation to power by a weary public should be made upon multiple fronts at the same time to stress their systems - especially when dealing with powerful and violent systems of control. In my view, DB’s presenting of empire is a very dangerous posture because it’s all or none with enormous consequences - addressing DB’s root of power. It took many decades to develop these financial, intelligence and military systems (the tripartite state) and it wants one easy to see opponent coming directly at them imo. And what is he doing on the “going after power” where it originates? We do not get a real flavor for how he intends to fight power if it all. Lastly, I appreciate DBs willingness to discuss his views and Aaron for standing his ground. It was an exercise that occurs every day and is telling, a window into an educated back and forth (well done). But there is no way DB is in touch with the decay of the American state and its institutions - this is happening rapidly in almost every field if one pays attention. Pandemic response, foreign policy, Biden’s agenda or lack thereof, PMC and their schtick. Times like these I wish Lance de Haven-Smith was with us. Anyways, I’m more of a Beatles guy, but to quote the Stones “you can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need”. This podcast was a needed reminder for how academia has difficulty understanding the deep state - and when confronted with examples it needs to protect turf, self, or career while regailing us about how things will turn out. Grumpy in the morning - thanks Aaron

John McElroy

To me seems clear the prevailing ideologies reflect the material interests of the outlets' owners...like everything under neoliberal capitalism.

Aaron Good

Well, that's pretty much the norm for Noam. Dan's definitely not the guy who's gonna push back on Chomsky for that one.

Aaron Good

Danny Bessner also lets Noam Chomsky lie about jfk

NYCM&AHole