trump seems to control the preachers, but if falwell's "pool boy" is any indication he uses kompromat on the cult leaders to keep the sheep in line.

The Catholic Church used it for a thousand years to control the masses under feudalism. MAGA=serfs.

'Religion is the opiate of the masses'. Marx was right.

Isn't that repetitive?

Robert Parry: The GOP's $3 Bn Propaganda Organ

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0612/S00361/robert-parry-the-gops-3-bn-propaganda-organ.htm

And understand who our overlords and masters are.

I've wondered to what extent he adapted his "private" propaganda methods from the old Soviets' "government" propaganda methods that led to Soviet totalitarianism which largely continues under Pootin. Sort of the flip side of the same coin.

The fat cat predators today may see their ability to promote certain narratives/propaganda as a way of insuring their fortunes from the "unruly masses" and amassing even more.

is the people who believe it.

Don't Listen To What THEY Say, Check The Record!

Deploy the rules of effective counter-propaganda

1. True
2. Fast response
3. Clear, simple, direct
4. Aimed at the same audience the propaganda was.

Those are the four classic rules of counter-propaganda. In these times I would add a fifth:

5. Voluminous, abundant, frequent, bountiful, often, overflowing, and with variations of each meme. Variations might be different pics for same message, different messages for the same pic, mix it up, multiple commentaries on one point, etc.

This can be accomplished by a well-organized group of Democrats, grass roots even. Wouldn't take a lot of money. Ds are smarter and funnier than Rs, so we can beat them at this game.

DNC should fund some sort of counter-GOP propaganda army to monitor social media

The Supreme Court is ok with that.

Why don’t they also purchase radio stations media outlets? I do like the idea that a Soros affiliated group is trying to purchase the radio station outlet audacy. I believe another group linked is also looking at picking up TikTok here in United States. We have to counter propaganda with truth, and we have to overwhelm the propaganda with truth.

Last edited Sat Jan 11, 2025, 10:29 PM - Edit history (1)

I'd donate.

And mostly they avoid the political fray.

Oligarchs are not going to rescue us.

Just saying, and honestly while I have some issues with Wapo, they are hardly a purveyor of propaganda.

You don't buy news sources like those to get rich. You need to be rich to buy them. You buy them to gain power and influence if you look at the world with a jaundiced view. I would say if the original post had included the word "richer" the statement would have been absolutely correct.

No amount of money will ever satisfy the Zuckerbergs, Musks, and Bezos of the world. They could be trillionaires and then they would want quadrillions. And the minimum wage will never increase.

but I've noticed that some people NEVER have enough money - for example, all these big celebrities in commercials now, WTF

Under Bush - millionaires became billionaires. Under Trump - billionaires will become trillionaires. After that, the sky is the limit. They could have all the money and it wouldn't be enough. Sick fucks.

Intelligent people won't pay to be propagandized. Subscribers have fled most of the publishers you've mentioned, and MAGAts don't read.

They've shot themselves in the feet. Unfortunately, they also killed the free press. Thank god for Bluesky writers!

the cannibal's cookbook!

don't need to "get" rich. They are already unbelievably, off the charts rich. But they're not satisfied.

propaganda outlet so he can get rich why is it that the paper leans far more centrist and left of center than right of center (although it has always printed the columns of a few people on the right like George Will), has never presented a fascist viewpoint (such as the one expressed by Musk), and has most certainly not made him rich. I don't think this kind of hyper-exaggeration is helpful to anybody. But I would welcome evidence that the paper has published fascist propaganda. Links please.

Jeff Bezos owns the paper, he does not work on the paper. I would agree with your point, the Post lean(ed) center left. Until now. All it took was Bezos to order a change implemented at a crucial time during the election to ruin it's reputation for as long as he owns it, period.
Did he purchase the paper with those intentions? I don't know. But he didn't buy the National Enquirer, he bought the reputable Post with all of it's subscribers that have come to trust it's content. He may or may not have made changes to how the paper is run. Again, I don't know. But we know he ordered this policy change of no longer endorsing a Presidential candidate after the choice was made. He admitted it. Since then I don't think his actions have done anything to change anybody's mind about the paper's direction.
If you think otherwise, please provide links.

It's the constant switch back and forth that helps the fascists. The fascist buy a "leftish" media platform and gradually change it to the right. It's the pushing of the mediocre leftish leaning crap that is front and center. The milder less offensive
right wing crap is sugar coated and pushed. It's their reputation of being leftish that hides their subtle game of destroy the liberals.

I use that word "leftish" because there are really no fully liberal mainstream media platforms in the US. Some play at it. But most of the platforms that identify themselves as left are really centrists. You have to go to Socialist publications and European news outlets to get a truly liberal perspective.

Once the fascists buy the leftish media platforms they gradually add their right wing spin. They turn away any really effective left wing spin and just let the mediocre leftish crap fly. Then everyone praises them for being so centrist.

But what they are doing is more subtle and effective. They attack liberal leaders with leftish ideology. They praise right wing leaders who barely show reasonableness or sanity. All the while hiding behind their leftish reputation which confuses people. People think this is a leftish publication praising Trump and leaving strong liberal messaging behind. It must be true then.......and that's when they win.

Throwing around charges of fascism without a single shred of evidence just dilutes the power of the word and renders it meaningless. Get a grip.

The clear left leaning candidate, shows how they hide behind their leftish reputation. Yet, all the time minimizing support for the left. Bezos didn't even support Harris when Trump had already continually insulted Wapo during the campaign. If you think not supporting the only non-fascist on the ticket is antifacsist, you need to get a grip.

Also During the 2020 Democratic primaries, Bernie criticized Wapo saying its coverage was slanted against him and blamed this on Jeff Bezos' purchase of the newspaper. Bernie's criticism was echoed by the a major socialist magazine and the progressive journalist watchdog "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting".

I'm not going to quote Wapo because it charges a subscription.

capitalism. In my opinion, the second is closer to the mark than the first. Don't throw words like fascism around willy-nilly because you're angry that there wasn't more support for Harris in the newspaper. The Post reported very negatively on all of
trump's fascist statements. They NEVER supported or praised a fascist position. Facts are important. And WTF does Bernie have to do with your contention that the Post is fascist? Did Bernie ever say it was?

As long as it follows the policy and rules of DU. You do not control what is written here. You are not the word police or anyone of significance to me.

Goodbye.

If you want to misuse words that is your right, but I will correct your mistakes when I feel a correction is warranted. I'm sorry you are uncomfortable with both disagreement and the dictionary meaning of words.

in "fascist propaganda." If they had, they would have endorsed Trump. That's the claim the OP made, and it is the claim to which I am strongly objecting. I'm not going to prove a negative. It's up to you to back up that absurd claim, and I do not believe you can. This kind of sensationalist, wildly false claim doesn't belong on DU. I was very disappointed at the rightward movement of the editorial staff, but they never even came close to engaging in your so-called fascist propaganda.

engaged in fascist propaganda but I did make a blanket statement that I agreed with the original post. To be accurate, in my opinion based on what I have read from excerpts from NYT, Washington Post, Guardian and half a dozen other sources about what Jeff Bezos wrote and submitted for print in the Washington Post that he and the Washington Post decided to change the long-standing, well established policy of endorsing presidential candidates two weeks before the election. Attributing "inadequate planning" to the reason for the timing. The timing in itself was a strategy. Then to not endorse the only rational, sane candidate was a strategy of elevating the other candidate, a convicted felon, liar, cheater, sexual abuser, to equal standing.
1) nobody but Bezos decided to change this policy and and the editor agreed.
2) a highly successful man such as Bezos doesn't make a decision as impactful as this on a whim. The editorial decision was made to endorse VP Harris for President. The timing was the result of a last minute decision of covering his ass with the possibility of T winning the election. He had to think about his other businesses being jeopardized.
3) Bezos stated he made the decision because of his principles. I think most of us know his principles are very flexible. Just ask his ex wife.
4) Didn't he just go to T to give him money under the auspices of, it's for the inauguration.
This is in support of a new administration that is intent on becoming a full on fascist government.
As a result, many reputable employed contributors to the Washington Post have either resigned or harshly criticized the Bezos decision.
Furthermore, your rhetoric here is fringing on inflammatory and on the verge of personal attacks on DU members. Everybody here has the right to their opinion as do you. If the subject matter seems personal to you, I understand your stance. But you might consider how angry people are at this time, especially DU contributors. This is a safe place to let off steam, state opinions, rational or not. We all have that right. At least for the time being.
Be well.

There were already rich to buy those things.

The outlets don't have to be particularly profitable themselves, they're for gaining influence. Particularly in the service of the profitability of their other businesses. The Post didn't scrap their endorsement out of any principle, it's because Bezos' other companies are trying to get government contracts, and if WaPo had endorsed Harris he could kiss those goodbye just from Trump's spite.

And I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.

it's extremely important to understand who owns and controls the outlet and publisher.

I usually try to check the author's and outlet's past record for accuracy (e.g., did they support the 2003 invasion of Iraq?), who's the editor (ditto), who's on the Board and who are they affiliated with, and who owns or controls the biggest interests in the outlet.

The results, whatever they are, don't necessarily mean that everything the outlet publishes is either true or false, but it tells you which kinds of bias to look out for; e.g., a conservative outlet may be good at pointing out what the Dems don't want us to focus on, while a liberal outlet will point out what Republicans don't want us to focus on; and since at least 95% of traditional media worldwide are owned by 6 megacorps (thanks to the Telecom Act of 1996) and the internet is fast becoming nearly as consolidated, we can assume that pretty much all MSM outlets will omit to talk about the things that the 1% would prefer we not focus on.

they bought those media outlets. They did not buy them to get rich.

They gain power through owning media and that power is used to make them richer.

never a motivation. A simple black or white, good or bad, them vs us immature view of the world.

As if Citizens United disappeared tomorrow and money in politics strictly controlled, right-wingers would instantly turn into liberals and be nice because their only possible motivation is gone. Ridiculous.

compete with each other to become the richest men in the world. To do this the steelworkers worked 12 hour days, 7 days a week, with a high death accident rate and even higher deaths from pneumonia. Then Carnegie set out to donate more money than any man in the workd through philanthropy--libraries, museums, the famous music hall.

They chose McKinley and bought him the presidency.

Only McKinley's assassination and Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting saved us. For a while. Now the robber barons are back but we call them Oligarchs. They have more powerful media. And it's not only worker's lives at stake but the whole planet.

Rich shallow men who think their lives matter more than the rest of the world population.

When can one say "I have more than I will ever need or use", and walk away from the acquiring game?
There's so much more to life than accumulating possessions.

They will bankrupt the entire country to enrich their coffers. They can go shove all their billions straight up their sorry asses!

The fight is asymmetrical.

Democrats operate on the assumption that if they just solve the problems people say they have by providing solutions to those problems, people will be grateful and they win.

BUT...when information is completely bogus and people believe their problems are the results of things that are completely untrue, Democrats cannot fight back. Or they fight back by conceding the GOP view of things, like immigration and crime. Illegal immigration and crime are in fact DOWN and not up.

+1

This is one of the best posts that I have ever read on DU. It is right on target and a very important topic. We now have Fascist Billionaire Oligarchs running our country. The question is- What do we do about it? Any ideas?

There needs to be more independent (aka non-propaganda) media.

Maybe we should buy more lottery tickets.

his influence is more recent and the people working there are speaking out.

I don't think he bought it for the purpose of propaganda in the way Musk did work Twitter.

Bezos bought the Washington Post group because it owned the fir profit Kaplan College and Kaplan Test Prep.

I was working for Kaplan at the time.

They wanted to see off the Post because it was losing money and use the gir profit colleges as a cash cow.

Then the Dems started regulating the fir profit colleges and they dumped that.

If he had been able to solute off and sell the Post at the beginning, he would have. There was no buyer.

Great, fuck Jeff Bezos.

For profit colleges were printing money at the time and Kaplan College did not have the obvious legal problem of the others.

Not a war in education...mostly just a grift on poor people of color who were nontraditional college students.

The war on education is the DeVos family.

Now they are going to step on the entire U.S. population to STAY there.......

can never be satisfied.

I gave up my NY Times subscription after their 2016 Shenanigans.

I gave up WaPo after their 2024 Shenanigans.

I've stopped watching the MSM aka Legacy Media.

AP News and The Guardian get my eyes now. As does channel 7 (NYC) for local news.

We can make the best choices possible for ourselves. Also - history will treat us kindly . . . the "Others" - not so much.

Big Data/Cloud Servers are forever. We shall know them by their Social Media footprint.

My dad was a 'Bama man. He had lots of sayings - but one of my favorites?

"Sometimes there ain't no takesy backsey."

Owning Twitter, for example, has been a losing investment for Musk, viewed in isolation.

That’s not the point. The point is that they are using these platforms to push a fascist agenda that is going to remove all regulatory barriers to wealth accumulation by the oligarchs in the club.