We will segue from election public policy to media and journalism public policy opening with a global banking 1% freemason LITERARY STAR-----Barnes and his NOISE OF TIME. We really liked Barnes depiction of OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS Russia ---then USSR ----and the emotional and mental attitudes of Eastern Europe having never escaped 1000 AD medieval DARK AGES-----where Barnes creates a character that is SHOSTAKOVICH as REAL NON-FICTION ----or as historical FICTION----we never can figure out why people living under far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXISM make life decisions. We do know the leading plot throughout NOISE OF TIME-------
YOU CANNOT SPEAK THE TRUTH----YOU CANNOT LIVE A TRUE LIFE.
When we shared our local Baltimore global banking 1% freemason/Greek player organizations like GREATER BALTIMORE COMMITTEE----we are seeing the same people identified by SHOSTAKOVICH in NOISE OF TIME as 5% freeemason/Greek leaders willing to work under far-right wing brutal CORPORATE FASCISM.
We KNOW Barnes-----hmmmmm, BARNES and NOBLE? is a player creating societal FADS for global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS so this historical depiction of USSR during communism is simply setting the stage for MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
BOOKS / See also: BIOGRAPHY / RESOURCES
The Noise of Time
In May 1937 a man in his early thirties waits by the lift of a Leningrad apartment block. He waits all through the night, expecting to be taken away to the Big House. Any celebrity he has known in the previous decade is no use to him now. And few who are taken to the Big House ever return.So begins Julian Barnes's first novel since his Booker-winning The Sense of an Ending. A story about the collision of Art and Power, about human compromise, human cowardice and human courage, it is the work of a true master.
EDITIONS & TRANSLATIONS / INTERVIEWS / REVIEWS
EDITIONS & TRANSLATIONS
The Noise of Time. London: Jonathan Cape, 2016.
[Limited Edition]. London: London Review Bookshop, 2016.
Limited, signed edition of 100 copies, 75 in quarter-bound Harmatan Yellow 30 goatskin leather with Atlantic Cloth sides, and contain one facsimile page from the author’s working notebook. Twenty-five copies, numbered i to xxv, are fully bound in the same leather and contain a portfolio of six facsimile pages of early draft passages and notebook entries.
The Noise of Time. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016.
The Noise of Time. Toronto: Random House Canada, 2016.
The Noise of Time. Vintage, 2017.
Back Top ^Angela Merkel on The Noise of Time
"I’ve read a book on Shostakovich, by Julian Barnes, also in connection with a performance of "Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk", which I attended a while ago in Salzburg. The book wasn’t particularly long, so I immersed myself in it for two days. [...]
"What appealed to me most about this book was that it allowed you to get to know the environment in which Shostakovich’s music was created. It also harked back to a conflict I frequently encountered myself when I was young. Shostakovich lived through different phases of the Soviet Union’s cultural policy and was faced with that question “how honest, how open are you?”. His work had been banned, he wasn’t allowed to have it shown anywhere, he was deprived of his means of expression, effectively. For these very reasons, I myself had decided pretty early on to become a physicist, because the GDR couldn’t possibly mess with physics. But as a musician, as a composer, your music might get classed as un-cultural ("unkulturell") and be ostracized. People like this not only couldn’t express themselves freely, but they also had to fear for their lives. Questions like how honest can I afford to be, how strong am I, when do I give in, what am I ready to compromise on, those are questions Shostakovich was faced with a lot. And reading about a life like that made me realize once again what a blessing it is to live in a free country."
- Excerpt from "Handelsblatt – Deutschland Live" interview
Back Top ^
INTERVIEWS01/16/16 - The Book Show RTE Radio 1 with Sinead Gleeson, 16 January 2016.
01/22/16 - "Lunch with the FT: Julian Barnes" [Interview with Caroline Daniel]. Financial Times, 22 January 2016.
REVIEWS01/15/2016 - Rentzenbrink, Cathy. "Julian Barnes: Interview." The Bookseller, 15 January 2016.
01/16/16 - Duncan White. "The Noise of Time by Julian Barnes, review: 'black humour'." The Telegraph, 16 January 2016.
01/17/16 - Alex Preston. "Julian Barnes’s Masterpiece." The Guardian, 17 January 2016.
01/22/16 - James Lasdun. "How Shostakovich Survived Stalin." The Guardian, 22 January 2016.
05/09/2016 - Denk, Jeremy. "'The Noise of Time' by Julian Barnes." The New York Times, 9 May 2016.
05/10/2016 - McAlpin, Heller. "'The Noise Of Time' Can't Drown Out Shostakovich." NPR.com, May 10, 2016.
05/15/2016 - Magras, Michael. "'The Noise of Time': Julian Barnes imagines how Shostakovich made great music under Stalin's tyranny." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 15 May 2016.
05/15/2016 - Finucan, Stephen. "On Shostakovich, Stalin and what it takes to be a hero."
The Star, 15 May 2016.05/20/2016 - Alexis, André. "Julian Barnes’s The Noise of Time is a thoughtful, humane and compassionate novel." The Globe & Mail, 20 May 2016.
05/25/16 - Julian Barnes discusses Leicester City and his new novel The Noise of Time with Charlie Rose.
05/26/2016 - Zelman, Tom. "Review: 'The Noise of Time,' by Julian Barnes." Star Tribune, 26 May 2016.
05/26/2016 - Saval, Nikil. "Julian Barnes and the Shostakovich Wars." The New Yorker, 26 May 2016.
06/03/2016 - Torné,Gonzalo. "Julian Barnes. Retrato del artista occidental." Ahora, 3 June 2016.
06/03/2016 - Adams, James. "In new novel, Julian Barnes tests the noise of time through art and biography." The Globe & Mail, 3 June 2016. [Profile/Interview].
06/05/2016 - Zheng, Haiyao. [Interview with Julian Barnes.] Shanghai Review of Books and The Paper [Julian Barnes's first interview for a Chinese publication.]
06/05/2016 - Wachtel, Eleanor. "Julian Barnes about love, loss and Dmitri Shostakovich." Writers & Company (CBC). [Audio Interview].
06/10/16 - Zohn, Patricia. "CultureZohn Off the C(H)uff: Julian Barnes and The Noise of Time." Huffington Post. [Includes interview quotes and numerous photos.]
07/03/16 - Julian Barnes discusses The Noise of Time on To the Best of Our Knowledge, Wisconsin Public Radio (Audio Available at www.ttbook.org/book/julian-barnes-noise-time).
Our 99% US young adults and new to US immigrants may not have been taught that back in 1980s-90s REAGAN/CLINTON we had lots of media and journalism telling us REAGAN/CLINTON were HITLER/STALIN/MAO fascism just as THE NOISE OF TIME published today aimed at making a TRUMP that MADMAN. The march to global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS corporate fascism is OLD NEWS and it is simply history repeating itself.
When we stated that LEO STRAUSS-------UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO home of global banking 1% NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY at the same time our US public universities were corporatized, our US broad and free media consolidated-----when all academic and media became FALSE FLAG MYTH-MAKING----this is when TRUTH BECAME ILLEGAL.
Trump, Reagan and Fascism: Frank Rich and the Pitfalls of Historical Analogy
June 17, 2016
Analogies are one of the most seductive and misleading of all expeditions into historical interpretation. Analogies can be an imaginative form of reasoning, as they enrich insight by connecting seemingly disconnected topics. But they can also be deceptive. For a certain type of American political commentator, every minor vicissitude in foreign relations is another Munich, and every blow up in the Balkans a replay of the Guns of August, with dire consequences for us all. Pathetic third-world caudillos always represent a new Adolf Hitler, and Western statesmen who warn against them are hailed as another Winston Churchill.
Here in Baltimore our politics and electioneering require NO NEGATIVITY-----BE POSITIVE. Of course what is being DEFINED AS NEGATIVE------is TRUTH-TELLING. BARNES in NOISE OF TIME does a great job in weaving this societal destruction creating an eternal PESSIMISM in our 99% WE THE RUSSIAN/USSR citizens. Wearing that facial MASK that does not expose ANY persoanal feelings is a must in MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----especially in Baltimore City as was true for Shostakovich during global banking 1% OUR REVOLUTION for only the global 1%----RUSSIAN/USSR REVOLUTIONS.
TRUTHOUT as a raging global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS neo-liberal media outlet belies that corruption of what is TRUTH. John Pilger of course lying, hiding by making it appear TRUMP is the starting face of FASCISM.....when these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA were super-duper global 1% CORPORATE FASCISM.
TRUTHOUT is a prime example of corrupting what TRUTH in society really is. We also see global banking 1% media outlet TRUTHDIG-----also a corruption of TRUTH which is central in FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% CORPORATE FASCISM.
Why the rise of fascism is again the issue
26 February 2015
The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.
"To initiate a war of aggression...," said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, "is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.
WOW----NOT A BIT OF REAL HISTORY IN THAT STATEMENT ABOVE.
Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe in Libya.
In 2011, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that "most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten".
The public sodomising of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a "rebel" bayonet was greeted by the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: "We came, we saw, he died." His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew... that if we waited one more day," said President Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."
This was the fabrication of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". Reported on March 14, 2011, the lie provided the first spark for Nato's inferno, described by David Cameron as a "humanitarian intervention".
Secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS, many of the "rebels" would become ISIS, whose latest video offering shows the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in Sirte, the city destroyed on their behalf by Nato bombers.
For Obama, David Cameron and then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaddafi's true crime was Libya's economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa's greatest oil reserves in US dollars.
KNOW WHAT GLOBAL BANKING 1% ARE MOVING FORWARD? STOPPING THE CONNECTION OF US DOLLARS AS WORLD CURRENCY-----SAME AS GADDAFI. GADDAFI QUITE THE GLOBAL BANKING 1% FREEMASON DICTATOR PLAYER. WAS HE REALLY BRUTALIZED OR WAS IT SIMPLY THE ARAB SPRING CLEANING?
The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power. Gaddafi audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships".
Following Nato's attack under cover of a Security Council resolution, Obama, wrote Garikai Chengu, "confiscated $30 billion from Libya's Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency".
The "humanitarian war" against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent Nato to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing "genocide" against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The West's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.
With the Nato bombing over, and much of Serbia's infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.
Behind the lie, there was serious purpose. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent, multi-ethnic federation that had stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. Most of its utilities and major manufacturing was publicly owned. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to capture its "natural market" in the Yugoslav provinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991 to lay their plans for the disastrous eurozone, a secret deal had been struck; Germany would recognise Croatia. Yugoslavia was doomed.
In Washington, the US saw that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans. Nato, then an almost defunct Cold War relic, was reinvented as imperial enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo "peace" conference in Rambouillet, in France, the Serbs were subjected to the enforcer's duplicitous tactics. The Rambouillet accord included a secret Annex B, which the US delegation inserted on the last day. This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia - a country with bitter memories of the Nazi occupation - and the implementation of a "free-market economy" and the privatisation of all government assets. No sovereign state could sign this. Punishment followed swiftly; Nato bombs fell on a defenceless country. It was the precursor to the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria and Libya, and Ukraine.
Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations - 69 countries - have suffered some or all of the following at the hands of America's modern fascism. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted, their people bombed and their economies stripped of all protection, their societies subjected to a crippling siege known as "sanctions". The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. In every case, a big lie was deployed.
"Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over." These were opening words of Obama's 2015 State of the Union address. In fact, some 10,000 troops and 20,000 military contractors (mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan on indefinite assignment. "The longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion," said Obama. In fact, more civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014 than in any year since the UN took records. The majority have been killed - civilians and soldiers - during Obama's time as president.
The tragedy of Afghanistan rivals the epic crime in Indochina. In his lauded and much quoted book 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives', Zbigniew Brzezinski, the godfather of US policies from Afghanistan to the present day, writes that if America is to control Eurasia and dominate the world, it cannot sustain a popular democracy, because "the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion... Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation." He is right. As WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have revealed, a surveillance and police state is usurping democracy. In 1976, Brzezinski, then President Carter's National Security Advisor, demonstrated his point by dealing a death blow to Afghanistan's first and only democracy. Who knows this vital history?
In the 1960s, a popular revolution swept Afghanistan, the poorest country on earth, eventually overthrowing the vestiges of the aristocratic regime in 1978. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) formed a government and declared a reform programme that included the abolition of feudalism, freedom for all religions, equal rights for women and social justice for the ethnic minorities. More than 13,000 political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.
The new government introduced free medical care for the poorest; peonage was abolished, a mass literacy programme was launched. For women, the gains were unheard of. By the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up almost half of Afghanistan's doctors, a third of civil servants and the majority of teachers. "Every girl," recalled Saira Noorani, a female surgeon, "could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian film on a Friday and listen to the latest music. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. We were terrified. It was funny and sad to think these were the people the West supported."
The PDPA government was backed by the Soviet Union, even though, as former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance later admitted, "there was no evidence of any Soviet complicity [in the revolution]". Alarmed by the growing confidence of liberation movements throughout the world, Brzezinski decided that if Afghanistan was to succeed under the PDPA, its independence and progress would offer the "threat of a promising example".
On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorised support for tribal "fundamentalist" groups known as the mujaheddin, a program that grew to over $500 million a year in U.S. arms and other assistance. The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan's first secular, reformist government. In August 1979, the US embassy in Kabul reported that "the United States' larger interests... would be served by the demise of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." The italics are mine.
The mujaheddin were the forebears of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. They included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received tens of millions of dollars in cash from the CIA. Hekmatyar's specialty was trafficking in opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London, he was lauded by Prime Minister Thatcher as a "freedom fighter".
Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation and "destabilise" the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, "a few stirred up Muslims". His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden was one of them. Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called "Operation Cyclone". Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah - who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help - was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.
The "blowback" of Operation Cyclone and its "few stirred up Muslims" was September 11, 2001. Operation Cyclone became the "war on terror", in which countless men, women and children would lose their lives across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The enforcer's message was and remains: "You are with us or against us."
The common thread in fascism, past and present, is mass murder. The American invasion of Vietnam had its "free fire zones", "body counts" and "collateral damage". In the province of Quang Ngai, where I reported from, many thousands of civilians ("gooks") were murdered by the US; yet only one massacre, at My Lai, is remembered. In Laos and Cambodia, the greatest aerial bombardment in history produced an epoch of terror marked today by the spectacle of joined-up bomb craters which, from the air, resemble monstrous necklaces. The bombing gave Cambodia its own ISIS, led by Pol Pot.
Today, the world's greatest single campaign of terror entails the execution of entire families, guests at weddings, mourners at funerals. These are Obama's victims. According to the New York Times, Obama makes his selection from a CIA "kill list" presented to him every Tuesday in the White House Situation Room. He then decides, without a shred of legal justification, who will live and who will die. His execution weapon is the Hellfire missile carried by a pilotless aircraft known as a drone; these roast their victims and festoon the area with their remains. Each "hit" is registered on a faraway console screen as a "bugsplat".
"For goose-steppers," wrote the historian Norman Pollack, "substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manque, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while."
Uniting fascism old and new is the cult of superiority. "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being," said Obama, evoking declarations of national fetishism from the 1930s. As the historian Alfred W. McCoy has pointed out, it was the Hitler devotee, Carl Schmitt, who said, "The sovereign is he who decides the exception." This sums up Americanism, the world's dominant ideology. That it remains unrecognised as a predatory ideology is the achievement of an equally unrecognised brainwashing. Insidious, undeclared, presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, its conceit insinuates western culture. I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine, at a cost of as many as 13 million soldiers. By contrast, US losses, including in the Pacific, were 400,000. Hollywood reversed this.
The difference now is that cinema audiences are invited to wring their hands at the "tragedy" of American psychopaths having to kill people in distant places - just as the President himself kills them. The embodiment of Hollywood's violence, the actor and director Clint Eastwood, was nominated for an Oscar this year for his movie, 'American Sniper', which is about a licensed murderer and nutcase. The New York Times described it as a "patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records in its opening days".
There are no heroic movies about America's embrace of fascism. During the Second World War, America (and Britain) went to war against Greeks who had fought heroically against Nazism and were resisting the rise of Greek fascism. In 1967, the CIA helped bring to power a fascist military junta in Athens - as it did in Brazil and most of Latin America. Germans and east Europeans who had colluded with Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity were given safe haven in the US; many were pampered and their talents rewarded. Wernher von Braun was the "father" of both the Nazi V-2 terror bomb and the US space programme.
In the 1990s, as former Soviet republics, eastern Europe and the Balkans became military outposts of Nato, the heirs to a Nazi movement in Ukraine were given their opportunity. Responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews, Poles and Russians during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian fascism was rehabilitated and its "new wave" hailed by the enforcer as "nationalists".
This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia" and "other scum", including gays, feminists and those on the political left.
These fascists are now integrated into the Kiev coup government. The first deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the governing party, is co-founder of Svoboda. On February 14, Parubiy announced he was flying to Washington get "the USA to give us highly precise modern weaponry". If he succeeds, it will be seen as an act of war by Russia.
No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe - with the exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing the US arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defence Minister as "the minister for defeatism". It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading "neo-con" luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century, she was foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney.
Nuland's coup did not go to plan. Nato was prevented from seizing Russia's historic, legitimate, warm-water naval base in Crimea. The mostly Russian population of Crimea - illegally annexed to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954 - voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, as they had done in the 1990s. The referendum was voluntary, popular and internationally observed. There was no invasion.
At the same time, the Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the ferocity of ethnic cleansing. Deploying neo-Nazi militias in the manner of the Waffen-SS, they bombed and laid to siege cities and towns. They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity, freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions. More than a million refugees fled across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became unpeople escaping "the violence" caused by the "Russian invasion". The Nato commander, General Breedlove - whose name and actions might have been inspired by Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove - announced that 40,000 Russian troops were "massing". In the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none.
These Russian-speaking and bilingual people of Ukraine - a third of the population - have long sought a federation that reflects the country's ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are not "separatists" but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland and oppose the power grab in Kiev. Their revolt and establishment of autonomous "states" are a reaction to Kiev's attacks on them. Little of this has been explained to western audiences.
On May 2, 2014, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters with police standing by. The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as "another bright day in our national history". In the American and British media, this was reported as a "murky tragedy" resulting from "clashes" between "nationalists" (neo-Nazis) and "separatists" (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine).
The New York Times buried the story, having dismissed as Russian propaganda warnings about the fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington's new clients. The Wall Street Journal damned the victims - "Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says". Obama congratulated the junta for its "restraint".
If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role in the West will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine. On January 29, Ukraine's top military commander, General Viktor Muzhemko, almost inadvertently dismissed the very basis for US and EU sanctions on Russia when he told a news conference emphatically: "The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian Army". There were "individual citizens" who were members of "illegal armed groups", but there was no Russian invasion. This was not news. Vadym Prystaiko, Kiev's Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for "full scale war" with nuclear-armed Russia.
On February 21, US Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced a bill that would authorise American arms for the Kiev regime. In his Senate presentation, Inhofe used photographs he claimed were of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine, which have long been exposed as fakes. It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's fake pictures of a Soviet installation in Nicaragua, and Colin Powell's fake evidence to the UN of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America's most distinguished investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, "No European government, since Adolf Hitler's Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West's media/political spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring facts that have been well established... If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three - much as it did into world war one a century ago - all you need to do is look at the madness over Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason."
In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "The use made by Nazi conspirators of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack... In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons." In the Guardian on February 2, Timothy Garton-Ash called, in effect, for a world war. "Putin must be stopped," said the headline. "And sometimes only guns can stop guns." He conceded that the threat of war might "nourish a Russian paranoia of encirclement"; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the job and advised his readers that "America has the best kit".
In 2003, Garton-Ash, an Oxford professor, repeated the propaganda that led to the slaughter in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, he wrote, "has, as [Colin] Powell documented, stockpiled large quantities of horrifying chemical and biological weapons, and is hiding what remains of them. He is still trying to get nuclear ones." He lauded Blair as a "Gladstonian, Christian liberal interventionist". In 2006, he wrote, "Now we face the next big test of the West after Iraq: Iran."
The outbursts - or as Garton-Ash prefers, his "tortured liberal ambivalence" - are not untypical of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair is their lost leader. The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash's piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words: "The F-35. GREAT For Britain". This American "kit" will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world. In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.
GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS BEATING TO DEATH REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM WITH LOTS OF LYING AND IRONY.
Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile base; they want its economy. Kiev's new Finance Minister, Nataliwe Jaresko, is a former senior US State Department official in charge of US overseas "investment". She was hurriedly given Ukrainian citizenship. They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden's son is on the board of Ukraine's biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine's rich farming soil.
Above all, they want Ukraine's mighty neighbour, Russia. They want to Balkanise or dismember Russia and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia's long Arctic land border. Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country's economy to the West. His successor, Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.
The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that brought a fragile civilisation to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured, and a holocaust beckons.
Throughout these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA we were told by global banking 5%freemason/Greek player MEDIA and journalists that our US elections were moving from NEGATIVE debating of candidates with open dialog----to REMOVING ALL NEGATIVITY ----and making US elections about POSITIVE ISSUES MOVING PROGRESSIVELY FORWARD. Know what? Defining PROGRESSIVE as 1000BC DARK AGES is just that CORPORATE FASCISM as Stalin/Hitler/Mao.
US 99% WE THE PEOPLE hear nothing but------GET NEGATIVITY OUT OF US ELECTIONS---while global banking 1% define negativity as TRUTH-TELLING.
Today, our local Baltimore electioneering has been whiddled-down to a minute or two of nothing but POSITIVE talking point sound bites.
All of this corruption of TRUTH by calling it NEGATIVE mirrors THE NOISE OF TIME with the hero ---a talented musicologist ----fighting his entire life for HIS SOUL. HAPPY FINGERS by SUESS was STALIN'S -----'GREAT FRIENDSHIP'--was REAGAN/CLINTON era IT TAKES A VILLAGE----PEACE AND LOVE IN ONE WORLD media and journalism. All that was far-right wing STALIN global corporate fascism---it was never REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE 99% populism.
NEGATIVE ADVERTISING ----BECAME STALIN'S DEFINITION OF TRUTH-TELLING BEING NEGATIVE.
For those not knowing KNIGHT MEDIA has always been far-right wing global banking 1% WESLEYAN universities are freemasonry---not religious.
Wesleyan Media Project | MEDIA IMPACT FUNDERSmediaimpactfunders.org/wesleyan-media-project
The Wesleyan Media Project tracks and analyzes all broadcast ads aired by federal and state election candidates in every media market in the country. TAGS: John S and James L Knight Foundation , MacArthur Foundation , Wesleyan University
Negative political ads and their effect on voters: Updated collection of research
By Denise-Marie Ordway and John Wihbey
Many people have a visceral reaction to political attack ads on TV: Not much will prompt a faster change of the channel. But they are difficult to escape during election season and the 2016 presidential election season won’t be much different. Political ads became much more negative over the course of the 2012 presidential campaign. Erika Franklin Fowler, an assistant professor of government, has noted that 2012 may be remembered for its record-setting negativity.
Fowler directs the Wesleyan Media Project, which monitors and analyzes televised campaign ads and found that three-quarters of ads aired during the last presidential race “appealed to anger.”
The 2016 presidential election already has become a nasty one, however. A September 2016 report from the Wesleyan Media Project shows that 53 percent of ads that aired over the previous month were negative — compared to 48 percent of ads that ran during a comparable period of the 2012 campaign. The report notes that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have taken different approaches with their advertising: “Just over 60 percent of Clinton’s ads have attacked Trump while 31 percent have been positive, focusing on Clinton. Trump, on the other hand, has by and large used contrast ads, which both promote himself and attack Clinton. He has aired no positive ads.”
Journalists writing about the 2016 race can find a searchable and shareable archive of 2016 primary election ads through the Political TV Ad Archive, an initiative funded by a Knight News Challenge grant.
The Wesleyan Media Project compiled the following chart to show how political advertising has become distinctly more negative over the past few election cycles:
In a May 2013 post for “The Monkey Cage,” a leading political science blog, John Sides of George Washington and Lynn Vavreck of UCLA summarize their research on the 2012 campaign. With regard to advertising, they conclude that ads mattered but only in “very circumscribed ways” and the “effect of ads appeared to decay quickly.” Further, they assert that “back-loading — airing ads close to the election — was actually more effective than front-loading — airing ads early in the campaign — if the goal was to influence voters on Election Day.”
Of course, the apparent rising volume and intensity of negative ads may reflect legal changes in how campaigns are funded in a post-Citizens United landscape. A related 2013 study in The Forum by Michael Franz of Bowdoin, “Interest Groups in Electoral Politics: 2012 in Context,” provides additional analysis and data relating to the role of outside groups in the most recent ad wars. In another May 2013 post for “The Monkey Cage,” Franz examines data suggesting that the type and potentially lower quality of ads by outside groups may have played a role in the election. The Romney campaign’s “reliance on outside spending put a significant burden on those groups to produce and air ads that could resonate with voters. They may have done so — we need more research on this — but they may have also produced ads that were far less effective at mobilizing or persuading voters.”
From a historical perspective, it is worth considering, too, that increased news media focus on negative advertising itself has helped accelerate this trend, creating a vicious cycle of attack politics driven by political consultants and journalists.
With its FlackCheck.org site, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania aims to help the public recognize flaws in arguments, including those made in political ads. See some of the typical video techniques of political deception and misdirection:
ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER IS FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS---NO REAL DATA ON US POLITICS HAPPENING WITH THESE NGOS.
Political scientists have long been studying the effects of negative ad campaigns on voter opinion, and many analysts focused on how campaign 2012 was affected. But scholars have complicated the simplistic view that negative ads “work” as a general rule. During the 2012 campaign, the Washington Post wrote about five commonly held “myths” about campaign ads, while the New York Times analyzed the specific circumstances when ads matter and their design and effects. At a deeper level, such ads may work to both “shrink and polarize the electorate,” as the political scientists Shanto Iyengar of Stanford and Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard have long pointed out.
Aggregated below are some of the more recent and/or influential academic studies on the topic:
“Attacks Without Consequence? Candidates, Parties, Groups, and the Changing Face of Negative Advertising”
Dowling, Conor M.; Wichowsky, Amber. American Journal of Political Science, 2015, Vol. 59. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12094.
Abstract: “Prior work finds that voters punish candidates for sponsoring attack ads. What remains unknown is the extent to which a negative ad is more effective if it is sponsored by a party or an independent group instead. We conducted three experiments in which we randomly assigned participants to view a negative ad that was identical except for its sponsor. We find that candidates can benefit from having a party or group ‘do their dirty work,’ but particularly if a group does, and that the most likely explanation for why this is the case is that many voters simply do not connect candidates to the ads sponsored by parties and groups. We also find that in some circumstances, a group-sponsored attack ad produces less polarization than one sponsored by a party. We conclude by discussing the implications our research has for current debates about the proper role of independent groups in electoral politics.”
“Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: How Fact-Checking Influences Citizens’ Reactions to Negative Advertising”
HMMM, ALL POLITICAL FACT CHECKS ARE TIED TO THE SAME MEDIA, JOURNALISTS, AND ACADEMICS BEING FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1%. THE FOXES GUARDING OUR TRUTHFULNESS HEN HOUSES!
Fridkin, Kim; Kenney, Patrick J.; Wintersieck, Amanda. Political Communication, 2015, Vol. 32. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2014.914613.
Abstract: “Electoral campaigns are dynamic and an important change in recent elections is the growth of fact-checking; the assessment of the truthfulness of political advertisements by news media organizations and watchdog groups. In this article, we examine the role that fact-checks play in shaping citizens’ views of negative commercials and political candidates. We rely on an Internet survey experiment where we vary people’s exposure to negative advertisements and a follow-up fact-check article (i.e., no fact-check, accurate fact-check, inaccurate fact-check). The results of our experiment show that fact-checks influence people’s assessments of the accuracy, usefulness, and tone of negative political ads. Furthermore, sophisticated citizens and citizens with low tolerance for negative campaigning are most responsive to fact-checks. The fact-checks also sway citizens’ likelihood of accepting the claims made in the advertisements. Finally, negative fact-checks (e.g., fact-checks challenging the truthfulness of the claims of the negative commercial) are more powerful than positive fact-checks.”
“Gender Differences in Reactions to Fact Checking of Negative Commercials”
Fridkin, Kim L.; Courey, Jillian; Hernandez, Samatha; Spears, Joshua. Politics & Gender, June 2016, Vol. 12. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X16000076.
Summary: This study from researchers at Arizona State University suggests that fact checking can reduce the impact of negative advertising but that men and women differ in their receptivity to fact checking. “Women are likely to view negative commercials as less useful and less accurate when they are exposed to a fact check challenging the facts presented in an attack advertisement.
OH, REALLY????? HOW SUGGESTIVE OF YOU
Perhaps more importantly, women are also less likely to believe the claims in negative commercials when they view a fact check challenging the advertisement’s claims. Men, in contrast, are less likely to be influenced by fact checks refuting the assertions made in a negative commercial.”
“Going Positive: The Effects of Negative and Positive Advertising on Candidate Success and Voter Turnout”
Malloy, Liam C; Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. Research and Politics, January-March 2016. doi: 10.1177/2053168015625078.
Abstract: “Given the depth of research on negative advertising in campaigns, scholars have wondered why candidates continue to attack their opponents. We build on this research by considering real-world campaign contexts in which candidates are working in competition with each other and have to react to the decisions of the opposing campaign. Our results suggest that it is never efficacious for candidates to run attack ads, but running positive ads can increase a candidate’s margin of victory. These results are conditioned by two factors: candidates must both stay positive and out-advertise their opponent. Second, the effects of positive advertising are strongest in areas where the candidate is losing or winning by a large margin — areas where they might be tempted to not advertise at all.”
“Who’s Afraid of Conflict? The Mobilizing Effect of Conflict Framing in Campaign News”
Schuck, Andreas R.T.; Vliegenthart, Rens; De Vreese, Claes H. British Journal of Political Science, January 2016, Vol. 46. doi: 10.1017/S0007123413000525.
Abstract: “The ability of the news media to mobilize voters during an election campaign is not well understood. Most extant research has been conducted in single-country studies and has paid little or no attention to the contextual level and the conditions under which such effects are more or less likely to occur. This study tests the mobilizing effect of conflict news framing in the context of the 2009 European Parliamentary elections. The unique multi-method and comparative cross-national study design combines a media content analysis (N = 48,982) with data from a two-wave panel survey conducted in twenty-one countries (N = 32,411). Consistent with expectations, conflict framing in campaign news mobilized voters to vote. Since the effect of conflict news was moderated by evaluations of the EU polity in the general information environment, conflict framing more effectively mobilized voters in countries where the EU was evaluated more positively.”
“Seeing Spots: An Experimental Examination of Voter Appetite for Partisan and Negative Campaign Ads”
Henderson, John A.; Theodoridis, Alexander G. July 2015. SSRN-id2629915.
Abstract: “We utilize a novel experimental design to assess voter selectivity to political advertising. We randomly expose respondents to comparable positive or negative ads aired by Democratic or Republican candidates from the 2012 Presidential race and the 2013 Virginia Gubernatorial contest. The experiment closely mirrors real consumption of campaign information by allowing subjects to skip ads after five seconds, re-watch and share ads with friends. Using these measures of ad-seeking behavior, we find little evidence that negativity influences self-exposure to election advertising.
WOW! ALL THIS FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% ACADEMIC FAKE DATA FEELS VERY MUCH LIKE STALINIST OPERANT CONDITIONING.
We find partisans disproportionately tune out ads aired by their party’s opponents, though this behavior is asymmetric: Republican-identifiers are more consistent screeners of partisan ads than Democrats. The results advance our understanding of selectivity, showing that party source, and not ad tone, interacts with partisanship to mediate campaign exposure. The findings have important implications about the role self-exposure to information plays in campaigns and elections in a post-broadcast era.”
“The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment”
Lau, Richard R.; Sigelman, Lee; Rovner, Ivy Brown. Journal of Politics, 2007, Vol. 69, Issue 4, 1176-1209. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x.
Abstract: “The conventional wisdom about negative political campaigning holds that it works, i.e., it has the consequences its practitioners intend. Many observers also fear that negative campaigning has unintended but detrimental effects on the political system itself. An earlier meta-analytic assessment of the relevant literature found no reliable evidence for these claims, but since then the research literature has more than doubled in size and has greatly improved in quality. We reexamine this literature and find that the major conclusions from the earlier meta-analysis still hold. All told, the research literature does not bear out the idea that negative campaigning is an effective means of winning votes, even though it tends to be more memorable and stimulate knowledge about the campaign. Nor is there any reliable evidence that negative campaigning depresses voter turnout, though it does slightly lower feelings of political efficacy, trust in government and possibly overall public mood.”
“A Framework for Dynamic Causal Inference in Political Science”
Blackwell, Matthew. American Journal of Political Science, April 2013, Vol. 57. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00626.x.
Abstract: “Dynamic strategies are an essential part of politics. In the context of campaigns, for example, candidates continuously recalibrate their campaign strategy in response to polls and opponent actions. Traditional causal inference methods, however, assume that these dynamic decisions are made all at once, an assumption that forces a choice between omitted variable bias and post-treatment bias. Thus, these kinds of ‘single-shot’ causal inference methods are inappropriate for dynamic processes like campaigns. I resolve this dilemma by adapting models from biostatistics to estimate the effectiveness of an inherently dynamic process: a candidate’s decision to ‘go negative.'” To simplify the analysis, the study looked only at Democratic candidates in U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial elections from 2002 to 2006. It found that, in contrast to earlier research, that negative advertising could be an effective strategy for challengers, while incumbents were hurt by going negative.
“Messages that Mobilize? Issue Publics and the Content of Campaign Advertising”
Sides, John; Karch, Andrew. The Journal of Politics, April 2008, Vol. 70, Issue 2, 466-476.
Findings: Targeted campaign ads appear to have only a small measurable effect on groups: “In three election years, we found no consistent evidence that messages related to Social Security and Medicare were associated with higher turnout among seniors or that messages related to veterans were associated with higher turnout among veterans.” Groups such as parents did seem to be mobilized by targeted ads, but the effects may be so small as to be extraordinarily expensive to exploit, with diminishing returns. In one media market, it took more than 4,000 ads to make turnout just 6.4% more likely among parents; in a more lightly advertised market, just 322 spots resulted in a 3.8% increased likelihood in turnout. This means that to achieve a further 2.6 percentage points in likely turnout, the “number of newly mobilized parents yields a cost-per-vote of $282. This is roughly 15 times the average cost-per-vote of door-to-door get-out-the-vote efforts.” Because targeted ads appear to have limited effectiveness, they don’t exacerbate differences in turnout rates between groups. “The participatory tendencies of senior citizens and veterans do not increase when campaigns focus on entitlements and veterans’ benefits, respectively.”
“Variability in Citizens’ Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns”
Fridkin, Kim L.; Kenney, Patrick. American Journal of Political Science, 2011, Vol. 55, Issue 2, 307-325. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00494.x.
Findings: Voters’ tolerance for negative campaigns and political rhetoric depends on individual characteristics: Those with a strong party affiliation and a deep interest in the campaign tend to be more tolerant and their impressions of candidates were not as deeply influenced by negativity. Men are more tolerant than women of negative content, while older respondents are less tolerant. Overall, “people who do not like uncivil and irrelevant discourse in negative communication are more responsive to the variation in the content and tone of negative commercials. These messages directly influence their assessments of incumbents and challengers. This finding stands in stark contrast to those people who are unperturbed by messages presented in an uncivil manner.” Three variables — relevance of message, degree of civility and the tolerance level of the voter — interact in complex ways and determine whether or not negative campaigns “work.” In other words, there is no simple, universal answer: In some cases negative campaigns can have substantial effects on voter impressions; in others, the effect is negligible.
“The Implicit and Explicit Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: Is the Source Really Blamed?”
Carraro, Luciana; Castelli, Luigi. Political Psychology, August 2010, Vol. 31, Issue 4, 617-645. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00771.x.
Abstract: “Despite the widespread use of negative campaigns, research has not yet provided unambiguous conclusions about their effects. So far studies, however, have mainly focused on very explicit measures. The main goal of the present work was to explore the effects of different types of negative campaigns on both implicit and explicit attitudes, as well as in relation to two basic dimensions of social perception, namely competence and warmth. Across a series of three studies, we basically showed that not all negative campaigns lead to the same consequences. Specifically, especially personal attacks toward the opposing candidate may backfire at the explicit level…. Overall, it appeared that negative messages decreased the perceived warmth of the source while simultaneously increasing the perceived competence. Results are discussed by focusing on the importance of implicit measures in political psychology and on the crucial role of perceived competence.”
“Do Voters Perceive Negative Campaigns as Informative Campaigns?”
Sides, John; Lipsitz, Keena; Grossman, Matthew. American Politics Research, 2010, Vol. 38, No. 3, 502-530. doi: 10.1177/1532673X09336832.
Findings: Voters tend to separate a campaign ad’s tone from whether they believe it to be informative: many voters will (correctly) perceive a campaign as negative but will also believe that it is providing truthful information. “These dimensions appear to be separate constructs in citizens’ minds.” Voters can accurately perceive whether a campaign is negative, and such judgment is not just a matter of which candidate they prefer. “Public perceptions of negativity do in fact respond to reality.” The degree of a campaign’s negativity as reflected in advertising has little bearing on whether voters believe it is informative. “There was no relationship between the volume of negative appeals and beliefs about whether the candidates were providing useful information or discussing policy issues.”
“Comparing Negative and Positive Campaign Messages: Evidence From Two Field Experiments”
Arceneaux, Kevin; Nickerson, David W. American Politics Research, January 2010, Vol. 38, No. 1, 54-83. doi: 10.1177/1532673X09331613.
Abstract: “Considerable research indicates that personal contact from political campaigns can mobilize people to vote, but little attention has been given to whether the tone of the message matters. Studies of message tone have mostly been confined to mass media campaigns and ignored the growing role grassroots techniques play in contemporary political campaigns. Two randomized field experiments were conducted to determine the importance of message tone in grassroots contact. We find evidence that personally delivered messages can be effective at influencing voting preferences, but neither experiment uncovered a systematic difference between the effects of negative and positive messages on voter turnout or political attitudes.”
“The Role of Candidate Traits in Campaigns”
ridkin, Kim L.; Kenney, Patrick, J. Journal of Politics, January 2011, Vol. 73, Issue 1, 61-73. doi: 10.1017/S0022381610000861.
Abstract: “We examine how candidates shape citizens’ impressions of their personal traits during U.S. Senate campaigns. We look at the personality traits emphasized by candidates in their controlled communications and in news coverage of their campaigns. We couple information about campaign messages with a unique survey dataset allowing us to examine voters’ understanding and evaluations of the candidates’ personalities. We find that messages from the news media influence people’s willingness to rate the candidates on trait dimensions. In addition, negative trait messages emanating from challengers and the press shape citizens’ impressions of incumbents. In contrast, voters’ evaluations of challengers are unmoved by campaign messages, irrespective of the source or tone of the communications. Finally, we find citizens rely heavily on traits when evaluating competing candidates in U.S. Senate campaigns, even controlling for voters’ party, ideological and issue preferences.”
“The Seeds of Negativity: Knowledge and Money”
Lovett, Mitchell J.; Shachar, Ron. Marketing Science, 2011, Vol. 30, No. 3, 430-446. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1110.0638.
Abstract: “This paper studies the tendency to use negative ads. For this purpose, we focus on an interesting industry (political campaigns) and an intriguing empirical regularity (the tendency to “go negative” is higher in close races). We present a model of electoral competition in which ads inform voters either of the good traits of the candidate or of the bad traits of his opponent. We find that in equilibrium, the proportion of negative ads depends on both voters’ knowledge and the candidate’s budget. Furthermore, for an interesting subset of the parameter space, negativity increases in both knowledge and budget.”
“When Does Negativity Demobilize? Tracing the Conditional Effect of Negative Campaigning on Voter Turnout”
Krupnikov, Yanna. American Journal of Political Science, 2011, Vol. 55, Issue 4, 797-813. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00522.x.
Abstract: “Do negative campaign advertisements affect voter turnout? Existing literature on this topic has produced conflicting empirical results. Some scholars show that negativity is demobilizing. Others show that negativity is mobilizing. Still others show that negativity has no effect on turnout. Relying on the psychology of decision making, this research argues and shows that this empirical stalemate is due to the fact that existing work ignores a crucial factor: the timing of exposure to negativity. Two independent empirical tests trace the conditional effect of negativity. The first test relies on data from the 2004 presidential campaign. The second test considers the effect of negativity over a broader period of time by considering elections 1976 to 2000. Taken together, both tests reinforce that negativity can only demobilize when two conditions are met: (1) a person is exposed to negativity after selecting a preferred candidate and (2) the negativity is about this selected candidate.”
“The Influence of Tone, Target and Issue Ownership on Political Advertising Effects in Primary Versus General Elections”
Meirick, Patrick C., et al. Journal of Political Marketing, 2011, Vol. 10, Issue 3. doi: 10.1080/15377857.2011.588111.
Abstract: “The conventional wisdom in the literature about political advertising effects — e.g., going negative risks backlash, stick to issues your party owns — has been derived from studies of general elections. Much less attention has been paid to primary elections, in which a partisan audience may be receptive to attacks on the opposing party and may judge most issues to be handled better by their own party. This experiment (N = 223) sets out to investigate the roles of tone (positive versus comparative), target (none, primary opponent, or general election opponent), and issue ownership (party-owned issue or unowned issue) in responses to political advertising during primary versus general elections. As predicted, partisans in primary election conditions had lower ad and sponsoring candidate evaluations for comparative ads attacking a primary opponent than for positive ads or comparative ads attacking the eventual general election opponent, but there were no differences between the latter two. Independents in the general election conditions responded more positively to positive ads than comparative ads. Issue ownership had no main effects.”
“A Negativity Gap? Voter Gender, Attack Politics, and Participation in American Elections”
Brooks, Deborah Jordan. Politics & Gender, 2010, Vol. 6, Issue 3, 319-341. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X10000218.
Findings: Men are more likely to be motivated to vote by a negative campaign message. Highly negative campaigns saw the “biggest gender differences: an 88% probability of voting for men and just a 77% probability of voting for women.” In contests with the least amount of negative campaigning, “women are slightly higher than men in terms of predicted probability of going to the polls.” There is a further distinction between “civil” versus “uncivil” (“inflammatory, gratuitous, and divisive”) negative messaging. Comparing men’s and women’s reactions along these lines reveals further gender gaps: “Men are disproportionately mobilized by uncivil negativity as compared to women [and] women appear to be slightly more likely than men to vote after viewing civil negative messages.” After viewing uncivil negative ads, only 9% of men said they would definitely not vote, while 21% of women said they would not.
'Dmitri Shostakovich in the 1940s'.
What makes THE NOISE OF TIME global banking 1% SOCIETAL FAD------is how throughout the novel Shostakovich is wrestling with SAVING HIS SOUL by ever-smaller outward personality events -----he will write music seeming to be STALINIST while weaving IRONY as truth. He will read official Stalin statements with detachment to show he controls his SOUL-----he will not join THE PARTY because it is a party of death and fear.....as today's global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA--TRIBE OF JUDAH continuous wars have been today. Yet, the ending of the novel has our HERO submitting to being a TITO'S STOOGE------STALIN'S STOOGE. The novel leaves one feeling an INEVITABILITY of selling one's soul becoming those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players-------AKA----STALIN'S STOOGES.
We liked the novel's focus on RUSSIAN PESSIMISM and why STALIN'S FRIENDLY CAMPAIGN of pretending to be a PEOPLE'S POPULIST leader labeling as NEGATIVE------TRUTH-TELLING-----was against Russian emotional history where being POSITIVE was to not be RUSSIAN.
The US was built on the OPPOSITE societal structure. We are a nation of OPTIMISM, HONOR AND TRUTH, where being HAPPY/FRIENDLY is not forced but a factor of quality of life and pursuit of happiness.
US SUPER-HEROES TELL US-------AMERICA IS TRUTH AND JUSTICE.
So, what we are seeing with our global banking 1% LITERARY STARS like BARNES is this painting in US of these same RUSSIAN/USSR emotional pessimism-----the STALIN thugs being those 5% freemason/Greek players of today having no talent but willing to do whatever that brutal dictator says able to morph to the next dictator and the next with no moral or ethical remorse.
Barnes in THE NOISE OF TIME is painting for our today's US 99% WE THE PEOPLE that feeling of NOT BEING ABLE TO STOP MOVING FORWARD....where LEAST WORST is deemed better than WORST.
‘The Noise of Time,’
by Julian BarnesBy Jeremy Denk
- May 9, 2016
By Julian Barnes
201 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $25.95.
It’s risky business to speak for the dead. In the terrible case of Dmitri Shostakovich, the temptation is strong, because history, in the form of Stalin, didn’t allow the composer to speak for himself. Of course, there’s the music, but music is reticent about meaning — like a therapist, it prefers you draw your own conclusions.
Shostakovich’s music presents a particularly thorny nest of meanings and counter-meanings, with upsetting traps of tone. When I was 12 I fell under the spell of his Fifth Symphony, loving its triumphant, thrilling ending. Thirty years later, however, I re-encountered the piece, led by a young and intelligent conductor, who explained to all of us that this glorious ending was an artifact of Leonard Bernstein’s intervention, and a betrayal of the real metronome marking and character, all of which was a defiant, ironic swipe at Stalin. He proceeded to conduct the ending half as fast, as though being hammered to death by D major, erasing all the joy I’d ever had from it. I trudged glumly from the concert hall. The triumph was fake, I understood that; the joy was enforced. But did I have to be as miserable as Shostakovich was? Was that the point of the music?
It is brave of Julian Barnes to take on Shostakovich’s puzzle, and his tragedy, in which so many people and factions have a stake. Barnes’s short new novel, “The Noise of Time,” doesn’t just tell the composer’s story; it presumes to channel him. Much of it is written in a Joycean interior monologue, like at the beginning, where the composer is standing by the elevator, waiting for Stalin’s secret police to come to take him away:
“Faces, names, memories. Cut peat weighing down his hand. Swedish water birds flickering above his head. Fields of sunflowers. The smell of carnation oil. The warm, sweet smell of Nita coming off the tennis court.”
It’s lovely, but even at this moment you might wonder: Is this how a man thinks, in the throes of mortal fear for himself and for his family? Or does it sound a tad like a novelist contemplating a man contemplating these things? Shostakovich’s musical voice is far more jittery and austere: uncanny, often maniacal, hollow. Either you accept Barnes’s premise, and the resulting style, or you may find yourself dissatisfied, wishing for the narrator of “Notes From the Underground” to come and make everything feel more neurotic and Russian.
Using this third-person “Shostakovich,” but often switching into an unlocatable voice, like a biographer behind a literary veil, Barnes deftly covers three big episodes in the composer’s life: denunciation in Pravda and subsequent implication in an assassination plot; his trip to America, where he is humiliated as a Soviet stooge; and lastly, being forced to join the Communist Party. This story is truly amazing, as Barnes knows, an arc of human degradation without violence (the threat of violence, of course, everywhere). Barnes does wonderful work on the key scenes — a negotiation with Stalin, a meeting with a terrifying interrogator who misses the second session, having himself presumably vanished into Stalin’s death machine — the whole Kafka madhouse brought to life. The narration is plain, the horror still plainer.
Barnes focuses on Shostakovich’s rage against the do-gooders, the Western Communist sympathizers:
“He’d refused to meet Rolland, pretending to be ill. But Shaw was the worse of the two. Hunger in Russia? he had asked rhetorically. Nonsense, I’ve been fed as well as anywhere in the world. And it was he who said, ‘You won’t frighten me with the word ‘dictator.’ ”
But he also rages against the anti-Communist sympathizers, those who believe they know what he is going through:
“Those who understood a little better, who supported you, and yet at the same time were disappointed in you. . . . They wanted martyrs to prove the regime’s wickedness. . . . How many martyrs would it take to prove that the regime was truly, monstrously, carnivorously evil? More, always more. . . . What they didn’t understand, these self-nominated friends, was how similar they were to Power itself: However much you gave, they wanted more.”
And so the author, whose novels include “The Sense of an Ending” and “Flaubert’s Parrot,” creates the impression of a man with rage in every direction, and very little affection — a man from whom affection has been surgically removed by fear, and by self-loathing at his own submission to it.
It’s a powerful portrait, and readers will have to decide whether they think this is “really” Shostakovich. I felt that he emerged as a (strangled) hero, but wished that Barnes would explain a little less, and show a bit more. As Shostakovich travels to America, “what he had not prepared himself for was that New York would turn out to be a place of the purest humiliation, and of moral shame.” But this tidy synopsis blunts the ensuing scene: The composer Nicolas Nabokov grills him in front of everyone, forcing him to denounce Stravinsky, whom he deeply admires. Nabokov the comfortable exposer looks around the room “as if expecting applause,” while Shostakovich the exposed is powerless to do anything but stand and suffer. Shostakovich was a connoisseur of false triumph, and this cruel moment of vain truth crushing pathetic impotence fits and explains his music perfectly.
Eventually, this book becomes a meditation on the role of art. Narrative recedes, and the prose becomes hypnotic, circling obsessions. Many observations are beautiful, while some raise eyebrows. We come to the topic of the Borodin Quartet, and how it supposedly had two versions of a piece of his: one “strategic,” for government consumption, and the other “authentic,” speaking truth to power. But Shostakovich the narrator says:
“It wasn’t true — it couldn’t be true — because you cannot lie in music. The Borodins could only play the Fourth Quartet in the way the composer intended. Music — good music, great music — had a hard, irreducible purity to it. It might be bitter and despairing and pessimistic, but it could never be cynical.”
The quote “you cannot lie in music” is not from Shostakovich but from Valentin Berlinsky, the cellist of the Borodin Quartet -- a small lie concealed within the narrative-biographical fabric, speaking by proxy for the dead. And of course you can lie in music: Look at Mozart’s “Così Fan Tutte,” for instance, or even Verdi’s “Falstaff” or any number of comic operas that depend on pretense. Music is fantastic at lying, and virtuosic in irony. In Shostakovich’s case, the problem is mind-bending; the music is an intentional lie, which you must perform somehow truthfully. The phrase “the way the composer intended” is dangerous: Composers’ intents often change, day to day or hour to hour.
Since Shostakovich’s story is well known and often told, Barnes’s role here is less that of a novelist than of a musician: He is performing a canonical work, trying to give an Important Story a new life. He isn’t aiming for a radical rewrite, but an interpretation, an act of devotion — as if Barnes himself has some personal connection in relation to the story, as if each artist shares in Shostakovich’s guilt.
In Barnes’s novel, Shostakovich gradually descends into self-mockery, clinging to his music to save his reputation in some future time. One key element of Shostakovich’s heroism is missing. Think of it: He is denounced in Pravda, he lives in fear for his own life, the life of his family, the lives of anyone who ever supported him or performed his music; he looks forward only to decades of cowering. In that impossible situation, he sits down and writes the Fifth Symphony, one of the greatest, most perfect works of the 20th century. He doesn’t choke, he doesn’t lose sight of his gifts — certainly one of the best narrative senses of any composer in history — even as he spends nights awake weeping, his nerves completely shot. He writes, and doesn’t lose his voice. He toes the line of self-destruction without actually being destroyed. Barnes mostly sidesteps the difficult task of writing about Shostakovich’s specifically musical accomplishments — perhaps understandable, but regrettable.
His music is a tragedy, no question; but whose? It is tempting to wallow in the impossibility of Shostakovich’s situation, and we should definitely empathize with the poor man, as Barnes has. But I recall vividly that when I first played the E minor Piano Trio and came to the slow movement opening, a series of loud chords, my chamber music teacher told me to think of each chord as a friend who is killed or marched off to a labor camp. At 20, I didn’t have much experience of death or labor camps, with the possible exception of my summer data-entry job, and I blinked back at him, a bit alarmed. But I tried in my sheltered American way to put myself in that place, and the chords came out darker and more shattering, and I felt myself trying to understand a whole different world of experience, people subject to arbitrary Power. And so it is: Shostakovich’s music reaches out to express a world, to give warning, to memorialize the pointlessly murdered. The gloom may be unremitting, but it is not selfish.
When we discuss election public policy whether US, state, or local and we look at any state's constitutions and election policies, our new to US IMMIGRANTS and our US young adults need to remember our early America as colonial entity to global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS and states which during these 300 years of America remained colonial economies ----never becoming ALL-AMERICAN
Indeed, our region as old-school colonial America ----Maryland and Virginia have really never left from being ANTEBELLUM SOUTH. People are surprised when we call BALTIMORE an antebellum southern city because Maryland was called NEUTRAL OR FREE during civil wars----when of course never being FREE from OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS-----
See that myth-making and propaganda ---where FREE is defined as remaining captured by colonial OLD WORLD economics.
MOVING FORWARD OF COURSE DID NOT START IN OUR SOUTHERN STATES---IT WAS TIED TO OUR NORTHEAST BANKING AND CORPORATE CULTURE-----
We have known throughout US history that our national media was captured-----that our national NGOs were led by global banking players--what changed was US FREE MEDIA AND ACADEMIC JOURNALISM.
The Colonial Chesapeake: Seedbed of Antebellum Southern Culture?
The Journal of Southern History
Vol. 45, No. 4 (Nov., 1979), pp. 513-540 (28 pages)
Published by: Southern Historical Association
When we discuss today's US elections showing how our US SOUTH is being used as a staging ground for US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES filling with FOREIGN GLOBAL FACTORIES having the global 1% bringing our 99% of global labor pool to work in US as they do in overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----when we look at Federal funding sending FUNDING FOR NEW ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES especially to those southern states being hit with GLOBAL FACTORY policies----we are looking at the same COLONIAL AMERICA where the northern states tied to global banking and corporations are using our US south in ways that keep our US 99% of southern citizens from actually being able to ACCESS OR HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO US CITIZENSHIP.
That pervasive feeling of RUSSIAN PESSIMISM --------seen in THE NOISE OF TIME can be seen and followed in our US MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies these few decades of ROBBER BARON ONE WORLD ----Stalin's GREAT FRIENDSHIP policies.
VERY DIFFERENT BUT CONNECTED
AND THE SOUTH
BEFORE THE CIVIL
By Carole E. Scott
Carole E. Scott email@example.com is the editor of B>Quest (1996
Professor of Economics
and Emerita Prof
, Richards College of
Business, University of West Georgia.
In this article
Invisible Hand in American History
economies of the Northeast
and their interrelationships
before the Civil
After the British government banned the importation of cotton goods from India in
1700, a cottage i
ndustry utilizing cotton grown in the American South
Britain. Importing raw materials from
a colony, rather than from
processing them in the mother country for export
to its colonies and other countries
a mercantilist policy
followed by Britain starting in the mid
The industrial revolution began in Britain with the production of cotton textiles i
hen cotton began to oust wool as Britain's prime textile product from
eighteenth century, Lancashire found it had everything going for it
ideal climate to prevent delicate cotton threads from snapping, an experienced,
force and, not least, an array of talented and imaginative men,
whose inventive genius produced the machines that made the Revolution roll.
Lancashire had an abundance of powerful upland streams to turn the
waterwheels of the new factories. And when th
e steam engine eventually
replaced water power, the county had ample reserves of coal to fire the boilers.
A persistent, inadequate supply
of labor led to the establi
shment of slavery
throughout Britain’s 13 American colonies.
developed a slave
labor based, landed aristocracy which, though it consisted of a small minority of its
farmers, accounted for a huge share of the South’s production of
its cash crops
grown for sale
tobacco, rice, cotton, and sugar.
Unskilled immigrants seldom settled in
the South after independence, presumably because there sl
aves provided unskilled
, which put
a low ceiling
on the wage rate an unskilled, free worker could get
In Colonial America the ease with which white
entured servants could
run away made it obvious that confining sl
avery to blacks would discourage
running away and make catching runaways easier.
Enslaving blacks also served to
prevent lower class whites from combining with blacks in a revolu
something that had happened
(Bacon’s rebellion) in Colonial Virginia, where initially
blacks were not enslaved.
Americans were outraged by
taxes levied to offset the cost to Britain of fighting
the Seven Years’ War (1754
1763) known here as the French and Indian War. They
were outraged, too, by
mation of 1763 which,
fect, closed off the
frontier to them. It was presented
measure to calm
Indians’ fear that
would drive them from their lands
. Whites were convinced its real
was to pen
them in along the Atlantic seaboard where
they would be easier to control
America's low level of industrialization
was a serious handicap during the
Revolutionary War. One example of the importance of industry is that the colonies’
small iron industry was a critical factor in the war. General George Washington located
his winter camp at Valley Forge in order to guard
its essential metal
working shops. The
textile industry was indispensable for clothing the army.
Britain’s mercantilist policies was to constrain the production of iron and woolens in the
colonies in order to protect these in
dustries in Britain.
What BARNES does for global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS is keep alive that EASTERN RUSSIAN connection to Western Hemisphere through the CLASSICS-----a Shakespeare/Western progressivism ----Russian ties to Germany as source of cultural arts.
MERKEL has controlled Germany the entire time Eastern Germany was said to be brought to Western Germany-----when in fact MERKEL as Eastern Germany STALINIST ----operated Western Germany as OLD WORLD RUSSIA/USSR. Germany taken EASTERN GERMANY by MERKEL MOVING FORWARD to being central in today's Western Europe 1000BC ONE WORLD DARK AGES.
MERKEL never left being that TITO/STALINIST STOOGE.....as too all our US far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek players.
MERKEL MORPHING BACK TO HITLER/STALIN ----HAVING TAKEN WESTERN GERMANY BACK TO EASTERN EUROPEAN PESSIMISM------
We discuss often here in Baltimore the desire to keep our very strong MUSIC AND ART INSTITUTES free from a far-right wing global banking 1% STALINIST FASCISM that is global hedge fund corporation JOHNS HOPKINS.
THE NOISE OF TIME does a great job in explaining how our CULTURAL ARTS are used by these far-right wing global corporate fascist LIBERTARIAN MARXIST structures. The constant referral to Western classics was a betrayal of novel's theme of being captured by OLD WORLD CORPORATE FASCISM
Angela Merkel’s take on Julian Barnes’s novel about Shostakovich, The Noise of Time
by M. Bijman
October 12, 2017
Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, on Julian Barnes’s novel The Noise of Time
“I’ve read a book on Shostakovich, by Julian Barnes, also in connection with a performance of “Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk”, which I attended a while ago in Salzburg. The book wasn’t particularly long, so I immersed myself in it for two days. […]
The Noise of Time, by Julian Barnes (Publisher: Random House Canada, May 10 2016, 201pp., hardcover)
“What appealed to me most about this book was that it allowed you to get to know the environment in which Shostakovich’s music was created. It also harked back to a conflict I frequently encountered myself when I was young. Shostakovich lived through different phases of the Soviet Union’s cultural policy and was faced with that question “how honest, how open are you?”. His work had been banned, he wasn’t allowed to have it shown anywhere, he was deprived of his means of expression, effectively.
For these very reasons, I myself had decided pretty early on to become a physicist, because the GDR couldn’t possibly mess with physics. But as a musician, as a composer, your music might get classed as un-cultural (“unkulturell”) and be ostracized. People like this not only couldn’t express themselves freely, but they also had to fear for their lives. Questions like how honest can I afford to be, how strong am I, when do I give in, what am I ready to compromise on, those are questions Shostakovich was faced with a lot. And reading about a life like that made me realize once again what a blessing it is to live in a free country.”
OH, REALLY ANGELA---A FREE COUNTRY FILLED WITH GLOBAL BANKING 1% LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING CRONYISM DARK AGES LAISSEZ FAIRE KILLING REAL FREE MARKET ECONOMICS? HOW ANTI-TRUTH-TELLING OF MERKEL.
– Excerpt from Chancellor Angela Merkel interview in Handelsblatt – Deutschland Live, August 25, 2017.
Global banking 1% freemason STAR Michael Jackson was the trumpet of returning far-right wing global corporate fascism to US ----WE ARE THE WORLD in Reagan era 1980s being the same STALINIST ---THE FRIENDSHIP PARTY.
We discuss often the need to interpret our US cultural arts as they are the foundation for MOVING FORWARD FAR-RIGHT CORPORATE FASCISM. When our local Baltimore MICA ----is being turned into global banking 1% STALINIST/MAOIST corporate factories----when our local PEABODY MUSIC INSTITUTE is enfolded into global hedge fund corporation JOHNS HOPKINS----watch out CONDUCTORS and MUSICOLOGISTS-----we see 'Dmitri Shostakovich in the 1940s'.
Our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE whether right wing or left wing---whether black, white, or brown, whether men or women, whether religious or atheist---must start coming together as a 99% vs global banking 1% when we see these media, journalistic, academic changes. What we saw in THE NOISE OF TIME with STALIN'S STOOGES were what we see today in these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----those 5% freemason/Greek players having no talent except DOING ANYTHING EMPIRE ALICE says.
JACKSON/RICHIE BEING THOSE TITO/STALINIST STOOGES.
WE ARE THE WORLD
- Original - 1985
Published on Nov 11, 2010
This is the original. Also on the new 2010
We Are The World - United In Song album.
People & Blogs
Music in this video
Listen ad-free with YouTube Premium
We Are The World
U.S.A. For Africa
We Are The World
Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie
We discuss often how LEO STRAUSS brought NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMICS to US from Austria----HITLER territory. We discuss how neo-liberal economics slowly replaced our AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN left social progressive liberalism-----we discuss often how all US university political science and economic departments ONLY TEACH NEO-LIBERALISM.
So, this is the point when our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE went from being actively engaged and being empowered to HOLD POWER ACCOUNTABLE-----to being STALINIST FRIENDSHIP PARTY-----where no mention of TRUTH is allowed---only LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING.
NEO-LIBERALISM TOOK A FIRM HOLD IN CHICAGO--UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO---FROM WHERE MYTH-MAKING AND PROPAGANDA WENT WILD.
So, what was FAR-RIGHT WING ---NEO-CON as much as NEO-LIBERAL was sold as 'LEFT PEOPLE'S POWER' when it was Stalinist FRIENDSHIP taking first our right wing Republican Party with REAGAN ==then our left wing Democratic Party with CLINTON.
THE ONLY TALENT NEEDED FOR GLOBAL BANKING 5% FREEMASON/GREEK PLAYERS WAS STALINIST LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING.
So, now our US is called a ROGUE NATION spreading fear, death, and destruction just as STALIN/HITLER/MAO.
When TRUTH-TELLING becomes NEGATIVITY-----
If we are not fighting to get LEO STRAUSS NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMICS AND POLITICS out of our US universities we are not FIGHTING FASCISM.
This is a long article but please glance through.
NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN
Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq
Are the ideas of the conservative political philosopher Leo Strauss a shaping influence on the Bush administration’s world outlook? Danny Postel interviews Shadia Drury – a leading scholarly critic of Strauss – and asks her about the connection between Plato’s dialogues, secrets and lies, and the United States-led war in Iraq.
By Danny Postel
What was initially an anti-war argument is now a matter of public record. It is widely recognised that the Bush administration was not honest about the reasons it gave for invading Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz, the influential United States deputy secretary of defense, has acknowledged that the evidence used to justify the war was “murky” and now says that weapons of mass destruction weren’t the crucial issue anyway (see the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq (2003.)
By contrast, Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flow directly from the doctrines of the political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973). His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration.
If Shadia Drury is right, then American policy-makers exercise deception with greater coherence than their British allies in Tony Blair’s 10 Downing Street. In the UK, a public inquiry is currently underway into the death of the biological weapons expert David Kelly. A central theme is also whether the government deceived the public, as a BBC reporter suggested.
The inquiry has documented at least some of the ways the prime minister’s entourage ‘sexed up’ the presentation of intelligence on the Iraqi threat. But few doubt that in terms of their philosophy, if they have one, members of Blair’s staff believe they must be trusted as honest. Any apparent deceptions they may be involved in are for them matters of presentation or ‘spin’: attempts to project an honest gloss when surrounded by a dishonest media.
The deep influence of Leo Strauss’s ideas on the current architects of US foreign policy has been referred to, if sporadically, in the press (hence an insider witticism about the influence of “Leo-cons”). Christopher Hitchens, an ardent advocate of the war, wrote unashamedly in November 2002 (in an article felicitously titled Machiavelli in Mesopotamia) that:
“[p]art of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Strauss – and appears in fictional guise as such in Saul Bellow’s novel Ravelstein – one may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate.”
Perhaps no scholar has done as much to illuminate the Strauss phenomenon as Shadia Drury. For fifteen years she has been shining a heat lamp on the Straussians with such books as The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988) and Leo Strauss and the American Right (1997). She is also the author of Alexandre Kojève: the Roots of Postmodern Politics (1994) and Terror and Civilization (forthcoming).
She argues that the central claims of Straussian thought wield a crucial influence on men of power in the contemporary United States. She elaborates her argument in this interview.
A natural order of inequality
Danny Postel: You’ve argued that there is an important connection between the teachings of Leo Strauss and the Bush administration’s selling of the Iraq war. What is that connection?
Shadia Drury: Leo Strauss was a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States – the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the war party are denying that these were the real reasons for the war.
So what were the real reasons? Reorganising the balance of power in the Middle East in favour of Israel? Expanding American hegemony in the Arab world? Possibly. But these reasons would not have been sufficient in themselves to mobilise American support for the war. And the Straussian cabal in the administration realised that.
Danny Postel: The neo-conservative vision is commonly taken to be about spreading democracy and liberal values globally. And when Strauss is mentioned in the press, he is typically described as a great defender of liberal democracy against totalitarian tyranny. You’ve written, however, that Strauss had a “profound antipathy to both liberalism and democracy.”
Shadia Drury: The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss’s disciples consider it a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it.
How could an admirer of Plato and Nietzsche be a liberal democrat? The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine. In contrast to modern political thinkers, the ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition, they held, is not one of freedom, but of subordination – and in Strauss’s estimation they were right in thinking so.
Praising the wisdom of the ancients and condemning the folly of the moderns was the whole point of Strauss’s most famous book, Natural Right and History. The cover of the book sports the American Declaration of Independence. But the book is a celebration of nature – not the natural rights of man (as the appearance of the book would lead one to believe) but the natural order of domination and subordination.
The necessity of lies
Danny Postel: What is the relevance of Strauss’s interpretation of Plato’s notion of the noble lie?
Shadia Drury: Strauss rarely spoke in his own name. He wrote as a commentator on the classical texts of political theory. But he was an extremely opinionated and dualistic commentator. The fundamental distinction that pervades and informs all of his work is that between the ancients and the moderns. Strauss divided the history of political thought into two camps: the ancients (like Plato) are wise and wily, whereas the moderns (like Locke and other liberals) are vulgar and foolish. Now, it seems to me eminently fair and reasonable to attribute to Strauss the ideas he attributes to his beloved ancients.
In Plato’s dialogues, everyone assumes that Socrates is Plato’s mouthpiece. But Strauss argues in his book The City and Man (pp. 74-5, 77, 83-4, 97, 100, 111) that Thrasymachus is Plato’s real mouthpiece (on this point, see also M.F. Burnyeat, “Sphinx without a Secret”, New York Review of Books, 30 May 1985 [paid-for only]). So, we must surmise that Strauss shares the insights of the wise Plato (alias Thrasymachus) that justice is merely the interest of the stronger; that those in power make the rules in their own interests and call it justice.
Leo Strauss repeatedly defends the political realism of Thrasymachus and Machiavelli (see, for example, his Natural Right and History, p. 106). This view of the world is clearly manifest in the foreign policy of the current administration in the United States.
A second fundamental belief of Strauss’s ancients has to do with their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals.
The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. In On Tyranny, Strauss refers to this natural right as the “tyrannical teaching” of his beloved ancients. It is tyrannical in the classic sense of rule above rule or in the absence of law (p. 70).
Now, the ancients were determined to keep this tyrannical teaching secret because the people are not likely to tolerate the fact that they are intended for subordination; indeed, they may very well turn their resentment against the superior few. Lies are thus necessary to protect the superior few from the persecution of the vulgar many.
The effect of Strauss’s teaching is to convince his acolytes that they are the natural ruling elite and the persecuted few. And it does not take much intelligence for them to surmise that they are in a situation of great danger, especially in a world devoted to the modern ideas of equal rights and freedoms. Now more than ever, the wise few must proceed cautiously and with circumspection. So, they come to the conclusion that they have a moral justification to lie in order to avoid persecution. Strauss goes so far as to say that dissembling and deception – in effect, a culture of lies – is the peculiar justice of the wise.
Strauss justifies his position by an appeal to Plato’s concept of the noble lie. But in truth, Strauss has a very impoverished conception of Plato’s noble lie. Plato thought that the noble lie is a story whose details are fictitious; but at the heart of it is a profound truth.
In the myth of metals, for example, some people have golden souls – meaning that they are more capable of resisting the temptations of power. And these morally trustworthy types are the ones who are most fit to rule. The details are fictitious, but the moral of the story is that not all human beings are morally equal.
In contrast to this reading of Plato, Strauss thinks that the superiority of the ruling philosophers is an intellectual superiority and not a moral one (Natural Right and History, p. 151). For many commentators who (like Karl Popper) have read Plato as a totalitarian, the logical consequence is to doubt that philosophers can be trusted with political power. Those who read him this way invariably reject him. Strauss is the only interpreter who gives a sinister reading to Plato, and then celebrates him.
The dialectic of fear and tyranny
Danny Postel: In the Straussian scheme of things, there are the wise few and the vulgar many. But there is also a third group – the gentlemen. Would you explain how they figure?
Shadia Drury: There are indeed three types of men: the wise, the gentlemen, and the vulgar. The wise are the lovers of the harsh, unadulterated truth. They are capable of looking into the abyss without fear and trembling. They recognise neither God nor moral imperatives. They are devoted above all else to their own pursuit of the “higher” pleasures, which amount to consorting with their “puppies” or young initiates.
The second type, the gentlemen, are lovers of honour and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society – that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honour, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.
The third type, the vulgar many, are lovers of wealth and pleasure. They are selfish, slothful, and indolent. They can be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe.
Like Plato, Strauss believed that the supreme political ideal is the rule of the wise. But the rule of the wise is unattainable in the real world. Now, according to the conventional wisdom, Plato realised this, and settled for the rule of law. But Strauss did not endorse this solution entirely. Nor did he think that it was Plato’s real solution – Strauss pointed to the “nocturnal council” in Plato’s Laws to illustrate his point.
The real Platonic solution as understood by Strauss is the covert rule of the wise (see Strauss’s – The Argument and the Action of Plato’s Laws). This covert rule is facilitated by the overwhelming stupidity of the gentlemen. The more gullible and unperceptive they are, the easier it is for the wise to control and manipulate them. Supposedly, Xenophon makes that clear to us.
For Strauss, the rule of the wise is not about classic conservative values like order, stability, justice, or respect for authority. The rule of the wise is intended as an antidote to modernity. Modernity is the age in which the vulgar many have triumphed. It is the age in which they have come closest to having exactly what their hearts desire – wealth, pleasure, and endless entertainment. But in getting just what they desire, they have unwittingly been reduced to beasts.
ISN'T IT IRONIC THAT GLOBAL BANKING 1% LEO STRAUSS NEO-LIBERALS ARE THE ONES CREATING THOSE STARS AND FADS THEY IDENTIFY AS VULGAR?
Nowhere is this state of affairs more advanced than in America. And the global reach of American culture threatens to trivialise life and turn it into entertainment. This was as terrifying a spectre for Strauss as it was for Alexandre Kojève and Carl Schmitt.
This is made clear in Strauss’s exchange with Kojève (reprinted in Strauss’s On Tyranny), and in his commentary on Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political (reprinted in Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue). Kojève lamented the animalisation of man and Schmitt worried about the trivialisation of life. All three of them were convinced that liberal economics would turn life into entertainment and destroy politics; all three understood politics as a conflict between mutually hostile groups willing to fight each other to the death. In short, they all thought that man’s humanity depended on his willingness to rush naked into battle and headlong to his death. Only perpetual war can overturn the modern project, with its emphasis on self-preservation and “creature comforts.” Life can be politicised once more, and man’s humanity can be restored.
This terrifying vision fits perfectly well with the desire for honour and glory that the neo-conservative gentlemen covet. It also fits very well with the religious sensibilities of gentlemen. The combination of religion and nationalism is the elixir that Strauss advocates as the way to turn natural, relaxed, hedonistic men into devout nationalists willing to fight and die for their God and country.
I never imagined when I wrote my first book on Strauss that the unscrupulous elite that he elevates would ever come so close to political power, nor that the ominous tyranny of the wise would ever come so close to being realised in the political life of a great nation like the United States. But fear is the greatest ally of tyranny.
Danny Postel: You’ve described Strauss as a nihilist.
Shadia Drury: Strauss is a nihilist in the sense that he believes that there is no rational foundation for morality. He is an atheist, and he believes that in the absence of God, morality has no grounding. It’s all about benefiting others and oneself; there is no objective reason for doing so, only rewards and punishments in this life.
But Strauss is not a nihilist if we mean by the term a denial that there is any truth, a belief that everything is interpretation. He does not deny that there is an independent reality. On the contrary, he thinks that independent reality consists in nature and its “order of rank” – the high and the low, the superior and the inferior. Like Nietzsche, he believes that the history of western civilisation has led to the triumph of the inferior, the rabble – something they both lamented profoundly.
Danny Postel: This connection is curious, since Strauss is bedevilled by Nietzsche; and one of Strauss’s most famous students, Allan Bloom, fulminates profusely in his book The Closing of the American Mind against the influence of Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger.
Shadia Drury: Strauss’s criticism of the existentialists, especially Heidegger, is that they tried to elicit an ethic out of the abyss. This was the ethic of resoluteness – choose whatever you like and be loyal to it to the death; its content does not matter. But Strauss’s reaction to moral nihilism was different. Nihilistic philosophers, he believes, should reinvent the Judæo-Christian God, but live like pagan gods themselves – taking pleasure in the games they play with each other as well as the games they play on ordinary mortals.
The question of nihilism is complicated, but there is no doubt that Strauss’s reading of Plato entails that the philosophers should return to the cave and manipulate the images (in the form of media, magazines, newspapers). They know full well that the line they espouse is mendacious, but they are convinced that theirs are noble lies.
The intoxication of perpetual war
Danny Postel: You characterise the outlook of the Bush administration as a kind of realism, in the spirit of Thrasymachus and Machiavelli. But isn’t the real divide within the administration (and on the American right more generally) more complex: between foreign policy realists, who are pragmatists, and neo-conservatives, who see themselves as idealists – even moralists – on a mission to topple tyrants, and therefore in a struggle against realism?
Shadia Drury: I think that the neo-conservatives are for the most part genuine in wanting to spread the American commercial model of liberal democracy around the globe. They are convinced that it is the best thing, not just for America, but for the world. Naturally, there is a tension between these “idealists” and the more hard-headed realists within the administration.
I contend that the tensions and conflicts within the current administration reflect the differences between the surface teaching, which is appropriate for gentlemen, and the ‘nocturnal’ or covert teaching, which the philosophers alone are privy to. It is very unlikely for an ideology inspired by a secret teaching to be entirely coherent.
The issue of nationalism is an example of this. The philosophers, wanting to secure the nation against its external enemies as well as its internal decadence, sloth, pleasure, and consumption, encourage a strong patriotic fervour among the honour-loving gentlemen who wield the reins of power. That strong nationalistic spirit consists in the belief that their nation and its values are the best in the world, and that all other cultures and their values are inferior in comparison.
Irving Kristol, the father of neo-conservatism and a Strauss disciple, denounced nationalism in a 1973 essay; but in another essay written in 1983, he declared that the foreign policy of neo-conservatism must reflect its nationalist proclivities. A decade on, in a 1993 essay, he claimed that “religion, nationalism, and economic growth are the pillars of neoconservatism.” (See “The Coming ‘Conservative Century’”, in Neoconservatism: the autobiography of an idea, p. 365.)
In Reflections of a Neoconservative (p. xiii), Kristol wrote that:
“patriotism springs from love of the nation’s past; nationalism arises out of hope for the nation’s future, distinctive greatness…. Neoconservatives believe… that the goals of American foreign policy must go well beyond a narrow, too literal definition of ‘national security’. It is the national interest of a world power, as this is defined by a sense of national destiny … not a myopic national security”.
The same sentiment was echoed by the doyen of contemporary Straussianism, Harry Jaffa, when he said that America is the “Zion that will light up all the world.”
It is easy to see how this sort of thinking can get out of hand, and why hard-headed realists tend to find it naïve if not dangerous.
But Strauss’s worries about America’s global aspirations are entirely different. Like Heidegger, Schmitt, and Kojève, Strauss would be more concerned that America would succeed in this enterprise than that it would fail. In that case, the “last man” would extinguish all hope for humanity (Nietzsche); the “night of the world” would be at hand (Heidegger); the animalisation of man would be complete (Kojève); and the trivialisation of life would be accomplished (Schmitt). That is what the success of America’s global aspirations meant to them.
WE SEE IN THIS DISCUSSION SOME GOOD POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY POINTS AND SOME BAD. THE IDEA THAT A LEO STRAUSS WORRIED ABOUT AMERICAN GLOBAL ASPIRATIONS WHEN GLOBAL BANKING 1% ALREADY KNEW ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY OF MALTA KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH WERE CAPTURING US GOVERNANCE.
Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is a popularisation of this viewpoint. It sees the coming catastrophe of American global power as inevitable, and seeks to make the best of a bad situation. It is far from a celebration of American dominance.
On this perverse view of the world, if America fails to achieve her “national destiny”, and is mired in perpetual war, then all is well. Man’s humanity, defined in terms of struggle to the death, is rescued from extinction. But men like Heidegger, Schmitt, Kojève, and Strauss expect the worst. They expect that the universal spread of the spirit of commerce would soften manners and emasculate man. To my mind, this fascistic glorification of death and violence springs from a profound inability to celebrate life, joy, and the sheer thrill of existence.
To be clear, Strauss was not as hostile to democracy as he was to liberalism. This is because he recognises that the vulgar masses have numbers on their side, and the sheer power of numbers cannot be completely ignored. Whatever can be done to bring the masses along is legitimate. If you can use democracy to turn the masses against their own liberty, this is a great triumph. It is the sort of tactic that neo-conservatives use consistently, and in some cases very successfully.
Among the Straussians
Danny Postel: Finally, I’d like to ask about your interesting reception among the Straussians. Many of them dismiss your interpretation of Strauss and denounce your work in the most adamant terms (“bizarre splenetic”). Yet one scholar, Laurence Lampert, has reprehended his fellow Straussians for this, writing in his Leo Strauss and Nietzsche that your book The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss “contains many fine skeptical readings of Strauss’s texts and acute insights into Strauss’s real intentions.” Harry Jaffa has even made the provocative suggestion that you might be a “closet Straussian” yourself!
Shadia Drury: I have been publicly denounced and privately adored. Following the publication of my book The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss in 1988, letters and gifts poured in from Straussian graduate students and professors all over North America – books, dissertations, tapes of Strauss’s Hillel House lectures in Chicago, transcripts of every course he ever taught at the university, and even a personally crafted Owl of Minerva with a letter declaring me a goddess of wisdom! They were amazed that an outsider could have penetrated the secret teaching. They sent me unpublished material marked with clear instructions not to distribute to “suspicious persons”.
I received letters from graduate students in Toronto, Chicago, Duke, Boston College, Claremont, Fordham, and other Straussian centres of “learning.” One of the students compared his experience in reading my work with “a person lost in the wilderness who suddenly happens on a map.” Some were led to abandon their schools in favour of fresher air; but others were delighted to discover what it was they were supposed to believe in order to belong to the charmed circle of future philosophers and initiates.
After my first book on Strauss came out, some of the Straussians in Canada dubbed me the “bitch from Calgary.” Of all the titles I hold, that is the one I cherish most. The hostility toward me was understandable. Nothing is more threatening to Strauss and his acolytes than the truth in general and the truth about Strauss in particular. His admirers are determined to conceal the truth about his ideas.
My intention in writing the book was to express Strauss’s ideas clearly and without obfuscation so that his views could become the subject of philosophical debate and criticism, and not the stuff of feverish conviction. I wanted to smoke the Straussians out of their caves and into the philosophical light of day. But instead of engaging me in philosophical debate, they denied that Strauss stood for any of the ideas I attributed to him.
Laurence Lampert is the only Straussian to declare valiantly that it is time to stop playing games and to admit that Strauss was indeed a Nietzschean thinker – that it is time to stop the denial and start defending Strauss’s ideas.
I suspect that Lampert’s honesty is threatening to those among the Straussians who are interested in philosophy but who seek power. There is no doubt that open and candid debate about Strauss is likely to undermine their prospects in Washington.
Who is Leo Strauss?
Leo Strauss was born in 1899 in the region of Hessen, Germany, the son of a Jewish small businessman. He went to secondary school in Marburg and served as an interpreter in the German army in the first world war. He was awarded a doctorate at Hamburg University in 1921 for a thesis on philosophy that was supervised by Ernst Cassirer.
Strauss’s post-doctoral work involved study of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, and in 1930 he published his first book, on Spinoza’s critique of religion; his second, on the 12th century Jewish philosopher Maimonides, was published in 1935. After a research period in London, he published The Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes in 1936.
In 1937, he moved to Columbia University, and from 1938 to 1948 taught political science and philosophy at the New School for Social Research, New York. During this period he wrote On Tyranny (1948) and Persecution and the Art of Writing (1952).
In 1949, he became professor of political philosophy at the University of Chicago, and remained there for twenty years. His works of this period include Natural Right and History (1953), Thoughts on Machiavelli (1958), What is Political Philosophy? (1959), The City and Man (1964), Socrates and Aristophanes (1966), and Liberalism Ancient and Modern (1968).
Between 1968 and 1973, Strauss taught in colleges in California and Maryland, and completed work on Xenophon’s Socratic discourses and Argument and Action of Plato’s Laws (1975). After his death in October 1973, the essay collection Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy (1983) was published.
Recommended articles on Leo Strauss, neo-conservatism, and Iraq
M.F. Burnyeat, “Sphinx without a Secret”, New York Review of Books, 30 May 1985 [paid-for only]
Stephen Holmes, “Truths for Philosophers Alone?”, Times Literary Supplement, 1-7 December 1989; reprinted in Stephen Holmes, The Anatomy of Antiliberalism (1996)
Robert B. Pippin, “The Modern World of Leo Strauss,” Political Theory Vol. 20 No. 3 (August 1992) [affiliate only]
Gregory Bruce Smith, “Leo Strauss and the Straussians: An Anti-democratic Cult?”, PS: Political Science & Politics Vol. 30 No. 2 (June 1997) [affiliate only]
Michiko Kakutani, “How Books Have Shaped U.S. Policy,” The New York Times, 5 April 2003 [paid-for only]
Alain Frachon and Daniel Vernet, “The Strategist and the Philosopher”, Le Monde, 15 April 2003
James Atlas, “A Classicist’s Legacy: New Empire Builders,” The New York Times, 4 May 2003 [paid-for only]
Jeet Heer, “The Philosopher,” The Boston Globe, 11 May 2003 [paid-for only]
Jim Lobe, “The Strong Must Rule the Weak: A Philosopher for an Empire,” Foreign Policy in Focus, 12 May 2003
Seymour Hersh, “Selective Intelligence,” The New Yorker, 12 May 2003
William Pfaff, “The long reach of Leo Strauss”, International Herald Tribune, 15 May 2003
Peter Berkowitz, “What Hath Strauss Wrought?”, Weekly Standard, 2 June 2003
“Philosophers and kings,” The Economist, 19 June 2003
Steven Lenzner & William Kristol, “What was Leo Strauss up to?”, The Public Interest, Fall 2003
Laura Rozen “Con Tract: the theory behind neocon self-deception”, Washington Monthly, October 2003
Copyright © Danny Postel, 2018 2003. Published by http://www.opendemocracy.net
We strongly recommend THE NOISE OF TIME to understand the total capture of citizens to be themselves---to have any free thoughts or expressions----the capture of what is called CAREER. The corruption of what THE PEOPLE want is chilling.
Please understand BARNES is creating an historical FICTION using SHOSTAKOVICH so watch out for the nihilsm of inescapable PESSIMISM--of not being able to escape FATE.
Global banking 1% societal FAD being ----why fight it when we always end submitting.
'The Noise of Time'
By Corinna Lothar - - Thursday, July 28, 2016 Washington Times
THE NOISE OF TIME
By Julian Barnes
Alfred A. Knopf, $25.05, 197 pages
In his remarkable new novel, Julian Barnes tells the story of the Russian composer, Dmitri Dmitrievich Shostakovich, and how the “noise of time” surrounding his life, be it the adulation, humiliation, prestige and dishonor heaped upon him, or the pressure of “Power” to write music “for the people,” affected him.
Shostakovich was a complex man, a talented pianist and great composer. Though he repudiated artists he admired, submitted to the demands of Power, he nevertheless was able to compose great works. “What did he value? Music, his family, love … The order of importance was liable to change.”
It is not clear whether Shostakovich’s actions were motivated by cowardice, fear of reprisal, political pressure, or a desire to please. Julian Barnes has taken all these motives into account. “The Noise of Time” is not a biography, although its biographical facts are correct, but a caustic, elegant novel exploring the inner life of a conflicted man and his view of the world.
Shostakovich was born in 1906 and died in 1975. His first marriage was based on free love to a woman “so full of joy and life, so outgoing, so comfortable in her own skin;” his second was a mistake; and his third — to a woman almost 30 years his junior — was a very happy one. His opera, “Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk,” was banned in Russia but a success in the West. Power (that is, Stalin, “the Great Leader”) termed his music “formalistic;” Pravda called it “Muddle Instead of Music.” His music was compared to that of “a road drill and a mobile gas chamber.”
Yet he was declared a hero of the Soviet Union when he composed “music for films and ballets and oratorios which glorified the Revolution … His Second Symphony had been a cantata celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Revolution, in which he had set some quite disgusting verses by Alexander Bezymensky.” He hated “Power” but became a member of the Party.
The book is divided into three parts.
The first, “On the Landing,” deals with the composer’s fear of Power, which exiled or executed artists in disfavor. Shostakovich twice was denounced. “They always came for you in the middle of the night. And so, rather than be dragged from the apartment in his pyjamas, or forced to dress in front of some contemptuously impassive NKVD man, he would go to bed fully clothed, lying on top of the blankets, a small case already packed on the floor beside him.”
When he decided to spend the nights on the elevator landing, the “case resting against his calf was there to reassure him … It made him look as if he were in charge of events rather than a victim of them …”
The second part of the book, “On the Plane,” is centered on Shostakovich’s humiliation at the Cultural and Scientific Congress for World Peace, held in New York, which Stalin forced him to attend. Questioned by Nicolas Nabokov (writer Vladimir’s cousin), the composer “personally subscribe[d] to the banning from Soviet concert halls of the works of Hindemith, Schoenberg and Stravinsky.”
Shostakovich met, and was well-received in New York by writers and musicians. He received a scroll, signed by 42 musicians, thanking him for his visit. “These had been his spoonfuls of honey in a barrel of tar.”
The third section, “In the Car,” focuses on the composer’s rewards, his dacha, his car and chauffeur. But even after Stalin’s death, while fear lessened under Krushchev, Power still controlled his life. “Nikita the Corncob … would go into tirades about ‘abstractionists and pederasts’ — they being obviously the same thing.”
“The Noise of Time” is ironic and witty. It offers an aphorism on almost every page — for example, “To be Russian was to be pessimistic; to be Soviet was to be optimistic,” or “Perhaps courage was like beauty. A beautiful woman grows old; she seeks only what has gone; others see only what remains.”
Mr. Barnes uses sarcastic similes. In discussing how Wagner was in and out of fashion, depending on Stalin’s mood, he writes: “When the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, Mother Russia had embraced its new Fascist ally as a middle-aged widow embraces a husky young neighbor, the more enthusiastically for the passion coming late, and against all reason.”
“The Noise of Time” deals with questions of the relationship between art and politics, between art and conscience, between courage and survival. Delicious tidbits of Russian idiosyncrasies mask an underlying theme of great sadness.
In sum, “What could [Shostakovich] put up against the noise of time? Only that music which is inside ourselves — the music of our being — which is transformed by some into real music. Which, over the decades, if it is strong and true and pure enough to drown out the noise of time, is transformed into the whisper of history.”
This stereotype of our US white southern 99% of citizens is just that. It is a prime example of ANTEBELLUM colonialism having global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS controlling elections and economy----only able to do that by manufacturing all kinds of population tensions. This is not the voice of our US 99% of WE THE SOUTHERN CITIZENS......black, white, or brown citizens because sadly they are captured to STALINIST FRIENDSHIP PARTY-----where no one dares speak the TRUTH because it is NEGATIVITY.
No doubt we have US white citizens who are really racist----who are really sociopaths willing to harm people for only reasons of race and culture. The people who are REALLY EVIL are rare----those forced to live under STALINIST fascism tending to attach themselves as TITO'S/STALIN'S STOOGES killing the 99% of other southern citizens.
As we stated last week, the anger in any US population group is coming from all the LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---these are manufactured tensions by media, journalism and some people able to harm like to COPY-CAT.
Breitbart is far-right wing global banking 1% media so it is LYING AND HIDING.
Caravan Organizer: ‘White Voters’ in U.S. Concerned with Mass Immigration Not Our Problem
25 Oct 2018 John Binder BREITBART
“White voters” who sit “in front of their TVs drinking beer” and are concerned with mass immigration to the United States are not a priority, the organizer of a 7,000-strong migrant caravan says.In an interview with USA Today, an open borders activist traveling with the migrant caravan of previously deported illegal aliens and job-seekers says he has no time to “worry about white voters” in America:
Rodrigo Abeja, a Pueblo Sin Fronteras activist traveling with the migrants, said there were concerns about timing the caravan’s arrival to the U.S. border at about the same time as the midterm elections. But he still felt a duty to help the migrants. [Emphasis added]
“It’s more important to accompany the caravan … than worry about white voters, sitting in front of their TV’s drinking beer,” he told USA Today. [Emphasis added]
President Trump has threatened Central America with cutting off the more than $500 million in U.S. taxpayer-funded aid that is sent to the region every year, as well as authorizing the deployment of 800 troops to the southern border.
Breitbart Texas reported that the migrant caravan stormed through Mexico last week, tearing down a border barrier in the process as they crossed from Guatemala to Mexico. A second group of about 250 migrants from El Salvador are expected to follow the current caravan and head to the U.S.-Mexico border next week.
Less than six months ago, a similar migrant caravan was allowed to cross into the U.S. with weak asylum claims despite threats from President Trump to close down the border. Many migrants from that caravan are now illegal aliens living in the U.S. as they await their asylum hearings.
Hmmmmm, call me someone wanting not to sell my SOUL--------but as we read in BARNES'---THE NOISE OF TIME-----things always become GRANDIOSE with far-right wing global 1% corporate fascism-----too much FAKE RELIGION in a US city operating as a FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE being STALINIST/HITLER/MAO FASCIST.
Please STAND UP and be US 99% WE THE PEOPLE by fighting these captures of our local universities whether public or private----and our local media/cultural arts.
WE KNOW OUR 99% WE THE ARTS AND MUSIC CITIZENS DO NOT WANT TO BE MADE
'Dmitri Shostakovich in the 1940s'.
No doubt massive MILITARY BAND ORCHESTRAS are next on the agenda.
Peabody performers help bring Bernstein's mammoth 'Mass' to life
About 540 singers, musicians, and dancers—including seven Peabody ensembles—will take part in massive production Friday at Baltimore's…
'and provide the HUAC with names of other suspected prominent leftists'.
Please keep in mind all those US media CABLE CHANNELS with HISTORY ----et al are far-right wing global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS----lying, cheating, and rewriting our US history.
Here we see the return of all that media and journalism surrounding US LEFT politics tied to being called LEFT STALINIST/MAO MARXISM.
As we said, Barnes does a good job using his hero, Shostakovich, as the denier of Western pretense towards all those FAKE left communists and socialists mostly being journalists, cultural arts STARS.
WE ARE FEELING THE FAR-RIGHT WING HITLER FASCISM GROWING IN BALTIMORE!
SHOSTAKOVICH the character tears into those FAKE Western left communists ------
THIS DAY IN HISTORY
Bernstein, Copland, Seeger and others are named as Communists
The Red Scare of the 1940s and 1950s famously ended the careers of numerous film-industry professionals and forced others to avoid blacklisting by repudiating their political beliefs and “naming names” of suspected Communist sympathizers to the House Committee on Un-Activities (HUAC). But Hollywood actors, directors and screenwriters were not the only victims of the Cold War anti-Communist purges in the entertainment industry. Prominent figures in the music industry were also targeted, including Leonard Bernstein, Aaron Copland, Lena Horne, Pete Seeger and Artie Shaw, all of whom were named publicly as suspected Communist sympathizers on this day in 1950, in the infamous publication Red Channels: The Report of Communist Influence in Radio and Television.
Red Channels was a tract issued by the right-wing journal Counterattack, the self-described “Newsletter of Facts to Combat Communism.” By 1950, Joseph McCarthy and the HUAC had already been at work for several years, and figures like singer Paul Robeson and the so-called Hollywood Ten had already been blacklisted, but Red Channels sought to go further, exposing what it called a widespread Communist effort to achieve “domination of American broadcasting and telecasting, preparatory to the day when…[the] Party will assume control of this nation as the result of a final upheaval and civil war.” Some even believe that the men responsible for Red Channels—including several former members of the FBI—were given illegal access to the confidential files of HUAC in preparing their report, which exposed 151 names in the entertainment industry to public scrutiny and the threat of blacklisting
Joining famous names like Orson Welles, Lillian Hellman, Arthur Miller and Dorothy Parker on the Red Channels list were the aforementioned Bernstein, Copland, Horne, Seeger and Shaw and numerous other musical figures, including the legendary harmonica player Larry Adler, the folksinger Burl Ives, former Library of Congress folklorist Alan Lomax and TheNew York Times music critic Olin Downes. The evidence of Communist leanings offered in Red Channels included Lena Horne’s appearance on the letterhead of a South African famine relief program, Aaron Copland’s appearance on a panel at a 1949 Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace and Leonard Bernstein’s affiliation with the Committee to Re-Elect Benjamin J. Davis, a black, socialist New York City councilman.
In the end, Red Channels caused some of those named to be blacklisted—Pete Seeger, most famously—to fight publicly to prove their “loyalty” to the United States and still others to repudiate their political pasts and provide the HUAC with names of other suspected prominent leftists.