Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mtuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtuxn!gdf From: gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: The Sandinista Problem II: The Home Front Message-ID: <721@mtuxn.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 19:24:51 EST Article-I.D.: mtuxn.721 Posted: Mon Mar 10 19:24:51 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Mar-86 19:27:45 EST References: <141@hhb.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel NJ Lines: 205 >This is the second posting in a series on the Sandinista Problem. The >previous posting introduced our need to overthrow the Sandinistas with >an invasion involving American forces. This posting deals with the task >at hand here at home. F.B.E. >---------------------------------------------------------- My next posting deals with the need to "overthrow" propagandistic postings. Hey pal, you want to make some accusations? Then make explicit accusations. Don't disguse it as 'humor'. Also, please don't claim to represent your oppostion in a posting. It makes it difficult to respond since the 'you' and 'they' thing can get confused. More importantly it lowers your posting from rational discourse to just plain bs. >Our first step in overthrowing the Sandinistas in Nicaragua is winning >the support of the American public and of Congressmen. Some solutions >are currently in place, but more must be done. The Reagan Administration >and others have convinced a great number that the Sandinistas must go. >We must take further steps to maintain and expand current support. This >is no simple prospect with the specter of Vietnam haunting us. I take it you approve of the outcome in Vietnam. And, what's that other country's name, starts with a C, just can't seem to recall it. Uh, well, might it have been 'Cambodia', oops, sorry, I said the forbidden word. >I congratulate the Administration and others for their successful efforts >to control the nature and scope of information available to the public. >They employ new techniques combined with traditional techniques to place >Nicaragua in a dim light. Information favorable to the Sandinistas is >quickly dispatched to obscurity, falsified, and overwhelmed. Try to stick to reality, ok? I mean, what are you saying when you write 'quickly dispatched'? If you can't make an accusation that makes sense, why write? > >The most valuable, tried-and-true technique is red bating. It works Hitting them with a baseball bat, or a flying mammal? But seriously folks .... :-) . >miracles on laymen and Congressmen. We successfully labeled the Sandinistas >as "communists" who threaten our National Security. This priceless >technique renders them evil. It justifies military action. Those who The Saninistas aren't Communists? Communists aren't evil? I see. >speak favorably of the Sandinistas are automatically either dupes or >communists. People who know things that we don't want said are wary of >speaking up for fear of being fingered. The inescapable logic of red Are you kidding? Who in _this_ country is afraid of speaking up? This just isn't what is happening. Some people (like Reagan) have the almightly nerve to say that if you espouse policies that help the Communists, hey, you ESPOUSE POLICIES THAT HELP THE COMMUNISTS. Like, ah, wow man, like A = A. How astonishing. Of course, this is fascism. >bating parallels the effective Moonie concept that all non-Moonies are >possessed by the devil. Therefore they lie, trying to trick Moonies into >abandoning their blessed state of grace. We must take advantage of red >bating's fullest potential. >An admirable technique employed by the Administration is the press barrage. >When anything favorable to the Sandinistas comes out, the media are >barraged with an abundance of statements swamping and attacking the >validity of opposition information. This way, the media spend all of >their time covering White House and Pentagon statements while ignoring >the original story. A fine example of this is the barrage story of a How nervy. The Administration actually puts forth its views? What's the world coming to? Some of these statements disagree with the Sandinistas' point of view. Definitely fascism. >Soviet jet fighter shipment to Nicaragua during their elections. We >saw extensive coverage of this escalating threat with miniscule >coverage of the elections. The only aspect of the elections for which >the Media had time and space were official and unofficial statements >that the elections were a sham. Proof that the jets were shipped and >that the elections were a sham was neither necessary nor existent. It's >the media coverage that counts; not the facts. Point: The Administration actually didn't want the story covered, especially in the sensationalistic way it was. And the Administration _never_ said that there were Migs on the way to Nicaragua. The press did enjoy asking lots of very leading questions and trying to get the US to say something provocative. This leads to the _real_ point. I think you're trying to say that there is a conspiracy in the media to support US policy in Nicaragua. Is that why you post humor? This is simply not the case. Say so if you think it is actually the situation. I doubt if you have the nerve to actually claim that. >Another technique involves the use of language. Since we control the >language of the debate, we control the debate itself. The use of rhetorical >abstraction places the debate on our own ground where the opposition is >doomed to failure. We frame our turf with such language as Democratic, >Freedom Fighters, National Security, Threat, Marxist, Leninist, Communist, >Totalitarian, Puppet, Dictatorship, Just War. The opposition cannot avoid >appearing apologetic, weak, and downright wrong. In orther words, if the Administration doesn't phrase its arguments in the least convincing way possible, they're all National Socialists. >These and other techniques have proven to be very effective in obtaining >support for the Contras in the past. At this point, we have lost much >support in Congress for Contra funding. Also, we lack support for a >full-blown military action involving a large contingency of American troops. >We can always bypass Congressional funding hesitancy through alternative >channels such as our good friend Israel. The invasion, however, requires >strong support or it is doomed at the outset. This campaign demands a >greater effort on our part. The primary obstacle here is the "Vietnam >Syndrome" fear of foreign military action. We must also silence anyone who >speaks favorably of the Sandinistas without it back-firing on us. Solving >the latter solves the former because alternative sources of information >nullify support for military action. The US policy is to send in US troops, right? You are claiming that this is really Reagan's 'secret plan', aren't you? >The sources of information favorable to the Sandinistas are primarily >Americans who have visited and resided in Nicaragua along with those >journalists who disagree with our goal of eradicating the Sandinistas. 'Eradicating' is rather strong terminology. We don't want to allow emotionalism to distort our argument, do we? Actually, as I see it, there are no sources of information favorable to the Sanidistas. There are plenty of sources that parrot the M-L line (that's Marxist-Leninist). One major point of that line is that Reagan plans to send in US combat troops, apparently just for the fun of it. That is pretty close to what you say, right? IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT. >To solve the information problem we must augment our discrediting >campaign with direct attacks on these sources of information. >The first, most obvious step is to ban all travel to Nicaragua by American >citizens, recalling the great number who currently live there. We should Pardon me, _great number_ ? >also step up our efforts to bar any foreigner known to speak favorably of >the Sandinistas from entering or remaining in the US. For those returning >Americans who speak well of the Sandinistas, we should conduct a campaign >of silencing and discrediting. We could use techniques such as accusing >and arresting them for drug possession, child abuse, treason. Violent Come _on_. Silencing? How is that done? The discrediting is easy, just let them talk. It's all very reminiscent of the people who made trips to Cuba and Vietnam. Same praise, same lies. Also, please inform me of any _treason_ arrests made by the US of people returning from Nicaragua. I don't think you can support this claim. >groups sympathetic with our cause will serve well to ransack opposition >offices, living quarters, and lives. We used this form of harassment >effectively on Vietnam war protesters and currently on groups assisting >refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. As I recall the Vietnam war protesters, they were the ones planting bombs, burning down buildings and harassing people. By the way, the immigration laws apply to everyone, even self styled saviors who feel they have the right to violate any law they feel like. >For those defiant Americans who remain in Nicaragua and for opposition >journalists, we could train and finance death squads clad in Nicaraguan >military garb. This would serve to eradicate our opposition while >making the Sandinistas look worse. We could even use the killing of >Americans to rationalize the invasion. We have plenty of experience with >this avenue of action. Just make up lies if the facts don't support your case. I notice the 'eradicate' word creeping in there again. I like this, just blend up a random mix of lies, propaganda and bs, post it to the net and call it humor. Very funny. >Considering our current efforts and an expansion thereof, we will succeed in >swaying public opinion sufficiently to overcome our reluctance to act. >Once we have tighter control over the information, we will tailor history >to suit our interests. We must succeed. We will succeed. > F. B. Esdalib >Next Posting: After the overthrow. >------------------------------------------------- >The views expressed above are neither those of my employer, my colleagues, >nor myself. _ Bob B-Field > Is this a parody of itself, or is it just moronic? Guy