Jan 29

Today’s News 29th January 2017

  • Paul Craig Roberts: "Bannon Is 100% Right – The Media Is Now The Opposition"

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Bannon is correct that the US media – indeed, the entire Western print and TV media – is nothing but a propaganda machine for the ruling elite. The presstitutes are devoid of integrity, moral conscience, and respect for truth.

     

    Who else but the despicable Western media justified the enormous war crimes committed against millions of peoples by the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes in nine countries—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Palestine, and the Russian areas of Ukraine?

    Who else but the despicable Western media justified the domestic police states that have been erected in the Western world in the name of the “war on terror”?

    Along with the war criminals that comprised the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes, the Western media should be tried for their complicity in the massive crimes against humanity.

    The Western media’s effort to sustain the high level of tension between the West and Russia is a danger to all mankind, a direct threat to life on earth. Gorbachev’s warnings are correct…

    The world today is overwhelmed with problems. Policymakers seem to be confused and at a loss.

     

    But no problem is more urgent today than the militarization of politics and the new arms race. Stopping and reversing this ruinous race must be our top priority.

     

    The current situation is too dangerous.

     

    …Politicians and military leaders sound increasingly belligerent and defense doctrines more dangerous. Commentators and TV personalities are joining the bellicose chorus. It all looks as if the world is preparing for war.

    Yet presstitutes declare that if Trump lifts the sanctions it proves that Trump is a Russian agent. It is paradoxical that the Democrats and the liberal-progressive-left are mobilizing the anti-war movement to oppose Trump’s anti-war policy!

    By refusing to acknowledge and to apologize for its lies, euphemistically called “fake news,” the Western media has failed humanity in a number of other ways. For example, by consciously telling lies, the media has legitimized the suborning of perjury and false testimony used to convict innocent defendants (such as Walter McMillian in Bryan Stevenson’s Just Mercy) in America’s “justice” system, which has about the same relation to justice as genocide has to mercy. If the media can lie about world events, police and prosecutors can lie about crimes.

    By taking the role of the political opposition to Trump, the media has discredited itself as an honest critic on topics where Trump needs criticism, such as the environment and his tolerance of oppressive methods used by police. The presstitutes have ended all chance of improving Trump’s performance with reports and criticism.

    Trump needs moderating on the environment, on the police, and on the war on terror. Trump needs to understand that “the Muslim threat” is a hoax created by the neoconservatives and the military/security complex with the complicity of the presstitutes to serve the hegemony agenda and the budget and power of the CIA, Pentagon, and military industries. If the US stops bombing and slaughtering Muslims and training and equiping forces to overthrow non-compliant Muslim governments such as Syria, Iraq, and Libya, “the Muslim threat” will disappear.

    Maybe Trump will add to his agenda breaking into hundreds of pieces the six mega-media companies that own 90% of the US media and selling the pieces to seperate independent owners who have no connection to the ruling elites. Then America would again have a media that can constrain the government with truth rather than use lies to act for or against the government.

  • Why Unwinding The Fed's Balance Sheet Could Get Messy

    With former Fed chair Ben Bernanke becoming the latest academic to opine on the potential unwind of the Fed’s balance sheet last week (naturally, he was against it realizing the potentially dire implications such a move could have on asset prices), here is the same topic as viewed from the perspective of an actual trader, in this case FX strategist (who writes for Bloomberg) Vincent Cignarella, and who believes that “unwinding the Fed’s balance sheet could get messy.”

    Cignarella explains why the Fed better beware what it wishes for in his analysis below.

    The Federal Reserve should watch what it says about its $4.5t balance sheet. With so much uncertainty in the market about how it will be reduced, a few mistimed words could roil markets faster than you can mouth “taper tantrum.”

     

    The topic is hot. The Fed’s Bullard and Rosengren have recently said the central bank could use the balance sheet to help tighten policy and other bank presidents have also talked about tapering.  Ex-Chairman Bernanke just blogged about it, arguing there’s no need to rush.

     

    Hopefully they’re trying to avoid the past. Bernanke surprised the markets in mid-2013 when he said the Fed might cut back on monthly bond and mortgage-backed securities purchases by $10b. The result, traders panicked and pushed the 10-year yield to nearly 3% from below 2% in four months, sparking a crisis in emerging markets.

     

    If they mess it up this time, it could be worse. The Fed may announce a taper while they are increasing rates and in a bearish bond market, which could exacerbate any move because there are fewer buyers to absorb supply. Tapering a balance sheet of this size has never been done.

     

    The Fed will also be tightening for the first time in more than a decade — raising the Fed Funds rate without draining reserves is repricing the curve, it isn’t tightening. Increasing rates changes the price of money in circulation, tapering reduces it.

     

    The Fed’s Williams said last week the central bank “won’t be disruptive at all” when it starts to let the balance sheet roll off because it will cause rates to go up, which is “desirable.” How much is desirable?

     

    But if markets don’t get the message or a gradual message isn’t gradual enough, traders won’t wait. They will want to get ahead of the curve and that could lead to a surge in yields.

     

    Some analysts predict yields will rise 15 to 20 basis points, but a fixed-income trader I spoke with said that may just be the reaction on the first day.

     

    As traders will tell you, getting into a long position is easier than getting out.

    * * *

    We hope that this time the Fed invites the opinions of more actual traders in advance of what could be the most momentuous decision in Fed history, instead of just relying on academics and economists, especially since this could be the one event that leads to immense rewards for those bears who managed to survive the past 8 years of activist central banks pushing the stock market higher at all costs.

  • Federal Judge Grants Partial Block Of Trump Immigration Order

    Symbolic war broke out between the Judicial and Executive branches shortly before 9pm on Saturday evening, when federal judge Ann Donnelly in the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn issued an emergency stay halting Trump’s executive order banning immigrants from seven mostly Muslim nations entering the US, and temporarily letting people who landed in U.S. with valid visa to remain on US territory, saying removing the refugees could cause “irreparable harm”.

    The court’s ruling was in response to a petition filed on Saturday morning by the ACLU on behalf of the two Iraqi men who were initially detained at JFK International Airport on Friday night after Trump’s ban, and were subsequently granted entry into the US.

    The ACLU issued the following statement following the court ruling:

    A federal judge tonight granted the American Civil Liberties Union’s request for a nationwide temporary injunction that will block the deportation of all people stranded in U.S. airports under President Trump’s new Muslim ban. The ACLU and other legal organizations filed a lawsuit on behalf of individuals subject to President Trump’s Muslim ban. The lead plaintiffs have been detained by the U.S. government and threatened with deportation even though they have valid visas to enter the United States.

     

    Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project who argued the case, said:

     

    “This ruling preserves the status quo and ensures that people who have been granted permission to be in this country are not illegally removed off U.S. soil.”

     

    ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, had this reaction to the ruling:

     

    “Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this country. Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court.

    However, while some media reports present the court ruling as a wholesale victory over Trump’s order, the stay only covers the airport detainees and those currently in transit, and it does not change the ban going forward.

    In summary, the state of affairs as of this moment is that the executive order is now frozen for the next few days, until the case can be briefed. The court has ruled that no one who is currently being held can be sent back to their country of origin, but it remains unclear if they will be released is unclear.

    Judge Donnelly has ordered the federal government to provide a list of all people currently held in detention. Where the stay falls short is that according to the ACLU’s lawyer, there still can be no new arrivals from countries under the ban, but the ACLU and other organizations are working to file additional suits to roll back other portions of the order.

    * * *

    A detailed read of Judge Donnelly’s ruling, per Josh Blackman, reveals that the order states that petitioners have shown a “strong likelihood of success” and that their removal would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clause, and cause irreparable injury. (Note, this order only applies to those already in the country, and thus protected by the Constitution; the same analysis does not apply to those outside the United States).

    As a result, the court issues what is effectively a nationwide stay, enjoining all of the named respondents, including President Trump, Secretary Kelly, and the acting director of the CBP, from the “commission of further acts and misconduct  in violation of the Constitution as described in the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal.”

    The key part is what they are enjoined from doing:

    ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, legally authorized to enter the United States.

    Further, the court orders the Marshal for the Eastern District of New York to “take those actions deemed necessary to enforce the provisions and prohibitions set forth in this Order.”

    What will disappoint civil rights advocates, is that this opinion only affects the small number of people who were in-transit when the order was issued, and arrived after it went into effect. The Constitution attaches to their status, and they cannot be held in violation of the Due Process Clause. The same analysis does not apply to aliens outside the United States.

    * * *

    We now look forward to Trump’s reaction to this act of defiance by a US Court which has partially – and painfully – voided his most controversial executive order to date, and whether the Supreme Court will be forced to opine on this most divisive of topics in the coming days. If anything, the risk to the latter may accelerate the prompt appointment of a conservative SCOTUS judge to fill the vacant Scalia spot.

  • The Trump Doctrine

    Submitted by Matthew Jamison via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The Inauguration of the billionaire property developer and businessman Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States has ushered in a new era in American politics and international standing. It was a surreal moment due to the fact so many believed it would never happen. Mr. Trump must be credited with the fact he possess unique political and charismatic skills that a man with zero experience of running a political campaign, running for political office or having ever served in government, could have got himself elected President at the outset of his very first political campaign, is quite remarkable.

    What is more remarkable is that Mr. Trump largely drove his campaign and success with the capturing of the Republican nomination and subsequently the White House, largely through the sheer force and theatrical, flamboyant personality of his character, a deep understanding of his audience/market and an uncanny ability to utilise and harness mass media to attract attention to himself and his campaign. He did all this in the face of stiff resistance from many within his own party and the Establishment and mainstream media. As a performer he is extremely captivating and this in many ways fuelled his rise to the Presidency. 

    President Trump's inaugural address was quite unlike any in recent American Presidential history. He returned to the dark and pessimistic vision of America and the world originally outlined with vigour at the Republican National Convention. President Trump dubbed the state of America in graphic terms as an «American carnage», in which the nations elite Establishment in Washington DC had allowed the country to rot as they themselves flourished. It was a full scale onslaught against the members of the DC political Establishment both Republican and Democrat and the ushering in of a so-called new way of getting the best for the American people from their political institutions.

    What was must striking in policy and political terms was the overtly nationalist doctrine that President Trump enunciated in his Inaugural Address. It would seem for the first time in decades an American administration will be openly and philosophically Protectionist in its actions, policies, rhetoric and thinking advocating for «smart trade» not «free trade» and moving away from free trade type agreements such as NAFTA or the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. The nationalism is striking for its isolationism. 

    There is no place in the Trump Doctrine for George W. Bush style messianic, neoconservative interventionism in the name of democratic nation building around the world. The Trump Doctrine is neither liberal internationalist nor American exceptionalism or neoconservative hawkishness rather a traditional form of nationalist isolationism redolent of the 1930s Republican Party of Wendell Willkie who opposed US involvement in the European World War II.

    The Trump Doctrine emphasizes American greatness through a heavy focus on nationalism to express the pride in national power and is hostile towards attempts at or achieved restrictions upon national sovereignty to act as an independent nation state rather than in a collective, multi-lateral fashion through organisations such as NATO, United Nations, the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Agreement etc.

    This nationalist isolationism is most starkly revealed and will have the most radical impact in terms of international trade policy. It will be fascinating to see just how far under the Trump administration America moves away from Free Trade in the international economic architecture of the Western IMF/World Bank system and embraces protectionism with the possibility of trade wars and an undermining of organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and the globalized framework of manufacturing. In terms of Great Power Superpower politics the Trump Doctrine will position American global leadership as more of a Chairman of the Board style of leadership rather than the activist World Policeman CEO figure of past administrations post-World War II. Trump wants America to remain dominant and number one but refuses to follow a set of international policies which could bankrupt America for paying for Global hegemony of the Kennedy/Reagan/Clinton/Bush administrations. 

    At home a brand of patriotism will be used to attempt to create greater internal cohesion and unity despite the profound divisions within the country and large opposition to the Trump victory. Be prepared to see a wave of America First hyperbole and hyper-nationalism unleashed in an attempt to quell dissent and wrap the Trump Presidency in the American flag in a powerfully emotional appeal to the countries most sensitive sensibilities. This will in all likelihood be abused for political purposes of the Trump administration to silence critics and dilute opposition and it is likely to widen the gulf between small town middle America and the coastal big city liberal metropolises stoking even greater social tensions.

    The Inaugural Speech was a tour de force in raw emotion powered by a fiery and telegenic, charismatic and motivational, persuasive though hyperbolic public personality and speaker. It was a master class act in mass manipulation and it remains to be seen whether a policy platform for Government fashioned out of this individual driven political insurrection will indeed cure some of the problems facing the United States or whether they will in fact create even bigger problems both for Americans and the rest of the world.

  • The Trap Is Set: "Both Sides Are Utterly Unprepared For What's Coming"

    Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

    If there’s one thing that should be absolutely clear in the current political environment in America, it’s that  there exists a deep division between the people of this nation. Both of sides of the aisle argue vehemently about what’s best going forward, sometimes to the point of physical violence. And though the election of President Donald Trump speaks volumes about the sentiment of Americans, the following video report from Storm Clouds Gathering warns that both sides are utterly unprepared for what’s coming.

    Is Trump going to usher in a new era of prosperity and innovation?

     

    Or is he going to be the one standing in the center ring when the circus tent comes down?

     

    …

     

    Some voted for Trump as a political Molotov cocktail… Trump is a business man, you say… He’s going to make things happen… cut taxes…cut regulation… invest a trillion dollar in infrastructure… punish companies that move factories overseas… rebuild the military… restore relations with Russia… start a trade war with China… and a new arms race would create jobs… there’s a lot to unpack there… and those debates are worth having.

     

    However, much of this hinges on a variable that Trump doesn’t control… The Federal Reserve.

     

    …Word is, the Fed is leaning towards increasing interest rates aggressively in 2017 and may engage in anti-inflationary measures to offset Trump’s infrastructure plans… that means the flow of money and credit is about to be tightened…

     

    It also means the Fed is setting itself up for a showdown.

    Watch the full video:

  • The One Chart That America's Corporate Elite Don't Want You To See

    The message from America's ruling elite is, as always – "do as I say, not as I do" – and nowhere is that more evident in the following chart. Simply put, follow the money!

    As we detailed last week, as US financial stocks have soared in the post-election Trumphoria, so bankers have been dumping over $100 million in personal stock holdings…

     

    But, as Barron's details, it's not just the bankers that are bailing out of US stocks (just as the corporate elite and their mainstream media lackeys cajole you and your hard-earned retirement funds back into the most-expensive market ever), it's everyone!!

     

    The massive spike in insider-selling (relative to buying) is broad-based…

     

    Still – listen to CNBC, buy some more NFLX or TSLA or the latest Biotech stock, we have reached a new permanantly high plateau…

  • "Refugees In, Racists Out" Protestors Storm JFK, O'Hare Airports After Trump's 'Muslim Ban' – Live Feed

    With banners and chants proclaiming "build a wall… we'll tear it down", "let them in", "hey, hey, JFK, no more fascists USA", and "refugees in, racists out", hundreds of protestors are assembled at JFK airport (and Chicago O'Hare) following President Trump's 'Muslim' ban.

     

     

    As NBC4New York reports,

    With chants of "No hate, no fear, refugees are welcome here," protesters gathered at John F. Kennedy Airport where 12 refugees were detained Saturday under President Donald Trump's executive order to ban refugees from entering the United States for four months.

     

    More than 300 demonstrators held homemade signs that read "No ban, no wall" and "Refugees welcome" in front of Terminal 4's international arrivals area. One sign called for President Trump's impeachment and the deportation of the first lady.

     

    "We're here to tell Trump that we are not going anywhere," said lawyer and refugee advocate Jacki Esposito, who helped organize the protest. "Today is the beginning of a long opposition from us, and our neighbors all over the country."

    The crowds are growing.

    Additionally, the NYC Taxi Workers just called for a work stoppage, starting at 6 pm. No pick ups or drop offs to JFK.

    From 6 to 7 p.m., drivers are not picking up passengers at Terminal 4.

     

    "As an organization whose membership is largely Muslim, a workforce that's almost universally immigrant, and a working-class movement that is rooted in the defense of the oppressed, we say no to this inhumane and unconstitutional ban," the NYTWA said in a statement. There are approximately 19,000 drivers in the union including yellow cab drivers, green car and black car drivers. The union also represents Uber and Lyft drivers.
     

    The protests will be coming to other airports…

    Protestors have arrived at Chicago's O'Hare airport…

    …

    Live Feed:

    Alternate Live Feed:

  • Homeland Confirms Trump Immigration Ban Will Include Green-Card Holders & Dual-Nationalities

    With the world (apart from Israel) in uproar over President Trump’s decision to ban immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, Department of Homeland Security official Gillian Christensen just confirmed “[the order] will bar green card holders” and those who hold dual nationality also will be barred.

    Green cards serve as proof of an individual’s permanent legal residence in the U.S.

    In a statement that the State Department is due to release, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the 90-day visa moratorium extends beyond just citizens of Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen.

    It also applies to people who originally hail from those countries but are traveling on a passport issued by any other nation, the statement notes. That means Iraqis seeking to enter the U.S. on a British passport, for instance, will be barred, according to a U.S. official. British citizens don’t normally require a visa to enter the U.S.

     

    “Travelers who have nationality or dual nationality of one of these countries will not be permitted for 90 days to enter the United States or be issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa,” the statement said. “Those nationals or dual nationals holding valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the United States during this period.  Visa interviews will generally not be scheduled for nationals of these countries during this period.”

     

    The dual-citizenship ban doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens who are also citizens of the seven nations singled out by Mr. Trump.

    In a briefing with reporters, officials defended the scope and execution of the new executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Friday. Asked about lawsuits filed against the order, the officials declined specific comment, but said foreigners do not have a right to enter into the united States, and dismissed as “ludicrous” the notion that the move amounted to a “Muslim ban.”

    As The Hill reports, Trump signed an executive action Friday halting the country’s Syrian refugee resettlement program for 120 days and barring people from certain Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the U.S. The administration says the halt in the resettlement program is designed to give it time to tighten the vetting process for refugees. The order also gives Christian refugees priority in the resettlement process.

    “If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians,” Trump said in an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network on Friday.

     

    “And I thought it was very, very unfair,” he continued. “So we are going to help them.”

    While most of the world is in uproar over Trump’s decisions to “build the wall” and “ban muslims” – Iran’s government proclaimed “Trump’s visa ban is an insult to all Muslims” –  Israel’s Prime Minister was supportive…

    Finally of the seven countries that are on the banned list, we note that the United States is actvely bombing five of them.

     

  • Why Did The Media Fail So Badly In Its Efforts To Elect Hillary?

    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Yesterday in Taki's Magazine, David Cole suggested that maybe, just maybe, Hollywood isn't as powerful in swaying public opinion as many people assume it is. 

    This belief is shared not only by the "stars" of Hollywood itself — who naturally fancy themselves as great "thought leaders" — but also by conservatives themselves, including the late Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart, as Cole points out, was even rather obsessed with the issue, and harped on the need to create a right wing rival to Hollywood. 

    Cole, however, wonders if this all is really based on an accurate appraisal of the situation. After all, if Hollywood is so good at convincing people of its own point of view, why is it that Republicans keep winning so many elections? Cole notes: 

    But wait…even with all that Hollywood “interference,” didn’t we just win the last presidential election? Don’t we have the House and Senate, too? Haven’t we also won an unprecedented number of statewide legislative seats and governorships?

    This doesn't prove Hollywood has no effect on behavior and ideology, of course. But, it is entirely plausible that its power is not nearly as great as assumed. 

    Indeed, when it comes to discussing the effects of marketing, messaging, advertising, and propaganda, "assumed" is certainly a key word. There are a great many assumptions being made, but precious little evidence to back these assumptions up. 

    This appears to apply well beyond the field of mere Hollywood-created propaganda, as well. Both the legacy media and Hollywood gave full-throated endorsements to Hillary Clinton in 2016, and yet, the best Clinton managed was what can, at best, be called a tie with Donald Trump. 

    It seems the media's power may not be any more far-reaching than Hollywood's. Moreover, given than both the media and Hollywood portray media journalists in only the best possible light over and over and over again, why is it that only 32 percent of Americans report that they trust the media? If the media wants to be trusted, shouldn't they need do nothing more than simply tell us they're trustworthy. After all, it must be true if we see it on TV. 

    All it takes a slick ad campaign, we are told, and people will believe whatever you tell them to believe. 

    The problem is that this has never been shown to be true.

    There is growing evidence, it seems, that suggests the under-thirty demographic simply doesn't respond to advertisements, and that brand loyalty is becoming virtually non-existent in an age when consumers rely more and more on third-party evaluators such as Yelp and Amazon to provide insight into whether or not a product is worth one's time and money.

    Many of these discussions about how ads don't work anymore, however, continue to rely on what is probably an incorrect assumption — namely that advertisements have worked perfectly well in the past.

    Indeed, the evidence has always been rather sketchy as to how much advertisers can actually influence the public's thoughts about goods and services, and consumers have never been at the mercy of advertisers as many seem to think.

     

    Do Tobacco Companies Trick Us Into Smoking? 

    Nevertheless, our faith in the power of propaganda — and it's non-political form, known as " advertising" — has long been nearly unshakable.

    An often repeated anecdote used to support this view is the one in which we are told that the whole world opposed female use of cigarettes until some advertising campaigns convinced everyone to abandon their long-held social views and embrace tobacco for all. This story usually claims that Edward Bernays, the "father of public relations" devised ingenious advertising methods that manipulated people into abandoning their own existing value systems in favor of whatever advertisers put forward. 

    But, as Bill Wirtz recently demonstrated, the rise of female smoking also accompanied enormous social changes brought on by the Great War and new physical and economic conditions imposed on women. Rather than revolutionizing social thought, as is often assumed to be the case with Bernays and the tobacco ads, it is also entirely plausible that Bernays simply rode the wave of social change. 

    Indeed, Ludwig von Mises was certainly skeptical of the idea that advertisers are able to manipulate people into doing whatever the advertisers want. Mises writes: 

    It is a widespread fallacy that skillful advertising can talk the consumers into buying everything that the advertiser wants them to buy. The consumer is, according to this legend, simply defenseless against "high-pressure" advertising. If this were true, success or failure in business would depend on the mode of advertising only.

     

    However, nobody believes that any kind of advertising would have succeeded in making the candle makers hold the field against the electric bulb, the horse drivers against the motorcars, the goose quill against the steel pen and later against the fountain pen. But whoever admits this implies that the quality of the commodity advertised is instrumental in bringing about the success of an advertising campaign. Then there is no reason to maintain that advertising is a method of cheating the gullible public.

    In other words, real-world conditions are a key factor in forming people's ideas and attitudes, and simply telling them things isn't enough. 

    But what about when those tricky advertisers use more subtle methods such as subliminal messaging? Bernays himself was said to use these, and the issue of control-through-subliminal messages has long been popular, and perhaps peaked in conspiracy-themed popular culture of the 1960s and 70 — as with The Manchurian Candidate and The Parallax View — when characters were controlled by implanted thoughts and subliminal messages. On the other hand, according to Randall Rothenberg: 

    [T]here was — and still is — little proof that these efforts to engineer action through manipulation of the unconscious led to any behavioral changes favorable to specific marketers. As for James Vicary's experiment in subliminal advertising — it was a hoax: Vicary later admitted that he hadn't done what he'd claimed. Several subsequent studies of the effectiveness of embedded messages have shown it to be virtually impossible to use them to produce specific, predictable responses. Still, faith in the power of the media to induce millions of people to act contrary to their better judgment or conscious desires remains profound.

    Indeed, even outside the realm of ultra-subtle messaging, the evidence has been contradictory. Rothenberg continues: 

    Time and again researchers have found it difficult to correlate the content of advertising campaigns with long-term economic effects. Some advertising content, notably price and product information, undeniably moves consumers, but only temporarily and in limited numbers. The ability of advertising to persuade large masses of people to change their attitudes and induce action that permanently alters a company's fortunes — no one really knows how that works. In the conclusion to his 1942 study The Economic Effects of Advertising the Harvard professor Neil Borden reached a series of judgments that must have unsettled his industry sponsors. "Does advertising increase demand for individual concerns?" he asked. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Does it affect production or distribution costs? "Indeterminate." Does it lead to a concentration of supply and anti-competitive pricing? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 

    This isn't to say that advertising has no effect. It is fairly clear that it has an effect of some kind. But, those effects are often not what the crafters of the messages intended. Moreover, consumer behavior appears to correlate at least as much with real-world changes in physical and economic conditions as with the efforts of marketing executives. The Institute for Economic affairs reports:

    [A]nother study confirmed what economists have always known. Looking at sales of alcoholic beverages in the US over 40 years, it found ‘changes significantly correlated to fluctuations in demography, taxation and income levels – not advertising. Despite other macro-level studies with consistent findings, the perception that advertising increases consumption exists. The findings here indicate that there is either no relationship or a weak one between advertising and aggregate category sales. 

    So, did Bernays convince women to go against their own beliefs and start smoking? There's no more reason to look to Bernays's alleged marketing "genius" than to changes in income levels and urbanization rates among women in the 1920s. 

    Now, some readers at this point may say, "well, McMaken, look at how successful Nazi propaganda was."

    In this line of thinking, the advocate often trots out the often-used line of Hermann Göring: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    Of course, if it were really as simple as Göring says it is, then Lyndon Johnson could have easily made himself and the Vietnam War both immensely popular just in time for re-election in 1968 by simply telling the American population that the Americans were in danger of being attacked by Communists. 

    Now, there is no doubt that this line was used, and was believed by some in the population. But, the fact remains that many concluded that the real-world realities simply didn't match up with what they were being told by government and media propagandists. 

    Similarly, when the Obama Administration was advocating for more military action in Syria, why did the White House not just tell the population that the Syrian state was coming to get it, and that immediate action — including carpet bombing of the entire country — was necessary. In fact, the Adminstration hinted at this very thing, and failed to convince.

    Maybe Göring 's tactics do work on an impoverished population ravaged by the Great War and hyper inflation, and poisoned with generations of Prussian militaristic ideology. But clearly, Göring's methods to not work "the same way in every country" nor do they likely work even in the same country during different time periods.  

    The weakness of elite propaganda was hard to ignore in 2016 when millions of voters chose to ignore the messages of Hollywood and the media and chose to not vote for Hillary — even though they were being told that the very existence of human decency and civilization were riding on their support for Clinton. 

    We're Not All Helpless in the Face of Propaganda 

    A more balanced view of advertising and propaganda remains important today for two reasons. 

    First of all, keeping a more sophisticated view of how opinion is shaped is important because it belies the often parroted line by anti-capitalists that consumers are mere putty in the hands of advertisers, and that wicked capitalists can convince consumers to do whatever the advertisers say. 

    We are told by the anti-capitalists that everyone feels they must spend every last dime on consumer good such as expensive cars and oversized houses. The "defenseless " consumer — to use Mises's term — simply must spend endlessly because some Madison Avenue firm told him to. What's more, that same consumer is even tricked into buying an inferior or damaging product against his own better judgment. The only solution, we are told, is to impose government regulations protecting us from the diabolical corporations who manipulate us.  

    As so much evidence shows, this view of advertising has never been true, but it is all the more untrue in the age of social media and an endless array of third-party reviewers of products and services. There is mounting evidence that advertisers are only becoming weaker and weaker, and the more evidence we collect, the more it appears that the variables that act upon a person's choices are far more complex and unknown that we suspect. 

    But what of government propaganda? 

    Again, in this case, the power of state propaganda appears to be less powerful that we might suppose it to be. Perhaps far more important is the simple fact that governments have police and military powers that impose a high cost on refusing to go along. 

    Do people consider the state to be as valuable as many assume they do? There is no doubt that many do, but it is also entirely plausible that many simply opt to not oppose states because states can impose a high cost on those who disobey. 

    In fact, if the propaganda churned out daily by government schools and media arms were as successful as we assume it to be, then why are there so many dissidents, tax evaders, and prisoners? If propaganda can be successfully executed to force compliance so effortlessly as we're told, should not the prisons be empty and the tax payments always be honestly paid? 

    It could be there are other forces at work, and it may be that saying things on TV isn't quite the panacea many assume it to be.

Digest powered by RSS Digest