Wag the Dog (1997) – An Exercise in Meta-Propaganda

Wag the Dog film poster.

Wag the Dog film poster.

A Brilliant Revelation of the Method

By: Jay

Wag the Dog (1997) is one of those 90s movies you somehow missed.  I don’t know how I did, but I recently  came across it looking for something along the lines of propaganda and psychological warfare in film, and boy was I in for a treat.  Wag the Dog is dark satire and is far more than I expected it to be.  The film is about private intelligence consultants/marketing experts creating a fake war as a distraction during a presidential candidate’s re-election that is racked by scandal.

Robert deNiro plays Conrad Brean, “Mr. Fix It,” the intelligence/media manipulator hired to create a big distraction that ends up being a fake war with “Albanian fundamentalist terrorists.”  There are several people this might be, and it could also be a composite, but given his hat and appearance, E. Howard Hunt immediately comes to mind, though the timing is off.

While most analyses of the film would focus on the film’s narrative itself as an expose, which is true as far as it goes, I”d like to take a step back and point out that it is more than that.  It’s an example of what I’d call meta-propaganda, in the sense that metanarrative in the study of Shakespeare involves a story about the process of writing a story, so with Wag the Dog we have an example of meta-propaganda.  The film is itself propaganda about the process of making propaganda.  This is the secret power and effect of predictive programming: hoodwinking a unknowing mass populace into accepting a manipulation of archetypes and emotional images that produce a desired effect.  The chief medium of this craftworking is film and news. Read more of this post

Hat Tip From Alex Jones on My Spoof

My spoofs have been posted on infowars before, and here is a hat tip to my Charlie Sheen spoof (first ten seconds).

The Absurdity of Liberalism: Response to Chris Hedges

If gender's a social construct, why do we need parties based around it?

Liberalism ends in anarchy, or to avoid anarchy, imposes its will on an unliberal world. But by imposing its will, it ceases to be liberal, and is become despotic. -Santayana (paraphrase)
 
By: Jay

 

This past week both Chris Hedges and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts spoke of the end of liberalism – that is no, or never has really been, a true left-wing movement in America. I think saying there never has been goes too far, but it illustrates the ever-prevalent fallacies and contradictions that are staring everyone in the face – liberalism doesn’t really exist. It’s a fantasy. Let’s examine Chris Hedges’ essay and see why this is. Hedges argues in “The Phantom Left” as follows:

“The loss of a radical left in American politics has been catastrophic. The left once harbored militant anarchist and communist labor unions, an independent, alternative press, social movements and politicians not tethered to corporate benefactors. But its disappearance, the result of long witch hunts for communists, post-industrialization and the silencing of those who did not sign on for the utopian vision of globalization, means that there is no counterforce to halt our slide into corporate neofeudalism. This harsh reality, however, is not palatable. So the corporations that control mass communications conjure up the phantom of a left. They blame the phantom for our debacle. And they get us to speak in absurdities.”

First of all, this assumes that the loss of a “radical left” is a good thing. Hedges even cites a loss of communism and independent press, as if these were truly organic, natural and neutral institutions that arose to combat the purportedly oppressive bourgeoisie. In other words, he appears to still believe the classical Marxist and leftist dream – that man is not fallen and basically good at heart, simply in need of more education and more government programs. The big fat pink (or red) elephant staring everyone in the face is that ” there are smart people who understand worldviews and the power of giving people a narrative to believe in. The corporate elite created communism as a way to attain real assets through a central bank that taxes the so-called wealthy. In other words, Hedges blames the very thing that created communism and anarchism as tools for useful idiots.  Having a liberal pontificate and tell us about the ills of our culture is like having Spongebob lecture us on marine biology.

Why is this? Because liberalism is a fantasy. It’s a life of contradiction – the liberal educates himself and ascends the left power structure and becomes an accomplished author and takes the “critical stance” to use the Frankfurt School’s lingo, and snobbishly engages in moral platitudes. This is pure contradiction and double-mind. Why? Because liberalism is born of pure relativism. Relativism says there are no objective morals or standards, and so every man “follows the dictates of his own heart” (Jer. 23:17).  Every liberal knows he accepts this worldview and that this is his fundamental operating principle. But no one really lives this way.  Does Hedges live in the ghetto? I doubt it. Shouldn’t a true liberal who believes in radical egalitarianism and equality move to the poorest, most crime-ridden neighborhoods and properly educate the thugs? None of these leftists do that, and thus they live a fantasy. It’s fact that some people are better than others, and can perform tasks better than others. it’s a fact that some people are more talented than others at certain things. But liberalism cannot face this, and so, because of envy, must try to level the playing field. Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers