“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
For the most part, I concur with Mr. Crocker’s analysis. I fact, yesterday I went to the effort of finding the exact Goebbels quote, which is attached (above). Let us not quibble that the Democrat party is not the “state” which Goebbels asserts is the principal stakeholder.
Mr. Crocker doesn’t quite go far enough in his analysis — to wit, once that the populace is convinced that the Administration “lied” the U.S. into the war, then the same populace may not believe the Administration’s protestations to the contrary. It may be reported, by the MSM, that one big lie begets another.
Well, it also may be said that Administration supporters can carry the water, so to speak, that the Administration did not lie. However, the MSM likely will portray such supporters as partisans and not worthy of belief. Or ignore them completely which is far more likely (lying by omission).
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online