by Tracy Turner

Twitter, Facebook and Myspace are not free speech - they are places of monitoring, censoring and personal data harvesting. Also, just because you see your words in print online, it does not equate to "free speech".

From the atomic age to contemporary politics, U.S. Presidents, lawmakers, and justices have consistently employed fearmongering and duplicity for weaponized social control. This enduring practice, deeply rooted in American political history, reflects the challenges of each era. A notable contemporary example is Vice President Kamala Harris, whose nuanced rhetoric on security, counterterrorism, and surveillance adds a modern spin to this legacy. The impact of these strategies on public perception has profoundly shaped the 'faces' of national security, foreign policy, and governance.

Media Influence and Modern Thought Interference

The influence of media has significantly amplified these strategies. The rise of Israeli-influenced news media—press, radio, television, and the internet—has dominated shaping public perception and policy. The constant bombardment of 'news' from these mind-sanitizing platforms has increasingly integrated Israeli policies and narratives into American political discourse. This modern-day thought interference extends the legacy of fearmongering and manipulation that began in past administrations.

Harry S. Truman: Atomic Fear and Cold War Paranoia

Harry S. Truman's administration ushered in the atomic era and profound geopolitical changes. Truman's decision to use nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "justified" as a necessary evil to end World War II quickly and to save lives. This decision contributed to a pervasive global paranoia that defined the Cold War era. Truman's rhetoric portrayed the Soviet Union as an imminent threat to international stability, intensifying Cold War panic. He warned, "The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by the deprivation and misery of the people... Totalitarianism is a threat to freedom." While reflecting genuine concerns, this rhetoric cultivated a permeating sense of dread. Truman's approach revealed inconsistencies.

His Truman Doctrine, which promised American support to nations resisting communism, was framed as a moral imperative justifying U.S. interventions worldwide. He asserted, "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." This strategic manipulation of 'moral imperatives for global interventions' invites critical analysis. Similarly, the Korean War, framed as a necessary defense against communist aggression, involved strategic decisions communicated opaquely to the public.

Dwight D. Eisenhower: Caution and Strategic Fear

Dwight D. Eisenhower's presidency blended caution with strategic fear. His farewell address in 1961 famously warned of the "dangers posed by the military-industrial complex," advising against undue influence over government decisions. Eisenhower cautioned, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." While this warning was prudent, it also served to amplify concerns about the complex, which some argue was used to galvanize support for his policies. Eisenhower warned of future private mercenary armies, surveillance role players, militarized police, and other elements of a growing security state.

Eisenhower's propaganda during the Cold War often exaggerated the threat posed by the Soviet Union to justify extensive military expenditures. He stated, "The loss of Indochina would lead to the loss of all of Southeast Asia, and in time, the loss of all of Asia." This portrayal reflected geopolitical tensions and overstated the urgency of the threat to advance Ike's spending agenda. The U.S. pattern of fearmongering continued with later administrations: Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden-Harris. Vice President Harris has been criticized for her aggressive rhetoric on national security and counterterrorism measures, sometimes invoking extreme threats to justify policy actions.

Lyndon B. Johnson: Fear Propaganda and Misinformation

Lyndon B. Johnson's administration frequently used fear propaganda. The notorious 'Daisy' commercial from his 1964 election campaign depicted Barry Goldwater as a severe nuclear threat, using visuals designed to stir anxiety and garner support. The ad, showing a young girl picking daisy petals followed by a nuclear explosion, illustrated fear as a potent tool. Johnson's approach to Vietnam also involved misinformation. His speeches framed the conflict as a crucial struggle against communism, downplaying American involvement and the fog of war. He claimed, "We are not about to let the Communists come in and take over South Vietnam," obfuscating the complex realities of Vietnam.

Richard Nixon: Sensationalism and Betrayal

Richard Nixon's reign introduced a novel strata of sensationalism, especially his law-and-order rhetoric. Nixon portrayed America as suffering anarchy, ruled by an (implied) immoral minority, using fear to justify his policies. He stated, "The whole nation is suffering from the sickness of lawlessness and disorder," aiming to prey on public fears to solidify his position. Nixon's presidency was marked by betrayal, notably the deceitful Watergate scandal. His cover-up of the scandal reflected a duplicitous effort to manage the public.

Ronald Reagan: Assertive Fearmongering and Duplicity

Ronald Reagan's presidency was seen by critics as assertive fearmongering and an implied, cowed, quivering "moral majority" (opposite of Nixon). His portrayal of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" was social engineering to rally public sentiment against the U.S.S.R. and its militarism. Reagan quipped, "We're not just defending ourselves against a foreign power, we're defending a way of life," amplifying fears and garnering support for his policies. Reagan's administration faced criticism for duplicity, particularly evident in the Iran-Contra Affair. Despite his public stance against negotiating with terrorists, his administration secretly sold arms to Iran. It used the proceeds to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua, revealing a stark contrast between his public words and actions.

George W. Bush: Exploiting Fear for Political and Financial Gain

George W. Bush's presidency, with Cabinet Members Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell, can be viewed as Exploiting Fear 101 for political and financial gain. Following the September 11 attacks, these 'Crusaders' portrayed the War on Terror as an existential struggle, manipulating public sentiment to back expansive and dubious policies. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld adeptly exploited fear of terrorism to further their agendas. Cheney, with his Halliburton ties, a company that profited significantly from war contracts, and Rumsfeld, with connections to defense contractors, were critical in this strategy. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor, and Colin Powell, Secretary of State, were equally involved in selling this narrative control to the American public.

The September 11 attacks were leveraged to advance various interests and generate fear. The attacks included boosting private entities such as Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater (now Academi), a private military company that secured lucrative contracts during the Iraq War. In the hundreds of millions, Prince's net worth highlights the financial gains from these conflicts. War profiteering extended to other individuals and firms closely tied to the administration. The context of 9/11 also involved other troubling elements: reports of Israeli nationals allegedly celebrating the attacks and the presence of Mossad agents living next door to the 9/11 hijackers. The Mossad's presence contributed to the complex and controversial environment surrounding the events and their aftermath.

Obama and Harris: Continuations of the Legacy

The orchestration of Bush's and his allies' phobic agenda played U.S. citizens like a finely tuned violin, manipulating national sentiment to serve the interests of those in power and their business Oligarchs. The 2003 State of the Union Address is a classic example of fearmongering. Bush stated, "The evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction," using "evidence" to justify the invasion of Iraq. Subsequent revelations of flawed intelligence underline the strategic nature of this fearmongering for profit. Bush's claims about progress in Iraq often painted an overly optimistic picture of the situation on the ground, reflecting a tendency to present a misleadingly positive narrative.

Bush's presidency was rife with Orwellian and Huxleyan propaganda. The Patriot Act expanded government surveillance, justified under the pretense of "national security." This echoed Orwellian surveillance and control, as Bush's acolytes claimed to protect the nation from imminent threats. The use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) contradicted international laws and the Constitution. Reminiscent of Huxley in a darker way, the Bush administration's "war on terror" served as a strategy to shape public support for its policies. By constantly presenting terrorism as an imminent threat, the administration sought narrative control and Pavlovian public behavior, maintaining paranoia for eight years.

Obama's presidency was also fear-flavored regarding healthcare and budget reform issues. His speeches framed opposition to his policies in terms of dire consequences. Obama warned, "If we don't act, the health care system will continue to deteriorate, and costs will skyrocket." Obama's presidency also included misleading narratives, particularly regarding drone strikes. His administration presented drone strikes as precise tools against terrorism, but broader implications, including civilian casualties, were often downplayed. Obama stated, "We do not take these strikes lightly. We only take these strikes when we have a clear target and mission."

Obama's presidency expanded surveillance and continued contracting with private defense, actions that contradicted his swelling oratories to constitutional rights. While Obama spoke about safeguarding civil liberties, the reality of increased NSA surveillance and reliance on private military contractors revealed a troubling disconnect between principles and practice. Obama’s presidency saw an escalation in state surveillance and military interventions, antithetical to the freedoms he professed.

Nancy Pelosi's endorsement aligned Harris with mainstream Democratic values, often supporting robust defense. As the current Vice President, Kamala Harris continues this legacy with her nuanced rhetoric on security, counterterrorism, and surveillance. Her speeches reflect a complex interplay of fearmongering and duplicity, primarily through her emphasis on national security measures, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism. Harris's approach, influenced by modern media and technology, reveals how contemporary Israeli influence shapes American political strategies.

Her rhetoric often presents extreme threats to justify policy positions. She declared, "We must be vigilant in our efforts to combat terrorism and protect our national security interests," framing national security as a paramount concern and leveraging fear to garner support for expansive security measures. Her approach to counterterrorism sometimes reveals a pattern of duplicity, balancing support for comprehensive security measures with promises to safeguard civil liberties. However, critics argue this balancing act lacks clarity and consistency. Harris is seen as Orwellian: promising safety in exchange for sacrificing civil rights, reflecting a troubling continuity in American political strategy.

The Enduring Legacy of Fearmongering

From Truman's atomic fears to Harris's contemporary security debates, U.S. Presidents, lawmakers, and justices have consistently employed fearmongering and strategic misrepresentation to navigate political challenges and shape public perception. This enduring practice reflects each era's political pressures and contexts, demonstrating how fear and manipulation have influenced American political and judicial discourse. Modern media and technology have expanded these influences, with news networks increasingly incorporating various perspectives, including significant foreign influences, into the American political narrative.

Quotes and Reflections

The practices outlined reflect a broader understanding of the political landscape and its manipulation through fear. As Smedley D. Butler remarked, "WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, the most profitable, and the most vicious." Similarly, H.L. Mencken noted, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Concerns about Israeli influence and misinformation underscore the notion of influential foreign interests in American politics. As pointed out, Israeli-American connections in the U.S., such as entities tied to Israeli security and technology firms, raise questions about whose national security is being prioritized. The critique extends to the role of Israeli-linked organizations in shaping American policy, with accusations that such influences compromise the integrity of U.S. national interests. Israel is a micro and macro reincarnation of Rome and the U.S.S.R., offering her thirty pieces of silver for the U.S. Presidents (all of them) for allegiance. Gaza and the West Bank are the Abomination of Desolation foretold by the Prophet Daniel (Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15, and Mark 13:14).

The legacy of fearmongering in American politics is a testament to the strategic use of fear and manipulation throughout history. From Truman's atomic threats to Harris's modern-day security debates, each administration has employed these tactics to achieve political and strategic objectives. This pattern reveals how deeply ingrained these practices are in American political culture, continually evolving with technological and media advancements. As the political landscape shifts, understanding this legacy remains crucial for discerning the motivations behind contemporary policy decisions and their implications for civil liberties and democratic governance.

If there were a "silent majority" in 2024, the men who did not vote for Hillary would not vote for Harris—because they want to vote for a good woman. Someone good.

"Kamala Harris's carrot is that she might not use both sticks on you..." – Tracy Turner

In what universe does a 67-year-old American man “need” for a slick, loud, brassy, thoughtless career politician to “protect” him from “hate-speech” and “misinformation.” Can any of you recall needing the Federal Government to make MORE sweeping deletions to the U.S. Constitution, to protect all of us from the Gremlins and Demons in Kamala Harris’s head? Her Huxleyan/Orwellian spin is that “it will comfort us (protect us)” to have her erase our rights. Does this sound like a good deal to you? I reject your “comfort.” I reject your “federal mafia protection.” Keep your damned hands off of my rights!

Dedicated to and inspired by Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) and Sky Ebbets (The Peoples Voice).

Tracy Turner was born into two extended families of bookworms - one horticultural and one petroleum industry. Semi-retired from IT, Corporate Analyst and Botanical Garden Plant Propagation. Among his many interests are all sciences, news, tracking political corruption, national and world events (corruption). Urges you to ask several USA IT professionals about web censorship; which is becoming rampant. Twitter, Facebook and Myspace are not free speech - they are places of monitoring, censoring and personal data harvesting. Also, just because you see your words in print online, it does not equate to "free speech". Do you believe Google and Bing blacklist Michael Taylor's online words as often as said censors blacklist your online "free speech"? If you love freedom, become active in corruption watch, exposure; free speech and freedom of the press activism.

Sources:

Harry S. Truman

Truman, H. S. (1947). The Truman Doctrine. U.S. Government Publishing Office.

Gaddis, J. L. (2005). The Cold War: A New History. Penguin Books.

McCullough, D. (1992). Truman. Simon & Schuster.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Eisenhower, D. D. (1961). Farewell Address. The American Presidency Project.

Eisenhower, D. D. (1965). Waging Peace: The White House Years, 1956-1961. Doubleday.

Ambrose, S. E. (1984). Eisenhower: Soldier and President. Simon & Schuster.

Lyndon B. Johnson

Johnson, L. B. (1964). Daisy Ad. L.B.J. Library.

Herring, G. C. (2002). L.B.J. and Vietnam: The Unnecessary War. University of North Carolina Press.

Miller, R. (1987). The Vietnam War and American Society. Harper & Row.

Richard Nixon

Nixon, R. M. (1974). I Am Not a Crook. Presidential Archives.

Woodward, B. (1974). All the President's Men. Simon & Schuster.

Kissinger, H. (1979). The White House Years. Little, Brown and Company.

Ronald Reagan

Reagan, R. (1983). Evil Empire Speech. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

Reagan, R. (1987). Iran-Contra Affair. U.S. Government Documents.

Gingrich, N. (2004). The Reagan Revolution: A Concise Introduction. Oxford University Press.

George W. Bush

Bush, G. W. (2001). Address to the Nation on September 20, 2001. The American Presidency Project.

Bush, G. W. (2003). State of the Union Address. U.S. Government Publishing Office.

Ricks, T. E. (2006). Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq. Penguin Books.

Barack Obama

Obama, B. (2009). Healthcare Reform Speech. The White House Archives.

Obama, B. (2010). Drone Strike Policy. White House Briefings.

Suskind, R. (2012). Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President. HarperCollins.

Kamala Harris

Harris, K. (2021). Speech on National Security and Counterterrorism. The White House Archives.

Harris, K. (2023). Remarks on Surveillance and Civil Liberties. U.S. Government Documents.

Eagle, K. (2023). Kamala Harris: The Politics of Security. Political Analysis Journals.

General Political Analysis and Theoretical Perspectives

Butler, S. D. (1935). War Is a Racket. Liberty Library.

Mencken, H. L. (1920). In Defense of Women. Alfred A. Knopf.

Mencken, H. L. (1924). Notes on Democracy. Alfred A. Knopf.

Modern Media Influence

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books.

Finkelstein, N. (2003). The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Verso Books.

Cohen, N. (2019). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

------------------------

Understanding democratic decline in the United States

brookings.edu›articles/understanding-democratic-…

The United States is experiencing two major forms of democratic erosion in its governing institutions: election manipulation and executive overreach.

speech

The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule | Freedom House

freedomhouse.org›report/freedom-world/2022/global…

The United States has fallen below its traditional peers on key democratic indicators, including executive elections, freedom from improper political influence, and equal treatment of minority groups.

US gov't is world's worst violator of freedom of press, not its...

geopoliticaleconomy.com›2022/08/08/us-worst-…

This is quite ironic, given that the United States is the world’s leading violator of press freedoms, according to any consistent definition of the term.

decline

The US is Already an Authoritarian Regime

global-politics.eu›authoritarian-regime/

The United States has the dubious honor of throwing up more scandals than any other ‘democracy’, their accelerating pace suggesting that the end of the current presidency is near.

civil

-###-

From Cold War Paranoia to Harris's Security Policies:The Unchanging Role of Fear in U.S. Politics
https://olivebiodiesel.com/