The UK Daily Mail web site has an article (reprinted from Fox News) about the Benghazi incident.
I will briefly discuss that incident, but only as an example of how propaganda works. My overall focus will be on the media process, not the Benghazi incident.
The article says, “A former al-Qaeda terrorist released from Guantanamo named Sufyan Ben Qumu is believed to be the leader of the attack, and may have led the attack."
Let me stop for a moment, and note how the article's main text promotes all three contradictory lies at once.
(1) Protesters did it
(2) No, Al Qaeda did it
(3) No, Salafist rebels did it
As for “Sufyan Ben Qumu,” this is a newly created chimera like the mysterious Ayman al-Zawahiri, whose identity and whereabouts are a NATO secret. Supposedly there is a $25 million bounty on Zawahiri’s head, yet he freely creates videos and recordings.
(I suspect that Mr. “Zawahiri” is a fabrication, like the blurry videos of Osama bin Laden that now had him in a long beard, now had him clean-shaven, and now had him in a long beard again.)
The above article claims that this “Sufyan Ben Qumu” was an inmate at Guantanamo. If this were some kind of “official revelation,” then the article would have some kind of official prison photo of the phantom, but it only provides a dark blotch.
The article goes on to say, “During the uprising, Sufyan Ben Qumu emerged as a leader of the rebels.”
This is nonsense, since “rebels” are pro-USA. But nonsense is good, as I will explain farther below.
Then the article spouts the lie that the Benghazi attack was not done by rebels, but by “protesters” . . .
“The attack on the consulate came after the release of a trailer for the controversial movie 'The Innocence of Muslims,' which paints a portrait of Islam that many in the Muslim world find deeply offensive.”
Actually there is no “movie.” The 13-minute video “trailer” is the “movie.” Calling it a “trailer for a movie” is part of the lie factory.
We come now to the central point of this post...
THE TREE OF LIES (or, how propaganda works)
Regarding the claim that “Al Qaeda did it,” the media admits that “Al Qaeda” helped the USA destroy Libya, and is now helping the USA destroy Syria. And yet the media also claims that “Al Qaeda” is anti-USA. They admit that the USA is arming, funding, and supporting the Syrian terrorists, who therefore work for the USA, but they also claim that the terrorists are anti-USA, and that they attacked the Benghazi site.
To understand how the media outlets get away with this, we can refer to the Jewish “holocaust” as an example. Once you believe the central lie, you will believe all corollary lies, no matter contradictory they are. With the holo-hoax, the central lie is that the Germans exterminated six million Jews. If you believe that, then you believe that all the Jews were gassed, all Jews were burned alive, all Jews were electrocuted, and all Jews were shot. You believe that all Jews were tattooed, and worked to death. You believe that all Jews were killed immediately upon arrival. You believe that all Jews were subjected to lengthy medical experiments as they were instantly gassed. You believe things that contradict each other. And yet, all the contradictory beliefs are “true,” since the central lie is “true.”
With the Benghazi incident, the central lie is that "all Muslims are evil terrorists." If you believe that, then you believe that there was a protest in Benghazi. You also believe there was no protest in Benghazi. You believe that “protesters did it.” You also believe that “Al Qaeda did it.” You believe that “Libyan Salafist rebels did it.”
Again, you believe things that contradict each other. And yet, all the contradictory beliefs are “true,” since the central lie is “true.”
If assertions do not contradict the base lie (e.g. the base lie that Germans exterminated six million Jews, or that all Muslims are evil terrorists), then the more the assertions contradict each other the better. Internal contradictions create illogic, murkiness, and confusion, thereby deepening the “mystery” and “poignancy” of the central lie, thereby strengthening the “truth” of the lie.
If the tree-trunk is true, then all its branches are true. For example…
All Muslims are evil terrorists.
If that is true, then the following are also true.
All Muslims are evil terrorists, and Al Qaeda did it.
All Muslims are evil terrorists, and “Salafist rebels” did it.
All Muslims are evil terrorists, and protesters did it.
All Muslims are evil terrorists, and there were no protesters in Benghazi.
What matters is the central lie. Everything else is fluff.
By contrast, if an assertion is not rooted in the central lie, then it cannot be true. Since all Muslims are evil terrorists, it cannot be true that Libyans are angry that NATO destroyed their lives. Therefore it cannot be true that the Benghazi attack was justified. Therefore it cannot be true that the Green Resistance did it.
Consider Lizzie Phelan, who claims to be anti-racist, but in reality is quite racist. Ms. Phelan believes that “Salafists” did the Benghazi attack. Thus, Ms. Phelan latently believes that all Muslims are evil terrorists. Therefore she latently believes all the other lies as well. And yet she claims to be beyond deception. She claims that any assertion that the Green Resistance did the Benghazi attack is “ludicrous" (her word.)
This is how propaganda works. Once you plant a central lie into the human mind, you can grow it into as many twisted branches as you choose, in any direction you choose. All branches will be believed. The more absurd and contradictory, the better. And the more fertile and active the mind, the stronger and larger grows the tree of lies. Thus we find that people who read and think a lot are the most susceptible to lies. A person like Ms. Phelan clings to her nonsense that “Salafists did it” even harder than the average right-wing war monger clings to his own lies. All of them believe the central lie that “Muslims are evil terrorists.”
Jews understand this, which is why they inject their “holocaust” lie into the minds of impressionable young schoolchildren. After the lie is planted, it grows and morphs into a vast and deeply rooted monstrosity. (As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.) It forms a central part of the young victim’s personality, such that any questioning of the Jewish “holocaust” is perceived as a direct attack on one’s personal psyche. “You are not questioning the holocaust; you are attacking ME!”
Likewise, once the central lie is planted that “All Muslims are evil terrorists,” then any assertion that does not branch out from the central lie (e.g. the Green Resistance did it) is regarded as a direct personal attack. “You are not questioning the media; you are attacking ME!”
Hence people react with anger, insults, and dismissal. In defending the central lie, and their personal take on it, they are defending themselves.
Back to the Benghazi incident, according to the corporate media, no one has claimed responsibility for it. This is a void, a protean vacuum, a Pandora’s box. It is “proof” that Al-Qaeda did it. It is also “proof” that protesters did it. It is also “proof” that there were no protesters in Benghazi. It is “proof” for any absurdity that media outlets wish to spread. Everything springs from the magic vacuum and mystic void.
In Syria the Assad government will not officially allow Western journalist into the country, since “journalists” are often CIA or MI6 operatives.
(Western “journalists” routinely designated targets for NATO air strikes in Libya. They nonchalantly walked up to a place, and then pressed a button on a hand-held, military grade GPS unit that was as small as a cell phone, yet was much more precise than civilian GPS units. No one sees you do this, since no voice message is needed. You only need to silently press a couple of buttons. You press a single button your “cell phone” that places a call to the NATO matrix. Then you enter your personal identifying code number. Then you press a single button that transmits the target’s precise coordinates. Then you put your “cell phone” back in your pocket and causally walk away. The entire process takes only two or three seconds. Later in the middle of the night come the NATO bombs and missiles, while you are sleeping back at the hotel. The same technique is used to designate targets for drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.)
Assad knows this. Therefore he bans Western “journalists.” Unfortunately this ban creates a Pandora’s box. In the news vacuum of Syria, the corporate news media makes up any lie it chooses. With Syria, the central lie is that “Assad is an evil dictator.” Since this central lie is “true” in the mass mind, all branching lies are also “true.” Thus, everyone becomes an “expert” as they spout guesses and garbage. All fancy themselves brilliant, yet all are stupid, since all believe the central lie.
The central tree trunk must have water to keep growing. With propaganda, the water is repetition. Therefore every corporate media article about Syria includes the word “dictator.” Every article about the Benghazi incident (or Palestinians) includes the words “terrorist” or “extremist” or “militants"or "Al Qaeda." This nourishes the central lie that "all Muslims are evil terrorists." The article’s content does not mater. It is irrelevant. What matters is watering the central tree trunk of the lie. Of course, you must also add fluff that makes the article seem to actually convey information. In the article above, the fluff is empty guesses that are called a “revelation.”
As noted previously, the absurdity, guesses, contradictions, and lack of evidence do not weaken the lie. They strengthen it. They cause readers to bicker and chatter, thereby helping to water the central trunk of the Tree of Lies.
From this we see that media propaganda does not consist of “half truths.” No, it works by repeating a central lie, and then adding layer upon layer of nonsense, the more illogical and unfounded the better.
The article above is a textbook example.