Public Opinion Management

The Enlightened — the progressive elite — believe that their virtue and wisdom give them the responsibility to shape our culture like a good mother shapes her child. One way the Enlightened shape public opinion is through public opinion management (POM) by the media.

public opinion management (POM) n : low-intensity but constant propaganda that surreptitiously shapes public opinion by highlighting events or opinions that illustrate politically correct positions; by ignoring events or opinions that contradict progressive beliefs; by framing issues as exploiter vs. exploited; by attaching virtue to politically correct positions and people; by implicitly reinforcing politically correct assumptions

pom vb pommed, pomming : to manage public opinion

On the national and international scale, what we used to call news is now mostly public opinion management. The progressive bias of the national media is well-documented and acknowledged by all objective self-shoe-tiers. But it’s more than a bias: it’s a constant, partly unconscious, and surreptitious process of shaping public opinion in a progressively-virtuous direction. I suspect that the higher one goes up the ranks of the Enlightened, the more clear-eyed and conscious they are of the nature of their POM.

On the national and international scale, what we used to call news is now mostly public opinion management.

Perhaps in every society some are called to be priests. Under newthink, membership in the Enlightened is the form priesthood takes. But the Enlightened are not motivated solely by their progressive virtue. The power progressive priesthood entails is enticing – the power to shape public institutions, shape law, shape thought, shape the next generation.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Progressive Belief: Progressive Virtue Trumps Human Law

Traditional Americans believed that good and evil ultimately trump human law. Many of them believed that in extreme circumstances they were obliged to follow the higher good even if it violated the law. Our Declaration of Independence says as much:

English: This is a high-resolution image of th...

English: This is a high-resolution image of the United States Declaration of Independence (article (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it [my italics], and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

In the same way, progressives believe that society has no ultimate right to dictate to them and that their virtue system ultimately supersedes human law.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this, starting from the “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of the newthink worldview tree:

• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.
• Our motives are inherently noble.
• We are progressively virtuous.
• Progressive virtue is supremely important.
• Society has no ultimate right to dictate to us because progressive virtue and progressive unvirtue ultimately trump human law.

The unconscious logic branching out of this belief is:

• It is our responsibility as the most virtuous and best-informed in a godless world to steer and shape the culture.

 

The Enlightened believe that, because of their enlightened minds and progressively-virtuous emotions, traditional standards don’t apply to them. Furthermore, they believe that their virtue and enlightenment give them the responsibility to steer and shape our culture in the same way a good mother steers and shapes her child.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Shield of Progressive Virtue

Luckily for wrongdoers, progressive society has a default attitude of forgiveness toward anyone who publicly avows progressive views. It is believed that they must have worldlove and therefore would be highly unlikely to commit traditionally evil acts.

This shield of progressive virtue even extends to foreign terrorists. They need not express progressive views or display worldlove; merely having the same enemies as progressives is sufficient. For instance, at a 2002 Socialist Scholars Conference, a large crowd applauded an Egyptian novelist’s defense of a young Palestinian woman’s recent suicide/murder.   As David Horowitz writes in Unholy Alliance, even the socialist writer who witnessed this event was surprised that such a pathological movement was embraced by the progressive utopians attending the conference.  But both the radical Islamist and the devout progressive believe in a coming utopia. The radical Islamist’s faith compels him to attempt to dominate all non-believing societies in order to institute sharia for Allah; the socialist’s faith compels him to eliminate private property through state power, including violence, and bring on the millennium.  Newthinkers don’t take radical Islam’s pathology seriously because they think that religion itself is just an expression of the wretchedness caused by capitalist oppression.*

[Progressives] see Islamists through the filter of their own worldview’s unconscious beliefs. They note their common enemies and incorrectly infer that Islamists are therefore progressively virtuous.

Just as traditional Americans do not understand or often even recognize newthink, progressives do not understand or often even recognize Islamism. They see Islamists through the filter of their own worldview’s unconscious beliefs. They note their common enemies and incorrectly infer that Islamists are therefore progressively virtuous. As for the Islamists, they see the manifestations of worldlove among their enemies as weakness and an opening for attack.

* David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, (Regnery Publishing, 2004), p. 129.

Enhanced by Zemanta