A Reader On The Rule Of Propinquity In The Art Of Slurring And Slandering
January 29, 2011, 04:00 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON`T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.

01/28/11 - A Texas Reader (Former Washingtonian) Remembers The Riots; James Fulford Comments

From: Donald [Email him]

Re: James Fulford`s Article The Fulford File: "They`ll Think You`re Signaling"! Dog-Whistles From Goldwater To Reagan To Palin

This excellent essay on "dog whistles" adds to our knowledge of the propaganda tricks of our political opponents. But why are claims of "dog whistles" scary? They hurt because of the rule of propinquity in the art of slurring and slandering. Any time a political opponent is able to inject your name in a sentence with a negative symbol (an invisible flag or poster, a mindless reminiscence, or a silent sound), then you have been slimed by propinquity with the negative symbol. Reading "racism" into one`s remark is all in a day`s work, and repetition (even defensive repetition) renders the label credible.

A cousin to the "dog whistle" is the "denial" statement. For example, when a reporter asks someone if they are a racist, or a Nazi, or a supremacist, and receives a candid "no," the reporter is then free to link the two concepts in the first two lines of his or her news story like this, "So-and-so denied allegations that he is a racist". And there it is, one`s name and the word racist within seven words, and the deed is done.

People slimed in this way need to raise a very aggressive attack against the first person who performed the deed, not defend themselves. Defense repeats the slander, attacking back hurts the slimer.

Reminds me of a story told about a man complaining about the unwarranted protests against school teachers taking loyalty oaths back in the Fifties. The reply he received was that whether or not the protests were legal or justified didn`t matter. The fact was that a "great noise" was also part of history. So even though the slimy Daniel Schorr was wrong in his interpretation, and knew he lied, still it is clear that he made a "great noise" that suited the NYT to this day.

Don`t complain. Attack back, folks. Make our own "great noise."

Donald`s previous letter was A Reader Says There Is No Defense Against A False Claim Of Anti-Semitism