Our Mission

The Propaganda Professor is dedicated to studying the glorious efforts of those who work so hard to do your thinking for you. We offer solid fact without becoming pedantic, and personality without becoming bogged down by opinion. The purpose of this blog is not to persuade anyone of anything; the Propaganda Professor is well aware that when people decide to believe something, all the facts in the universe will not alter their convictions. The purpose here is to provide information and thoughtful analysis for anyone who is interested in seeking the truth — not to provide reinforcement for beliefs. We are not here to debate, but to discover.


Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount


Or enter a custom amount


Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly


  1. Rock On!
    We need more sane voices in this country- lest the masses be led right (pun intended) off the cliff without question!

    • That left handed remark was uncalled for… Doesn’t exactly follow the stated intent of providing” information and thoughtful analysis for anyone who is interested in seeking the truth – not to provide reinforcement for beliefs.”

    • P.O.P.
      I am amazed at your post. and also at the ignorance of so many blind deaf souls. I will leave you with a poem I wrote twenty some years ago on the this. called “ignorance”

      “Closed eyes are upon me as I wander thru the night,
      seeking only knowledge, and with it comes the light,
      Prying open eyes so tightly clasped together,
      Once cast upon the light, they will be open forever”

      Leslie R Hennick

      • Lovely and much needed Leslie. Put a poem in your pocket and you will never be alone, eh? Thank you and here’s one back…every day a trip to the spring of power …drink deeply.

        Cheers from the snowy north with optimism on these longest nights from Di

  2. HI, could you put your material about “gun Control” under tags that make them easier to find?

    I’ve been passing out the URLs to your material since I would like to be a web resource on the Second Amendment, Militia HIstory, etc at MikeB’s Blog.


  3. You need to research the relationship between the decrease in violent crime in those states that have less ‘gun control’, not more. Guns are inanimate objects, criminal laws should focus on the criminals…not their tools of choice.

    • Indeed I have researched it, and the situation is not as simple as you and many others make it sound. I’ll be doing a separate post about “gun control” in the future.


      • In addition to being perceptive, sophisticated and articulate (not to mention well-versed in capital letters), you must be psychic. As it happens, the next two posts I’m planning (after the one I’m currently working on) will deal with cherry picking and the propaganda campaign against gun regulation. Both of which you’ve summoned up quite nicely. Stay tuned — they’ll be right up your alley.

      • Hey POP,

        Here is a you tube address to a video put out by “The Best Christian,” (Betty Bowers) who has a way of discussing the born again madness, being spread across the political sphere by fundamentalists, in simple terms–revealing how their narrow mindedness is being used to destroy the separation between Church and State, suppress science, and gain political power. I’m not sure if she is a real Christian or a comedian who knows how to best pierce the many bizarre right wing Christian beliefs that are ultimately threatening our Democracy. But she’s great to listen to and I thought you might want to add her Face Book address to your list of interesting websites:

        Take care, Pete

  4. I would be happy to quote from your columns if they were signed. PLEASE consider that signing your columns with your real name indicates that you are taking full responsibility for their content, while anonymity indicates the opposite.

    Thanks in advance.
    Loren Cobb

      • If you posted your real name, it would be easy to dig around to prove you were paid by the JDL or ADL or one of their sister rackets to run this blog. “By deception shalt thou wage war….” hahaha. The goyim are not deceived anymore, and you will never have your Pax Judaica. We will have our America … for Americans only, “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and OUR POSTERITY.”

      • Jesus, someone is paying me to do this? Thanks for alerting me. I need to start looking for my missing funds!

      • POP, My wife of 40 years died today. it a shame that the world is so polarized. None of it means anything. Keep on publishing your comments though, we all need to listen to truly sane voices more often.

      • So sorry to hear that, Peter. Today, as it happens, is my 30th wedding anniversary with my own wife. Wishing you the best in getting through this time of pain.

      • It would seem to me that if posts on your official website do not come with an open disclosure and a bunch of personal information providing your name etc. you are still making statements which include the fact that this blog is run by you, and therefore specific details are not required in order for you to post your articles–all readers have to do is to access this website in order for you to be factually quoted. Whenever I might quote from your articles it’s enough to use your URL for official confirmation because I presume that all of that was set up using your real name and real information when you launched your blog.

        Most people who run blogs do identify themselves, but some do not. And although many of your comments may sound as if they are coming from a liberal that may only be because the research you do is backed by many mainstream websites which include real facts and real journalists.

        You have every right to remain anonymous to avoid the many denigrating comments which might be aimed at you personally. Too many people have to endure violent threats and profanity laced accusations when their identity is known. The facts you provide are backed up by objective research so it makes no difference if you are now anonymous. Most of your readers probably understand that you are legit by checking out your links and the facts in them. So keep on guarding yourself from vicious attacks by remaining anonymous. Its totally understandable why you do it, just as its known that most your facts come from unbiased websites which are well known to the public. Keep no Keeping on! You are one of the most unbiased sites on the web.

  5. Propaganda Professor you are. It is propaganda to say that if you criticize the President you are a Racist. In your writing about Benghazi you misconstrue the phrase “act of terror”. Rape is an act of terror. Attacking a U.S. consulate is an act of terrorism. Big difference in meaning although it may sound the same. Furthermore, what’s been done to find and punish those who did it. Almost 4 months have past and nothing has been done. You are a left leaning, biased, opinionated, and dishonest website. I will do my best to debunk everything you do that leans one way or the other. Since as you say you are the “propaganda professor”

      • Who are you sir? What is your name? What are your credentials? How can people know that you aren’t just a Democrat Party liberal plant trying to discredit conservatives?

      • My identity is not important at the moment. In fact, one reason I don’t reveal it is that I want all the discussion here to be about my work and the topics it examines, rather than about me. And I know perfectly well that there are many people who would try to make it all about me.You will know that I am not a “Democrat Party liberal plant” by reading my posts and paying attention. But for what it’s worth, I’m not a political animal at all. I’m not registered or affiliated with any party or faction and I’ve only voted once in my life — 20 years ago. By the way, are you aware that “Democrat Party” is a subtly pejorative label concocted by Republicans? The correct term is Democratic Party. My credentials? Well, the only one that really matters is my ability to write these posts. And that. if I do say so myself, is a damn impressive credential.

      • Right On! A great response to Cy! The beauty of not revealing who you are removes the ability for people to focus on personal attacks on the writer, rather than logically and rationally discussing the issue(s) at hand. But some seem to lack the ability to use logic and reason to discuss things – they can only think and react from the emotional brain where many of our deep seated biases, prejudices, and reactive processes reside.

      • P.S. but I understand how frustrating and infuriating this must be for those poor souls who can’t seem to turn on the rational brain.

      • This is in reply to sergeantma comments. From my perception what makes the Propaganda Professor interesting to read has more to do with his focus. Yes he is a reasonable person, but reason starts from perception. Edward de Bono discusses how the science of reason has overshadowed the value of perception.

        It’s the professor’s purpose which distinguishes him from the chaff. It’s the ability to stick to a topic more than a few seconds which brings clarity to his words. I will put money on it that the professor has revised his essays many times over a period of at least a year. Those who claim to be reasonable often turn name calling because they refuse to put the time into their argument. Argument is just as much about perception as reason. If you perceive you’re pissing off your audience, maybe it’s time for new revision.

        Wikipedia is a tool for facts. Some say it captures history. I disagree. It captures a collection of what is perceived to be facts and those facts often don’t tell the story. History is in the stories. It comes from perception and perception can be wrong. I suggest new tools for social media which moves false perceptions in the direction of truth.

        Some perceive what I’m doing here is soliciting. So be it. Buckminster Fuller once said, “I see what has to be done and noone is attending to then I dedicate my self to doing it. As soon as I see someone doing what I’m doing, I walk away from it. All that matter is that it is being attended to.” I have yet to see a social media tool which encourage the development of intelligent argument. I have dedicated my self to create such a social media. http://www.dogoodgauge.org

    • Cy – have you done any research on how many embassy’s were attacked or people killed during the Bush administration or throughout history? Acts of terror and/or terrorism have been part of history long before this president took office. Very little to Nothing has been done about attacks before this one. Much of what happens related to the security of our country stays with those in charge of it, not disclosed to the general public. And I will add that every consulate in hostile countries knows that they are in a dangerous situation, they take that risk when they accept the position. It has happened before, and unless there is world peace it will no doubt happen again.

    • 2002: the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed.

      2004: the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured.

      2004: the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives.

      2006: armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.

      2007: a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.

      2008: the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.

      2008: bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.

      2010: attack near the U.S. Consulate in Peshawar, Pakistan, kills two consulate security guards and at least six others.

      And then. of course, Banghazi.

      Notice, only 2 attacks occurred while President Obama was in office. If you’re this upset what what happened in Benghazi, you must have had a raging erection lasting the whole of the Bush administration.

    • I’d like to redefine the word Terrorism. Why? Well I’ve been working against ‘terrorism’ for the last 30 odd years. Not in any major role I’ll admit, I’m just one of the ‘Boys in the Back Room’. But, ‘Terrorists’ and ‘Terrorism’ have been given a glamour over the years that they really don’t deserve. So why not call it what it really is, Criminal Action in Pursuit of Political Aims. Just a thought…..T.

      • Original (pre-Orwellian) Definition of the Word “Terrorism” Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (1946): “a system of government that seeks to rule by intimidation.”

        My, how definitions of things have changed to suit the terrorists who call themselves “da guvrinmint.”

    • If you claimed that the staff at the Consulate was raped, then you, might have had a valid reason for suspecting foul play. But we know they were attacked by an Al Qaeda-like group of terrorists! So if Obama asserted that “acts of terror” would not be accepted by the US, isn’t it more reasonable to assume that, because his comments were specifically about the attack in Benghazi shortly after it happened, that the words, “acts of terror” meant just that–acts of terror at the hands of those (terrorists) who attacked the consulate?

      I hope during all the years that have now passed, you have seen that Clinton’s role in the attacks has been subjected to hearings in the US Congress many times, and even when Republicans ran the hearings they could not find any evidence to suggest that Hillary called for a stand down or recommended the military to stand down! I hope you also now realize that congressional hearings are often and typically not done for quite a while after the fact. In my book the idea that Obama was not aiming his remarks at terrorist when in the rose garden, is one of the most egregious and misplaced criticisms ever made about Obama, even if that’s what the Washington post did not conclude.

      I also hope that in the present, you have heard ample criticisms about the Trump administration which has done nothing but conceal and spin facts to save Trump’s butt, even though all our intelligence agencies concluded that Russia was directly involved in influencing the 2016 elections, and because they had good reasons to investigate a President who said on National TV, “Wikileaks, I hope you find those missing 30,000 emails,” not to mention that several members of his staff had been in contact with suspected Russian agents.

      You may never see this comment but I just had to write it, since the misinterpretation of Obama’s remarks that day, is one of the most obvious and egregious mistakes ever maid by the Post.

      • I left a fairly long reply under your “Thinking in Bets” post, but somehow it has still not been posted. Tell me if you got it and if it can be posted soon. And if you think anything in it is expressed wrongly let me know. I’ll try to leave another copy including as much of the original as I an remember.

      • Finally got it approved. I was tied up all day yesterday, so didn’t really have a chance to look at the blog.

  6. IOW – you’re a Democrat Party plant (probably an Obama operative), charged with melting American minds with Marxist/Fascist propaganda to make his likely dictatorship likely.

    Just try to get my guns, sir. Me and other well armed patriots will fight the next great Civil War to restore the America I fought for in Vietnam. We will winbecause the Kenyan Marxist homosexual has homosexualized the military, amd is trying to ho.osexualize society. America was founded by amd for straight people who understand the penis goes in the vagina and no where else, and Barack Hussein Obama (our illegal president) will not force me to pit mine anywhere else! And I’ll be dead before it goes anywhere else.

    So I suggest you take your Marxist Fascist propaganda back to MSNBC and leave real Americans who need Fox News and talk radio alone.

    Good day sir….or ma’am.

    • You can’t fool me, my friend. I know you’re really a raging homo who has a crush on me, and you’re just pissed that I don’t reciprocate. Tsk tsk.

    • What about all the people who fought in Vietnam yet do not share your white nationalist kinds of beliefs. Are Marxists taking over CNN and MSNBC! Maybe you create such rumors because you have never listened to anyone who tells you different. Show me just one video of journalists on those stations, who have tried to push Communisms or socialism on their viewers. The Truth is they may mention those political systems or beliefs in the context of a story, or when questioning people like you, but no one there is on a soap box waiting for Mao or Stalin to set them free? Has even one of the journalist on those stations ever tried to preach communism to their viewers anywhere! You bristle with anger whenever someone else says anything that yoiu don’t like. I am also an American and I have never tried to dispense Comunist or socilislt ideology to anyone! And even if I had, curiosity about Communism is not against she law!

  7. what due you think of the roman catholic church not complieing with the democratic party’s hhs mandate, an the finale catholic charities. boy yu- libourals stand for nothing. like don queote’. well your party could not creat enough well fare to fill the gap when your liboural democratic party leaders finaly turn on the ones that got them in power.the little people. remember you could not figuer’ it out for your selves’. a war of the classes’ an’ the masses’. what a mess when the democratic party can not produce’ the wellfare for the little’ people. the ball thorwn’ over home plate’. kingdom come’. judgement day’.!!!!!!!

  8. P.O.P., just a quick remark from the true blue Pacific Northwest! I was fortunate to come across your blog via Facebook to read the post “The Myth of Hitler’s Gun Ban” and have completely enjoyed the visit. Your sincere attempts to have meaningful dialogue with your readers, even when they don’t agree with you, is refreshing. Thanks again and now I”m off to read more of your posts.

  9. Dear P.O.P. you make Benjamin Franklin proud and who cares what your credentials are….you are a fantastic writer and fill us with the facts …funny and multi-syllabic…retain your anonymity and please keep those quills sharpened. Grateful luddite.

  10. Interesting blog, sir. I am delighted to have found it. Over the years I have bent my efforts to teach logic at the high school level, with a sizeable (somebody’s spell checker doesn’t think that’s right. I disagree.) portion of the course spent in dissecting political ads and speeches. Propaganda, and how it is used for us and against us, is a topic that begs for more dissemination. Thank you for stepping into that particularly fiery fray.

  11. Great blog. It’s exactly along the lines of something that I would like to do, if I could ever get past the crippling realization that people will almost always prefer to remain ignorant if the alternative means challenging a belief.

    I don’t mean to pry, but are you an actual professor? If so, in what field? Or are you just a person who understands how to do research?

      • Perfectly fair. I don’t mean to be nosy. I’m actually encouraged because I find myself in a similar position; that is, I only have a 4 year degree, but I’m quite good finding the truth–or more accurately, finding out what is not true.

        Anyway, good look. You’ve earned yourself a devoted fan.

  12. @Johntonioholmes….I was curious about the attacks on US consulates/embassies so I looked it up on Wiki. Actually there were some others listed in 2011 and 2012 Damascus, 2011 Kabul, 2011 Sarajevo, 2012 Cairo, 2012 Sanaa. Also many in 1979 and every couple of years since. Wiki didn’t list the 2010 one, maybe because it near the consulate and not on the consulate? US has had the most followed by France which I found interesting (what did they do the anger anybody?) I didn’t analyze who the perpetrators were but it was interesting to see the pace at which attacks have been increasing the last few years. People just seem to be getting more angry.

    • Certainly Middle East and African instability has also increased over the course of the last two decades. The end of the cold war and an increasingly neoconservative policy on the part of the U.S., I suspect, has a lot to do with that. I only take issue with those who have tried to paint the picture that this administration is somehow failing us when it comes to foreign policy. There are legitimate objections to this foreign policy, but this is not one of them. This is likely the best foreign policy we’ve had since the Nixon administration, which, or course, is not saying much.

      As for France being attacked, I can’t say for sure that this is the reason, but the country has enacted religious laws which are apparently neutral but are clearly aimed toward Muslims. One such law forbids the wearing of ostentatious religious items in public schools. What’s on the list? Large crosses or Stars of David (what constitutes large?), and then, of course, burqas and headscarves. The majority of the people affected by this law were indeed Muslim. France’s city planning has also essentially relegated the Muslims to living in ghettos. It’s unclear whether or not this happened on purpose or whether it was simply an unfortunate side effect of creating cheap housing. Nonetheless, the cheap housing was placed where French people do not want to live, thus segregating the communities from the outset.

      This certainly doesn’t justify any violence toward France. I don’t even know if that’s the reason for the violence against France. I’m just speculating because there are some significant issues between the Muslims and the French.

  13. Generally nice blog. Perhaps you can find time to address the actions of our current president. The man that sits in his office and decides which innocent children he wants to kill with a drone, which corporate fascist he wants to protect, etc…

    As many progressives now know, Obama is just another in the long line of presidents seemingly hell bent on crushing the middle class and consolidating the power of corporations not only in this country, but world wide.

    I know it’s fun to poke fun at the dementia so commonly found in the right wing, but a little directed at the current Propagandist in Chief might be more productive.

    • Good point, and I certainly could find plenty to criticize about the president. In terms of propaganda, however, he’s WAY behind his detractors, and they’re keeping me so busy I hardly have time to address his meager achievements in that area.

      • Meager?
        He’s deservedly earned the moniker Bush III, not an easy trick given he ran on hope and change. The fact that you consider him “WAY behind his detractors,” makes me think his propaganda has been especially effective…



        Finally, the whacko right wingers aren’t in power. Obama has had 4 years and now 4 more to wreak havoc on humanity. Why waste time on ineffective nut jobs when the real threat to humanity is in office today?

      • These two articles raise SOME valid points, though not consistently so. They also show a great deal of naivete. (“With a Democratic Congress, President Obama could have passed these measures within the first few weeks of his term.” Really? The writer is that unfamiliar with Republican obstructionism?) But again, these are mostly discussions of his putative performance as president rather than as propagandist.

  14. I see your eyes are blinded by his snake oil salesman charm.
    If Bush II has done these things you would be howling from the rafters.
    and good luck with your myopic viewpoint.

    For example, O passed Obamacare, a massive corporate giveaway forcing citizens to pay blackmail prices for health “insurance” not health care.
    You can view all the gory details at Bill Moyers’ website.
    Where was the Republican obstructionism then?

    • I am sorry if I disappoint you by not savagely attacking the president like everyone else. I have no reason to do so at the moment. As I stated in one of my very earliest posts, this is not a political blog. I discuss political matters frequently only because propaganda frequently dovetails with politics. Obama, however, is not a particularly active propagandist. George W. Bush was an entirely different matter; propaganda was the fuel that his administration ran on. “Obamacare”, by the way is neither a perfect system nor the debacle you seem to believe. And where was Republican obstruction? Seriously? It was EVERYWHERE.

    • Hello Dave,

      I did visit the first link you provided above, and was intrigued by the 17 page article (even in print mode) that I assume was written by you in ” since the Author’s first name is also David. At some point in the future, after I have bought a new ink cartridge for my printer, I intend to copy the entire post in COUNTER PUNCH and read it at my leisure. As it is, I could only glance through it.

      I am not going to argue with you about Obama’s failure to live up to many of his own stated ideals, but I think the explanations for some of his controversial policies and actions, have their root in the fact that he is a skilled politician that knows the value of using political compromise, rather than demanding the entire ball of wax. In this sense, during the beginning of our economic collapse, it would make sense for a new Democratic President to lean softly on Wall street and reassure CEOs of the fact that he was not an anti-business or anti-corporation President. After all, this was happening at a time when we didn’t even know if we could avoid an Armageddon type melt down that might result in a worse scenario than even that represented by the Great Depression. In short, Obama did what he could without overly spooking or condemning Wall street, most likely because it was not a good time to increase political polarization by doing so.

      I also feel that Obama’s choice of drafting a health care law patterned after the system of private exchanges championed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts was another attempt to pacify the insurance industry by choosing not to eliminate them from the picture. Our society has always had an extreme phobia of anything “socialist or Communist,” so, once again a system of government subsidies to consumers and strategic regulations governing the way insurance companies did business, was the most opportune way to pursue increased and affordable health coverage for millions more Americans without increasing the cries already in the air, that the President was acting at a Socialist, Communist, Nazi, atheistic, anti-colonial Kenyan, etc. So, essentially Obama assumed office with the valuable knowledge that avoiding antagonizing ones political enemies often produces results—but unfortunately the Tea Party and Republicans in general have increased their obstructionist mind-set, exponentially, since then.

      I have no doubt that the information you use in your article, is factually true, or at least factually based, however, sometimes the reasons behind the Presidents actions have more to do with political strategy than idealistic but unattainable and lofty goals–as you seem to feel must be present in any worthy and progressive candidate.

      I have also got to say that, I supported Obama from the beginning, and although I still see some exceptional qualities in him that make him a good leader, I never accepted the idea that he could magically wave a wand and instantly take Washington away from the dark side and into the light–and all of that other charming rhetoric. However, since he has been in office, I have witnessed him succeed in accomplishing, or attempting to accomplish, almost everything he promised i.e. although he earnestly tried to close Guantanamo, he was continually frustrated when failing to find a community willing to house terrorists in their local prisons.

      During the 2000 elections I voted for Al Gore, because I believed he would be able to do the most good for the environment, and, the words, “be able to,” are very significant, since although a green party candidates like Ralph Nader had a more pure understanding of what needs be done in regards to healing the environment, he really didn’t stand a snowballs chance in the Arctic to win an election of this magnitude. I know that Nader is full of rationalizations that allow him to claim that those who voted for him would not have voted for Gore anyway, etc. etc. but the truth is many people like myself would have been glad to vote for Gore rather than someone like Bush, who in fact vigorously opposed environmental issues and has possilbly been largely responsible for our shaky future in regards to maintaining a livable world for our children and our grandchildren. Instead, the votes that might have put Gore decisively over the line, went instead to Nader, and cleared the path for Bush’s victory. So like Obama, I think it is sometimes necessary to accept the path that can really lead to progress, rather than accomplishing nothing by clinging to ideological purity every step of the way—even if that ideology is entirely true and justifiable.

      Anyway, let me finish by saying that your article appears to be very interesting and, again, that I will eventually print it out in its entirety and examine it at my leisure. But just one other thing I happened to see confuses me–If Obama had no intentions to end the War in Iraq i.e. withdraw most of our forces by a certain timeline, then why did his Republican opponents constantly scream about how this would only embolden Al-qaeda, and put any hard fought gains in jeopardy. To me it would seem more advantageous to point to the fact that Bush had wanted the same thing, rather than make an issue out of a non-issue in a way that only supported the image of Republicans as being hawkish war-mongers, or that would have provided Obama a great opportunity to point out Bush’s similar policy as being just one more indication that Republicans are really being deceptive and hypocritical?

  15. I’ve read your blog now for some time, but can no longer stomach the fraud, hypocrisy and smug self-righteousness I find here. Let’s at least be honest, can we? You’re a propagandist of the worst kind. How so? Like all propagandists, you’re just too quick to remind your readers that you’re somehow immune from bias. “Aw shucks, I’m just a home plate umpire who simply calls balls and strikes.” Well, of course we are, aren’t we! It’s hilarious.
    It’s analogous to liberals’ first cousins: racists. They’re the ones who attempt to immunize themselves against being perceived as a racist by prefacing everything with “ya know, I’m not racist, and this might sound racist, but”…{and then proceed to say something absurdly racist}. Happens every time. Aside from fooling a few impressionable college freshmen, no sober, intellectually-honest person with a lick of common sense believes your claim of “ya know, I’m not biased, and..”. No educated person over thirty is unbiased or impartial. It just simply isn’t so. Unicorns are more real than a human being who is unbiased and impartial to the degree you claim to be, ‘Professor’. Unless, perhaps, you share the same imaginary Vulcan DNA with Mr. Spock.
    By the time one reaches your age, unless you’re a moron incapable of reason, or have been living in a vacuum, you’ve acquired a specific set of beliefs like anyone else. To suggest otherwise, like you do, is delusional. It also reveals the ugly deceit of Liberalism whose adherents are often wrong, but never in doubt. You’re just like any other fish, blissfully unaware that you’re wet. You consistently lean hard Left. It’s so transparent to everyone except you, apparently. At least have the courage and integrity to disclose it. But, then again, perhaps you’ve actually deluded yourself with your elaborate bullshit claims to the contrary.
    I was in a car with a partner of mine while back. He had a lead foot and we were running late. The trooper clocked my partner’s new black Bentley Arnage at 119mph. When he asked Tim where the fire was and if he knew how fast he was going, Tim replied “yes, officer, I was going about 120mph.” Somewhat surprised, he asked Tim why he incriminated himself. “Well, officer”, Tim replied quietly, “I’m a speeder, not a liar.” With that, the officer stopped writing, told us we were free to go, and instructed Tim to keep it at the speed limit.
    Professor, you’re not only a pedestrian propagandist, you’re a liar. Your blog is a hot, steaming pile of dog shit disguised as truth. It isn’t truth. It’s your Leftist version of truth. Get a grip.

    • I don’t claim to be completely free of bias, which I’ll concur is impossible. But bias is not the same as distortion or propaganda, neither of which I’m guilty of. Sounds like you need to get some grip-getting yourself. If you’re convinced that I’m a liar or that my facts are in error, you should be able to produce at least one example of one or the other. I’m all ears. I suppose if I live to 127, I’ll never understand what people hope to gain by making comments like yours. If you’re under the impression that it casts you in a favorable light, you have my sympathy. It benefits no one, and certainly not you, to make broad and unsupported conjectures and lectures about my imagined character, convictions or motives. If you have specific objections to the actual work I do here, by all means voice them. Everyone, myself included, would be most interested in hearing them.

      • Wow…. well put P.O.P.
        Degeneration to ad Hominem attacks rarely reflects well on those launching the attack.

        I am of the Libertarian persuasion in a political sense, but I find myself dumbfounded by the wish to ignore what people actually say or write, while attacking the person.
        If you have a beef with what is written, present a cogent reply based on information you have which is different. That should be easy to do even if you disagree with someone.

  16. Dear P.O.P.

    Please explore the claim of the gunsters that the second amendment is there so that the population will have the option to forcibly take over the government, if they don’t like it. It is amazing how many people passionately believe this idiotic notion. Have they forgotten the civil war? Did they not read Article 3 section 3 of the constitution, which defines armed insurrection as treason and assigns the death penalty for it? I

    • As it happens, I’m planning another post about the Second Amendment in the near future, and this myth just might figure into it.

  17. I greatly appreciate the energy and wisdom you are sharing with your thoughts. The inability of so many to question the mindless arguments tagged on Facebook pages is aggravating. Recently I read a FB tab which a compared Adolf Hitler and gun regulation. It hinted at propaganda and something likely to be false. Google and Wikipedia can be effective in combating arguments like these, but it is up to people like P.O.P. to do the research and perform the critical analysis. Thank you P.O.P.

    I admire the use of the word “Professor” in the name of the site. I’ve been drawing up an idea for a historical fiction novel with a setting in the Madison County Illinois. In sharing this idea with a former art professor at Washington University, I came to realize how the novel needs to build a professor into the story line. I wrote a page describing the characteristics of the professor. On my website I apply a quotation to every essay I write. The quotations are collected from books I’ve read, from watching movies, and old television series such as the Kung Fu series from the mid 70s. When writing up the synopsis of a professor character, I google the word “professor”. Like many search, it lead me to “Brainy Quotes”. I really like “Brainy Quotes”. I see no bias from the site. It just categorizes quotations by author and subject. My intent in the Google search was to find an inspirational quotation about professors. 22 quotations, every single one holding the profession of professor in contempt. My immediate response was, bullshit.

    Since drawing up the synopsis of a professor character, I’ve responded to a couple Facebook tags from individuals who push their creed but lack the ability to defend their beliefs. Here is the conclusion of a recent post:

    “… 22 quotations about professors. Every single one of them held professors in contempt. Many of us went to college and many of us know better. For every bad professor there are many good professors who do give a damn, who do care about wisdom and do want to train students to be good moral citizens.

    I won’t make such a generalization about members of the clergy. I’ve been to church many times. I’ve met good priest. But I’ve also met preachers more interested in the collection plate than teaching good moral character.

    Something is being missed in arguments like this. Loving God as a word is meaningless. Loving God as a deed has substance. I don’t know what Christ would have to say about “deed before creed”, but I do know his words had substance.”

    “Propaganda Professor”, I understand what you are doing is predicated on critical thinking. I also realize you have acquired a skill to write clearly and effectively. I’m not going to ask you help with an argument to defend professors. You only have so much time. My hope is others will strive to put the effort into their thoughts. Maybe someone will write up an argument to defend the worth of those who cherish wisdom and maybe that someone can come up with a notable quotation in respect for professors.

    BTW, I’m not a professor, but do hold many I’ve been acquainted in high regard.

  18. 20April2013: ThanX for your “objectivity” (meant as an affirmative!). Got a crazy e-mail from folks who lived in FL next to my now deceased Mum. Yeah, gun crazy, FUNDIES, with the Lord’s Name in every sentence, then the most viral racism, anti-pope, anti-“Librul”, anti-everything, not like them. Frankly, it is quite unsettling, and rather scary! Oh, yeah, they sent pictures of our President along with a cite of that wonderful 1935 Nazi gun law. THANX, as I sent them your reasoned and researched evidence against NRA propaganda. Pity is? Where are all the silent moderates in this country, like myself?
    LRP-Newport, RI

  19. Spear ends with a comment asking where are all the silent moderates in this country. Professor the question of the meaning of the terms conservative, liberal, and moderate is a discussion about propaganda. The terms are thrown around with little thought and cable pundit television is working hard to frame the ‘L’ word in a manner of hatred in attempt to demonize a group in a historical fashion as the ‘N’ and ‘J’ word.

    I’m not for sure the ‘L’ word will stick as well as ‘N’ or ‘J’. You could call liberal and conservative an ideology, but there is no church or ethnic group to clarify the meaning. The confusion comes from the area beyond mutual inclusion. Social and economic are related, but not inclusively. Many see the words democracy and capitalism in the same light. I recently attended a lecture about the Arab Spring where a professor continually used the word democracy as a substitute for ‘free market’. His premise defined free market as the goal sought from the revolutionary wave of demonstrations in the middle east. I won’t attempt to pin point what is being sought in the middle east, but would guess having a voice in the government is high on the agenda. Having a voice in government has more to do with democracy than the free market.

    The free market is a corporate term. Corporations represent an inorganic form with a mission to provide financial gain to its group members. This is economics. Democracy is about a group, though the focus of democracy is not financial gain, it’s for the benefit of society. Democracy is intended to trickle down to the individual. Capitalism is intended to trickle down to the stock holders. Democracy and capitalism are not the same. Democracy and capitalism are candidates for a comparison and contrast essay. The two words are not synonyms.

    Capitalism, socialism, communism, Fascism, and other economic systems often get contrasted, but I doubt many could provide a clear description of the differences. Cable pundit television unquestionably explain how other economic systems are the polar opposite of capitalism. They do so without providing a reasonable explanation. Actually cable pundit television is attempting to describe capitalism as an economic system unregulated from government interference. They call it free market economy. I’m curious from an economic theorist point of view, if capitalism and a free market economy are one and the same.

    I’m not seeking an answer to how these economic systems are different. I’m curious how they’re similar. My premise is that these economic systems have more in common to each other than capitalism has with democracy.

    The goal is not to demonize an economic system. The goal is to explain what is best for society may not come from an economic model. Hell, maybe democracy is not best for society. From a stand point of reason I believe capitalism is not democracy.

    Among these thoughts and lost in the confusion of propaganda is the definition to the words liberal, conservative, and moderate.

    • One of these days I’m going to do a post about the confusion over the terms “liberal” and “conservative” at least. In the meantime, I usually put them in quotation marks, because they are usually misused and abused.

      • Thank you professor. If we could stick to the definitions as stated in the dictionary all would be good, though the propaganda is attempting to disguise what is going on in America’s economic system.

        Democracy is a form of government where all citizens have a say in what is best for society. The free market is a system void of government regulation.

        To me, democracy is closer to a synonym with liberalism than it is with capitalism. As far as conservative being a synonym with the free market, I don’t believe so and that is a topic for another discussion.

  20. Hello POP,

    I imagine that with all that is currently happening in regards to NSA violations of the privacy of world leaders such as the leader of Germany, etc etc. as well as the instantaneous attempt to condemn the product provide by the ACA, instead of criticising the website creators who were at least partially culpable for it failure–that you are happier than a match in a fireworks warehouse for all of the excellent opportunities you will have to respond to them.

    I mean this in all seriousness, and I look forward to reading any of your future installments!

  21. POP,

    Last night I left a reply to (Abner) concerning the video he asked me to watch. Originally it posted with your usual comment about having to wait to be moderated. If you read it you should know there was absolutely nothing inappropriate about it, and, I even made a copy of it from your website.

    Do you always remove posts prior to approval? I had thought that they remained on the site until after being officially moderated for approval.

    Please send me a short email affirming that you have my post and have read it.

    Peter W. Johnson

    • I don’t remove the comments, Peter, but they do have to await my approval, which is dependent on when I can get online to do it. I don’t like that arrangement, but I’ve unfortunately had to resort to it in order to keep the comments from being taken over by childishness and an ever-increasing amount of spam that slips through the cracks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s