Satan's Blog

 Noam Chomsky wrote in a piece called “Propaganda, American Style,” the following:

In 1921, the famous American journalist Walter Lippmann said that the art of democracy requires what he called the “manufacture of consent.” This phrase is an Orwellian euphemism for thought control.

He (and Lippmann) is right, and the beauty of this insight is in knowing that in almost all cases “manufactured consent” falls in my favor.  People rarely consent in large numbers to God’s decrees.  But mine?  Well, let’s just say the way must be made wide to accommodate all who naturally come my way. 

In 1921 it was easy.  Even in 1984 it was easy.  Those were the days.  But, my servants, technology and media changes in the last decade or two have made it most difficult for me to manufacture consent in the United States.  I have ways; I control most faculty lounges, which are full of puffed up human wisdom; I have virtually conquered the field of science, which is full of God-deniers at the highest levels (most people in the National Academy of Sciences are self-described atheists!); and, in politics I have all but overwhelmed any viewpoints contrary to my own.

But times are quickly changing, and I don’t like what I see.  Which is why I address as a fundamental voter issue this idea of freedom of thought.  Recall that in general, I am against liberty, against freedom of conscience, and against freedom of thought.  And, in general, I am for bondage, for forced toleration of all views by the individual, and for enforced centralized thought control for all.

Here’s the bottom line, my servants, one which you should take very, very seriously: when people are free to think, I lose.  I hate to admit it. But it’s the truth.  (Don’t let this out–this is just between us.)

That’s why it’s truth that I hate.  Truth sets people free.  But as long as I can control what “truth” people are permitted to believe, I can still win.  And that’s where you people, my servants, come into the picture.  Because you can vote in people who believe, like I do, that certain viewpoints should be suppressed, as not worthy of challenging the consensus.

Todays lesson: Freedom of thought vs thought control

Thought. Control.  I love the sound of those two words.  Because it is only by taking captive men’s thoughts with pretentious and deceitful arguments that I have any power on earth.  So I wish for you to vote for people who share this view; that is, people who believe pretentious one-sided thoughts on important matters, and forcefully fill the entire thought space on the issue, effectively shutting out debate from the less worthy.

If I could simply impose a Ministry of Truth into the American system, my job would be easier.  As it is, I must rely on truth suppressing political maneuvering to accomplish the same goal.  As Chomsky continues:

Democratic societies can’t work like that [with a Ministry of Truth], because the state is much more limited in its capacity to control behavior by force. Since the voice of the people is allowed to speak out, those in power better control what that voice says–in other words, control what people think.

Chomsky hits the nail on the head next, identifying my deceit and cunning in managing important issues:

One of the ways to do this is to create political debate that appears to embrace many opinions, but actually stays within very narrow margins. You have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions–and that those assumptions are the basis of the propaganda system. As long as everyone accepts the propaganda system, the debate is permissible.

So, my servants, on important cultural issues such as abortion, evolution, global warming, judicial philosophy, etc.  Look for the candidate who advocates debate only within certain Satan-approved narrow assumptions.  Abortion?  The debate must be limited to one’s “choice,” not to the issue of life.  Evolution?  The debate is about science versus God and religion.  Global warming?  The debate is about man-made climate change with one solution, not natural cycles within natural limits.

You get the idea.  But I know that sometimes it’s hard to pin a candidate down on these topics, so look for one that exhibits secondary traits of government enforced thought control.   Look for one who embraces the ”fairness doctrine” or one who expresses reservations about the journalistic legitimacy of certain news organizations, or one who simply refuses to debate an important issue for which there is clear division of opinion because, he or she says, there “can be no debate on the issue.”

And here I tell you of the biggest opportunity of all.  There will likely be no greater opportunity for me to wreak my havoc on earth, and for sure the United States, for a long time.  I’m speaking of a US government takeover of the internet.   

Yes.  Two more words I love: government and takeover.   And when they are used consecutively in that order in the context of information dissemination, I hear “easy street” for me and mine.

And that’s what’s happening, according to an article entitled, Big Brother Taking Over the Internet.  As Matthew Archbold reports at the Creative Minority Report, the details are here.  In short, November 30th could be the day the government seizes control of the internet. 

And you, my servants could make it happen.  But you must vote for the votes in Congress to make it happen.

You get the idea.  Look for candidates who want you to believe the current government party line, and have an expressed disdain not only for all opposing viewpoints, but for the very right to express such viewpoints. 

Go, my servants, and vote for them.  A vote for them is a vote for my will on earth, as it is in Hell.