Zahir Ebrahim:

“Virtually one hundred percent of what is deemed respectable Western dissent espouses this foundational axiom. It works well because it draws upon selective empiricism couched in omissions to demonstrate its veracity. But a half-truth is still only a full lie. That full lie works like this:

‘The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be made as effective as the negative.’

— Aldous Huxley, Preface (circa 1946) to Brave New World, 1931, Harper, pg. 11

Both sides of propaganda are thus put into effect. The mainstream chiefs enact the big lie and repeat it endlessly for the positive side of propaganda. The dissent-chief enact the negative side of propaganda by calculated omission of certain subjects, and by omitting to draw logical conclusions from them because they no longer have to — the facts have been omitted from the “respectable” discourse space altogether. It is wonderful how this is used to provide the illusion of the free press and free society by both the mainstream press and the so called alternate press:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

— Noam Chomsky

This is exactly the same controlled-dissent genre of lauded pontiffs of dissentstream spanning the gamut from Messrs. Ron Paul ( http://tinyurl.com/RonPaul-NWO-Asset ) to Noam Chomsky himself ( http://tinyurl.com/Hegelian-Dialectic-Dissent ) et. al. on the Left-Liberal-Libertarian nexus, to Foxnews-Right-wing-Religion-Intelligence-State-worship-Patriotism nexus.

I am not sure which compartment Francis Boyle ( http://tinyurl.com/francisboyle-2011-humanity ) falls into but it is just as systemic there as elsewhere.

I invite Truthdig to publish the examination referenced below written by a Muslim, yours truly, belonging to the ‘untermensch’ civilization bearing the full brunt of Chris Hedges’ admission that “We became terrorists too,” and “We Are What We Loathe”.

Such banal statements can perhaps win Mr. Hedges multiple Pulitzer prizes for their profundity — precisely because these neither inform nor educate to the degree necessary for unraveling the entire Hegelian Dialectic, lest it spawn a real resistance movement with teeth singularly focused on the puppetmasters orchestrating the “clash of civilizations”.

This style of dissent-lite only enables introducing and sustaining beneficial cognitive diversity for the purpose of defocusing the energies of conscionable peoples – its primary objective – until fait accompli.”