虛偽的宣傳是現代美國霸權的三個支柱之一(其他兩個是美元和軍力,詳見前文《當代美國戰略局勢與策略》)。 目前的敘利亞就是一個例子:ISIS其實很明顯是由沙烏地和土耳其兩個美國盟友支持而壯大的,所以美國的所謂「打擊」衹是空擺姿態。 像是油罐車這樣明顯而容易的目標居然一直等到巴黎恐襲之後才勉強轟炸了一次,其原因當然是ISIS煉油後的顧客正是土耳其。 但是美國的宣傳體系卻能很成功地顛倒黑白,憑著幾萬篇指責中國為了商業利益與邪惡政權打交道的宣傳文章,讓大部分美國人民自動想像ISIS的石油賣到了中國。 又如上周中共在新疆殲滅了一個已經上山打遊擊的東突暴動集團,紐約時報的標題竟然是「中國承認殺了28人」(參見《China Acknowledges Killing 28 People; Accuses Them of Role in Mine Attack》),這有點像是把911說成“紐約世貿中心撞死10名外國飛行員”,其自私與離譜真讓人嘆為觀止,但是絕大多數紐約時報的讀者卻不覺其怪。 這麼徹底的洗腦當然是權力核心有意努力的成果,背後的動力和機制,請參考前文《美國宣傳戰的新困境》。
然而這個版本其實是近400年來不斷編造修改的結果,嚴肅的歷史考證(參見
《The True Story Of Thanksgiving》;2015年還在的http://www.manataka.org/page269.html已被消音了)早已挖掘出了真相,衹是當然永遠進不了教科書(同樣的史實,搜索”感恩節“找不到,必須搜”Mystic Massacre“,”Mystic 大屠殺“)。 真正的事實是這樣的:清教徒在英國拒絕接受英國國教的管轄,出逃到荷蘭;過了幾年覺得小孩們快要變成荷蘭人了,於是又想另謀出路。 這剛好在第一批英國移民到Virginia建立Jamestown殖民地(Pocahontas的故事就在那裡發生)後幾年,雖然Jamestown的結局頗為悲慘(最近挖出一個年輕女孩的遺體,有明顯被燒烤啃食的 痕跡),這群清教徒卻不知道或不在乎,還是雇了一艘叫Mayflower的英國貨船渡過大西洋,在1620年十一月到了麻省的Plymouth。 為了壯聲勢,他們自稱為Pilgrims,亦即朝聖者,其實他們是宗教難民,麻省當然也沒有什麼Holy Place可以朝聖。
【後註六,2024/2/22】剛剛看到一集反思美國作爲和宣傳的視頻(參見《Are We The Baddies?》《我們才是壞蛋嗎?》),基本復述了博客多年來試圖解釋的若干真相,其中有兩點新意特別值得注意:首先,昂撒殖民者將北美印第安人的人口從原本的1500萬殺傷至最低時的20萬,所以這一場人類史上最惡劣的種族滅絕,程度約爲98.6%。其次,該視頻自一個月前發表之後,有55萬人觀看,6萬多點贊,在政治歷史類的《Youtube》内容中算是極高的。英文觀衆都有這樣的覺悟,中文世界還在膜拜美國神話的人,當真愚不可及。
我以前读过一篇文章讲的是波士顿倾茶事件的真实面目。波士顿倾茶事件长期被美国宣传成为伟大的爱国主义抗税事件,并长期成为共和党当作 no taxation without representation 的小政府主义的理论依据。事实真相是,英国殖民政府并没有提高税率,恰恰相反的是,殖民政府降低了专卖茶叶的东印度公司的税率,使得当时的茶叶价格被腰斩。而当时马塞诸塞有很多商人从荷兰人手里走私茶叶谋取暴利,这一下由于价格暴跌茶叶烂在了手里。他们一怒之下就把东印度公司的合法茶叶给倒了。这些走私犯中就包括美国着名的爱国者,独立宣言的第一个签署者,John hancock。链接在这里: www.history.com/...
I never miss a single chance to blast at NY Times articles like the one you mentioned through reader's comment. The chance that my comment gets to see daylight is about 50%. However I begin to see like-minded responses more often, a positive sign. After all NY Times is insulting the intelligence of not only us.
You are truly patient. I gave up long ago.
I suspect most of those sensible comments come from foreigners, however, particularly ethnic Chinese like you and me.
除了感恩節,連美國憲法可能都有秘密。唐德剛曾提到Charles A. Beard所寫的"An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States",書中提到美國憲法背後不為人知的開國元勛之個人利益。以下是維基對該書的簡介:
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers. Beard contends that the authors of The Federalist Papers represented an interest group themselves. More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a "cohesive" elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially federal bonds) and economic standing. Beard examined the occupations and property holdings of the members of the convention from tax and census records, contemporaneous news accounts, and biographical sources, demonstrating the degree to which each stood to benefit from various Constitutional provisions. Beard pointed out, for example, that George Washington was the wealthiest landowner in the country, and had provided significant funding towards the Revolution. Beard traces the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts to the desire of Washington and similarly situated lenders to have their costs refunded.