Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion
民主，最危险的宗教
12. Chapter 12 – Bernays and Democracy Control
第12章：伯奈斯与民主控制
翻译： 珍珠
From their experiences in the formulation, manipulation and control of public perception and opinion with the CPI, both Lippman and Bernays later wrote of their open contempt for a “malleable and hopelessly ill-informed public” in America.[1] Lippmann had already written that the people in a democracy were simply “a bewildered herd” of “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders”[2] who should be maintained only as “interested spectators”, to be controlled by the elite “secret government”. They concluded that in a multi-party electoral system (a democracy), public opinion had to be “created by an organized intelligence” and “engineered by an invisible government”, with the people relegated to the status of uninformed observers, a situation that has existed without interruption in the US for the past 95 years. Bernays believed that only a few possessed the necessary insight into the Big Picture to be entrusted with this sacred task, and considered himself as one member of this select few.
从他们在制定、操纵和控制公众看法和意见方面的经验来看，李普曼和伯奈斯后来都写下了他们对美国“易受影响且无可救药的愚昧公众”的公开蔑视。[1] 李普曼已经写道，民主国家的人民只是“无知和好管闲事的局外人”的“困惑的群体”，他们应该只作为“感兴趣的旁观者”来维持，由精英“秘密政府”来控制。[2] 他们得出的结论是，在多党选举制度（民主）中，公众舆论必须“由有组织的情报机构创造”和“由一个看不见的政府设计”，人民被降级为不知情的观察者，这种情况在美国已经存在了95年。 伯奈斯认为，只有少数人拥有必要的洞察力，能够肩负起这一神圣的任务，并认为自己是这一少数人中的一员。
“Throughout his career, Bernays was utterly cynical in his manipulation of the masses. In complete disregard of the personal importance of their sincerely held values, aspirations, emotions, and beliefs, he saw them as having no significance beyond their use as tools in the furtherance of whatever were the commercial and political ends of his hirers.”
“在其职业生涯中，伯奈斯在操纵大众方面完全愤世嫉俗。他完全无视他们真诚持有的价值观、愿望、情感和信仰的个人重要性，认为这些除了作为工具，用于促进其雇主的商业和政治目的之外，没有任何意义。”
In his book ‘Propaganda’,[3][3a][4] Bernays wrote, “It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace. The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
伯奈斯在他的《宣传》一书中写道：[3][3a][4]“当然，战争期间宣传的惊人成功让生活各个部门的少数聪明人看到了规范公众思想的可能性。战争结束后，聪明人自然会问自己，是否有可能将类似的技术应用于和平问题。有意识和有智慧地操纵群众的有组织习惯和观点是民主社会的重要因素。操纵这种看不见的社会机制的人构成了一个无形的政府，这是我们国家的真正统治力量。”
Bernays’ original project was to ensure US entry into the European war, but later he primarily concerned himself with the entrenchment of the twin systems of electoral democracy and unrestricted capitalism the elites had created for their benefit, and with their defense in the face of increased unrest, resistance, and ideological opposition. Discovering that the bewildered herd was not so compliant as he wished, Bernays claimed a necessity to apply “the discipline of science”, i.e., the psychology of propaganda, to the workings of democracy, where his social engineers “would provide the modern state with a foundation upon which a new stability might be realized”. This was what Lippmann termed the necessity of “intelligence and information control” in a democracy, stating that propaganda “has a legitimate and desirable part to play in our democratic system”. Both men pictured modern American society as being dominated by “a relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses”. To Bernays, this was the “logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized”, failing to note that it was his European handlers who organised it this way in the first place.
伯奈斯的最初项目是确保美国加入欧洲战争，但后来他主要关注的是巩固精英们为了自己的利益而创造的选举民主和无限制资本主义的双重制度，以及在动荡、抵抗和意识形态反对加剧的情况下捍卫这些制度。发现困惑的群体并不像他希望的那样顺从，伯奈斯声称有必要将“科学纪律”，即宣传心理学，应用于民主运作，他的社会工程师“将为现代国家提供一个可以实现新的稳定性的基础”。这就是李普曼在民主中“情报和信息控制”的必要性，他说宣传“在我们的民主制度中起着合法和可取的作用”。两人都认为现代美国社会是由“相对少数了解大众心理过程和社会模式的人”主导的。对伯奈斯来说，这是“我们的民主社会组织方式的逻辑结果”，没有注意到是他的欧洲处理者首先以这种方式组织起来的。
Lippman and Bernays were not independent in their perverted view of propaganda as a “necessity” of democracy, any more than they were in war marketing, drawing their theories and instruction from their Jewish masters in London. The multi-party electoral system was not designed and implemented because it was the most advanced form of government but rather because it alone offered the greatest opportunities to corrupt politicians through control of money and to manipulate public opinion through control of the press. In his book The Engineering of Consent,[5] [5a] Bernays baldly stated that “The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process”. In other words, the essence of a democracy is that a few “invisible people” manipulate the bewildered herd into believing they are in control of a transparent system of government, by choosing one of two pre-selected candidates who are already bought and paid for by the same invisible people.
利普曼和伯奈斯对宣传的歪曲看法是民主的“必需品”，这与他们在战争营销中的观点一样，他们从伦敦的犹太大师那里汲取理论和指导。 多党选举制度不是因为它是政府最先进的制度而设计和实施的，而是因为它提供了最大的机会，通过控制金钱来腐蚀政客，并通过控制媒体来操纵公众舆论。 在他的《同意工程》一书中，伯奈斯直言不讳地指出，“同意工程是民主进程的本质”。[5] [5a] 换句话说，民主的本质是少数“隐形人”操纵迷惑的群体，让他们相信他们控制着一个透明的政府体系，通过选择两个预先选定的候选人中的一个，而这些候选人已经被同一群隐形人收买和支付。
Even before the war, the ‘secret government’, i.e., the European Jewish handlers of Lippman and Bernays, had fully recognised the possibilities for large-scale population control and had developed far-reaching ambitions of their own in terms of “Democracy Control”, and using the US government once again as a tool. Their interest was not limited to merely the American population, but quickly included much of the Western world. With Lippman and Bernays as their agents, these invisible people had the US government applying Bernays’ principles in nations all over the world, adding the CIA Project Mockingbird[6][7][8][9][10], the VOA[11][12], Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, Radio Liberty, and much more to their tools of manipulation of the perceptions and beliefs of peoples of dozens of nations. The US State Department, by now totally onside, claimed that “propaganda abroad is indispensable” for what it termed “public information management”. It also recognised the need for absolute secrecy, stating that “if the American people ever get the idea that the high-powered propaganda machine was working on them, the result would be disaster”. But the high-powered machine was indeed working on them, and continued to an extent that might have impressed even Bernays.
甚至在战争之前，“秘密政府”，即欧洲犹太人操纵者利普曼和伯奈斯，已经充分认识到大规模人口控制的可能性，并在“民主控制”方面制定了深远的野心，并再次利用美国政府作为工具。他们的兴趣不仅限于美国人口，而是迅速扩展到西方世界的大部分地区。以利普曼和伯奈斯为代理人的这些无形的人，让美国政府在世界各国应用伯奈斯的原则，增加了中央情报局“知更鸟计划” [6][7][8][9][10] ，美国之音[11][12] ，自由欧洲电台和自由亚洲电台，自由电台等等，作为操纵数十个国家人民观念和信仰的工具。美国国务院现在完全站在一边，声称“海外宣传”对于所谓的“公共信息管理”是不可或缺的。它也认识到绝对保密的必要性，并指出“如果美国人民认为高功率的宣传机器正在对他们进行宣传，结果将是灾难”。但是高功率的机器确实在为他们工作，并继续在某种程度上让伯奈斯印象深刻。
The history of propaganda and its use in manipulating and controlling public opinion in the US, and in Western democracies generally, is a long story involving many apparently disparate and unrelated events. A major crisis point for elite control of American democracy was the Vietnam War, the one period in history when the American people were treated to accurate media coverage of what their government was actually doing in another country. Due to the horrific revelations of American torture and brutality, public protests were so widespread that the US was on the verge of anarchy and became almost ungovernable. Americans were tearing up their military draft notices and fleeing to Canada to escape military service. Streets and university campuses were overwhelmed with protests and riots, at least until Nixon ordered an armed response.[13][14][15] That was in 1970, but in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg stole “The Pentagon Papers” from the RAND corporation where he worked, and leaked them to the media, and that was the beginning of the end. After the political fallout and Nixon’s resignation, Bernays’ secret government went into overdrive and the American political landscape changed forever.
宣传的历史及其在美国和西方民主国家操纵和控制舆论的用途是一个漫长的故事，涉及许多显然不同和无关的事件。精英控制美国民主的一个主要危机点是越南战争，这是历史上美国人民被媒体准确报道其政府在另一个国家实际所做的事情的时期。由于美国酷刑和暴行的可怕揭露，公众抗议活动非常普遍，美国濒临无政府状态，几乎无法治理。美国人撕毁他们的征兵通知，逃往加拿大逃避兵役。街道和大学校园到处都是抗议和骚乱，至少在尼克松下令武装回应之前是这样。[13][14][15] 那是1970年，但在1971年，丹尼尔·埃尔斯伯格从他工作的兰德公司偷走了“五角大楼文件”，并将其泄露给媒体，这是结束的开始。在政治后果和尼克松辞职后，伯奈斯的秘密政府进入超速状态，美国政治格局永远改变。
A major part of this ‘democratic overdrive’ was the almost immediate creation in July of 1973 by David Rockefeller, Rothschild, and other “private citizens”, of a US-based think tank called ‘the Trilateral Commission’.[16] At the time, Rockefeller was Chairman of Rothschild’s Council on Foreign Relations as well as Chairman of the Rothschild-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Obama’s Foreign Policy Advisor, was a ‘co-founder’. The necessity for the formation of this group was officially attributed to the Middle-East oil crisis, but they focused on a much more important crisis – that of democracy, which was exhibiting clear signs of going where no man should go. At the time, with a modicum of free press remaining, the Washington Post published an article titled “Beware of the Trilateral commission” (17). They would not do so again. Any criticism of the Commission is today officially listed by the US government as a ‘conspiracy theory’.[18]
这种“民主超速”的主要部分是1973年7月由大卫·洛克菲勒、罗斯柴尔德和其他“私人公民”几乎立即创建的总部位于美国的智库“三边委员会”。[16]当时，洛克菲勒是罗斯柴尔德外交关系委员会主席，也是罗斯柴尔德控股的摩根大通银行主席。 奥巴马的外交政策顾问兹比格涅夫·布热津斯基是“联合创始人”。 成立这个组织的必要性被正式归因于中东石油危机，但他们关注的是一场更重要的危机——民主危机，这场危机正显示出明显走向不该去的地方的迹象。当时，在新闻自由度尚存的情况下，《华盛顿邮报》发表了一篇题为《当心三边委员会》的文章(17)。他们不会再这样做了。今天，美国政府正式将对该委员会的任何批评列为“阴谋论”。[18]
I could find no record of any report by the Trilateral Commission on the Mid-East oil crisis, and it appears their first major report, published by New York University in 1975 only two years after their formation, was titled, “The Crisis of Democracy”[19][20], a lead writer of which was a Harvard professor named Samuel Huntington.
我找不到三边委员会关于中东石油危机的任何报告的记录，似乎他们成立两年后，即1975年由纽约大学出版的第一份主要报告的标题是“民主危机”[19][20]，其首席作者是哈佛大学教授塞缪尔·亨廷顿。
In the paper, Huntington stated that “The 1960’s witnessed an upsurge of democratic fervor in America”, with an alarming increase of citizens participating in marches, protests and demonstrations, all evidence of “a reassertion of equality as a goal in social, economic and political life”, equality being something no democracy can afford. He claimed, “The essence of the democratic surge of the 1960’s was a general challenge to existing systems of authority, public and private. In one form or another, it manifested itself in the family, the university, business, public and private associations, politics, the governmental bureaucracy, and the military services.”
在论文中，亨廷顿指出，“20世纪60年代，美国民主热情高涨”，参加游行、抗议和示威的公民人数激增，所有证据都表明“重新强调平等是社会、经济和政治生活的目标”，平等是任何民主都无法承受的。他声称，“20世纪60年代民主激增的本质是对现有公共和私人权威制度的普遍挑战。它以各种形式体现在家庭、大学、商业、公共和私人协会、政治、政府官僚机构和军事服务中。”
Huntington, who had been a propaganda consultant to the US government during its war on Vietnam, further lamented that the common people no longer considered the elites and bankers to be superior and felt little obligation or duty to obey. We needn’t do much reading between the lines to see that Huntington’s real complaint was that the wealthy elites, those of the secret government, were coming under increasing public attack due to revelations of grand abuses of their wealth and power. They were no longer admired and respected, nor even particularly feared, but instead were increasingly despised. The people also abandoned trust in their government due to the realisation of the extensive infiltration of the White House and Congress by Bernays’ “shrewd operators”, leading to, in Huntington’s words, “a decline in the authority, status, influence, and effectiveness of the presidency”.
亨廷顿在越南战争期间曾担任美国政府的宣传顾问，他进一步哀叹说，普通民众不再认为精英和银行家是优越的，并且觉得没有义务或责任去服从。我们不需要过多地解读字里行间，就能看出亨廷顿真正的抱怨是，富有的精英，即秘密政府的精英，由于被揭露大规模滥用财富和权力而受到越来越多的公众攻击。他们不再受到钦佩和尊重，甚至也不再特别害怕，而是越来越被鄙视。人们也因为意识到伯奈斯的“精明经营者”对白宫和国会的广泛渗透而放弃了对其政府的信任，导致用亨廷顿的话来说，“总统的权威、地位、影响力和有效性下降”。
Huntington concluded that the US was suffering from “an excess of democracy”, writing that “the effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires apathy and noninvolvement”, stating this was crucial because it was precisely these qualities of the public that “enabled democracy to function effectively”. True to his racist roots, he identified “the blacks” as one such group that was becoming “too democratic” and posing a danger to the political system. He ended his report by stating that “the vulnerability of democracy, essentially the ‘crisis of democracy’”, stemmed from a society that was becoming educated and was participating, and that the nation needed “a more balanced existence” with what he called “desirable limits to the extension of political democracy”. In other words, the real crisis in democracy was that the people were beginning to believe in the “government by the people, for the people” part, and not only actually becoming involved but beginning to despise and disobey those who had been running the country solely for their own financial and political advantage. And of course, the solution was to engineer a social situation with less education and democracy and more authority from the secret government of the elites.
亨廷顿总结道，美国正在遭受“民主过度”的困扰，他写道“民主政治制度的有效运作通常需要冷漠和不参与”，这很重要，因为正是公众的这些品质“使民主有效地运作”。他忠于他的种族主义根源，认为“黑人”是其中一个变得“过于民主”并对政治制度构成危险的群体。他在报告结尾时指出，“民主的脆弱性，本质上是‘民主危机’”，源于一个正在接受教育并参与其中的社会，国家需要“更平衡的存在”，他称之为“政治民主扩展的理想限制”。换句话说，民主的真正危机是人们开始相信“民有、民治、民享的政府”，而不仅仅实际参与其中，而是开始鄙视和不服从那些只为自己经济和政治利益而管理国家的人。当然，解决方案是设计一个教育程度较低、民主程度较低、精英秘密政府权威较大的社会环境。
Democracy, according to Huntington, consisted of the appearance but not the substance, a construct whereby the shrewd elites selected candidates for whom the people could pretend to vote, but who would be controlled by, and obey their masters. Having thus participated in ‘democracy’, the people would be expected to return to their normal state of apathy and noninvolvement.
根据亨廷顿的说法，民主由表象而非实质构成，这是一种精明的精英阶层挑选候选人，让人民假装投票，但候选人将受控于并服从其主人的结构。因此，在参与“民主”之后，人民将有望回到他们正常的冷漠和不参与状态。
However, there was an undertone in this paper, specifically in Huntington’s comments, that I found unsettling, almost as a harbinger for things to come. Some of his “evaluation” seemed almost heretical for the time, stating that the existing basic framework of (democratic) government requires “reconsideration”, and asking, “Is political democracy, as it exists today, a viable form of government”? He wrote that “acute observers on all three continents have seen a bleak future for democratic government”. He noted one senior British official stating, “parliamentary democracy [in the UK] would ultimately be replaced by a dictatorship”, and former Japanese Prime Minister Takeo Miki warning that “Japanese democracy will collapse”. He asked, “Can these countries continue to function during the final quarter of the twentieth century with the forms of political democracy which they evolved during the third quarter of that century?” As I’ve already noted elsewhere, he stated clearly that “democracy” has failed completely in every area of human society where it has been tried (save that of government), but then laments that democracy appears to be failing in the government arena as well.
然而，在这篇论文中，特别是在亨廷顿的评论中，有一种令人不安的暗示，几乎预示着即将发生的事情。他的一些“评价”在当时几乎可以说是异端邪说，他说现有的（民主）政府基本框架需要“重新考虑”，并问，“今天的政治民主是一种可行的政府形式吗？”他写道，“三大洲敏锐的观察者都看到了民主政府的惨淡前景”。他指出，一位英国高级官员表示，“（英国）议会民主最终将被独裁统治所取代”，前日本首相三木武夫警告说，“日本民主将崩溃”。他问，“这些国家在20世纪最后四分之一的时间里，能否以他们在20世纪第三个季度发展起来的政治民主形式继续运作？”正如我在其他地方指出的那样，他明确表示，“民主”在人类社会尝试过的每个领域都完全失败了（除了政府），但随后又感叹民主似乎在政府领域也失败了。
Reading that paper in the light of political developments since, left me with a feeling that Huntington could have been hired by Klaus Schwab to present his “Great Reset”. It was disturbing that when we connect the dots of political developments in the past 50 or so years, it appears the Western world has been getting itself primed for a transition from “democracies” to fascist governments. This is especially true since there has so clearly been a co-ordination between all of those dots, and that planning could have come only from the Jewish Khazar mafia in the City of London. There is no other central source possible for this.
根据自那以后的政治发展来看这篇论文，让我觉得亨廷顿可能被克劳斯·施瓦布雇佣来介绍他的“大重置”。令人不安的是，当我们把过去50年左右的政治发展联系起来时，西方世界似乎已经准备好从“民主”向法西斯政府过渡。尤其如此，因为所有这些点之间显然存在协调，而且这种计划只能来自伦敦金融城的犹太哈扎尔黑手党。没有其他可能的中心来源。
Noam Chomsky noted in an article that in the student activism of the 1960s and early 1970s, the nation apparently risked becoming too well educated, creating the Trilateral Commission’s ‘crisis of democracy’. In other words, the ignorance necessary for the maintenance of a multi-party government system was at risk of being eroded by students who were actually learning things that Bernays’ secret government didn’t want them to learn. “The Commission in a report decried the focus on what it called “special-interest groups” like women, workers and students, trying to gain rights within the political arena that were clearly “against the national interest” [of the top 1%]”. The Commission stated it was especially concerned with schools and universities that were not doing their job of “properly indoctrinating the young” and that “we have to have more moderation in democracy”. From there, the path forward was clear: young people in America would now be “properly indoctrinated” by both the public school system and the universities, so as to become “more moderate”, more ignorant, and above all to avoid demanding things like social equality and workers’ rights that were so clearly against the ‘national interest’ of the elites and their ‘secret government’.
诺姆·乔姆斯基在一篇文章中指出，在20世纪60年代和70年代初的学生运动中，国家显然面临着教育过度的风险，这导致了三边委员会的“民主危机”。换句话说，维护多党政府制度所必需的无知，有可能被实际上在学习伯奈斯秘密政府不希望他们学习的东西的学生所侵蚀。“委员会在一份报告中谴责了它所谓的‘特殊利益集团’的关注，如女性、工人和学生，试图在政治舞台上获得明显‘违反国家利益’的权利[前1%]。委员会表示，它特别关注没有做好‘正确灌输年轻人’工作的学校和大学，并且‘我们必须更加温和地对待民主’”。从那里开始，前进的道路是明确的：美国的年轻人现在将由公立学校系统和大学“正确灌输”，以变得更加“温和”，更加无知，最重要的是避免要求社会平等和工人权利等明显违反精英及其“秘密政府”的“国家利益”的事情。
Before Huntington and the student activism of the 1960s, we had another renowned expert on propaganda, politics and fascism, in the person of another American Jew, Harold Lasswell, who has been admiringly described as “a leading American political scientist and communications theorist, specializing in the analysis of propaganda”, with claims Lasswell was “ranked among the half dozen creative innovators in the social sciences in the twentieth century”. His biographer, Almond, stated firmly that “few would question that [Lasswell] was the most original and productive political scientist of his time”.[21] High praise indeed, reminiscent of that ladled onto Lippman and Bernays – and for the same reasons.
在亨廷顿和20世纪60年代的学生运动之前，我们还有另一位著名的宣传、政治和法西斯主义专家，他就是另一位美国犹太人哈罗德·拉斯韦尔，他被钦佩地描述为“美国著名的政治学家和传播理论家，专门研究宣传分析”，拉斯韦尔被“列为20世纪社会科学领域六位最具创造力的创新者之一”。他的传记作者阿尔蒙德坚定地表示，“很少有人会质疑[拉斯韦尔]是他那个时代最具独创性和生产力的政治学家”。[21] 这真是高度赞扬，让人想起当年给李普曼和伯奈斯的溢美之词——出于同样的原因。
Even earlier, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the University of Chicago held a series of secret seminars on “communication”, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, that included some of the most prominent researchers in the fields of ‘communications and sociology’, one of whom was Lasswell. Like Lippman and Bernays before him, and Huntington et al after him, Lasswell was of the opinion that democracy could not sustain itself without a credentialed elite shaping, molding and controlling public opinion through propaganda. He stated that if the elites lacked the necessary force to compel obedience from the masses, then ‘social managers’ must turn to “a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda”, because of the “ignorance and superstition of the masses”. He claimed that society should not succumb to “democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests”, because they were not. Further, “the best judges are the elites, who must, therefore, be ensured of the means to impose their will, for the common good”. The Rockefeller and other Foundations and think-tanks have been slowly executing this advice now for almost 100 years.
早在20世纪30年代末和40年代初，芝加哥大学就举办了一系列由洛克菲勒基金会资助的关于“传播”的秘密研讨会，其中包括“传播与社会学”领域的一些最著名研究人员，其中之一就是拉斯韦尔。与之前的李普曼和伯奈斯以及之后的亨廷顿等人一样，拉斯韦尔认为，如果没有经过认证的精英通过宣传来塑造、塑造和控制公众舆论，民主就无法维持。他表示，如果精英缺乏迫使群众服从的必要力量，那么“社会管理者”必须转向“一种全新的控制技术，主要是通过宣传”，因为“群众的无知和迷信”。他声称，社会不应该屈服于“关于男人是自身利益最佳评判者的民主教条”，因为他们不是。此外，“最佳评判者是精英，因此必须确保他们拥有实施其意志的手段，以实现共同利益”。洛克菲勒基金会和其他基金会以及智库已经慢慢执行这一建议将近100年了。
Among the many results of the work of Lippman and Bernays was the subsumption, of initially the Executive Branch and eventually the Legislative Branch as well, of the US government, into a global plan of the European and American bankers and their US corporate and political interests. We speak openly today of the White House and US Congress being overwhelmingly controlled by the Jewish lobby and their multinational corporations, but this forest was planted 100 years ago. By the early 1900s we already had an American government firmly under the powerful influence of, and effectively controlled by, what Bernays termed the “secret government”, and which was controlled in virtually the same manner as the bewildered public herd. During his presidential election campaign in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt said, “Behind the visible government there is an invisible government upon the throne that owes the people no loyalty and recognizes no responsibility”,[22] and claimed it was necessary to destroy this invisible government and undo the corrupt union of business and politics. Roosevelt again:
在利普曼和伯奈斯的工作成果中，美国政府从最初的行政部门，最终也包括立法部门，被纳入欧洲和美国银行家及其美国企业和政治利益的全球计划。我们今天公开谈论白宫和美国国会受到犹太游说团体及其跨国公司的压倒性控制，但这一森林是在100年前种植的。到20世纪初，我们已经有一个美国政府坚定地受到伯奈斯所谓的“秘密政府”的强大影响和有效控制，并且几乎以与困惑的公众群体相同的方式受到控制。在1912年的总统竞选期间，西奥多·罗斯福说：“在可见的政府背后，有一个看不见的政府在王位上，它不忠于人民，也不承认责任”，并声称有必要摧毁这个看不见的政府，废除商业和政治的腐败联盟。[22] 罗斯福再次说：
“It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor and other people’s lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness. These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power.”
“这些新经济王朝的特权王子们渴望权力，想要控制政府本身，这很自然，或许也是人之常情。他们创造了新的专制主义，并将其包裹在法律制裁的外衣中。一小群人已经将几乎完全控制他人财产、他人金钱、他人劳动和他人生命的能力集中到自己手中。对我们大多数人来说，生活不再自由；自由不再真实；人们不再追求幸福。这些经济保皇党抱怨我们试图推翻美国的制度。他们真正抱怨的是我们试图剥夺他们的权力。”
Arthur Miller wrote that “Those who formally rule, take their signals and commands not from the electorate as a body, but from a small group of men. It exists even though its existence is denied, and this is one of the secrets of the American social order, but one that is not to be discussed.” And, as Baudelaire told us, “The devil’s best trick is to persuade you that he doesn’t exist”. The truth of this is everywhere to be seen, but few want to look.
阿瑟·米勒写道：“那些正式统治的人，不是从选民整体那里获得信号和命令，而是从一小群人那里获得。即使它的存在被否认，它也存在，这是美国社会秩序的秘密之一，但这是一个不能讨论的秘密。”而且，正如波德莱尔告诉我们的那样，“魔鬼最好的伎俩是说服你他并不存在”。这个真相随处可见，但很少有人愿意去看。
Returning to Bernays and his propaganda to save democracy, and the versions promulgated by his heirs, there were two intermixed currents in that river. The most important was for the (largely foreign) bankers and industrialists to regain full control of the US government, especially the economic sectors, the first step being to repair the loosened control of the political parties themselves and the politicians inhabiting them. There is an interesting Chinese document that accurately addresses the deep Jewish influence on the US government at the time, stating: “The Democratic Party belongs to the Morgan family, and the Republican Party belongs to the Rockefeller family. Rockefeller and Morgan, however, belonged to Rothschild.”[23] Then, new and extensive efforts were required to regain social and political control of the population. What they needed was a vaccine, not to protect the American people, but to infect them with an incurable disease pleasantly named ‘democratisation’, but which would be more readily recognisable as zombification. They succeeded.
回到伯奈斯和他的宣传以拯救民主，以及他的继承人颁布的版本，这条河中有两条相互交织的潮流。最重要的是让（主要是外国）银行家和实业家重新完全控制美国政府，特别是经济部门，第一步是修复政党本身和居住在其中的政治家的松散控制。有一份有趣的中国文件准确地指出了当时犹太人对美国政府的深刻影响，该文件指出：“民主党属于摩根家族，共和党属于洛克菲勒家族。然而，洛克菲勒和摩根属于罗斯柴尔德家族。” [23] 然后，需要新的和广泛的努力来重新获得对人口的社会和政治控制。他们需要的是一种疫苗，不是保护美国人民，而是用一种名为“民主化”的不治之症感染他们，但这更容易被识别为僵尸化。他们成功了。
Democracy had always been hyped in the West as the most perfect form of government, but under the influence of an enormous propaganda campaign it soon morphed into the pinnacle of enlightened human evolution, certainly in the minds of Americans, but in the West generally. Since a multi-party electoral system formed the underpinnings of external (foreign) control of the US government, it was imperative to inject this fiction directly into the American psyche. They did so, to the extent that “democracy”, with its thousands of meanings, is today equivalent to a bible passage – a message from God that by its nature cannot be questioned. Bernays and his people were the source of the deep, abiding – and patently false – conviction in every American heart that democracy is a “universal value”. One of the most foolish and persistent myths these people created was the fairytale that as every people evolved toward perfection and enlightenment, their DNA would mutate and they would develop a God-given, perhaps genetic, craving for a multi-party political system. This conviction is entirely nonsense, without a shred of historical or other evidence to support it, a foolish myth created to further delude the bewildered herd.
民主在西方一直被大肆宣传为最完美的政府形式，但在一场巨大的宣传运动的影响下，它很快变成了人类文明进化的顶峰，当然是在美国人的心目中，但在西方普遍如此。由于多党选举制度构成了美国政府外部（外国）控制的基础，因此必须将这种虚构直接注入美国人的心灵。他们这样做了，以至于“民主”以其数千种含义，今天相当于圣经的一段话——上帝的信息，其本质是不能被质疑的。伯奈斯和他的手下是每个美国人心中对民主是一种“普遍价值”的深刻、持久——显然是错误的——信念的来源。这些人创造的最愚蠢和持久的神话之一是童话故事，即随着每个民族向完美和启蒙发展，他们的DNA会发生突变，他们会对多党政治制度产生一种上帝赐予的、也许是遗传的渴望。这种信念完全是胡说八道，没有丝毫历史或其他证据支持它，这是一个愚蠢的神话，是为了进一步欺骗困惑的群体而创造的。
But there was much more necessary in terms of social control. By the time Regan replaced Carter in 1980, all the wheels were in motion to permanently disenfranchise American citizens from everything but their by now beloved “democracy”. Regan’s assault on the American public was entirely frontal, with Volcker of the FED plunging the US into one of the most brutal recessions in history, driving down wages and home ownership, destroying a lifetime’s accumulation of personal assets, dramatically increasing unemployment, eliminating labor unions almost entirely, and making the entire nation politically submissive from fear. Interestingly, the more that their precious democracy was impoverishing and emasculating them, the more strongly the American public clung to it, no longer retaining any desire for equality but merely hoping for survival. The eight years of Regan’s presidency were some of the most brutal in US history, but with the power of the propaganda and the willing compliance of the mass media, the American people had no understanding of what was happening to them. The lessons of the 1970s and the Vietnam War were learned well, and Bernays’ “invisible people” reclaimed the US as a colony, both the government and the people, the reclamation cleverly “engineered by an invisible government”.
但就社会控制而言，还有更多必要。到里根在1980年取代卡特时，所有车轮都在运转，永久剥夺美国公民除了他们现在所爱的“民主”之外的一切权利。里根对美国公众的攻击完全是正面的，美联储的沃尔克让美国陷入历史上最残酷的经济衰退之一，压低了工资和房屋所有权，摧毁了个人资产的一生的积累，大大增加了失业率，几乎完全消灭了工会，使整个国家在政治上屈服于恐惧。有趣的是，他们珍贵的民主越是让他们贫穷和阉割他们，美国公众就越是紧紧抓住它，不再保留任何平等的愿望，而只是希望生存。里根总统任期的八年是美国历史上最残酷的时期之一，但凭借宣传的力量和大众媒体的自愿服从，美国人民根本不了解发生了什么。20世纪70年代和越南战争的教训得到了很好的学习，伯奈斯的“隐形人”重新夺回了美国作为殖民地，包括政府和人民，这是“一个看不见的政府巧妙地策划的”。
The full Machiavellian nature of this propaganda, its true intent and results, will not be immediately apparent to readers from this brief series of essays. Reading the entire series of ‘Bernays and Propaganda’ [24] will fill in many of the gaps and permit readers to connect more dots and obtain a clearer picture of the entire landscape.
读者从这一系列短文中并不能立即看出这种宣传的马基雅维利主义本质、真实意图和结果。阅读整个系列“伯奈斯与宣传”将填补许多空白，[24]并允许读者连接更多点，从而更清楚地了解整个情况。
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成32种语言，他的文章发表在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站以及100多个英语平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位，并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾是上海复旦大学的客座教授，为高级EMBA课程提供国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生住在上海，目前正在写一系列十本书，通常与中国和西方有关。他是辛西娅·麦金尼的新文集《当中国打喷嚏》的撰稿人之一。(第2章——与恶魔打交道)。
His full archive can be seen at
他的完整文章库可以在以下看到：
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/
He can be contacted at:
他的联系方式：
2186604556@qq.com
*
Notes
注释
(1) https://alethonews.com/2012/07/31/progressive-journalisms-legacy-of-deceit/
(2) http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/MediaControl_excerpts.html
(3) https://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Edward-Bernays/dp/0970312598
(3a) https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Bernays_Propaganda_in_english_.pdf
(4) https://archive.org/details/BernaysPropaganda
(5) https://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Consent-Edward-L-Bernays/dp/B0007DOM5E
(5a) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/The_Engineering_of_Consent_%28essay%29.pdf
(6) https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-cia-paid-and-threatened-journalists-to-do-its-work
(7) https://thenewamerican.com/cia-s-mockingbirds-and-ruling-class-journalists/
(8) https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/cia-report-on-project-mockingbird/295/
(9) https://allthatsinteresting.com/operation-mockingbird
(10) https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_mediacontrol03.htm
(12) The VOA surrounded China from all neighboring countries, and including a massive presence in Hong Kong, broadcasting American seditionist propaganda into China (according to Bernays’ template) 24 hours a day for generations. It failed, and was finally shut down in 2019. Also, when the Taiwanese scientist identified the 5 original haplotypes of the COVID-19 virus and proved they had originated in the US, it was the VOA that harassed the man so badly online that he closed all his social media accounts and went dark. Democracy being a coin with only one side, the US greatly resented China Radio International broadcasting “Beijing-friendly programs on over 30 US outlets, many in major American cities.” http://chinaplus.cri.cn/opinion/opedblog/23/20181006/192270.html
(15) http://news.cnr.cn/native/gd/20200606/t20200606_525118936.shtml
(16) http://www.antiwar.com/berkman/trilat.html
(18) http://mail.conspiracy-gov.com/the-new-world-order/trilateral-commission/
(19) https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/The-Crisis-of-Democracy.pdf
(21) https://www.nap.edu/read/1000/chapter/10
(23) The Age of Innovation 2013 Issue 6 95-97 pp. 3 of 1003, The database of scientific and technological journals of Chinese science and technology; http://www.cqvip.com/QK/70988X/201306/46341293.html
(24) Bernays and Propaganda; https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BERNAYS-AND-PROPAGANDA-.pdf
*
This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.
本文可能包含受版权保护的材料，其使用未经版权所有者特别授权。此内容根据合理使用原则提供，仅用于教育和信息目的。此内容没有商业用途。
Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2024
版权所有 © 拉里·罗曼诺夫、上海蓝月亮、上海月亮，2024
