We're often asked why it is that we keep plugging away, working as propagandists to mobilize the masses. Precisely what are we mobilizing to do?

As we say in The Propagandist Manifesto, "our cause is freedom, modernity, reason, prosperity and the pursuit of happiness." But I will often add that we are also defined by our enemies.

I believe this photo I captured at Occupy Wall Street in New York City a little while back pretty much says it all. I would not taint all Occupy Movement activists by association with the Spartacist League -- but I'm not at all convinced that many of them would be willing to give these bozos the rhetorical slapping-down they so richly deserve.

Confusion to our enemies!

Jonathon Narvey is the Editor of The Propagandist

Marking the end of the military operation in Iraq, US President Barack Obama gave a speech on the overall success of the mission. Here is a transcript of his words:

Hello, everybody! Hello, Fort Bragg! All the way!

Now, I'm sure you realise why I don't like following Michelle Obama. She's pretty good. And it is true, I am a little biased, but let me just say it: Michelle, you are a remarkable First Lady.

You are a great advocate for military families. And you're cute. I'm just saying, gentlemen, that's your goal: to marry up. Punch above your weight.

Fort Bragg, we're here to mark a historic moment in the life of our country and our military.

For nearly nine years our nation has been at war in Iraq.

And you - the incredible men and women of Fort Bragg - have been there every step of the way, serving with honour, sacrificing greatly, from the first waves of the invasion to some of the last troops to come home.

So, as your commander-in-chief and on behalf of a grateful nation, I'm proud to finally say these two words, and I know your families agree: Welcome home! Welcome home. Welcome home. Welcome home. Read more

AMERICAN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA. Can we have our stealth drone back, please?

IRANIAN THUG-IN-CHIEF MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD. Let me put it this way: if we had a dozen of these birds based in Cuba fitted with nuclear warheads, we'd happily turn your eastern seaboard into a molten radioactive ruin.

AMERICAN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA. How about if we go soft on those sanctions?

IRANIAN THUG-IN-CHIEF MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD. How about if you chop off your own head and save us the trouble, Infidel?

AMERICAN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA. I'm so glad we have these fruitful conversations proving to all Americans once more that dialogue is the path to understanding.

Many foreign policy critics wondered why the USA didn't pull up stakes in Pakistan back when Osama bin Laden was discovered playing house down the street from Pakistan's version of West Point. But since then, there have been an unrelenting number of provocations -- some lethal -- against American personnel. Finally, U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are saying what needed to be said long ago:

“The United States has been incredibly patient with Pakistan. And we have been so despite certain undeniable and deeply disturbing facts. Most importantly, Pakistani army and intelligence officials continue to support the Haqqani Network and other terrorist groups in Pakistan that are killing U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and the vast majority of the material used to make improvised explosive devices used against U.S. forces in Afghanistan originates from two fertilizer factories inside Pakistan.

“The time has come for the United States to fully review its relations with Pakistan. We must assess the nature and levels of our support for Pakistan. In particular, all options regarding U.S. security and economic assistance to Pakistan must be on the table, including substantial reductions and stricter standards for performance. Most of all, U.S. policy toward Pakistan must proceed from the realistic understanding that certain actions of Pakistan’s military are contributing to the death and injury of our men and women in the military and jeopardizing our national security interests.

H/T Eye on a Crazy Planet

American Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman came under fire over the weekend for blaming Israel for widespread Muslim anti-Semitism. If ever there was a case of blaming the victim, this one fits the bill. Here are some videos showing clearly that these bigoted ideas in fact go back more than 700 years to the inspiration of the original Koranic text.

Indeed, one wonders how Mr. Gutman would explain the centuries of killings and persecution by Muslims against Jews throughout the Middle East prior to the relatively recent formation of the state of Israel.

Enjoy.

In the recent downturn in relations between the USA and Pakistan over the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, a US official talking to the WSJ points out the big, giant, obvious gaping hole in the Pakistani government's version of events:

"There was absolutely no malicious, deliberate attack on the Pakistani military posts," a U.S. defense official said.

Other American officials said the Pakistani military should have known from the presence of helicopters used to ferry in the combined U.S.-Afghan commando force that Americans were in the area.

"If you hear American helicopters why would you lob mortars and machine gun fire at them? The Pakistanis can say we thought it was insurgents, except for the fact that the Taliban doesn't have helicopters," said the U.S. official.

Note to Pakistani military forces: if you shoot at Americans, they will shoot back and you will probably die. So stop trying.

"I am not going to be silenced and I'm not going away," US Republican Presidential hopeful Herman Cain told supporters in his home city of Atlanta, Georgia, just before he went away, never to be heard from again.

Two people have been shot. About 20 were pepper sprayed. There have been stampedes of people. No, we're not talking about the latest action in Tahrir Square. It's shopper-on-shopper mayhem in America on the biggest shopping day of the year.

People are so stupid.

And it hasn't for some time. As former Bush-administration staffer and longtime conservative David Frum points out, the Republican right has lost its way. It is a party of fanatics who demonize their Democrat rivals and obstruct necessary policy changes at the risk of bankrupting their country. Brainless and incoherent, their mad posturing is hurting America.

America desperately needs a responsible and compassionate alternative to the Obama administration’s path of bigger government at higher cost. And yet: This past summer, the GOP nearly forced America to the verge of default just to score a point in a budget debate. In the throes of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, Republican politicians demand massive budget cuts and shrug off the concerns of the unemployed. In the face of evidence of dwindling upward mobility and long-stagnating middle-class wages, my party’s economic ideas sometimes seem to have shrunk to just one: more tax cuts for the very highest earners. When I entered Republican politics, during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions—crime, inflation, the Cold War—right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong.

Two of the big issues I've been hearing about from the Occupy movement are student loan debt and health care. I don't want to reduce the Occupy movements to these issues, but they're important ones and not just because the health care system in America is inadequate, or because students loans as they are now have the potential to be staggeringly burdensome. They're important because the legal and administrative structure of student loan repayment and social health care don't reflect the bureaucratic realities of these systems. In political discourse, the social benefits are discussed in their theoretical, structural implementation. A politician can say, in a sense truthfully, that in Massachusetts we already have socialized health care for the lowest income families and individuals, and that that health care is pretty good; a politician can claim, also in a sense truthfully, that student loans are structured in such a way that repayment should never be burdensome, and that there are repayment plans, forbearances and deferments that allow those with very low incomes to pay nothing on their student loans without going into default.

Theoretically, structurally, both these arguments are correct. Underemployed and unemployed residents of Massachusetts are eligible for MassHealth, and once enrolled in the program, the benefits are quite good. Similarly, forbearances and deferments are available for student loans when the debtor experiences financial hardship, and the income contingent and income based repayment plans have cutoff points— minimum incomes below which the debtor's payments drop to zero while still being considered in repayment. Right now, my family of three (wife and a three-year-old daughter) has an income in the form of student loans and a generous stipend from my graduate program that is considerably less than twenty thousand dollars a year. My health insurance is covered by my school, but my wife and daughter are both on MassHealth. My wife and I are both in “repayment” of our student loans, with monthly payments of zero. We are poster-children for the theoretical success of social health care and generous repayment plans for student loans. Read more