User:Dlaird1

The addition to Wikipedia article on propaganda I added and added again after Robert J. Jensen deleted it exposes how propaganda works. While many if not most Americans may be unaware that we are all delusional (Please see dictionary definition 1), it is is certainly well-known in the therapeutic community.

Mr. Jensen said,  "(drop unsourced speculation with heavy POV and false assumptions (9-11 and abomb were real threats not propaganda inventions)) (undo)"

Mr. Jensen, please identify "false assumptions."

I said no such thing as "propaganda inventions." I said "Fear, for example, either present or created by the propaganda, can be extremely important to our level of susceptibility. The best example here is the terrorism of 9-11, which may have been emphasized for nearly a decade and kept us at a high level of susceptibility for the entire period."

I strongly dislike your false characterization of what I said followed by your deletion of my entire contribution.

If you maintain the illusion that the U.S. did not hype fear related to the 9-11 terrorism for years, I urge you to review your field, history, regarding that hyping. Also, please see Canadian author Daniel Gardner's >The Science of Fear< (2009), "Chapter 11: Terrified of Terrorism," pages 246-288, and sociologist Barry Glassner's >The Culture of Fear< (2009)pages 233-236 "9/11 All the Time" and 236-240 "The Bush Administration's Fear Machine."

By the way, your so-called "abomb" threat from Iraq was based on well known lies about Hussein and his "weapons of mass destruction." If you are, as you seem to be, a strong supporter of Bush-Cheney, I urge you to try to understand first their vast propaganda-based-on-fear program and second, your own level of susceptibility to delusional ideation.

I'll be happy to learn of any of my own specific errors, including delusions, and to respond to any specific statements.

Don Laird


 * Mr. Jensen's objections are well-founded. Your additions to the article were unsourced, and all material in Wikipedia must have citatins to reliable secondary sources or it is subject to challenge and removal (WP:RS). In addition, I, too, sensed a lack of neutrality in your contributions (WP:NPOV). If you continue to add material to Wikipedia that is unsourced and has the appearance of violating neutrality, you may expect it to continue to be removed. And, ultimately, you may expect to lose your editing privileges. --Yaush (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)