1) The first point is to really identify the power elites, and not to be diverted into attacking scapegoats.
2) In corporate neoliberalism, the power elites and the wealth elites (and those dependent on them), are pretty much the same.
3) Neoliberal media, politicians and ideologues usually pretend the elites are not the power elites, but that they are relatively powerless people, such as ‘intellectuals’ or ‘cultural marxists’. For example, in this view, Trump’s family is not an elite, neither are the owners of major corporations, nor the intellectuals who support ‘free market’ neoliberalism, or occupy roles in corporate sponsored think tanks, and help justify the real power elites… A moment’s reflection will show this is misdirection. How many people pay attention to cultural marxists or even know whether they really exist, and what power do such intellectuals have other than persuasion?; they do not command armed police for example, they cannot buy legislation or regulation.
4) For the last forty years, in the US, the Republicans have been dedicated to furthering the success of the wealth and power elites. The part of the party which is not dedicated to completely supporting the power elites is devoted to furthering the power of pro-corporate and authoritarian Christians. In either case, deliberate democracy is not high on the list of priorities, neither is improving general prosperity, other than via ‘trickle down’, which is nearly always the favoured policy of the wealthy elites (aristocratic or corporate).
5) The Republican elites, or supporters of the wealth elites, are no longer conservatives; they are dangerous radicals who wish to strip away all traditional checks, balances and restraints on the corporate sector’s wealth and power. They appear to act as if they wish society to become a monoculture of rulers and ruled.
6) The same is generally true of the Conservative party in the UK and the Coalition in Australia. With the possible exception that the Conservative party still has some conservatives in it.
7) While the Republican elites are 90% pro-corporate, the Democrat/Labor elites are about 60% pro-corporate, but generally agree that most people should not be sacrificed for corporate power. They also tend to think that people should not be suppressed because of their race, gender, sexuality or religion. They are more humanistic pro-corporates. This is not great, but it’s all we have to work with.
8) As nearly all media is owned and controlled by the corporate sector or by billionaire families, it tends to support the corporate establishment. There is no left-wing media in the US, just media that is denounced by the hard line pro-corporate authoritarian media as ‘left’. If some media do not like Trump that does not mean he is upsetting all of the ruling elites, just some of them.
9) There are factions in the corporate elite. There are for example those who are happy that Trump is delivering tax cuts to them, removing regulations that give the people any control over the corporate section, allowing them to poison people, allowing them to despoil the environment, spending heaps of money on the military, destroying public health and so on. There are others who think an impoverished population is dangerous, or who realise that climate change and ecological destruction could be a problem. Neither factor is to be thought of as enough of a problem to challenge corporate power and economics, but they can be recognised as problems. They may also fear war with US trading partners, as if you are not in the arms business then you are likely to lose out. There are also occasional genuine believers in free markets, who notice that Trump is destroying such markets, and they think this will lead to disaster.
10) The main aim of elite propaganda is to get people to either support corporate power, or to ignore corporate power.
11) The best way to achieve this, is to intensify already existing hatreds and discriminations. Thus its good to blame baby boomers for being selfish, black people for being racist and not knowing their place, women for suppressing men and so on. This helps people who’s power has been stripped away, feel that they are better because they are young, white, male or whatever. It gives them an enemy to hate which they can despise, and which is not more powerful than they are. They can pretend Trump is not one of the elite, and is trying to help ordinary people, even though it is clear he is supporting the corporate elite, and stirring hatred, or practicing ‘divide and conquer’. Encouraging these hatreds also tends to separate people from more humanistic, mildly anti-corporate politics. The media can also try to pretend that any anti-corporate movement is treacherous, violent, or authoritarian, even as the movement calls for people to be liberated. They can easily misrepresent the claims of movements and slip them into their preferred patterns of support for the corporate elites, or ignore corporate elites. They can pretend Joe Biden is as bad as Trump, when he might be just a little better. They can pretend recognising climate change and the ill effects of eco-destruction stems from socialist conspiracy. They can even pretend that thinking that humans are not part of the earth, or cannot disrupt ecologies, is radical thinking, when it is another pre-copernican set of of ideas….. However, their main step is simply to ignore ‘left wing’ protests for as long as possible, unless they can be reported as violent, while highlighting right wing protests even if they attract tiny numbers in support. Given that the media is right wing, this is to be expected.
12) That something is a media channel on youtube, does not mean it is not pro-corporate, or corporately sponsored, even if it pretends otherwise. It can claim to be leftish, while spending most of its time ignoring the actions of the right elites or the President, and focus on criticising those challenging that power, or attempting to moderate that power. This is one way of helping to destroy the opposition to corporate power.
13) As many people have argued before, thinking, and information acceptance is social. It is not, completely, about understanding the world, but about gaining an orientation to that world, and the world includes social and group processes, and belonging. Information acceptance can be based in issues of identity – of what other people we identify with, and identify against, both in terms of conflict and culture. If people we value, also value some information we like, or seems essential to our identity, we are more likely to count that information as true. If people we don’t value, value information that we (or our groups) don’t like, the easier it is to dismiss that information as false. In other words, knowledge can function primarily as a marker of identity, and as a way of fitting in to a group. So one way of reinforcing acceptance of information is to intensify social differences, or social contempt, or social fear. This is what the right elites have been trying to do for forty years, it is why their ‘news’ tends to be so angry, rude and dismissive of opposition. It is why they insist that they, and their supporters, are the real folk of the nation. They want to create a situation in which opposed groups just abuse each other, or fear each other, rather than talk. This process now seems entrenched, as the left is now almost as rude and intolerant as the right. The process may no longer be able to be challenged.
14) The main aim is to confuse and fragment ‘the people’ so that they are more easily persuaded that the real problem is somewhere else, or that they are busy fighting someone else, and the corporate elites can keep on with their power grab.
