# data[].attributes.headline
Hitler lied and blamed the Jews for Germanys problems 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hitler lied and blamed the Jews for Germanys problems 

# data[].attributes.body
This artifact is talk or webinar from a website called TedEd Lessons Worth Sharing, ed.ted.com.  It is titled How did Hitler rise to Power?  The speakers are Alex Gendler and Anthony Hazard. This talk is for everyone to be made aware how easy it was for someone to become so powerful in a devastating way.  They wanted to blame someone for the loss of the war.  The economic downfall of Germany after the war, and the many Jews who were still considered outsiders by some became the greatest people to blame for Germany’s current problems.  Conspiracy theories were born out of fear, anger and bigotry were what allowed many to look upon the Jews as being responsible never were there any facts.  Hitler was able to use these feelings to come to power, and create more fear.  His manipulative public speaking.  After 1929 the great depression.  Hitler promised greatness again.  Making the Jews the greatest scapegoat.  Hitlers rise is a warning how fragile democratic intuitions are, when there is someone in power who has no qualms exploiting fears of many and encourages angry crowds.  These speakers are warning the current world how easy is it for someone to lie, exploit and manipulate to gain power and destroy many.
This is what Orwell warned us about because Adolf Hitler used the jews as a way to get to power and used the populations fear. He fed Germany lies about how the Jews were profiting from ww1 and made them seem like evil monsters.
We should be concerned about this because we politicians these days like Donald Trump. He used muslims like Hitler used the Jews. He said that we should ban muslims from coming to our countries, with is taking there rights away. Just like how hitler took the Jews rights away.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There were several key dates in Hitler's political rise to power. First and foremost, the way World War I ended had a huge influence on these events. The German government surrendered without being militarily defeated. This caused a great deal of frustration and anger amongst the German people. Hitler exploited this to the fullest extent, and used it to discredit and criticize the new Weimar Republic that was created thereafter. The Great Depression was another key event in the story of how Hitler was able to rise to political power in Germany. He continued feeding the German people lies of government economic conspiracies, and banking corruption (which he alleged were caused by Jews within the country).

While this lesson focuses on Hitler's rhetoric and exploitation of Germany's fears in his campaign for power, more information on his life before politics can be found here. For more information on his background, childhood, and rise to power, see Hitler's Boyhood and political views.

It is also interesting to consider the international contemporary perspective on Hitler's ascension - see British media perspectives on Hitler's Rise, key events and dates for his ascension to the top of German politics. Also, this BBC video is included for visual learners. This is a documentary that takes people through the reasons why the German people grew to think of Hitler as the savior of the country. Propaganda played a core role in convincing the German people that democracy and freedom was making the country weak and powerless.

For a useful resource for younger learners curious about the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany, please see Nathaniel Harriss 2004 picture book The Rise of Hitler.

For older readers, Henry Ashby Turner Jr.'s book Hitler's Thirty Days to Power: January 1933 book explains how government officials and business leaders made certain behind closed doors that Hitler would become chancellor of Germany. These officials underestimated Hitler, and thought he could be used as a government puppet to increase their own power and further their own agendas.

A number of the sound effects for this video were sourced from Free Sound. Special thanks to: Robinhood76, Cell31_Sound_Productions, unchaz, RT759

Full credits for this video:
Directed by Owen Gent and Hugh Cowling
Produced by Owen Gent and Hugh Cowling
Designed by Owen Gent and Hugh Cowling
Art Directed by Owen Gent and Hugh Cowing
Storyboard Art by Owen Gent and Hugh Cowling
Illustration by Owen Gent
Animated by Hugh Cowling
Edited by Hugh Cowling
Composited by Hugh Cowling
Sound Design by Hugh Cowling
Composed by Hugh Cowling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How did Hitler rise to power? - Alex Gendler and Anthony Hazard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Decades after the fall of the Third Reich, it feels impossible to understand how Adolf Hitler, the tyrant who orchestrated one of the largest genocides in human history, could ever have risen to power in a democratic country. So how did it happen, and could it happen again?

# data[].attributes.body
This artifact is an article from a website called Human Rights Watch, hrw.org. It was also published in Asia Times.  It is titled Killing and Lies: Philippine President Duterte’s ‘War on Drug’ Exposed.  The author is Phelim Kline who is the Deputy Director of Asia Divison.  It was posted on March 9, 2017.  Phelim is talking to those who are interested in the current war on drugs that is occurring in the Philippines.  It is an article that addresses the corruption and the in essence ‘no chance’ any one has to survive the current President lies and corruption.  Even with many witness’s the government is claiming falsities.  It is impossible to stand up to such lies when death is the end result. The police are out of control with their allowed abuse of power.  The continual executions are a human rights massacre. It is clear that the government is turning a blind eye to the killings going on.  They lie and say they are investigating, but it is clear they are not doing such. Instead the President is insisting more violence by giving talks to his officers encouraging them to use more force, that he will look the other way in many of the brutal killings. This article is hoping to show that a international response needs to happen urgently to help those who are being slaughtered under Duterte’s control.
This is what Orwell is warning us about because He has so much power that he is making people "disappear". just like in 1984 how they take Winston to the ministry love.
We should care about this because what the president of the philippines is doing is a violations of human rights, and no one is stoping him. If we continue to get more leaders like this we could eventually live in a society like in 1984.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vigilio Mirano didn't stand a chance. On Sept. 27, 2016, Mirano received a letter from local government officials in the Manila slum where he lived with his wife and two children implicating him as a drug user and ordering him to appear at a "mass surrender" ceremony on Sept. 30.

Hours later, four armed men dressed in black and wearing face masks burst into his home, dragged him into the outside alley and shot him six times in full view of his horrified family. The killers then drove away unimpeded through a nearby police checkpoint. A police report stated that Mirano had drawn a gun on anti-drug police and died in an "exchange of gunfire." Witnesses call that account false.

Mirano is a victim of the "war on drugs" declared by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and which Philippine national police personnel and "unidentified gunmen" have mostly waged in Manila's poorest areas. Duterte's drug-war foot soldiers have been chillingly efficient: the anti-drug campaign's death toll surpassed 7,000 at the end of January when the police stopped issuing weekly updated kill statistics.

Duterte has consistently justified the 2,555 killings acknowledged by the police between July 1, 2016 and Jan. 31, as a legitimate police response to armed suspects who "fought back." Duterte's government has repeatedly dismissed allegations that the police have deployed "death squads" in a campaign of summary killings under the guise of anti-drug operations.

But research by Human Rights Watch into the death of Mirano and 31 other individuals killed since Duterte's election exposes the government's narrative of its drug war as a blatant falsehood. Interviews with witnesses to killings, relatives of victims and analysis of police records expose a damning pattern of unlawful police conduct designed to paint a veneer of legality over summary executions.

While the Philippine national police have publicly sought to distinguish between suspects killed while resisting arrest and killings by "unknown gunmen" or "vigilantes," Human Rights Watch found no such distinction in the cases investigated. In several cases, the police dismissed allegations of involvement and instead classified such killings as "found bodies" or "deaths under investigation" when only hours before the suspects had been in police custody. Such cases call into question government assertions that the majority of killings were carried out by vigilantes or rival drug gangs.

The cases analyzed by Human Rights Watch showed planning and coordination by the police and in some cases local civilian officials. These killings were not carried out by "rogue" officers or by "vigilantes" operating separately from the authorities. Research indicates that police involvement in the killings of drug suspects extends far beyond the officially acknowledged cases of police killings in "buy-bust" operations.

Efforts to get accountability for drug-war deaths have gone nowhere. Philippine national police Director-General Ronaldo Dela Rosa has slammed calls for a thorough and impartial probe of the killings as "legal harassment" and said it "dampens the morale" of police officers. Duterte and some of his key ministers have praised the killings as proof of the "success" of the anti-drug campaign. Duterte and Secretary of Justice Vitaliano Aguirre III have justified the trashing of the rule of law and due legal process for "drug personalities" by questioning the humanity of suspected drug users and drug dealers. On Feb. 24 police arrested the highest profile critic of the drug war, Senator Leila de Lima, on politically motivated drug charges following a relentless government campaign of harassment and intimidation because of her outspoken criticism of Duterte's "war on drugs" and her demands for accountability.

As the death toll rises, even after an official suspension of police anti-drug operations in January following revelations of the brutal killing of a South Korean businessman by alleged anti-drug police, it's clear that the Philippine government has no intention to investigate these unlawful killings.

That's why Human Rights Watch is calling on the United Nations to establish an independent international investigation into the killings. Duterte's repeated calls for anti-drug killings could constitute acts instigating law enforcement to commit murder. His statements encouraging vigilantes could constitute incitement to violence. Duterte, senior officials, and others implicated in unlawful killings could be held liable for crimes against humanity committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population.

The killing of Vigilio Mirano and thousands of other victims of Duterte's drug war calls for an urgent international response. Turning a blind eye to these crimes will merely ensure that such abuses continue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Killing and Lies: Philippine President Duterte's 'War on Drugs' Exposed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vigilio Mirano didn't stand a chance. On Sept. 27, 2016, Mirano received a letter from local government officials in the Manila slum where he lived with his wife and two children implicating him as a drug user and ordering him to appear at a "mass surrender" ceremony on Sept. 30.

# data[].attributes.headline
Orwell is warning us about how governments use surveillance and lying in order to control their citizens and as a result maintain their power.  

# data[].attributes.subject
Orwell is warning us about how governments use surveillance and lying in order to control their citizens and as a result maintain their power.  

# data[].attributes.headline
North Korea's people have been lied too so much they basically live in a different world

# data[].attributes.subject
North Korea's people have been lied too so much they basically live in a different world

# data[].attributes.body
This artifact is an article from a website called the richest.com.  It is titled 10 Most Ridiculous Lies North Koreans Are Made to Believe.  It was created by author Jeneva Rose on January 21, 2015. Jeneva is a writer with experience in writing press releases, entertainment articles, and many articles for the internet.  Jeneva is talking to those who are interested in North Korea in the continual lies that the North Korean’s are led to believe, and to the whole world to be aware of these lies.  Jeneva is hoping to show how propaganda and lies are easily perpetuated amongst the North Koreans by the government, because they are closed off from the rest of the world.  This isolation makes it easier for the government to control and lie to their people. The government controls the people through the fear of execution, exile or concentrations camps.  So the people of North Korea do not question, and continue to believe the lies that others in the world see as obviously ridiculous.
This is what Orwell is warning us about because the North Korean citizens blindly follow Kim Jung Un because of the lies that they tell them. The citizens would believe anything that he says.
We should be very concerned about this because the citizens of North Korea are living in almost the same type of society as 1984. They know a fake history of the country and they will believe anything the government says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
North Korea is a country unlike almost any other country in the world. On the democracy index, which measures the state of democracy, North Korea has a rating of 8 on a scale of 1-100. The country is completely closed off from the rest of the world, both physically and virtually, which allows the 'supreme leaders' of the country to create a world filled with propaganda and lies. North Korea's internet consists of a closed domestic network with only approved North Korean websites and only government officials have access to the world wide web. Although the lies the North Korean government tell are clearly ridiculous to the rest of the world, North Koreans fully believe them because that is all they know. For example, we aren't in the year 2015 right now, but actually in year 103, considering North Koreans are made to believe they should count year 1 as the year Kim Il Sung was born. Even if they may deep down question what they are told, they would never openly question them for fear of public execution, exile or being put into a concentration camp. North Korea's lies border on big government propaganda messages to ridiculous, egotistical tales that amplify the image of the deceased North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il or his son, current leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un. Here are the 10 most ridiculous lies North Koreans are made to believe.

The U.S. Started The Korean War

The Korean War is still to this day, a daily topic of conversation in North Korea and almost everything North Koreans have learned about the war is blatantly incorrect. They're told that the U.S. started the war by occupying South Korea and then attacking the unsuspecting and peaceful country, North Korea. The U.S. then tried to take control of the North, but Kim Il-Sung heroically fought off the Americans and the Americans fell back in defeat. According to North Korean media, Americans continue to occupy South Korea to this day. Presently, North Koreans are constantly told that the U.S. is preparing to attack them and the press is constantly depicting South Korea as a suffering and American-occupied country that will shoot any North Koreans attempting to cross the border.

Kim Jong-Il Had A Supernatural Birth

Based on Kim Jong-Il's official biography, he was born on Korea's most sacred mountain, Mt. Baekdu, inside a secret military camp during North Korea's Japanese Occupation. At the exact moment of his birth, a new star formed and lit up the sky, the seasons suddenly changed from winter to spring, and a double rainbow appeared. However, this contradicts Soviet records, which reveal a truth that is much more mundane - according to their records, Kim was actually born in 1941, in the Siberian village of Vyatskoye.

Kim Jong-il Is A Fashion Icon

In 2010, based on North Korean media, Kim Jong-Il's iconic style was a global phenomenon that swept the world by storm. The inspired look of his trademark zip-up khaki tunic with matching pants spread from country to country, and quickly became the most popular men's fashion trend in the world. His trendsetting style was a clear tribute to his exceptional image as a great man and his powerful influence over the rest of the world. Unfortunately for Kim Jong-Il and fortunately for the world of fashion, this was not even remotely true.

Kim Jong-Il Is Loved And North Korea Is Envied All Over The World

According to state-run media, Kim Jong-Il was one of the most important and loved leaders in the world. People in countries all around the world celebrate Kim Jong-Il's day of birth with films and festivals. Additionally, North Korea is the envy of the world, because they have the highest quality of life. In reality, most nations question North Korean policies and Kim Jong-Il was charged with crimes against humanity in the 1990's, specifically for creating and prolonging famine in North Korea. Additionally, North Korea is an extremely impoverished country with over half of the population living without electricity, running water or enough food.

Kim Jong-Il Invented The Hamburger

American influences had long since been banned in the small communist country and North Koreans had no idea what the rest of the world was actually like. These facts allowed Kim-Jong-Il to be able to create Western food and take credit for the invention. Minju Joson, the North Korean newspaper, stated that Kim Jong-Il invented a brand new sandwich and named it, "double bread with meat" as a way to supply 'quality' food to University teachers and students. Kim then built a plant, used for mass hamburger production. According to North Koreans, Kim Jong-Il is the true inventor of the hamburger.

Kim Jong-Il Is The Best Natural Golfer & Bowler In The World

As stated by the North Korean media, in 1994, Kim Jong-Il shot a round of golf that was record breaking, 38 under par on a regulation 18-hole golf course. Additionally, five of those shots were a hole-in-one and that was his first time playing the sport. Wow, incredible! His score was 25 shots better than the best round of golf in all of history. Golf wasn't his only talent, though, North Korean media also stated that the first time Kim Jong-Il bowled, he scored a perfect 300! No other media organizations reported these news stories, however...

Kim Jong-Il Is Magical

Kim Jong-Il was reportedly a magical or supernatural or some other-worldly person. His official biography states that he did not use a toilet, because he did not need to - meaning he did not defecate or urinate. As insane and unbelievable as that sounds, it is a widely known 'fact' in North Korea. The lie was told to make Kim Jong-Il appear more "God-like". Now, if a man that did not go to the bathroom wasn't godly enough for you, Kim Jon-Il also claimed to be able to control the weather based on the mood he was feeling.

Kim Jong-Il Cured Dwarfism

In 1989, North Korea held an event known as the World Festival of Youth and Students. Astonishingly, Kim Jong-Il discovered a miracle drug that cured "shortness" and handed out pamphlets to recruit short North Koreans to receive treatment prior to the event. However, the dwarfism drug turned out to be a healing dose of deportation. All of the short people that showed up for treatment were rounded up and deported to uninhabited islands, so their defective short genes would no longer infect the population. Sadly, at least 1/3 of North Koreans are stunted due to malnourishment and in a predictable twist of irony, Kim Jong-Il was only 5'3″.

Kim Jong-Il Was Extraordinarily Gifted

According to 'official' North Korean records, Kim Jong-Il was extraordinarily gifted - as he learned to walk at the age of three weeks, and was able to talk a few short weeks later, at eight weeks. While attending Sung University, Kim Jong-Il wrote 1,500 books over a period of three years (more than one book a day) and six full-length operas. His official biography notes that all of his operas are "better than any in the history of music." Between his sports skills and writing skills, Kim Jon-Il was one of the most talented men to ever live.

Internet Access Is Not Allowed To Protect The West

As stated earlier, no North Korean people have access to the Internet, except for government officials. For a country that's been built on propaganda and lies, the most logical reason for this internet ban is to keep the North Koreans in the dark about life outside of the communist country. However, North Koreans are made to believe that the reason that they don't have access to the internet is because government officials would like to protect the West's reputation. They don't want to expose the people of North Korea to the filth and hate that is on the internet and they feel that their people would see things that would make them unfairly critical towards the West.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Most Ridiculous Lies North Koreans Are Made To Believe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
North Korea is a country unlike almost any other country in the world. On the democracy index, which measures the state of democracy, North Korea has a rating of 8 on a scale of 1-100.

# data[].attributes.headline
Russia Lying to the world to make them look innocent.

# data[].attributes.subject
Russia Lying to the world to make them look innocent.

# data[].attributes.body
This artifact is an article from a website called littleatoms.com. It is titled Why does the Kremlin lie?  It was created by author Natalia Antonova.  She is a journalist who writes for many sites.  She was also the last editor of The Moscow News before it was shut down. This was written in the summer of 2016.  Natalia is talking to the world public as well as the Russian and Ukrainian public.  She is trying to open the eyes of the communities to understand the history and the reasons why Russian’s government has and are still lying.  She is bringing to the attention of those who are reading how prevalent and well adapted the Russian government is with lying.  They have no qualms with deception throughout history.  To be weak in Russia is the ultimate sin.  To be strong even it means portraying yourself through lies to be strong is looked upon a better.

Orwell warned us about politicians lying. Russia lied and said that they had no involvement with Ukraine. That was clearly a lie, and Russia got away with it.
We should care about this because if no one does anything about these things then soon all governments could just go around lying to everyone for there own personal gain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The legacies of czarism and Stalin have led to a culture of dishonesty and zero accountability in Russian politics

"How do you know when a politician is lying? When his lips are moving." Whether it's through lies or obfuscation, diplomatic double-speak or straight up cover-up, governments the world over enjoy a complex relationship with truth. Yet there is something particularly dazzling about how the way the Russian government chooses to lie - whether to its own people, or to those abroad.

What's truly special about the lies of Russian officials, what sets them apart from the rest, is both their audacity and the lack of criticism they inspire at home.

There have been some outrageous examples in recent years, but my two favourites are officials' denials about Russia's involvement in an armed conflict in east Ukraine and the way in which Russia is dealing with a current sports doping scandal.

Who can forget Russian President Vladimir Putin's "I believe they got lost" when referring to active Russian servicemen detained on Ukrainian territory in the summer of 2014? It was hard to see the point when what is coming out of one's mouth is so unbelievable as to be actually comic.

And that was just the tip of the iceberg as far as obfuscation on the Ukraine crisis goes. From hysterical news media reports about Ukrainian troops "crucifying children" to an entire network of fake sites used by state media outlets to claim, for example, that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko got drunk and tried to fly to see Putin, lying about Ukraine, or any issue pertaining to Ukraine, is practically a sport.

Speaking of sport - Russia is currently in the middle of the largest doping scandal in its history. Officials started off by calling the doping allegations a "political hit-job," before realizing the full scope of the World Anti-Doping Agency's report, which includes such gems as direct allegations of security service officials personally compromising anti-doping efforts in the country.

When it became clear that denials would not work, Russian sports minister Vitaly Mutko relied on whataboutery, pointing out that doping is a global problem, not just Russia's problem.

Whataboutery, of course, is the resort of an official who sees that at outright lie simply won't work.

Never apologise, never explain

Russia's troubled history is one of the greatest weapons in the whataboutist's arsenal. By pointing out wars and famines, the Mongol Invasion, the bloody history of the monarchy and its equally bloody end, not to mention the horrorshow that was the first half of the 20th century, whataboutists can excuse all manner of problems, be they Russia's rigid political system or underdeveloped civil society.

Yet just because Russia's history is often used in this manner, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a closer look.

Throughout the centuries, the Russian government in all of its incarnations - be it Imperial, or Soviet, or the modern government of the Russian Federation - has lacked any oversight or genuine counterweight.

Oversight implies accountability. Accountability, in turn, is a sign of "weakness." And no Russian leader can afford to look even slightly weak.

A leader perceived as weak, be it the doomed Nicholas II, or someone like Mikhail Gorbachev, derided for his reforms, i.e. for being soft and refusing to hold the Soviet Union together by force, or else Boris Yeltsin, seen by the majority of Russians as a buffoon who kowtowed to foreign interests, is going to end up as wildly unpopular.

Both foreign observers and local ideologues frequently cast the Russian people as wild and unruly, desperately in need of a "strong hand." This view of Russians as savages has served as a self-fulfilling prophecy - people who must be so firmly are denied any genuine responsibilities, and lack of responsibility in turn ensures chaos.

Meanwhile, Russia's enormous size makes it especially hard to establish an effective system of governance. Moscow is the seat of the Russian government, but in places like Siberia or the Far East, it may as well be on the moon.

Russia's population is diverse. What is perceived to work in Chechnya won't fly in Tatarstan. Expectations for officials in Udmurtia are different for those in Krasnodar. Even Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia's two biggest cities, both situated in the European part of Russia, are ultimately different, even clashing worlds (and indeed Putin, a native of St. Petersburg, started his own Moscow career as a kind of Petersburgian "political outsider")

The Russian saying "I'm the boss, you're the idiot" is frequently used to criticise a top-down business culture, but the truth is, it is equally applicable to Russia's political culture.

Security syndrome

Today, the majority of Russians believe that systemic obfuscation goes all the way up to the office of the president. According to a poll from August 2015, as conducted by the respected Levada Center, 56 per cent of Russians believe that the people surrounding Putin are not truthful with him when it comes to what is happening in the country.

These numbers, in turn, make Putin's astronomically high rating - in October 2015, it was nearly 90 per cent, and that's amidst economic uncertainty and the devaluation of the ruble - appear to make a lot of sense. All of the problems in the country are laid at the feet of the people surrounding the president - not the president personally.

Eager-to-please Russian officials and the state-controlled media reinforce this narrative of the benevolent czar who must rule over a bunch of bad boyars.

Of course, polls are not necessarily 100 per cent effective in determining the mood in Russia. As Levada's own researchers will frequently tell you, Russians are very good at saying what they think the government wants to hear.

This is the other crucial aspect of the culture of obfuscation in Russia - borne out of the aftermath of the 20th century's repressions and Terror. Russia has sublimated its Stalinist past, when lies and denouncements were the norm, rather than dealt with it head on. Most visible Russian officials, including the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, are careful to not criticise Joseph Stalin too much, while a third of the regular people have a positive view of the man, according to this year's polls.

And it is the legacy of Stalin, combined with so-called Gulag culture, when, as another popular Russian saying goes, "Half the country was imprisoned, the other half was guarding the prisoners," that contribute to Russia's current security syndrome, where information is dispensed strictly on a need-to-know basis, and lies are considered a perfectly legitimate means of attaining any number of political goals.

Besides Stalin, critics place a lot of the blame for Russia's KGB-style treatment of information at the feet of Putin himself. Obviously, a former security official is going to hold true to the culture of obfuscation - and justify it.

That's the reason why Putin can get away with first claiming that there were no Russian troops in Crimea when it was annexed, then going on to blithely stating that the troops were indeed present. For as long as the lying is accompanied by a geopolitical victory - or seeming victory - it is presented as perfectly normal.

Putin's parallel universe

State propaganda also plays a key part in legitimising dishonesty. In fact, it legitimises it so much that dishonesty becomes a kind of closed loop.

First the government sets out an agenda that deems that news should be "spun" a certain way, and that dissenting voices are unwelcome in mainstream media. Then the mainstream media becomes so uniform, so monolithic in both its style of reporting and the topics it choose to highlight (and omit), that disinformation rises through the highest echelons of government, turning the misinformers into the misinformed.

When Russia moved to annex Crimea in March of 2014, for example, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had a phone conversation with Putin after which she characterised the man as being "in another world".

Putin was living in his own bubble. No counter-opinions were getting through. The system that Putin had presided over for over a decade at that point had evolved to filter out facts that were inconvenient.

This is why Russian officials are bewildered and even hurt when they face any kind of grilling abroad. The last decade in Russia has re-cast genuine dissent and debate as not just damaging, but distasteful and dishonest.

While most prominent western officials expect a fair degree of scrutiny and criticism - whether done in good faith or not - Russian officials of a similar rank are baffled and incensed by it. For them, being asked tough questions is a sign that there is a plot against them.

This is why the pro-Kremlin press gets away with casting every single vocal Kremlin critic as a turncoat and sell-out to Western officials - the thought of anyone having genuine grievances, let alone inconvenient truths, to share with the powers that be is seen as simply preposterous.

This trend began with the infamous "oligarch wars" of the 1990s, wherein news reporting became a handy tool for settling scores between powerful people, and grew to be a kind of unofficial policy as Putin consolidated power. At this point, it can well be said to be out of control, a genie that nobody in the Kremlin can stuff back into its bottle.

Of course, the truth can indeed make one vulnerable, especially if it's an embarrassing one. But obfuscation only works as a short-term solution to various problems.

Not only does it ultimately disorient the very officials who are meant to control it, it also inevitably erodes the state's moral authority.

In a multi-party system, where power is shared and politicians come and go, lies and accompanying scandals don't cast nearly as much shadow on the government as a whole.

But in a system like Russia's, lies can have a cumulative destabilising effect.

Putin has the trust of the majority of Russians. But the rest of the government simply does not enjoy such support. In fact, it could very well be argued that any potential mistrust of Putin is, at this point, being displaced onto everyone else in government.

An entire modern state riding on the moral authority of one man is ultimately vulnerable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why does the Kremlin lie? | Little Atoms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"How do you know when a politician is lying? When his lips are moving." Whether it's through lies or obfuscation, diplomatic double-speak or straight up cover-up, governments the world over enjoy a complex relationship with truth. Yet there is something particularly dazzling about how the way the Russian government chooses to lie - whether to its own people, or to those abroad.

# data[].attributes.body
This artifact is an article from a website called cnn.com.  It is titled Of course presidents lie. By John Blake a writer and producer for CNN, this was written on November 24, 2013. All presidents lie. This article is written for the American public, as well as anyone who is interested in government, lies and how deception is helpful.  When it comes to lies, it is the question of if the lies are criminal lies that are said to cover a crime, to protect the president political future, or is it a lie that is said to protect the public. The American public are forgiving of lies as long as it puts the people first and delivers benefits. When lies hurt the Americans such a causing death than the lie will not be forgiven.  If the American people hear a lie that they realize is for the president to protect himself politically it is more often times forgiven as long as no consequences affect the American people. If the lie is criminal such as in President Nixon’s case, it is not forgiven. It appears that many Americans want a president that is willing to be compassionate, strong, cunning, and even deceitful if they are protecting them.  President Carter is considered one of the most noble presidents, and yet he is not remembered as a great president.
This is what Orwell is warning us about because these presidents lied to get to power. Just like in 1984 how the leaders lie and change the history to make them look better.
We should be worried about this because if we do not do anything about are presidents lying to us to get power our society can turn into the society in 1984 where politicians hold all the power and can do whatever they want.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
That's the signature line from a classic American story. When the nation's first president was asked as a boy if he had chopped down his father's cherry tree, he didn't say "I can neither confirm nor deny those reports," or "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

George Washington told the truth even if it got him in trouble. The moral of the story -- Washington was a great leader because he would not lie, and all presidents should be as honest as our founding father.

Well, guess what? That story about Washington and the cherry tree is a lie. Never happened. And the notion that a good president doesn't lie to the American people -- that's an illusion as well. Historians say many of our greatest presidents were the biggest liars -- and duplicity was part of their greatness.

"Every president has not only lied at some time, but needs to lie to be effective," says Ed Uravic, a former Washington lobbyist, congressional chief of staff and author of "Lying Cheating Scum."

Presidential lying is a hot topic because of a promise made by President Obama. While promoting Obamacare, Obama told Americans that they could keep their health insurance if they wanted to. That turned out to not be true for some, and Obama has been accused of lying.

Some political pundits warn that Obama's "lie" will undo his second term. They say Americans won't forgive a president who violates their trust. It's a good sound-bite, but it's bad history. A great leader must "be a great pretender and dissembler," Machiavelli said in "The Prince." And so should a president, some historians say.

You might say lying is the verbal lubricant that keeps the Oval Office engine running. Some of our most popular presidents told the biggest whoppers, say historians, including Benjamin Ginsberg, author of "The American Lie: Government by the People and other Political Fables."

While preparing the country for World War II, Franklin Roosevelt told Americans in 1940 that "your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

President John F. Kennedy declared in 1961 that "I have previously stated, and I repeat now, that the United States plans no military intervention in Cuba." All the while, he was planning an invasion of Cuba.

Ronald Reagan told Americans in 1986, "We did not, I repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else [to Iran] for hostages, nor will we," four months before admitting that the U.S. had actually done what he had denied.

Even "Honest Abe," whose majestic "Gettysburg Address" the nation commemorated this week, was a skillful liar, says Meg Mott, a professor of political theory at Marlboro College in Vermont.

Lincoln lied about whether he was negotiating with the South to end the war. That deception was given extended treatment in "Steven Spielberg" recent film "Lincoln." He also lied about where he stood on slavery. He told the American public and political allies that he didn't believe in political equality for slaves because he didn't want to get too far ahead of public opinion, Mott says.

"He had to be devious with the electorate," Mott says. "He played slave-holders against abolitionists. He had to lie to get people to follow him. Lincoln is a great Machiavellian."
Forgivable vs. unforgivable lies
Presidential lies fall into two categories: forgivable vs. unforgiveable.

Forgivable lies are those meant to keep the nation from harm. Some consider the National Security Agency's lies about the scope of domestic spying to be in this category because they protect us from terrorists, says Uravic, author of "Lying, Cheating Scum."

Unforgivable lies fall into the Nixonian "I am not a crook" category, Uravic says.

Those are lies meant to cover up crimes, incompetence or protect a president's political future. President Lyndon Johnson, for example, kept the full cost of spending on the Vietnam War from Congress and the public to preserve his political power, Uravic says.

"The American people remain forgiving of their politicians, as long as those politicians put the people first and deliver tangible benefits for all of us," says Uravic, who also teaches at the Harrisburg University of Science and Technology in Pennsylvania.

The ultimate test of whether the American public will accept a lie from a president is if the nation determines that the lie serves the national interests.

That distinction is why Bill Clinton remains popular, and George W. Bush remains reviled for his "lie," says Allan Cooper, a political scientist and historian at Otterbein University in Ohio.

In a nationally televised address in 2003, Bush said that invading Iraq was necessary "to eliminate weapons of mass destruction."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," Bush said.

Clinton told the nation that he did "not have sexual relations with that woman."

"Clinton's lies about a sexual affair were understandable given his interest to protect his marriage and to shield the nation's children from having to ask their parents to explain the phenomenon of oral sex," Cooper says. "Bush's lies led to the death and injuries of thousands of Americans."

Obama's statement will be judged by the same standard: Did it help the country, or did he say it just to save his bacon?

Obama apologized for saying people could keep their insurance if they like it. But some Americans who buy policies on the private market recently received cancellation notices because their plans don't meet Obamacare requirements for more comprehensive care.

Americans may forgive Obama if Obamacare improves their lives, says Christopher J. Galdieri, who teaches a course on the U.S. presidency at Saint Anslem College in New Hampshire.

"Ultimately, this is going to come down to whether the federal [health care] exchange improves, and whether people come to view that as a successful and viable option for buying insurance for themselves and their families," Galdieri says.

Will George W. Bush's reputation ever recover from the accusation that he led the nation into war under false pretenses? It's hard to say from history.

Several presidents were accused of deceiving the American public to sell military action, says David Contosta, a history professor at Chestnut Hill College in Pennsylvania.

President James Polk lied to Congress in 1846 -- claiming Mexico had invaded the United States -- because he was determined to take the Southwest from Mexico. That lie led to the Mexican-American War, Contosta says.

President William McKinley lied to the American public in 1898 when he insisted that Spain had blown up the USS Maine warship in Havana Harbor, Cuba, although he had no evidence. That lie led to the Spanish-American war.

One popular president got caught telling a lie about a failed military action but his popularity remains intact.

"President Dwight Eisenhower denied that the United States was flying U-2 spy planes over the Soviet Union, until the Soviets shot down one of the planes, capturing the pilot, and he was forced to admit the truth," Contosta says.

Some presidents were so deceitful that they even lied to their friends.

Franklin Roosevelt was such a president. Roosevelt led the nation out of the Great Depression and through World War II. But even his allies couldn't bank on honesty.

Roosevelt told three different men that he wanted them to be his next vice president during the Democratic national convention in 1944. Then he picked a fourth man, Harry Truman, for the office, says David Barrett, a political science professor at Villanova University in Pennsylvania.

"He did it with such skill that all three men were completely convinced that Roosevelt was behind him."
Why we need a president who lies
Roosevelt's deceitfulness hasn't stopped historians from widely picking him as one of nation's three greatest presidents, along with Lincoln and Washington. Perhaps they and ordinary Americans forgive presidents who lie because there's something in human nature that believes a leader needs to be cunning.

Sure, we tell our children about Washington cutting down the cherry tree. The 19th century writer Parson Mason Weems inserted that fable into his 1800 biography "A Life of Washington."

But then we close the children's book and turn on the TV to admire the lethal duplicity of a leader like the mafia patriarch Vito Corleone in the classic 1972 film "The Godfather."

We want our presidents to have a little gangster in them. It's the presidential paradox that scholars Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese talked about in their recent book, "The Paradoxes of the American Presidency."

"We want a decent, just, caring, and compassionate president, yet we admire a cunning, guileful and, on occasions that warrant it, even a ruthless, manipulative president."

The most sublime execution of presidential deception comes when a president discovers that he doesn't have to lie to deceive. Why lie when a simple misimpression will do, says James Hoopes, an ethics in business professor at Babson College in Massachusetts.

These presidents learn from Machiavelli, who said that the Prince must be a "fox and lion" -- a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify enemies who would trap him, Hoopes says.

President Andrew Jackson foxily campaigned on a lie insisting that he was for a "judicious tariff" which to Southern ears in the 1828 presidential election meant a low tariff. After Jackson was elected, though, Congress passed a high tariff that prompted outraged Southern leaders to talk about nullification and secession, Hoopes says.

The fox then became the lion, Hoopes says of Jackson.

"Like the lion he was, Jackson faced down the challenge with threats of force, threats that had the ring of truth, coming from a former general who summarily executed enemy civilians and hanged mutinous soldiers under his command," Hoopes says.

If you still think you want a leader who is always honest, consider the fate of one recent president.

He vowed during his presidential campaign that "I will never tell a lie to the American people." He wore a sweater during a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office because he had turned down the White House thermostat to conserve energy. He brought peace to the Middle East and even taught Sunday school.

He was also swept out of the Oval Office after one term.

"The country fell apart," Mott says of this president's time in office. "He was too noble, too pure. He didn't know how to play people against one another. He should have read his Machiavelli."

That president was Jimmy Carter. He won the Nobel Peace Prize after leaving office, and he's been widely praised for his humanitarian efforts around the globe. He still builds homes for the poor around the world.

No one ever labeled Carter a liar while he was in office.

But then hardly anyone calls him a great president today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
of course presidents lie - cnnpolitics.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
That's the signature line from a classic American story. When the nation's first president was asked as a boy if he had chopped down his father's cherry tree, he didn't say "I can neither confirm nor deny those reports," or "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."