--------------------------------------------------- POLITICAL and SOCIAL PROPAGANDA "The brainwashing of a society" by, Alan Hoffman (a.k.a. "-Q-") 1 April 1997 [revision 1]
ddca3f678211f2c19bc5e1b311bd98c57990af0cc318ae592057987884217053
---------------------------------------------------
POLITICAL and SOCIAL PROPAGANDA
"The brainwashing of a society"
by, Alan Hoffman (a.k.a. "-Q-")
1 April 1997 [revision 1]
---------------------------------------------------
FOREWORD:
The authors goal in writing this article is to provoke thought on the
subject of propaganda. Influencing the reader is not my intent; however
I believe firmly that reading and understanding the contents within will
be a benefit to all concerned.
I will take an unbiased approach (if that is even possible) in dealing
with a subject, which by its very nature is completely biased to a
particular line of thinking.
More than anything else, the authors intention is to empower the reader
with the ability to think independently. In order to form ones own thoughts
one must first readily be able to identify any and all outside influences
of thought which one encounters. This being an almost impossible task by
the very nature that we are human and are illogical beings who do not
do a whole lot of fact-checking to verify every single piece of data which
we encounter in our life. On the contrary we are passive creatures who
readily accept any thoughts and facts which we are fed, and we consume
those facts and form opinions based on potentially eroneous information.
Furthermore, most of us (who are true to reality) do not even 'care' that
we have been lied to or fed false information. We still cling to our
beliefs even when they are based on a partial or total lie. Once a
belief gets in your head, nothing can erase it (except your own willingness
to set right, a wrong; something most of us are incapable of), and ceartainly
knowing that your being lied to by a propagandist wont make any difference;
because your beliefs are your beliefs. The author will not tell you that
you should NOT have 'faith' in a system of beliefs, but rather I tell you
that you should never have what is known as "blind faith". Your faith in
beliefs should be based on facts, and ideals which are truly your own.
Most importantly, you should be able to seperate your own opinions which
you hold true, as opposed to anothers opinions. Do not become so influenced
by what another person has to say, otherwise you will fall into the same
"evil trap" that has befallen billions of other humans. In short by being
influenced by others you are the victim of propaganda and your mind is
being "used" by that person for their own purposes (do you really think
that, 'THEY' care about you? NO!. They are just "using" your body and mind
for their political cause!) Thats not to say that you should not believe
in a cause; its simply stating that you MUST NOT be readily influenced and
you must seperate your own thoughts from the thoughts of somebody else.
As a last clarification, what I am saying is that you should believe in
a "cause", but do not hold blind devotion to any "system", "organization"
"group", "government", "religion", "cult", "political group", etc...
When one is brainwashed, the line becomes very blurry and one starts to
have an alliegence not so much for 'the cause' or 'belief', but the
alliegance is more to "the group". When that happens, you have succumbed
to the herd mentality and you are what is often referred to as a "sheep".
Lastly, the reader will observe that I will define many terms herein.
I do this not because the reader is an illiterate fool, but because
by the very nature of this article I must be precise and the reader
must comprehend -100 percent- the topic being dealt with. Propaganda
is so sucessfull because of its 'vagueness' and lack of clarity, and
only by coming to a clear unbiased understanding can we fully
understand the potential and effect which propaganda has on all of our
lives.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CONTENTS:
What is Propaganda ?
What is Brainwashing ?
Who is most succeptible ?
Is Propaganda a benefit to society ?
What is the authors opinion ?
What "should" the reader believe ?
What is a "Leader" ?
What is a "Follower" ?
What is a "Propagandist" ?
What is a "Pragmatist" ?
What is a Hypocrite ?
What is a Paranoid ?
How is all of society propagandized ?
How are Americans propagandized ?
How are 'foreigners' propagandized ?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
============================================================
PROPAGANDA AND SOCIETY:
============================================================
** What is Propaganda ?
Propaganda(ize)- (n) (1) A systematic effort to persuade a body of
people to support or adpot a particular opinion, attitude or
course of action. (2) Any selection of facts, ideas, or
allegations which form the basis of persuaion efforts.
(3) An institution or scheme for instituting a doctrine or
system. (4) [The historial meaning referred to a society
of cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church whos purpose was
to oversee foreign missions and persuade the masses to swicth
to the Catholic religion. The term was adapted to todays meaning
which refers to any form of persuasion.]
Many persons disagree on the exact meaning of propaganda, however, I tend
to think the wise person would accept this term at face value with the
realization that it is not nor should not have any specific meaning. It is
a broad term used to describe any attempt to persuade others. To narrow
the term down would be very biased and discriminatory and not based in
reality.
Some persons would say that propaganda does not include teachings, others
would say it does not include advertising, others who are more audacious
liars might even try to make you believe that religion is not propagandistic
because their is no immorality in spreading the "holy word". Yet others
realize that propaganda can mean virtually anything you want it to, by
its literal meaning. Especially when dealing with "slanted communications"
which are biased and based on a set of half-truths or outright lies, or
is in general considered to be one-sided issues.
Another line of thought entails examining the methods of persuasion
wheras all topics can be considered propaganda, even legitimate "teaching"
if it is done using 'underhanded' means. But I dont like that definition
myself either because it is yet another attempt at discrimination wheras
some people try to justify their acts and claim that their trying to
persuade people but their doing it "legitimately". Who is to say what is
a legitimate tactic and what isnt?
Anyone who has any basis in reality of what truth is, should accept all
communications as propaganda on a blanket basis. This includes even
legitimate "teachings" of science or math (and ceartainly "history").
Lest not forget that at one time in history, the scholars insisted the
world was flat and when Copernicus insisted the earth was round and that
the universe did not revolve around the earth, he was labled a disident
heretic. So even so-called scientific facts and teachings can be
manipulated to suit peoples own personal agenda.
The general concensus is that propaganda works in a number of ways.
Without getting into a dissertation, the primary 3 factors are:
(1) The "victims" (either willing or unwilling) achieve a sense of
euphoria. Many people feel that a "cause" gives them a sense
of self-worth, or a purpose in life. Others feel it provides then
with a goal to achieve. Others feel stimulated by the intellectual
gain of learning about political or social issues. Another
major factor is that it provides a sense of "belonging" to a group
whether it may be an actual group of people that meet or simply
a "system" of unorganized person all who believe in a common cause.
The latter may be the most dangeorus and influential factor to
some people. Some are very succeptible to group pressures and feel a
need to belong to some group. This is due to deep rooted psychological
problems if you will allow me to phrase it that way.
(2) The members of the masses who are being propagandized are instilled
with a sense of empowerment. At the urging of the propagandist or
others, or even oneself, a person may plan and carry out a course of
action to achieve a political or social goal. This in turn may be
interelated to the aforementined feeling of euphoria which one
gets when achieves goal and accomplished something. This is a perpetual
psycholgical cycle which feeds the propaganda machine.
(3) The members of masses are often instilled with a feeling of
righteousness, purity, pride, patriotism, or otherwise the
deed is considered morally proper. The people are fed the false
feeling that they are on a higher plane and are better than others.
One might argue that indeed a particular group can be superior
to another.
At first glance the typical hypocritical individuals as always
would say "no one is better than anyone else no matter what their
beliefs". And then you slap these self righteous son of
a bitch hypocrites in the face with reality by asking them "are
you a better person than a serial-rapist and murderer?", they reply
"Yes, I ceartainly am", and you have thusly proved how stupid (or
better phrased, the lack of ability to think a question through)
most people (including many of you readers may be). Everyone thinks
their better than the rest, and that may indeed be so, but the real
issue is that no one wants to admit their true feelings because they
would feel arrogant to admit (out loud) that their better people
than another group of individuals.
I have just insulted perhaps alot of people because I know a great
many of you would ceartainly fall into my little trap line of
questioning above. The point is, I will not judge you because you
think you are better than somebody else. I mean, what a damned stupid
reason to judge another. You should judge another because of their
actions and the way they live their lives, not because somebody is
"arrogant" and thinks their "better" or more "morally pure". What
business is it of yours or mine if somebody else thinks they are
superior). The real question is. Are you another stinking hypocrite?
If you are, then this whole article wont make much sense to you
because it is the mass of the worlds hypocrites who are so easily
exploited by propagandists. It is so easy to make all the worlds
hypocritical fools, think that they are "better" than somebody
else.
I will admire an outright racist NAZI or KKK member who proclaims
to the world that he hates all niggers and thinks that they are all
"monkeys" before I will admire your average person whos is nothing but
a deceitfull individual who is too afraid to admit (even to themselves)
what they really think. I especially hate religious individuals as
I think their the biggest bunch of hypocritical phonies in the whole
damned world who rarely say out loud what they really think.
Example: Some religious people are obsessed with the pro-life
issue, yet these same people probably have no problems
wearing leather coats, slaughtering animals and eating
cow-pies at McDonalds, no compunction to kill a pesky bug and
ceartainly they always always want to "fry" the convicts. If
you ask me sounds like these phonies dont have a clue what it
is to be a true hard-line pro-lifer where all life is held
sacred (as it is in many Asian religous orders).
Another example of the wonderfull "purity" and
"moral righteousness" of religious folks. How many of
them hate homosexuality (and homosexuals themselves)?
How many of them might even be racists? How many of them
insist that Jesus was "white" even though the Bible itself
clearly describes jesus as a dark skinned (copper colored)
person?
How many millions, excuse make that BILLIONS of dollars
has the Catholic church ammassed?
How many tens of millions have televangelists stole from
TV viewers. And where the hell does this wonderfull
money of righteousness go? It all gets embezzled by
those disguisting religious huxsters. I know sure as hell
the Catholic church with several billion in assets hasnt done
anything for the people as a whole lately, who have they
fed? How many homeless shelters could those billions of
dollars buy? How many bowls of soup could 10 Billion buy?
Where does that money go? I'll tell you where it goes.
It goes to buy more churches and more property. Not little
churches, but grande 10 milliion dollar churches set on
a 20 acre campus with sprawling green meadows and 20
different buildings. All to increase the image of the
church and to "pamper" the so-called workers of god in
lavish surroundings. And where else does all that money
go? To build yet more churches, to brainwash more people
unwittingly, and even more importantly to perpetuate
the earning of even more money for the Catholic Church.
I am now done with my rambling dicourse on religion. You can feel free
to ignore my comments if you like and lets get back to propaganda which
is the subject of this article.
=========================
HOW DOES PROPAGANDA WORK?
=========================
(1) Targeting and Gaining and Audience
(2) Gaining Trust
(3) Simplicity
(4) Repetition
(5) Symbology and Imagery
(6) Manipulation of Facts
(7) Opression
(8) Villainization
** Targeting and Gaining and Audience- This is perhaps the easiest of all
the tasks which a propagandist must face. Utilizing every known form
of mass media amd micromedia forms the basis of targeting and gaining
an audience. However, oftentimes the audience will seek out the
propagandist. In fact this is more often the case than the reciprocal.
Most people who are politically active, seek out organizations which
have ideals similar to their own. This makes the work of the
propagandist extremely easy. Almost effortless! All one has to do
is subscribe to a magazine, journal or newsletter and one will be
bombarded with all the propaganda (or political teachings if you
prefer) that one can want. Also many political groups are disguised
as "public awareness groups". At a glance they appear to be so-called
unbiased sources of information, however more often than not, these
are on occasion the greatest propagandists of all. They do their work in
a very covert manner. They pretend to be unbiased, yet the creators
of those organizations, I can assure you, definately have their own
agenda, and you can be sure their goal is to make you believe in their
cause. This is in opposition to the more overt propaganda groups.
Obviously if one seeks out the "Aryan Nation Newsletter" or
"Urban Terrorist" or "The GreenPeace Guerrilla Warfare Newsletter",
these groups are obviously trying to propagandize you. Oftentimes
they do so in a very viscious manner, but at least you know where
overt propagandists like this stand. You know their trying to make
you think like they do, because thats the whole reason you bought the
manual or joined the organization.
And today, its even easier with the INTERNET. This is truly
revolutionary, even though the INTERNET itself is old. It was quite
a task in the past to have to seek out radical political magazines
or organizations and then pay the necessary dues to get the information
or join the group. But now with the INTERNET, you can seek out these
groups almost effortlessly, PLUS their information is completely free
for you to enjoy, sit back, read and prepare to be propagandized with
their line of horsehockey. You can spend dozens of hours on-line,
hundreds of hours just feeding your own brain, essentially propagandizing
and brainwashing yourself! With the Internet, these groups need not
shove their ethics down your throat anymore, now you can come right to
them and do it for them.
** Gaining Trust is the secondmost task of the propagandist. People must
trust and believe in the cause. The propagandist must usually be
likeable, he must be well-mannered, and foremost he must be "believable".
If people dont believe you, then you failed as a propagandist.
However, of course this is reality, and people will very often believe
whatever they want to believe even if the propagandist is a crappy one.
Very often people will believe in a cause, even though they know full
well that the speaker may be a lying deceitfull bastard who is giving
false information. That factor still will not change the mind of a person
who is dedicated to a particular line of thinking.
Their are many tricks of the trade to gain an audiences trust.
[a] the first step is to make yourself look honest by playing an
imaginary role. Usually this takes the form of trying to be
the "underdog". Or perhaps your not the 'underdog' and everyone
knows it. In such case, you may intentionally make yourself look
bad, just so you can lower yourself to a level and can claim your
only human. This may seem ludicrous to the ordinary person, but
it is a tactic which really works. Let me just give the reader an
example that I think fits best of all. Their have been many wars
throughout history, and one of the best tactics of this century was
for US and European news agencies to make themsleves look bad
(intentionally) during World War I and World War II. [The BBC
if I remenmber correctly was especially fond of that tactic.]
Now why would we want to make ourself look bad by announcing defeats
and losses?? The answer is three-fold. First, it gives us the image
that we are not all powerfull bullies who are slaughtering the
enemy mecilessly. Secondly, and most obviously it gains sympathy for
our troops who are at war fighting. All the parents at home hear the
news and worry about their sons fighting the war and public
sympathy goes through the roof. However, then comes the third
reason. And this is the REAL reason why such propaganda is allowed.
And this is something most people dont realize because its so
despicably underhanded and is not very obvious. The reason is, it
makes news agencies look more credible when they report negative
stories. People begin to trust the news agencies, and then the
news agencies use that trust to feed the public any story they
want and from therein everyone believes it. How does this equate
to everydaye life? You need to think about that seriously
because it has EVERYTHING to do with how US News companies work
nowadays and how they manipulate people and skew the news.
[b] Another tactic for gaining peoples trust is to pretend that
you are on their side. Even if the opposition knows that
you have contrary views, it is possible to subvert them through
obvious deceit and even based on truth. The key is to work up
a relationship with your opposition (or the people you want to
propagandize). You subtley agree with them on as many issues as
you can. Even if you dont fully agree with the opposition, find
a way to somehow partly agree with them. And then phrase it
into words so it sounds like you are very much in agreement with
them. At this point your rivals may very often actually be glad
that they have a newfound ally and that the former opposition is
on their side. You then take that relationship and find even more
common ground. At that point you introduce a different point
of view. You do this even though you know your opposition still
does not support it. However, seeing as how you have a newfound
trust, your opposition may very well find a way to agree with
some (if not all) of the issue you support.
The trick of the game when trying to propagandize people who
have opposing views, is not to try to feed them all new ideas.
That WILL NOT WORK! They believe what they believe and nothing
you say can change that. What you can do is simply find common
ground, and do not try to make them believe everything you
do, but rather just feed them a little bit of "new" information.
They may be willing to concede on just a few small issues if the
opposition now thinks that your on their side.
How does this apply to the real world? This has everything
to do with modern politics. Their is no clearer example of
a political ploy than this one. It is used every single day.
For example: Anti-Gun group opposes all guns or most guns.
What does the pro-gun believer do?
He finds common ground and gains a trust by working from their.
The issue of "CRIME CONTROL" is a classic example. The anti-gunner
proclaims loudly, "We must stop criminals". And the pro-gunner
politely responds "We agree totally, criminals must be
stopped". Finding a common ground often results in scapegoating
criminals (as is usually the case in gun debates). The diversionary
tactic then is that the pro-gunner agrees to make "friends" with
the anti-gunners and an exchange is as follows:
Pro-Gunner: Hey, I hear you have this new crime legislation coming
up. Sounds like a great idea.
Anti-Gun : Why yes, its what this country needs.
Pro-Gunner: I agree, our group will definately push for it all the
way.
Anti-Gun : Thats great, glad we can agree on this matter."
Pro-Gunner: Why yes we can, and by the way, we happen to have this
new bill coming up in congress to repeal ceartain
assault weapons. The law, as written doesnt make much
sense. We'd like it to be repealed and replaced with
a better worded law, and we also want to rewrite the
bill so that it will have harsher penalties for criminals.
Anti-Gun : Well, I dont know about repealing the guns, but I would
agree to it if some safegaurds were put in place
on who can own guns. And of course if we add the
crime provisions.
Anti-Gun : So, if you vote for my law, tell you what.. I'll see what
my group can do for your law.
** Simplicity is the key to propaganda. This is epecially important when
targeting the common man. This technique does not work well against
those that are intellectually minded or professional polticians,
lobbyists or social activists. Such people are usually disuaded
by any non-technical arguments. However, propaganda is rarely aimed
at intellectuals (to be described in greater detail below). It is
aimed at the common man, and simplicity is the key.
This includes simple slogans, simple ideals, essentially everything
is simplified and spoon-fed to the ignorant masses. When discussing
a new law which a propagandist opposes, one might be better off
not even telling people what the actual law says. This is for a
variety of reasons. Number one most people cant interpret an actual
written law to begin with quoting it is meaningless (unless one
is adpet at legal jargon and has a full set of law books at home or
has some exceeding knowledge of a particular topic. But that is
rarely the case). Secondly, it is just an inefficient waste of
time, money and paper to quote an entire law. (although the INTERNET
and free unlimited communications is now changing this attitude
drastically). Thirdly, people simply do not get aroused and rally
for a cause after reading an entire passage of law. Rather, they
usually take a nice little nap as it probably took a half hour to read
through the entire 5 pages or more of tedeous legalese.
Lastly, the propagandist simply may not want people to know what
a law actually says. The law may not be that bad in actuality.
By paraphrasing the law the reader can make it appear evil and
its something which must be stopped. For this reason, simplicity is
the key and is combined with emotional brainwashing through the use
of imagery and symbolism.
Take as a current example, the "Communications Decency Act". By
paraphrasing specific quotes from the text of law, and by using the
proper words to 'stir up' the emotions of a particular audience,
I can make the CDA sound like an "evil law which opresses free
speech", or on the contrary I can make it sound like a "necessary
safeguard to protect our children" (ahh yes, "protect the children"
thats always a classic line.. if you hear that, you should
automatically dismiss it as pure bullshit.)
** Repetition- I discuss this matter in great detail below, but repetition
must rank as among the most important tactics. It is NOT always
a necessity, and sometimes it is redundant and self-defeating
but in ceartain cases a whole society can have their minds literally
perversely brainwashed through repetition. No where is this truer
than in the United States of America where the average individual
endures about 5 - 10 hours every single day being brainwashed!
"Wait a minute!" you say.. "When does this happen", "It ceartainly
doesnt happen to me everyday".
If that is what you think, then that is a sure sign you are
brainwashed, possibly to the point of beyond mental repair.
My suggestion is refocus your life, and start watching and
hearing what goes on around you. Every second of every minute of
every hour of every day, of every week of every month and so on.
We are constantly bombarded with propaganda to the point where
our brain automatically filters it out and we literally do
not even hear it. Or when we do realize it for a brief second,
we usually just say that we dont care, or we ignore it or pretend
that its not effecting us even though it is.
** Symbology and Imagery is the tactic of using any means to invoke a
feeling in an individual. This is done using illustrations such
as desparaging cartoons which depict an evil force (the opposition
of the propagandists and their cause), or it may focus on the
righteousness of the cause and the people involved in it. The
picture may give the illusion that the members of the cause are
above human, they are warriors, patriots, angels, or gods, or in
some way are more "pure" and morally correct than any other group of
people. The symbolism may also involve music which also exploits
feelings in people. "Sad" music inserted into a commercial is
always very powerfull, possibly even more powerfull than is
the use of patriotic music to make people feel strong and happy.
The propagandist attempts to link his cause with these images,
and the symbols and images are designed not just to arouse feeling
but also may be taken literally (as they may be based on fact
such as a political cartoon.)
** Manipulation of Facts is the standard operational motife of any
propagandist. This usually takes the form of exxagerations, or
half-truths or a situation told only from one point of view which
may not represent the whole factual situation.
Another important tactics is to shift the attention away from any
embarrasing or negative aspects of the cause or the people
involved in it.
Lying is not often used [except by groups like Handguns Control, Inc.
oops their I go again getting off subject]. The reason is quite simple.
No one wants to get caught in a lie. It is embarrasing and destroys
the trust and credibility which the propagandist works so hard to
achieve. Lying is used on many occasions but only when it is deemed
skillfully by the propagandist that the results will be advantageous.
For instance when dealing with a stupid mass of people who wouldnt
know the difference anyway about the facts, lying is an option if
it will stir that mass up and make them rally towards a goal.
Another situation would be if it is possible to cover the lie up or
deny it. This is an extremely common tactic among professional
lobby groups who use false or misleading statistics. The groups
work up a good cover story or explain how the stats were misinterpreted
and as a last resort may even outright deny making the statistic.
And of course we have the good ol' classic, which is to simply
blame the erronoues outright lie on a "typeographical error"
(oops, were sorry, we said handguns killed 75,000 people a year,
we really meant only 10,000 people. Typo error. Oops and did we
forget to mention of the 10,000 many of those were suicides
or involved gun accidents. No forgot to put that in the footnote
for the stats also.)
** Opression is another commonly used tactic. It comes in the form
most often as censorship. Be it legal government sanctioned
censorship, or a consentual form of censorship which is
very perveresed in american culture (and is a general tactic
of propagandists on all sides). In opressive countries the
government has control of the media so it is easy to spread
propaganda and also to refute the claims of disidents who
may critisize the government. Also these people can easily be
thrown in jail forever, to be silences. But in free countries
we use a different form of censorship. It is a self-governed
type. Obviously, a political or social group is not going to
allow their adversaries to use their facilities (such as a
TV broadcasting program, a newsletter, etc.. to spread the
word which is contrary to the groups beliefs.) On the otherhand,
sometimes that tactic is indeed used in a controlled and
deliberate manner. On occasions a particular group may allow
the opposition access to a TV program or newsletter or newspaper.
The propagandist may then use that as an opportunity to rip the
opposition to shreds, or may enact one of the previously mentioned
techniques by gaining the trust of an opposition group only
to subvert them from the inside.
Villainization- I of course, saved the best for last. The concept of
villainization was probably invented the very same day that
propaganda itself was conceived. It is the most morally corrupt,
"dirty", "sleazy", "underhanded, and yet MOST EFFECTIVE form
of conveying the messsage of ones ideas. This tactic is usually
closely associated with tactics of imagery and symbolism.
Villainization is a reciprocal technique of propaganda which focuses
not on the issues which the propagandists supports, but rather
attacks and mitigates the ideals of an opposing group. Using such
tactics involves desparaging the opposition members themselves and
portraying them as "evil" individuals, or "immoral individuals"
or "opressors", and in the contenxt of religious whacko brainwashing
the old standby favorite term to slander others is to call them
"sinners". It is not enough for a propagandist to simply verbally
refer to the opposition as 'evil' people, their must be a mental
or psychological connection which occurs in the brainwashed persons
head. The propagandists can effectively makes somebody thinks
and see in their mind what the propagandist wants them to see.
Images of evil people are linked with the opposition. This can be done
in the form of an illustration such as a picture or a political
cartoon, where the opponent is viewed as a horrible person who
is against everything which is decent in life. This tactic is
also often reinforced through repetition. The propagandist must
supply a steady flow of visual imagery in the form of political
cartoons and propaganda articles in the organizations or systems
magazine or mass media. After several hundred repetitions where
your enemy is depicted as evil in a cartoon, and after reading
propaganda pieces in the media or in an organization newsletter
where the words on the page are arranged with the intent of
making the opposition look evil, people begin to think that their
enemies may indeed be evil. (They may indeed be, thats not the point
of this conversation. The point is, that whether the opposition is
evil, or not, or whether their is even such a thing as evil is
completely 100 percent irrelevant. And until you understand that
you wont understand how propaganda works. The point is, that
whether or not evil really exists, if you make people think that it
does, if you make people hate their opposition, then it becomes
true. [in their minds].)
The techniques of effectively utilizing villainization are among
the most important aspects of the propagandists tradecraft.
This tactic is in itself a beautifully sick form of art, that is
custom tailored by the propagandist to specifically target a
particular group of people in the manner most effective.
The propagandist must take into account the AGE, INTELLIGENCE,
GENDER, RACE, NATIONALITY, RELIGION, POLITICAL OR SOCIAL AWARENESS
of his target audience which he wants to propagandize and he uses
tactics which the propagandist feels that his subjects will likely
sucumb to. For instance, different tactics can and should be
chosen when targeting children as opposed to tactics of targeting
adults. The propagandist must choose a campaign which appeals
visually to the particular age group based on levels of maturity.
Propaganda may also be different for the different genders. A
particular campaign of brainwashing may target women specifically by
focusing on issues which women feel more strongly about than
men, or vice versa. The same is also true for intelligence level
targeting. If the persons you are targeting, are lawyers, professors,
people with PhD's, Masters Degrees, or are very politically or
socially aware individuals, a tactic must be used which suits them
best. In such cases, these individuals will not be impressed by the
propagandist typical bag of parlor tricks such as villainizing the
enemy. These intelligent people usually want facts, figures,
statistics and/or an otherwise intelligent debate on why they should
support the propagandists cause. Intellectuals will not respond
well to petty tactics which play on emotions, and such attempts
may even insult the target audience.
The technique of villainization is perhaps more dangerous than any
other means, because oftetimes it is done in such a covert or
sumbliminal subconscious manner that even the propagandist himself
might be fololed by his own ads. It is often possible to villainize
ones enemies or causes subtely, wheras it doesnt appear as if the
opposition is being attacked at all. This propaganda may be
referred to as "soft-line" propaganda, it is done in an covert manner
designed to not only subvert the members of a particular target
group but is also designed to subvert the opposition. Each and
every day, we as persons are subject to endless amounts of
villainization tactics, and 99 percent of the time we may not even
recognize it as such. Either because we have become so accustomed
to it (hence we are already brainwashed by it) or maybe the tactic
is so good because of its subtlety. How many times does one
watch the news each night only to hear the anchorwoman talking
about the arrest of some individual who "allegedly" commited a
crime. We think to ourselves, "I hope they send the son of a
bitch to jail forver", nevermind if hes innocent or not because
after all, the guy is in handcuffs, and "anonymous sources" say that
this guy was a "loner", he was the "neighborhood wierdo", so he
must be guilty. The police of this country are guilty of just
such perpetrations on a daily basis. How many thousands of times
per year, do the police provide a news service with a persons
entire life history, before the man even gets to arraignment,
nevermind the trial. The man is portrayed as having a "history of
arrest records starting when they were a youth" (meanwhile, 95
percent of the time those so-called "arrest records" were because
these guys stole a candy bar when they were 10, or had a few too many
parking tickets so they were arrested for driving on a suspended
license. But the police dont ever tell you what the criminal was
previously arrested for. They just visciously and criminally
attempt to villainize this person who is supposed to be innocent
until proven guilty. Meanwhile the guy is released 2 days later
after the prosecution realized they had the wrong man, and the guys
life is now ruined forever by negative media publicity. [Does the
name RICHARD JEWELL ring a bell here folks. [ie: the Olympic Park
security guard who found the bomb, and was then disguistingly
accused by the FBI as being a possible perpetrator.]
Then the last tactic is "hard-line" propaganda where the tactics
of villainization are practiced in an overt manner and the
propagandist makes no attempt to hide his desparaging marks of
the opposition leaders or cause. A classic example are racist
organizations of all types, be they black racists or white racists
or asian racists, these people usually have no quabble about insulting
the other group of people. Overt tactics do seem to work best
in ceartain situations such as racism, sexism and other situations
of violent hatred between groups. However, for most situations
covert soft villainization tactics work best. They work better because
they make the propagandist look more intelligent. If the opposition
accuses the propagandist of being "ignorant" and "insulting", the
propagandist can easily retort that their was simply a misunderstanding
and that which was said was simply misinterpreted.
I might also introduce another term at this point which is related.
SCAPEGOAT. We all know what that term refers to, I need not elaborate.
The technique of scapegoating is the most common form of propaganda
used, and combined in conjunction with tactics of villainization.
** What is Brainwashing ?
Brainwash- (v.) To alter the convictions or beliefs, by means of
intensive coercive or repetitious indoctrination.
Most persons conjure up horrible images in their minds when the term
brainwash is used. The likewise is equally true for the word propaganda.
These terms are not "evil". Thinking that they are is only further proof
of just how brainwashed people can be when they can equate a lifeless
word with an actual act which is committed.
Brainwashing is really just yet another word for propaganda, yet the
word has to do with the actual process of going about altering peoples
minds, while the word propaganda is simply a set of techniques for
conveying information.
Brainwashing in the context of this conversations has to do with the
everyday psychological torture which every human who doesnt live under
a rock must endure. This is accomplished through endless repetitions
which are drilled into our heads more times than we care to remember
to the point that we no longer are consciously aware that we are being
repeatedly subject to this subtle yet damaging form of coercion.
I have mentioned repetition extensively three times in this article.
Yet, will you remember this when you are done reading? Not likely unless
you make it a conscious effort to do so. Psychological brainwashing
is so damaging to the human psychii because it is a totally subconscious
act perpetrated against you, many times without your knowledge, your
consent or even your awareness. When you hear something over and over..
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
[are you getting the concept now]
It becomes an automatic process in your brain without you even becoming
aware of it.
If you want to become an enlightened aware individual, the first step
is to observe all of these repetitions which your subject to on a
daily basis. You still will likely be subject to this brainwashing
everytime you turn on the TV, or radio, their is nothing that can be
done about that. But perhaps by coming to the realization that you are
being maniuplated maybe you can make some sort of conscious effort
to fight it or understand why they are doing this to you.
* Why are they playing this new song over 100 times?
* Why do they play that "Dont Drink and Drive" commercial 20 times today?
* Why do they do the same with the "Just say NO, to drugs" commercials?
* Why did they play that SPRITE, PEPSI, COCA-COLA, BUDWEISER commercial
20,000 times today on every channel throughout the country?
* Why is it 'cool' and hip to wear these new ultra baggy Jeans which
are 15 sizes too big, or how are these new Jordan sneakers different
from last years $90 model.. [oooh different color, amazing]. Couldnt be
because we had to watch those Levis 510/503/509 commercials repeated
times today? Couldnt be cause everybody else wears them so we have to
join the herd of animals (err I mean people).. No couldnt be..
The point IS NOT so much telling you what you should wear, what type of
music you should listen too.. The point of understanding propaganda
is to understand WHY you live your life the way you do and why you
make the desicions in life that you do. The point is to ADMIT that your
being brainwashed and to be able to identify the sources and how
advertising affects peoples minds.. At this point if you still want to
be brainwashed or go along with the crowd, then fine.. that is human nature
and their is not anything inherintly wrong with that.
** Who is most succeptible ?
The first issue to be dealt with is to seperate the two components
of this question. Most people would look at this question and see
only 1 question. And it is exactly this reason that people are so
succeptibe to propaganda. Because they are illogical, they think
things through haphazardly and they only glance at issues and
do not fully analyze them. It almost becomes an ego contest of who
has a stronger will than who.
The two seperate questions are:
(1) Who is literally more succeptible to brainwashing through propaganda?
(2) Who in reality is the most common target of propaganda?
Studies have shown that "intellectuals" are more succeptible to the
influences of propaganda because these intellectuals spend a greater
amount of time studying politics, social issues and the law and hold
such matters in higher regard. They also usually tend to place a greater
value in life in their beliefs and causes. However, in reality, these
intellectuals if you will are not really the main target of the propagandist
for a number of reasons. The reasons are varied.
(a) First, intellectuals only make up a small percentage of society (to use
a completely arbitrary figure, in my opinion the figure is less than
5 percent of the population as a whole). Obviously 5 percent of the
population is not a very big political army to support your cause.
(b) The second reason propagandist dont specifically target intellectuals
is because they usually are more knowledgeable about the facts and
cannot be fooled as easily as the common man. That is in no way saying
that intellectuals can not be propagandized; its just saying that they
can not be influenced as easily by using the typical bag of parlor tricks
which propaganda groups utilize such as using half-truths, bogus
statistics, symbolism. Intellectuals tend to balk at the typical tactics
of using "emotions" to sway people. Using "emotional tactics" (ie:
trying to sway sentiments through imagery or bogus statistics does
not usually work with intellectuals because to put it bluntly, their too
smart to fall for those meager common tactics.) Intellectuals need to
be propagandized through tactics of dissemination of solid facts,
logical arguments, and are more likely to be influence by the
written word as opposed to some dramatic verbal speech which the
propagandist may give.
Their are generally two types of intellectuals, likewise the same
categories exist for the ordinary man. Their are those that are
swayed easily by emotion, and their are those that tend to stick
with the facts and are more logical. In general, intellectuals tend
to almost always be logical people who love the facts, they devour
facts and statistics and they scorn any attempt to use emotional
tactics. Intellectuals usually view emotional tactics as 'petty and
irrelevant' to the issue at hand. Of course, this is not always the
case, but it is one of the redeeming traits which defines and
seperates the intellectual from the common man. Logic should almost
always supercede emotions.
It is usually not economically efficient to attempt to target
intellectuals for propaganda purposes because they are not
as sucepptible to the "mass media" and as previously stated
they are not easily influenced by verbal speeches. This makes the
group as a whole difficult to target and requires special techniques
which are really more trouble than they are worth. One example of
the most efficient methods to target intellectuals is to set up
an "organization" and/or some sort of "newsletter", and this has
to be done under the guise of a "non-biased", "public awareness
group". Intellectuals tend to think that they are more objective than
common people, and indeed they are most of the time, but they have
ceartain weaknesses which are easily exploited. They tend to always
seek the facts, and by simply feeding them the facts (that you want them
to believe) and doing it under the guise of being an unbiased group
these people can be tricked. They think the information their being fed
is to 'enlighten' them and make the more 'politically aware' but in
reality your really just feeding them a line of propaganda without
them knowing it.
The thing about intellectuals is, that they are just as succeptible
as the common man, yet they do not willingly want to be influenced and
they resent anyone trying to influence them. On the other hand, the
common man doesnt really care either way. They know their being
influenced, its usually the case that their political beliefs are
not strong enough so that they do not even care that their being 'used'.
(c) Thirdly, it is not efficient to target intellectuals simply because
their beliefs are usually fully formed to begin with. In order for
a propagandist to be the most effective, he needs to find a person who
only has a mild interest in the subject at hand. That person is then
repeatedly bombared with the propaganda and within less than a years
time he is often a dedicated soldier on the side of the propagandist.
The chances of "influencing" somebody who already has a strong opinion
to begin with is virtually impossible. This is simply due to human
nature. Its not that it is impossible for people to change their minds
about an issue (it happens sometimes... very rarely, but it is possible),
its simply the case that its not worth the time and effort to try
to persuade somebody with strong beliefs that oppose you.
The end result is that the common man if we can call everyone that, is
the target of the propagandist. Using the average person with the
average herd mentality, allows the propagandist to utilize the mass-media
(In using the term -"media"- I refer to all forms of communication)
and the usual bag of parlor tricks to achieve ones means. The common mans
most vulnerable weakness of all is the simple fact that they usually
lack any strong political or social beliefs and more importantly they
lack the knowledge in those areas. It is this weakness which is exploited
insofar as the propagandist takes a semi-knowledgeable individual and
feeds them with all sorts of "teachings". These 'teachings' are reinforced
with the usual propaganda tricks including statsitics, imagery and symbolism,
and the use of emotions to sway peoples opinion. This is coupled with the
fact that people with such new found knowledge often feel a sense of
"euphoria" because their knowledge gives them a sense of importance and
worth. And that feeling only feeds the propaganda machine. Here you have
the so-called "ordinary man", and all of a sudden they start learning
about politics and social issues, they maybe get involved, they start
discussing these matters with their friends who are impressed with their
new found knowledge, and that hencely perpetuates ones desire to suck in
yet more propaganda.
** Is Propaganda a benefit to society ?
I can answer that question many ways. By using simple words, I can
make the reader likely feel that the word propaganda is a horrible
evil, or I can mitigate it and make it sound like a nice term which
is wonderfull. However, neither of which is my goal. I see the word
as an inatimate object. Its neither 'bad', nor 'good'. Its just a tool
to be used plain and simple.
The above, is a trick rhetorical question in the authors opinion. Their
is no answer, their can be no answer, and one should not attempt to
find an answer to a question that has no solution. Propaganda exists,
always has, always will, it serves its purpose in this world, the human
race as we know it could not exist without it. The very meaning of life
is to achieve goals and to cling to a structure of beliefs. Those
beliefs are what make us "living creatures" that are sentient of our
surroundings. Without beliefs we are nothing but useless carbon based
structures. What is the answer? The answer is, simply to deal with it
in any way you can. Do not pretend that it doesnt exist. Do not pretend
that you are immune to propaganda. Do not ever think that you wont
be a perpetrator of propaganda, because most likely if you have any
daily social contact, you will be a perveyor of propaganda every single
day that you converse with anyone socially. The only thing that does matter
is how you choose to interpret the propaganda which you consume mentally
on a daily basis, and how you choose to pervey propaganda yourself when
feeding it to others.
Can you morally feed others 'half truths' if its suits your cause?
Can you tell complete lies to others and not be morally upset?
Do you believe that your cause is the higher purpose and if you
have to tell a few "little white lies" (half-whole-truths) to further
your cause then it is the conscienable thing to do?
Will you always tell the truth, even if it hurts your cause?
Will you always tell an absolute truth even if you know you may disuade
another person from believing in your ideals.
The answer is simply to do what one is comfortable doing, to believe in
what you believe in and to support your cause and ideals. Hopefully,
anyone with any moral sense of values will not go to any extreme to
further their cause, but some people might do just that. Its an independant
decision, and no one should be so hypocritical that they should tell
others how to run their life. As you can see, this is a very morally
complex issue, and the only thing you should worry about is yourself.
Get your own priorities straight before you start lecturing others.
Its one thing to critisize others, you have that right. It is another
matter entirely to critique and lecture another person and to verbally
degrade and villainize another person, when you yourself are probably
doing the exact same misdeeds, your just to hypocritical and stupidly
blinded to realize it.
** What is the authors opinion ?
The author more than anything else has a pragmatic view on life.
[Pragmatic- (adj). Pertaining to the study of events with an ]
emphasis on cause and effect. ]
[Pragmatical- Relating to everyday commonplace life or business.]
[Pragmatism- The doctrine that ideas have value only in terms ]
of their practical consequences, and that results ]
are the sole test of the validity of truth or ]
ones belief. ]
You can interpret the above any way you like, however insofar as my own
opinions, I believe more than anything else in observing reality and
dealing with facts and logical arguments more that in blind faith. I
have always been willing to change my beliefs if the facts supported a
more logical conclusion, unfortunately that is rarely the case with
most people. Which in a way is fortunate, yet is equally unfortunate.
Faith and belief are important, but not when such beliefs are in total
contradiction with the facts of life.
As far as propaganda goes, I view it as simply a part of life.
I neither embrace it or abhore and scorn it. I view it as an important
"tool" which is to be used, can be used, or should be used in accordance
with ones own personal ethics.
The author is not ashamed to admit, that I use propaganda as a tool for
my own purposes on a daily basis. I have no shame in doing it as I dont
see any shame in persuading others to do what I feel is morally righteous.
I have no problem morally, with using propaganda as a tool for my own causes,
as I feel that it is what life was intended for. The pen is mightier than
the sword as the saying goes, so the written or spoken word should be
used for communication and conveyance of ideas.
I do have a ceartain sense of ethics which I follow when laying propaganda
on people. I wont go into detail as it is my own business, but just to
give the reader something to think about, my alliegance lies to telling
the truth (or at least my side of it). I will not scorn others for
using little white lies in propaganda as I have done it myself, but I
do indeed think it is fundamentally wrong and I think it is a bad habit
which people should try to cure themselves of. Of course if you did not lie,
how the hell are you going to get people to follow you? Try the truth!
Of course, this is always easier said than done, so we shall just accept
little white lies as part of reality. I try to always feed people as
much facts and as much knowledge as I can. I feel truth, facts and
knowledge is the best cure for ignorance and is the best way to get people
onto my side of beliefs. I feel it works a hell of alot better than does
lying. But maybe I myself am nieve, since lying has worked so well in the
past, maybe it works better than the truth. But again, thats for you
the reader to decide. So think about that next time you get in a moral
debate with somebody. How far are you willing to go when telling the truth.
Will you tell the complete truth, even if it hurts your argument?
Another aspect of my personal sense of ethics, is I believe in openess.
I dont necessarily believe in "covert" propaganda. I often use covert
or subltle propaganda when I choose to, but more often than not, I use it
in an open manner (or "overt" manner). I let people know that I am
propagandizing them, and I use the actual words propaganda. I find that by
using this technique, it has a positive effect.
First, people appreciate honesty, and when you tell them openly that your
trying to influence them, they trust you more, as they dont feel your a
sneaky underhanded bastard. Secondly, I feel its better to use overt means
beacause it gets to the very nature of what propaganda really is. It is
"information". Information is not evil! What is evil are lies, coercion
and deceit which people use to influence you. By using overt propaganda and
telling people your trying to influence them, it takes the negative
stereotype off of the very word "propaganda" which often takes on an evil
conotation. People hate propaganda so much, or better stated, they "fear"
it so much because it is usually "covert" and people dont like to be
deceived or influenced through subtle persuasion.
The use of 'emotional tactics' is perhaps the most powerfull of all. You
generate an image in peoples minds through the use of pictures, symbols,
political cartoons showing your enemy as a great "evil", and even the
use of music to instill a sense of patriotism for your cause. Such tactics
are designed to make your group seem light the pure, virtuous righteous
individuals and your opponenets are the evil force to be fought at all
costs.
Being a logical person I despise the use of emotional tactics. I view it
as petty and irrlevant to the issue. But then, I remind myself that I have
a pragmatic view on life. I take reality as it is. The reality is, that
emotional tactics DO WORK! and they work better than almost anything else.
So I do use them ALOT to influence others. I sometimes feel guilty about
using such tactics, but I console myself with two factors. First, I feel
my acts are justified because I do give people good information based on
facts which are reasonably well checked out. I always have the technical
answers to a question, and I use those facts to support my argument. I hate
nothing more than people who use pure emotional tactics to influence
others with no attempt at giving any facts. Even more, I hate people who
are so weak as to be succeptible to such tactics (which is LOTS of people).
Emotion tactics are good, but so long as they accompany facts and a logical
argument. Secondly, the way I see it, it does far less harm to manipulate
peoples feelings than it does to make people ignorant and feed them false
misleading information. If I had a choice of manipulating people through
the use of bogus made up statistics (kind of like the statistics used
by despicable anti-gun groups such as HCI [a group which is even hated
by other anti-gun groups for their lying tactics]) versus manipulating
peoples feelings, I would have to choose manipulating people emotionally.
I feel its a harmless act. In reality however, their probably is far more
damage in manipulating peoples emotions than in manipulating facts.
You can always correct people who are ignorant of the facts, but what
you cant do is take the emotion out of a person once it gets ingrained in
their thought process. For me, however its a tough call, I am a very
logical individual who believes in intellectualism. I have very little
emotion to me in the conventional sense (I have strong beliefs, but
I view that as different than emotions.. To me, politics is just
"business", to me it is a "game of chess or strategy". I try not to let it
eat me up so to speak emotionally). So for me its hard to understand the
great masses of people in the world. I cannot connect with them, and cannot
understand them or how they can be so illogical. It escapes me how people
can be so easily swayed by emotions, yet can be so blisfully ignorant of
facts, or reality. People will just believe what they want to believe in
spite of any facts. Even if they know their beliefs are based on a total lie.
Nevertheless, it really is all quite irrelevant. If people are emotional
individuals driven not by facts but blind faith, then so be it. I will
simply use propaganda in that manner to manipulate them, as much as it
personally abhors me to stoop to such a level of these masses of people.
** What "should" the reader believe ?
Another rhetorical question. Believe what you want, I cant stop you.
But if you have any comprehension of what this topic is about. If
you have any urging whatsoever to be different than the herded masses.
If you want to be something other than a passive sheep, then you need
to unlearn everything you were taught about faith and start relearning
it. Or to say the least, use this article as a method to start rethinking
your life and how you believe in things. Chances are their is no way in
hell you can even contemplate this because its far too late for you or
any of us. We have already been brainwashed, so the damage is done. You
can take the initiative yourself to start enlightening yourself, but
its a pretty tough task.
The key is to think as an individual. As stated previously, it sounds like
such a simple task, and everyone in the worlds thinks they are a "free
thinker", but why is it that we all think the same? Why is it that we
all run out to buy $50, $100 Dollar name brand sneakers? Why is it
that we all adhere to the same standards of fashion? Why is it that we
all have the same food and drinks in our very own refrigerator? [and
twenty billion other examples I can give] You start thinking of more
examples, thats how you will achieve enlightenment. If you believe for
a second that your not being influenced, that right off makes you a
stupid brainwashed moron who at this point is probably too hopeless
to be helped. But if you have so much as one thought of realization that
everyone is being influenced daily, then its not too late to at least
see the truth. Even if you dont mind being influenced, at least it is
an important step to realize your being influenced.. This is not to say
that you should run out and but a $7 pair of "Keds" sneakers, hey I too
like my $50 NIKE fashion sneakers, so I'm a sucker too. We all are, but
thats the point. The first step is to realize that were all victims
and that IS NOT necessarily a bad thing, its just life. The real crime
is being an unwitting vitim who doesnt know any better. If you do that, you
are beyond help. Recognize these influences, everytime you watch TV and
see a commercial advertisment. Realize your being influenced everytime you
see one of those despicable lying propagandistic "public service anoucements"
which they play on television 2,000 times a day across the country, so
often that we dont even realize that were being bombareded with this
brainwashing crap. How many anti-smoking, anti-drinking, drunk-drinking,
anti-drug, stop-the-violence, anti-gun commercials have you seen on TV or
heard on the radio ? I bet not one reader even knows. The fact is we
are bombareded with that propaganda garbage with such regularity that we
tend to ignore it. Now I'm going to enlighten every single reader, to
the greatest secret of all propaganda. This is something everyone who
knows about advertising knows, everyone whos in television production knows,
some people in politics know, its ceartainly a fact that every music
label and artist knows as do the propagandists. What is this wise
secret of mine? Its not my secret. Its the FACTS! When it gets to the
point where you dont even notice 'it' (the brainwashing) anymore, that
is when you are officially brainwashed. Doesnt sound like much of a secret
technique does it? So simple, yet it is the very basis of what propaganda
is based on. When you cram something into somebodies head so many times,
their brain will eventually become accustomed to it, and they will
eventually "filter" it out subconsciously. This tactics is based simply
on the way the human brain works. Repetition reinforces beliefs.
Let me ask you a question? Do you think their some reason why Disk
Jockeys play a new song 100 times a day on either television (MTv, VH1,
MM, CMT, etc..) as well as on the radio? Do you really think it is
because the disk jockeys are so concerned with your health and well
being that they want to please you by playing your favorite song?
Another question? These Disk Jockeys always claim that their simply
playing the songs that "people want to hear"? Excuse me, but do you
actually believe that for 1 second. The day the song is even released
it is played 100 times. Where in this process did "the people" get
asked if they even liked this song?
How many times have you hated a song, and then after hearing it a total
of 500 times in one months time, you actually start to <gasp> "like"
the song? I'll admit myself, many many times, and it sickens me,
because the reason sure as hell want that I "saw the light" and realized
that the song was really great after all. Its because I had that
melody crammed into my head so many damned times (several hundred
reinforcements to be exact) that my brain became accustomed, hence I
become brainwashed.
You think for a second that any of the above is not the truth, then again
you are a brainwashed moron. People do not choose the music they like
in general. "They" MAKE you listen to what they want you to listen to.
This is specifically true with "new songs" especially, but is also true
with old music as well. If you listen to anything enough, you WILL!!
start to like that music. If you listen to a POLKA and Dance Folk music tape
for a moth straight, you WILL like that music. if you listen to piano
concertos for a month straight, you will eventually like that music.
If you have Alanis Morrissete or Sheryl Crow crammed into your head
100 times a day for a month straight you can place bets that you WILL
like their music, or at the very least and most importantly, you will
"GET USED TO IT". This is an important part of propaganda. Their are
many instances where you cannot change another persons mind, this is
reality because people are stubborn. But one of the tactics of propaganda
is to try to brainwash the opposition even though you know that they
still will not agree with you in the end. Take for example, the public
announcements on television. "Dont Drink and Drive", "This is your
brain on drugs" (image of an egg frying in a pan, [I've yet to figure
that one out]).. Will everyone be brainwashed by these tactics?
Hell no, maybe not even most people! But does that mean the propaganda
campaign is unsucessful?? If you think it is not sucessfull then you still
do not understand the purpose of propaganda. How many people
"drink and drive" even after seeing those commercials a thousand times.
Lots of people. But how many of those drunk drivers, for just a fraction
of a second may think of that commercial before they put the key in
the ignition to drive away drunk. I bet quite a few people, at least have
some thought in their head. And that makes the propaganda sucessful because
you have put an image into somebodies head. You cant control their physical
actions. But you can put images into somebodies mind.
Of course, I should also say that by repeatedly listening to music you
brainwash yourself, so I will not put the total blame on the scummy
sleazoid recording and music 'industry'.
============================================================
** What is a "Leader" ?
The term, "leader", has three distinct meanings. Their is the publics general
perception of what a leader is, and then their is the literal sense of
the word and then their is reality.
The first definition lies with the publics perception wheras a leader is
defined as any figurehead who has some form of "power". Usually the term
power is perceived as actual legal power, such as the power to pass laws,
the power to judge, the power to administer the government, to fill the
role of the bureaucracy, etc.. Usually a leader is thought of only as a
head-of-state, lawmaker, diplomat, or anyone who works for an established
government in general. A few people may also accept "civilians" (ie:
non-government) as leaders provided such people are powerfull or
influential enough. This may include heads of religious establishments,
heads of lobby groups, and maybe the more influential members of the media.
The second definition of "leader" is to take the word literally. Wheras
anyone who has any influence to control either others body or minds is
considered a leader. This essentially can mean every single person on
planet earth. This may especially refer not just to government personnel,
but also to people such as teachers, coaches, and anyone else who has
direct contact and hence control of young peoples minds. For the purposes
of this conversation we'll exclude people like teachers and coaches as
leaders, even though they technically are very much so leaders. Teachers
are solely responsible for most of the propaganda which is molded into the
heads of every citizen of this country. This includes both young and old
people. We all went to school at one time, and we all learned of the
so-called "facts" such as history which is nothing but a warped view of
reality written from a particular point of view. The old saying that theirs
always four sides to an argument, and that applies accurately to so-called
lessons of history. Their is one persons side, the oppositions perspective,
then their may be the truth as perceived by any unbiased observers, and then
their is the reality which is different from all the previous three parties.
The third definition of leader I shall define as anyone who willingly and
intentionally wishes to lead others. Teachers and coaches may indeed be
considered leaders who mold peoples minds, but they may or may not
intentionally want to be considered leaders in life. Teachers even though
they are purveyors of propaganda, may not be doing so willingly or
intentionally. In fact such teachers may themselves just be passive
victims. These teachers themselves learned the so-called "facts" in school
and then they unwittingly pass on these so-called facts to others when
they become teachers.
A distinction should or could be made between a leader and a propagandist.
They really are two completely seperate beings with different goals in
life.
A leader is a person who wants to lead. They are people who feel their
goal in life is to be "in-charge", to be "in power", to control others.
You could write a whole book on why one wants to be a leader, perhaps its
not something that can easily be put into words. But a leader is not
somebody who necessarily has any particular "cause" or a leader does
not necessarily have any strong convictions or beliefs which they want to
fight for. Essentially, they too can be innocent sheep who can be manipulated.
A leader just wants to be the guy giving the orders, the guy whos signs the
paycheck, the boss, maybe the leader just enjoys having his face in the
paper and gets a euphoric "high" from the publicity one gets in such positions.
To many leaders, their position is just "a job", maybe they consider it
an "ambition". But the one thing they still lack no matter how you put
it, is a strong conviction in any one cause.
Many leaders may indeed have "a cause", but that still does not make
one a propagandist. The leader will essentially do whatever it takes to
get into his position of power, he will "buy" himself into office if need
be, just like every single politician in this country, and probably in
the world buys themselves into office. This may insult alot, if not all
politicians, because they are stinking hypocirtes [to be discussed below]
but the facts speak for themselves. You dont get into office without
money. If you use money to get into office, then you are "buying" your
way in, no question or debate about it. When was the last time any
politician ever got into office on less than $50,000 dollars. It has
happened so rarely in this country, that the number of occurences can
be counted on one hand. Usually it takes a minimum of $500,000 to buy your
way into local offices or congressional seats, and a minimum of $1 million
to even consider being a contender for president (although presidential
campaigns usually cost $50 Million dollars). So if that isnt "buying"
your way into office, then I dont know what the hell is. And might I add
that almost never will a politician ever spend his own personal money to
get into office. Their is some debate about this matter, some think it
is unethical to spend your own money on a campaign, others think it is
completely ethical (that happens to be my own personal opinion). I say,
why should you be spending others money? If you really want to attain
a position then you should be willing to spend your life savings on
the whole campaign. And if your not willing to do that... then your not
really dedicated to any cause, you just want a free ride into office
using other peoples money. Its amazing whats considered ethical in
this country and what isnt. Its clear that citizens have their priorities
completely fucking backwards.. "its o.k. to take other peoples money,
but god forbid you put your own ass on the line by using your own money
if you aspire to get into office".. yeah whatever..
Now lets discuss how a propagandist may different from a leader.
A propagandist is definately a person who falls into the leadership
capacity, however their primary goal in life is (usually) not to be
a leader (unless that person happens to be on some kind of power trip,
or simply likes leading). Usually, a propagandist is forced into the
role of leader, they are forced to be in a public position even though
that is not what they wanted in life. A propagandist accepts this leadership
role as a sacrifice which he must make, in order to further his goal of
advancing and supporting his cause or belief. One thing is clear.
A propagandists primary goal more than anything else, is to practice and
spread his beliefs because he feels its the morally right thing to do. The
role of leader is just something he or she has to do in order to induct
followers.
** What is a "Follower" ?
A follower can best be categorized as anyone who makes no conscious effort
to differentiate him or herself as an individual. Such persons can at best
be described as complacent (in the context of self-satisfied) individuals
who are content with the thought that they are "just one of the people",
and as such should just go along with most things. Go-with-the-flow,
be like most other people, etc..
The second key defining factor is that such persons may tend to be
trusting. The more "trusting" one is, perhaps the greater one can
be considered a victim. But that is not always the case. Theirs nothing
wrong with trust, but what seperates these types of people (most people)
is that they have too little skeptiscism. When I say 'skeptical', I mean
of EVERYTHING. Skeptical of facts, skeptical of theories, skeptical of
other people, etc.. If ones level of trust far exceeds their level of
skepticism then one will definately be a victim, or follower in life.
The third defining factor lies in the fact that followers in life, usually
have only an average level of knowledge over-all. You could say they have
average intelligence, usually not above average, but that really is a
arbitrary factor. Even geniuses can be suckers, or followers in life too.
As it pertains to this topic however, we speak of political, social, legal
or economic knowledge. These ordinary people usually do not have an
exceeding level of anything political, and since they dont understand all
the complexities of politics, the law or social issues, that makes them
extremely succeptible to propaganda. Essentially one can think of the
followers in life as children, or if you will, brains which are half-empty
just waiting to be fillwed with knowledge. The propagandist targets those
that most likely to be his followers and he "teaches" the masses of followers
more about the issue, the cause or politics in general. Or likewise, the
follower may just as well learn all this information on his own initiative
if hes really interested in the topic. Either way, the end result is still
the same. You take a person who only has a so-so average knowledge of
political related matters and you give them the information, and whether
you teach it to them, or they learn it themselves, it results in somebodies
brain being figuratively filled up with information which the propagadists
provide. If this information is slightly biased, very biased, based on
outright lies, etc.. it doesnt make a difference at that point because
the person has already learned about it, and if you fed them false information
well theirs not a damned thing that can be done about it because the follower
has already learned, and you cant unlearn what you already learned. In time
the follower perhaps might become smarter, alot smarter and he may realize
that what he was taught was somewhat wrong. He may discover he was fed
false statistics, but you see that is the beauty of it. Because at this
point, the person doesnt really care. He is already on the side of the
propagandist, so he will rationalize to hismelf... "well, its obvious why
I was fed false statistics, they were just feeding me a little propaganda,
but its o.k. because thats how the game is played. In life you have to
lie to people a little so it doesnt really matter, either way I still
believe in 'the cause' ".
The fourth defining factor which defines what a follower is, pertains to
the average persons ego. Most people have thise ego problem which prohibits
them from ever admiting that they can be propagandized and such people
will insist that they cannot be influenced. If one looks at the rules of
the propagandist, one will see clearly, that the one who denies he can
be "influenced", is the person who the propagandist targets. Because such
people are mindless fools who either have too big an ego to admit that
their only human, or are just too stupid in general, or lastly, maybe they
just havent been enlightened yet and dont understand the powers of the
mind, the powers of influence and persuasion and how easy it is to affect
others, even if only a little.
--------------------------
One topic which is of particular interest at this point is the subject of
the "advertising industry". To learn about advertising and the fine art
and science behind it, is yet another step at learning what propaganda
is and does to people. I am an avid reader of advertising trade journals
and also have countless books on the topic. I also have extensive numbers
of friends in the ad and marketing biz. This is an enourmous industry which
has evolved ALOT over the last century, and their is alot of psycholgy to
understand what motivates people.
When reading advertising trade journals, one topic of interest is always
reading the statistics. Their are big companies that always run these polls
where thousands of people are surveyed and the point being that many
patterns have emerged which help the advertisers learn about how people
think. One of the most well known polls, and this is something which
I mentioned several times, relates to people who state that they cannot be
influenced. Polls indicate that 90 percent of people do not think that they
are adversely influenced at all by advertisements. Polls differ a bit
but it usually hovers around the 90 percent mark as an average. and the stats
have stayed this way for about as long as theyve been doing these surveys
for many many decades. What this statistics says, is all too clear, and brings
perfect clarity to what this whole propaganda discussion is about. Those that
dont think they are targets, really are the targets, and that makes them all
the easier to influence is because they are unwitting victims who dont know
its coming and dont even realize whats happening to them. Now the
skeptical might say to himself... how do we know that all these people
really aren't being influenced? Well, that doesnt even really dignify an
answer because its reiculous anyway, but just to amuse ones curiosity these
same polls asked a series of questions. the first being "can you be
influenced", and then that was followed up by a series of subsequent
"trick questions" if you will. These trick questions asked how much people
buy, what kind of ads appeal to them, why do they buy expensive items,
do ads which target your age group affect you more, and as such people
clearly showed by their answers that they are influenced. And the conclusion
was that the only reason why they stated in question #1 that they couldnt
be influenced, is just because their ego was too big and they cant handle
the concept that their being manipulated.
** What is a "Propagandist" ?
A propagandist can best be defined as anyone who determines that their
primary interest and goal in life is to use their talents and effort
to manipulate other persons minds and possibly bodies. A propagandist
may have one or many goals and ideals which he supports and he utilizes
most of his time, effort, money, and knowledge to further his cause
acting in the capacity of a leadership position.
A propagandist has two courses of action, and it is the combination of
these two which determines how effective a propagandist will be at
plying his trade.
(1) Information Exchange- The first goal of a propagandist is to convey
facts, figures statistics, and to provide information on 'the cause'
in a general capacity. Information exchanges are not limited to
strictly facts and figures but also includes the very process of
manipulating peoples feelings. Facts and figures and the ideals are
mixed with various techniques to arouse peoples emotions and to get
others more involves in the cause.
(2) Course of Action- The second factor is the propagandist needs to
place himself in a position of leadership, and he may recruit others
to act as leaders or helpers or purveyors of information. Acting as
a "leader" has many definitions [see above] and the term need not
apply literally. A good propagandist will have a "course of action"
a "master plan" or however one wants to phrase it. Perhaps it can best
be thought of as a "strategy", as they usually call it in politics.
A COURSE OF ACTION may involve any or all of the following:
(1) Collecting Information on "the cause", such as facts figures
statistics.
(2) Disseminating the information on a mass scale, to be consumed by
the masses. The masses includes not just the propagandists
subjects, but also the opposition. This may involve the use of
the INTERNET or Computer networks to spread information cheaply
and on a grande scale. It may also involve creating a newspaper or
newsletter, journal, auidotapes or videotapes on a particular
subject. The latter audio and videotapes are primarily to be
consumed by the propagadists followers, while newspapers and
journals and Internet messages are the most effective as they target
everyone including members of the opposition.
(3) Forming an "organization", "group", "coalition", "association",
"society", or any similar mass of people who band together for
purposes of increasing "power through numbers" as well as for
members of the group to meet, plan strategies, discuss, trade
information, "bond together", and lastly and most deviously these
organizations may really just exist to perpetuate the "herd mentality"
we have in society. People want to be together, it gives them a
sense of "belonging" to the group, but for others it also gives
a feeling of "power". So you have have some people who get a
sense of "belonging" and others get a sense of "power" and most
likely its a combination of both for all people.
Such groups may cost money to join, others may be free. Sometimes
a "free" organization is a good tactic simply because it bands
together a bunch of people who arent very dedicated to begin with..
If they were dedicated then coughing up money to join the group
would NOT be a problem. You can always make money other ways, such
as by selling newsletters for the organization or videotapes, etc..
(4) Raising Money for the organization or "cause". Self explanatory.
Money is what makes the world go round. You need it to do almost
anything in this world. That includes not just capitalist societies
but everywhere. Nothing is for free. Even the time which one spends,
even if it is "free time" at ones own expense, really isnt free.
(5) Giving speeches, or giving public briefings or press conferences
should always be the primary tactic of any organization. This is
perhaps the most difficult tactic to perform, especially for small
organizations. This is exactly why big lobby groups are so powerfull
and small groups are virtually unheard of. The group must either
have an intimate knowledge of how the press works, how to get
on television, how to make "paid advertisements", how to place
newspaper ads, how to get invited to debates, forums speeches, how
to get ivited to panel meetings which may or may not be televised,
how to get oneself recognized as an "authority" in a particular
field. This is something which is way beyond most peoples capability
and to say the least it takes years to build ones repuation to
the point where you can call on the media at any time. For instance
if the NRA (National Rifle Association) calls a press conference,
you can be assured that the press will be their. But if the XYZ
organization calls a press conferemce, who if anybody shows up.
This is why most big organizations hire public relations firms
to hep cut the legwork in this capacity.
(6) Militant action, sabotage, acts of urban "terrorism", or any other
type of agressive tactic should always be considered. Many small
organizations have used these tactics. It may involve either
direct violence, or may involve simple "protest", "boycott",
"picketing", "marches", etc.. One can argue back and forth as
to the morality of such tactics (especially the violent ones)
but it all is very hypocritical and irrelevant. The organization
leader decides what he thinks will work best, and that is that.
Peacefull means usually work best, but their are times when
violent or agressive acts can be not only a "wake up call" but also
can provide GREAT publicity for the group. Remember the old
"show biz" saying. "ANY PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY". That includes
both positive and negative press. You may be critisized in the
newspaper for lets say, smashing all the parking meters on
1st avenue in sign of protest, but somewhere some reader will think
to himself.... "damed, what a great idea, those fucking parking
meters are a rip-off! Parking should be free for all!"
(7) Collecting INTELLIGENCE. This can be an extremely valuable part of
the propagandists strategy. Sadly, this is perhaps a greatly underused
tactic, but that is only because it is such a difficult task to
collect intelligence on the opposition. Also many times it simply
may not be worth the effort. One can still carry out an effective
propaganda plan even without knowing the enemies strategy. But it
ceartainly could not hurt to have more information on your enemy.
Some information which could be of use is:
[a] Information on the size of the opposing organization.
Both in terms of financial situation and number of members.
[b] Personal intelligence collection on the top members of an
opposing organization. Maybe one of the members is involved
in any type of illegal or immoral dealings. With such information
one could either blackmail the opposition, or could have the
authorities arrest the individual, or better yet could use such
information to not only destroy the credibility of the
opposing organization, but also to arouse the anger of the
propagandists loyal followers so that they hate the opposition
even more than before.
[c] Financial records and dealings of an opposing organization.
Where are they getting their money from? Persons, big corporate
donations, etc.. Are the top members "embezzling" any of the
donation money? Did they suddely start driving a luxury 'Jaguar'
when all they drove before was an economy Hoda Civic car.
[d] Who does the public relations work for the opposing group?
Can their ads be sabotaged in one of a million ways? Can you
subvert the P.R. firm from the inside by getting a 'mole'
to be hired into the P.R. firm.
[e] Where do the top members of the opposing group perform speeches?
Do they speak alot at civics groups, at schools or colleges,
at veterans associations, do they speak at media/press gatherings?
[f] What do they get payed for speeches? If anything.
If they get payed large amounts, where does that money go?
Embelzzlement? Misappropriation? Or in general, one could make
a fantasic propaganda campaign by slandering an enemy by claiming
that their only goal IS NOT to support their ideals, but rather
to make a "quick buck" at the expense of others. For instance,
the propagandist can give free speeches (or more likely very
cheap speeches) as opposed to the opposition who gets payed
$20,000 an hour on the lecture circuit as many people do. This
gives the illusion that the propagandist cares more because
he does things for free ("out of the goodness of his heart").
[g] What magazines or articles does the opposition publish. Do
they make audio, videotapes, do they write freelance for
other magazines, or do they publish their own stuff either
on paper or on the INTERNET or via computer networks.
Maybe one could sabotage or deliberately alter the videotapes
before they get sent out to customers. Maybe a few typeographical
errors can be inserted into an article which is to be published
which is not big enough to be noticed at the time of print
but yet will embarress the opposition by making that error
look as if the organization is either intentionally misleading
or in general stupid. For instance some bogus/altered
statistics could be inserted in an article. This is quite an
easy feat to accomplish, albeit a little bit risky. This can
be done by an internal "mole" that works in the oppositions
HQ or can be done late at night, as with a surreptitious entry
and a few quick strokes on the keyboard. Also if the opposition
utilizes the INTERNET, it is
[h] Can you get advanced copies of any debates or speeches which
may be gived. If a debate is going to be given, what better
way for the propagandist to look intelligent than if he can
slyly rebutt every comment which the opposition makes.
The same goes with newsletter articles. If one could get an
advanced copy, the propagandist can create his own article
to rebutt what the opposition has said, thus controlling damage.
This is a very common, almost daily tactic of newspapers
across the country who always scurry to keep track of what other
newspapers or reporters are working on. That way they can all
"out scoop" each other by coming up wth the article first.
Brief List of Rules:
(a) The propagandists PRIMARY GOAL is to INFLUENCE people.
(b) The propagandists SECONDARY GOAL is to CONVINCE people.
(c) The propagandists TERTIARY GOAL is to realize that we are all being
influenced, and their is NOTHING that can be done about it.
(d) The propagandist exists solely to perpetuate propaganda.
(e) No one is immune, not even the propagandist himself.
(f) People who claim that they cannot be influenced, are the main target.
(g) EVERYTHING in life is considered propaganda to a propagandist.
(h) Human emotion is non-existant in the real world. Feelings are
merely figments of ones own imagination (and can be manipulated).
(i) Words are inatimate objects. The propagandist should never become
mentally 'hurt' by such words, whether they are his or anothers words.
(j) Words and images are "tools" for the propagandist to ply his trade.
(k) The word -propaganda- can itself be used as propaganda.
(l) The propagandist must SEPERATE: "BUSINESS" from "PLEASURE".
(m) Propaganda should be viewed with complete non-emotion. It should be
viewed as "business" or a "game of political strategy".
(n) The propagandist must always remember that everything he does is to
convince OTHER PEOPLE and NOT HIMSELF!!
(o) The propagandist should always make a clear distinction between what
he says to others and what he really believes on a personal level.
(p) Never start believing ones own lies. Always adhere to the truth and facts.
(q) "The-Ends-Justifies-the-Means" is the theory by which a propagandist
lives his life and governs his course of actions.
(r) When honest persuasionary tactics fail, as a last resort rely on
villainization and scapegoating.
(s) All the above rules are impossible to follow -as we are only human-
and should be taken only to the extreme of which one is capable.
====================
Rules Explained:
====================
(a) The propagandists PRIMARY GOAL is to INFLUENCE people.
Putting an image into the minds of as many people as possible
is the first and foremost goal. The person who is being propagandized
need not be a supporter or a believer of any cause, in fact the
target may be the opposition. But so long as an image can be placed
into the minds of everyone, then the mission was a sucess. Previously
mentioned example: Person drinks and drives no matter what anyone
else tells them. But just for a fraction of a second, a drunk driver
may remember the images from a commercial of a car which crashed and
people died. He still may drive away drunk, but so long as he
recalled the image, he was affected. The same principle would apply
to abortion issues where people on both sides can recall images of
a babies body being mangled by the doctors forceps.
(b) The propagandists SECONDARY GOAL is to CONVINCE people.
After one has influenced as many people as possible using tactics of
emotion, and using sorrowfull or patriotic images, the next step is
to convince others to join in the cause and to believe what the
propagandist wants you to believe in. The propagandist may spoon
feed (or "teach") people, or the target may seek to teach himself
with information which the propagandist so gladly provides; but
either way the net result is to get others to join the cause.
(c) The propagandists TERTIARY GOAL is to realize that we are all being
influenced, and their is NOTHING that can be done about it.
Self explanatory. No one can escape influence. Unless you live on a
deserted island and have never talked to another human being in youtr
life, dont know how to read, write, speak, then unless you meet that
criteria, you will be a victim. The question is will you choose to
realize it. Will you be able to identify influences when your faced
with such situations, and what will you do about it, to what degree will
you allow yourself to be influenced.
(d) The propagandist exists solely to perpetuate propaganda.
Such persons could be considered to be fenatics, or extremists or
you could just say that these are people that give a damned and have
a mission and purpose in life. they will do anything and everything to
achieve their goals to the best ability they are capable of and
usually such people consider self-sacrifice to be a small price to
pay. They would give everything they own monetarily and many others
may even give their life, "if it would help".
(e) No one is immune, not even the propagandist himself.
Pretty much the same as rule (c). The propagandist must realize that
he could be the victim of influence also, so he or she should always be
on guard in life so their priorities do not get skewed. They must remain
objective and in fact try to ignore other peoples propaganda. If the
propagandist starts listening to other persons propaganda (even if it
comes from his/her allies) it still can affect his objectivity.
(f) People who claim that they cannot be influenced, are the main target.
Self-explanatory. People who think their not human, are simply put
"suckers", "ignoramuses", "out of touch with reality" individuals or
lastly they are "in denial".
(g) EVERYTHING in life is considered propaganda to a propagandist.
A reasonable line has to be established determined only by the
propagandist. Even a propagandist has a personal life.
The rule-of-thumb is that the propagandist should be skeptical about
most things, but he should not be a die hard fenatic and deny every
single thing. That would be detrimental. If one denied every single
thing which one had learned, then one would never really learn anything.
The propagandist should just stick to studying what he considers to
be most important issues. Example: If one is a "UFO Conspiracy theorist"
then one should focus his skepticism on the governments denial and
he should keep track of things like aerospace technology. However, he
should not be skeptical about everything else. He shouldnt be contesting
things like the earth really isnt round and its all a big conspiracy.
In otherwords one needs to keep focus on what "IS" clearly propaganda
versus what "COULD" be propaganda.
What seperates the propagandist apart is that he always has or should
have a degree of distrust or skepticism. He will question that which
may even look to be scientific facts. Each day we are bombarded with
so-called scientific facts.... but how do we know if were really all
not being taken for a ride. The biggest example I can think of at
the moment which far surpasses anything, is the pharmaceutical industry
and the Food and Drug Administration (the FDA is often viewed as the
most corrupt sickly agency in the entire U.S. Govt, this being said by
former FDA employees and pharmaceutical representatives.) Each year,
"miracle drugs" are created, and each year they are supressed by the
FDA (it is "legally" supressed; literally; based on bureaucratic rules
at the expense of the people and their health). Perhaps its best if you
read up on this subject yourself, I can in no way summarize the great
evil which has been perpetrated on this entire world by the fraudulent
pharmaceutical industry and the FDA. The point being were fed these
lies, and we all accept them as medical facts, when their nothing but
lies designed to make the drug companies more money.
(h) Human emotion is non-existant in the real world. Feelings are
merely figments of ones own imagination.
One of the most important rules of all!! Feelings and emotions are
completely non-existant entities in the real world. They are not
physical objects which can be seen, touched, smelled, etc.. They
exist solely in peoples minds and are not real at all.
One persons concept of "evil" or "sinfull" to another person is
not a very bad deed at all. And to another it may not only not be
evil or a sin but it may be considered a good act. One persons
concept of decency and morality is completely different than another
persons. So any perception of feelings is completely in the eye
of the beholder.
Hence, people can be made to believe not only what they want to believe
but also what the propagandist wants them to believe. The propagandist
can very easily make another feel hatred towards another group of
people (the opposition). In fact hatred is the easiest feeling of all
to invoke in people. It is far easier to invoke hatred than it is
to enact love. Yet another reason why propaganda is so effective.
The opposition may not really be "evil" or "immoral" and in fact their
is no such thing. The propagandist himself might not even hold his
opposition in such low regard. But if the followers hate that
organization, and think they are "evil" or "sinners", then they are
indeed evil sinners. [but only in their minds]
(i) Words are inatimate objects. The propagandist should never become
mentally 'hurt' by such words, whether they are his or anothers words.
The propagandist, or for that matter any writer or person who wants to
work extensively with words or whos job is to persuade others must
realize that words dont really hurt. ("sticks and stones may break
my bones but names will never hurt me"). It may indeed "hurt" a person
to be attacked or insulted. But in reality words do not hurt and it
is only in peoples imagination of the mind that it hurts. The key is
to desensitize oneself over a period of time and try to realize that
words simply do not hurt. Propaganda is just a game of strategy and
even though it may be annoying to have the opposition say things which
you may abhore, it still must be remembered that they (the opposition)
is really only doing its job (they too are spreading propaganda) so
one should not take it personally.
(j) Words and images are "tools" for the propagandist to ply his trade.
Self explanatory. Words have no real meaning, other than in peoples
imaginations. Any particular word means something completely
different to every single human being on planet earth. Even though you
may think that we all understand words the same way, the fact is we
totally do not. Especially words which we may feel invokes more emotion
to us. If I called somebody a NIGGER, it can invoke a million diffent
feelings in a million different people be they black, white, asian, male
or female. The key is to target ones audience and use words which
you think would affect the group the most. Use any word which you think
would hurt people or make people happy, sad, glad, manipulate these
people as much as you can. Remember, the propagandist controls peoples
minds.
Words dont hold any meaning at all when they are on the page. Its just
a bunch of ink. Until it reaches somebodies brain and they interpret it,
only then does it actually get meaning and invoke feeling.
(k) The word -propaganda- can itself be used as propaganda.
This is an example of how ceartain words in themselves are propaganda.
The word propaganda often has a negative conotation as most people
use it. Has anyone ever noticed that almost never in our history have
you ever heard anyone say that going to school and being taught
history and science and math is 'propaganda'? But yet you constantly
hear journalists, and politicians and all sorts of government officials
when referring to citizens of other countries. Why is it that foreign
government uses "propaganda to brainwash the people", yet here in
america we simply "teach people". Its the old classic tactic of
villainization at work. We use what is considered to be an "evil"
word (propaganda) and then we associate it with our enemies by claiming
that only our enemies brainwash their own people and teach those
foreign citizens all sorts of bad things... utter nonesense and all a
big lie. And so many people believe it.
(l) The propagandist must SEPERATE: "BUSINESS" from "PLEASURE".
The propagandist must seperate his life so as not to go completely
crazy. He or she must realize that he cannot spend 24 hours a day
for the rest of his life on his "cause". He needs sleep, he needs
entertainment, he needs other things which we need in society. If one
tried to do work 24 hours a day one would end up in the loony bin.
The propagandist must try to realize -in fact it is an absolute- that his
propaganda work is nothing but "business". He should not let it get into
his personal life. When one starts thinking about his "cause" 24 hours
a day, then one is going to end up with some serious fucking problems
because one is going to end up a fenatic delusional nutcase in just
a few years. Propaganda should be like "going to the office". You do
your work, and then when your done with the workload, you go home and
relax and dont worry about it again till tommorow.
(m) Propaganda should be viewed with complete non-emotion. It should be
viewed as "business" or a "game of political strategy".
Pretty much the same as above. Again, the point being that is absolutely
essential that one views propaganda as a business. A person needs to
remain rational and have a good business plan or strategy for winning
the cause. If you let typical human emotions permeate your thinking
nevermind the fact that one would go crazy, as it pertains to this
rule the important factor that one would lose his effectiveness as
a propagandist. When one starts to get personal with an issue, one
will be more and more willing to "lie", "manipulate facts and figures"
to suite the cause, and that is not good because it could destroy
your credibility if your caught doing that.
(n) The propagandist must always remember that everything he does is to
convince OTHER PEOPLE and NOT HIMSELF!!
Self explanatory. You start letting your own propaganda affect you
and sometimes (most of the time) you will never even know it. You will
end up being a really shitty propagandist because you'll get too personal
and will just become an irate crazy nut willing to do anything to
win, even doing things which really dont make sense. Remember one of the
cardinal rules of the propagandist is that he should be much more aware
than every other person and he should be resistant to any form of
influence, even if hes the one doing the influencing.
(o) The propagandist should always make a clear distinction between what
he says to others and what he really believes on a personal level.
What you say and what you really believe are two seperate things all
together. Everyone is a hypocrite, but that really is all part of the
game of politics and activism. You tell people your a die-hard fenatic
but maybe your really not all that die-hard. But if it suits your
cause, and it gets people on your side, and if it stirs people up
more when you say your a fenatic, then you accept it as a little white
lie. the important thing is to remember your lying. Dont fool yourself.
(p) Never start believing ones own lies.
Self explanatory. You believe your lies, and you will be an ineffective
propagandist because that will lead to more and more lies, and you
may lose credibility. Also, this violates the cardinal rule of what
a propagandist is. Such persons do not or try not to let themselves
be lied to. Even by themselves.
(q) "The-Ends-Justifies-the-Means" is the theory by which a propagandist
lives his life and governs his course of actions.
This is a phrase which most people cling to, yet being the hypocrites
that us humans are, none of us ever like to admit the truth.
Most people will say "two wrongs never makes a right" or
"you should always follow the law no matter what" and then these same
billions of phonies go and do just the opposite, most of the time
probably not even realizing it because their hypocrisy is so engrained
into their heads that they dont even realize their doing it.
Nevertheless the propagandist should always realize this fact and
make a conscious effort to know when one is being a hypocrite.
If a course of action will achieve your goals and provided the
propagandist doesnt feel that a moral travesty will be commited then
that course of action should be taken if it will achieve the objective.
The propagandist should NEVER EVER EVER hold the written law in any
regard of respect. To do so is a very contradiction of what seperates
a propagandist from the passive sheep of society.
The propagandist should ALWAYS put ones moral convictions above any
meaningless words on paper known as "the law". No written law can
or should ever supercede morality, humanity and decency. This is the
same mentality that allowed the NAZI's to shove people in incinerators
and then claim "I was just following orders". They didnt accept
that blind belief in Nuremberg as the NAZIs were hanged by the neck,
so likewise you should take a clue and realize blind devotion (to law)
is for passive sheep who dont want to bother thinking about what really
is 'right' or 'wrong'. No law can tell you that. Only you can by
following your conscience.
(r) When honest persuasionary tactics fail, as a last resort rely on
villainization and scapegoating.
(s) All the above rules are impossible to follow -as we are only human-
and should be taken only to the extreme of which one is capable.
** What is "Pragmatism" ?
A pragmatist is simply one who relies on facts to determine ones
course of action and this in turn governs the causes which one
belives in. This is a very important topic, but I think I will
just skip over it. The fact is, were not robots or computers that
can be programmed. Many of us will believe in a cause even after the
facts have proved a cause to be based on a lie or otherwise worthless.
I personally, believe in a ceartain degree of pragmatism. I believe
alot in logic, I hate when emotions are dragged into politics, but
like I said, since were not programmable robots none of us really
qualify as pragmatic people.
** What is a Hypocrite ?
Hypocrisy- (1) The pretense of having feelings or characteristics
which one does not posess. (2) The deceitfull
assumption of virtue.
This term, best summed up as:
"Say one thing.... and do another".
All humans are hypocrites by nature, anyone who even denies it has
some sort of mental deficiency or simply is lacking in logic. Most
people often "say one thing, and do another". Thats the way it is, and
their isnt anything necessarily wrong with that.
Hypocrisy comes in a variety of forms, some are more acceptable than
others morally. Of course, if your paying attention, you would realize
that is an opinion. My opinion. Everyone has their own perception.
The first type of hypocrisy is the "little white lie". This is something
which not only does every human being do, either intentionally or
unintentionally, it may sometimes be perceived as a good thing, or at
the very least an acceptable act because the net resultant is beneficial.
Example:
If you rob banks for a living, it ceartainly could not hurt to tell
others not to follow in your footsteps because its a crime. The
same goes for people who use drugs, their always telling others
"not to get involved". How many parents tell their kids not to
speed 80 miles an hour down the expressway? Yet these same parents
themselves drive down the road at 70mph! Its hypocritical, but so
long as the end-resultant is a positive one in your opinion, then the
"ends-justifies-the-means".
Then you move onto the more underhanded forms of hypocrisy which are not
really little white lies. But are intentional deceptions. The person
who is the hypocrite may be intentionally doing it for propaganda purposes,
or maybe just because they cant handle the truth and are in denial, maybe
as in most cases (99 percent of the time) people are hypocrites without
even knowing it. Which one is worse is completely debateable. My personal
opinion, it is more of a moral sin, to be a hypocrite unkowingly, than it
is to intentionally lie. If your doing it for propaganda purposes, then
you are doing it to advance your cause and that has a positive aspect
to it. But to just berate someone else for the hell fo it, while your
doing the same thing just serves no purpose.
Example of an intentional deception:
I as a propagandist, claim that I am a die-hard fenatic to all followers
and I claim that "I will die for my cause".
Now the fact may be that I'm stretching the truth a bit. I may not really
want to or be willing to die for my cause. But... if it rouses the troops
up, then no harm is really done in this situation.
Example of unintentional deceptions: (less morally acceptable)
I claim that I am a die-hard supporter of pro-life (anti-abortion). I claim
to all that life is so sacred that it is the ultimate sin to kill a living
being. I then proceed to enact a viscious campaign to slander and berate my
opponents who are anti-life (pro-abortion). I slaughter my opponents by
claiming that they are disguisting filthy murders who are killers of babies
and these people have no regard for life.
Next week, I Mr. Pro-Life, I love all gods creatures.. show up at a
pro-death-penalty rally because I want all convicts to be put to death.
Obviously one can see in the latter situation, their is far more harm,
immorality and damage. This is just a classic example upon the millions of
other ways in which people are filthy hypocrites. What makes the latter
scenario so filthenly disguisting is that such persons are usually being
hypocrites without even knowing it. If this was an intentional political
ploy that would be one thing. But these type of people dont even have the
mental capability to realize that what their saying and doing is a
double-standard. You cant be a die hard pro-lifer only to think that it is
acceptable to kill in some situations. It doesnt work like that. Its an
absolute. Either you are or you are not an absolute supporter.
** What is a Paranoid ?
Paranoia is usually defined as a mental disorder where one believes that
one is being plotted against or wheras one has delusions of grandeur.
I dont like that definition, I think it stinks and is biased and the
people that wrote that definition in the dictionary should have come
up with a few more modern realistic definitions.
Paranoia, in reality is a form of distrust of ones surroundings. Usually
such persons are quite a bit more skeptical than "normal people" and
are more reluctant to accept truths, information as factual information.
Likewise, such people do not trust others as easily. Such persons only
will form a bond after they have established than another person is
definately on the same side as the paranoid person.
If I had a choice of any so-called "mental disorder", I would choose to
be paranoid. In fact, I readily admit, I am far more excessively paranoid
than the average individual (one might gather that by the very fact that
I have written this rather peculiar article, which has an air of
"their all plotting against us" attitude. I view paranoia as the greatest
blessing to the human conscience. I feel it is the most powerfull
extraordinary feeling which gives one extraordinary abilities, an almost
sixth-sense to be able to know when your being fed a line of shit (on the
other hand, maybe my opinion just means I have delusions of grandeur)..
Think whatever one wants.. But personally, I say skepticism and
paranoia allow an individual to be far more objective in accepting and
determining facts than most other persons, because such persons by their
very nature will dig deeper at the evidence to see if something
is in actuality true. I see no harm or metal disorder in simply being
skeptical and wanting to know if you have really been told the truth.
As for the "their plotting against us attitude" which goes along with
paranoia, I also see that as a blessing. The fact is we are all being used
in this life.. big corporations rely on us to make them billions of dollars,
we rely on others, and so one and so forth... but thats just the definition
of life. But I see no harm in this attitude so long as it isnt hurting
anyone else.
============================================================
** How is all of society propagandized ?
By now one should get the feeling that we, as humans, can be pretty
damned illogical, even stupid one could say. We are so easily manipulated
and even worse we as humans are so fickle. What is considered "the evil
cause" one year or decade, is fogotten the next.
One thing remains true. Society cannot exist without having some form
of "evil force" for which the sheepish masses and even the government
itself to fight. That is after all, the very existance of life. One
needs enemies, we always have, always will. It gives us all a sense of
purpose, makes us feel like we are doing something important and
it also perpetuates the system. I mean if those big bad drugs werent
illegal, what the hell would we do with all those useless not-needed
DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) agents who waste hundreds of
millions of taxpayer dollars for no purpose?? But it DOES serve a
purpose. It gives those fuckers jobs, and something to do, which is
what life as I said is all about. And the C.I.A., what the hell would
they be doing or needed for if no evil force or some "threat" be it
real or perceived didnt exist. We wouldnt need them, same with the NSA.
But if we were to dump those intelligence agencies, over 80,000 citizens
would be out of work. And that ceartainly isnt a good thing. The only
logical solution? Find new enemies, real or imagined and continue
spending money to keep people buisy so it looks like these govt agencies
are actually doing something.. For the record, I have nothing against
the CIA and NSA, and in fact I think their one of the few agencies that
this country DOES need. The rest of the agenices can go take a fucking hike
because their wasting taxpayer dollars. In order, the DEA a completely
useless agency which exists only because of an imaginary problem which
does not even exist. If people didnt things drugs were a problem, then it
wouldnt be. Didnt we learn our lesson during prohibition? Its all in
people minds. The next useless agency, how about the BATF. That agencies
only purpose is to unnecessarily suck taxpayers dry of even more money with
ludicrous taxes on alcohol and tobbacco. What is this agency for?
As for firearms and explosives... well fucking duh. Thats what the FBI
is for, or should be for. We dont need another redundant fucking agency
to handle firearms. Then we have another government agency, whos only
purpose is to spread propaganda throught the world. At the tune of
tens of millions of dollars.. Yeah... like we need this agency. Another
completely redundant agency. Thats what the CIA should be doing
(is doing/has done).
Lets look at a few of the stupid things which have perversed our
puny little illogical brains due to societies brainwshing.
* <inatimate objects are evil>
money, guns, drugs, electronic devices,
Some people view money as the root of all evil. Blaming an inatimate
object right their makes that concept ludicrous and shifts the focus
away from the real problem, human greed. The world is full of lunatics
who think the world would be better off without money, which is rediculous
to begin with, its ceartainly debateable, but the ludicrous part is just
that such people think "money" is the evil and have no concept of what
self responsibility is.
Then we have drugs, societies great evil, or so it would appear to be that
way for the last 100 or so years, and it gets worse each and every year.
When someone figures this out, you let me know, because I'm obviously not
smart enough to get it. An inatimate object is evil. Yeah whatever. And
drugs turn people into addicts. Yeah whatever. You can get away with saying
that line of bullshit about drugs because it shows how stupid people are
and how they adhere to hypocrisy and double standards. But if you dared
walk into a 12 step alcoholics anonymous meeting and dared to blame the
alcohol,.. the group members would politely rip you a new asshole for
being so god damned stupid and irresponsible as to blame anything else
but yourslef for your current addiction.
Electronic Devices, ahh yes another great evil. Yes believe it or not
their are a great many people who think that owning an electronic device
makes one a criminal. No one knows this better than people who are in the
hacker or phone phreak culture. Especially those that are aware of the
laws. You own a scanning receiver, you own cellular teklephone test
equipment, you own surveillance equipment, etc.. etc.. and that makes
you an automatic criminal as most of the widely available items are indeed
illegal and are federal felonies to posess. So no longer does one even have
to commit a crime to be considered a criminal. Now if you want to own
ceartain types of equipment you have to be "special", cause only special
people get to own neato' devices like transmitters and such. What a
concept of justice. Now your guilty, and you didnt even do anything!!
Wow... justice sure is progressing in this so-called phony free country.
<thoughts and ideas are evil>
We all know where this is going. In wonderull countries like China,
Guatemala, Rhwanda, etc.. you get thrown in jail for 25 years just
because you say you dont like the government. Even writing an unflattering
article about a politician can get one thrown in jail, one may even
mysteriously "disappear" like thousands of people did in Guatemala (thanks
to the CIA's help for a decade in supporting a facist brutal regime
who killed over 150,000 people and threw them into mass graves, torturted
and abuducted people in broad daylight.)
<ceartain words are evil>
Profanity... What a concept. You get your mouth washed out with soap or
you get scolded because you made a bunch of sounds with your mouth that
forms a word... and thats bad... yeah whatever. I mean, this is so
utterly ludicrous that,.. its not even worth mentioning, yet this has
got to be by far the greatest brainwashing feat all throught human history.
Convincing people that just by saying a word your mother gets to smack
you upside the head for saying something "evil".
<religion>
Your going to go to this great place called heaven when you die. And
St Peter is going to be their to meet you at heavens gate. Oh but of
course if youve led a bad life, your going to go to this fiery place.
oooh, and lets all sit together in this one big building and get down
on our knees and babble and utter things which are utter nonesense, and
this is called a prayer. Or if your of the Middle Eastern persuasion
make sure you face the east twice a day to pray to the Mecca. And if women
dont wear that veil on their face then they are commiting an evil act
to Muslims. How many rediculous religious customs do I have to
list in order to make people realize how stupid it is? Forget stupid.
It is complete brainwashing with not one shred of truth to it.
You can believe in the Bible and the Ten Commandments if you want,
but that nonsense about imaginary gods and angels has got to be
gotten out of people heads. If I had it my way, evey single religious
individual on this planet would be executed (for stupidity... is that a
crime?) Unfortunately, that would not be a good idea because then their
would not be a whole lot of people left alive on planet earth.
<blind patriotism>
See the beginning of this article which describes the stupidity of
blind patriotism to any country. Beliefs should be based on facts
and reality. Your allegiance should be to a belief and a cause, not
to a "group". If you believe in the group mentality, then your just
yet another member of the herd of sheep and cows called humans.
<blind devotion to political or socioeconomic structures or systems>
Same principle, people usually cling to the ideals with which they
were brought up with. If you live in a communist country (that really
preaches communism... not like they do today, Russia is capitalist all
the way today), then you'll likely be as you were taught.
<blind evotion to family>
<blind devotion to leaders>
So many people hold a devotion to a particular leader, yet so few people
even know what their leader stands for, what their record is, what laws
they supported which they didnt. So few people are willing to hear anything
bad about their favorite politician, and even when you tell them the
facts they just pass the buck and divert attention to another politician.
You ask most people to list as much as they can about their favorite
politican and 99 times out of 100 you wont get more than 30 seconds of
conversation out of that person, if even that. More likely the exchange
would go.
"well I dont know offhand, you know, hes just done alot for the country".
Any answer like the above either means their just not very verbally adept
or they dont know what the fuck their talking about.
** How are Americans propagandized ?
<Drugs>...discussed it.
<Guns>... ah yes. its not the criminals fault. Blame an inatimate object.
Great logic. Nevermind the fact that self defense is a human right
which every human being on this planet has a right to. Wouldnt
want to let the innocents protect themselves.
<Criminals> the great scapegoats of society. Blame it all on the criminals.
90 percent of the people in this country are political prisoners.
They shouldnt not even be their to begin with because they are
not real criminals. They have commited an imaginary crime.
DRUGS! A crime (in any sane persons head) involves the actual
commision of an act against another person, or their property.
Their is no crime in prostitution, no crime in gambling, no
crime in lending money at 35 percent if thats what you want to do,
their is no crime in owning electronic equipment, their is no
crime in owning a naturally occuring plant (ie: marijuana),
their is no crime in making a chemical substance in your own
home (be it explosives or drugs). These are crimes because they
havent hurt any others. This country has more prisoners than
any other country in the world. Does anyone actually see this
as a good thing? Anyone ever going to come to the realization
that these people are NOT criminals and havenmt actually done
anything. Is having the highest number of convicts in the
world supposed to be some sort of grande homor to show the world
how efficient our judicial and law enforcement system is? or
in reality does this just make the United States of America
look like the biggest fucking scumag country in teh world?
<Indecency> Another great one.. Think Communications decency Act. Another
example of a non-existant crime. Pictures are illegal. Whatever.
<The system> People like to blame "the system" as a whole, people always
use that phrase. I use the phrase myself. But what we should be
doing is blaming the people that work for the system. Their the
ones that are fucking this country up. I'm still waiting for
some FBI agents to go to jail for slaughtering Randy Weavers
family at Ruby Ridge. Of course that wont be happening ever.
<Foreigners> Blame it all on the immigrants. This world is overpopulated
as it is. We need a few million less people. A few more immigrants
here or their dont make much difference. If we did not want these
people in our country then we should put up the damned welcome
sign on the statute of liberty declaring "Give me your tired,
your poor, your hudled masses yearning to be free."
Besides this country couldnt survive without immigrants. They
take so many of the shit jobs that most americans would not touch.
They help keep the economy in check to a great degree by working
for amazing low wages. This helps keep all wages down (which IS
a good thing despite greedy americans idea to the contrary).
<Militias> Guys or gals getting together, talking nasty about the government
and they may or may not have guns and shoot them at the target
range.. Wow, these people are threats. Imagine that.. shooting
guns and dressing up in fatigues. I mean who would imagine. And
to think people shoot off about a millions rounds of ammo a day
at gun ranges and that has never been a problem, but now some
guys call themselves a militia and suddenly its a dastarly act
to shoot their guns at paper targets. Oh, and their all suversively
plotting to bring down the government.
<Politicians are Corrupt> some think so..
<Politicians arent Corrupt> some think not..
<Law Enforcement> Most people dont trust law enforcement nowadays more
than ever. And quite frankly for good reason. But what is
particularly annoying is the fact that number one rotten agents
and officers continue to stay on the job, number two continually
get away with murder (even when their brought to court they
still get off.) We should however, focus more on targeting
individuals who are responsibel for fucking this country up,
as opposed to blaming the whole agency.
<Justice System> The innocent get convicted, the guilty go free.. thats the
way its always been. People complain more about the "Justice system"
more now than ever, yet its the same as its always been. People
cry constitutional rights, yet they get pissed off when a criminal
gets off. Thats called hypocrisy and as I said, it stinks. You
canthave it both ways. Either the law errs on the side of caution
or we ditch the constitution (as we already are doing at a rapid
pace. the 4th and 5th amendments are already seriously eroded.
I say better 1000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent go to jail.
Life goes on if we let a few scumbags out. But if one innocent
man is imprisoned, their is no higher crime against humanity.
<Intelligence Agencies> Another common target of the people nowadays.
Its a national pastime to blame the CIA and NSA for everything.
What we should be doing is looking athe facts a little more and
blaming them for what they have really done, or based on past
example. We shouldnt be getting our news from journalists or
newspaper articles.
** How are 'foreigners' propagandized ?
<Blame the americans> The middle east is alive with the spirit of
"Jihad" (The Holy War) against the infidel capitalists.
I dont know what their teaching these Muslim fucking scumbags
to make them blame the West. They better get their act together,
quit the hypocrisy and worry about their own criminal acts of
terrorism and "freedom fighting" before they go blaming the West.
Thats a fine thank you which we get too (courtesy of the CIA).
We help those Afghani's fight their shitty little war against
the Russian invaders. We supply them with the weapons, the
money, the CIA looks the other way as the Afghani's smuggle
Opium to gain more money for the rebel armies to fight the
Russians. We coordinate and train the Afghan guerillas in
Pakistan, and how do these fuckers pay us back for helping
liberate their country. Now the militant Muslims (who didnt
like us to begin with, so I dont know why the CIA gave those
fuckers weapons) are blowing up the World Trade Center and
other american landmarks.
============================================================
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
FOOTNOTES I was originally going to put a list of books here for
& SOURCES: the reader to further researh, however I have so many
books on the subject that I really dont think any one
is better than another. This subject can only be learned
about in detail by years of research, picking little
bits of information from different books on different
topics.
My best advice is the following.
(1) Go to the library. Most libraries should have a few
basic books on propaganda. Also try searching for
brainwashing, as those books usually have interesting
concepts in them which pertain to psychology.
Some of the best books however are a little difficult
to obtain. Their are many excellent books on propaganda
written by Ex-NAZI's who worked for Hitlers propaganda
arm. Usually such books cannot be found in the library
because the term NAZI is censored from most american
libraries with the exception of sobbing Jew stories.
One particularly excellent book was written by
Adolph Eichman, one of Hitlers main men who escaped the
gallows, hid out in Argentina where he authored a
number of books under different fictitious names (to
avoid being captured) he hid out until the 1960s when
the Mossad (Israeli Security Arm [intelligence])
had (illegally) kidnapped him and brought him back for
a show trial. Anyway, their are also a great many
books by Russian authors on propaganda. Not too many
american books though (that I have seen).
(2) Get some books on marketing, and many others especially
on advertising. These books can be kind of drole, but
if you can bear through reading them they actually
contain more information on brainwashing than do the
propaganda books. Another extremely important thing
to do is to subscribe to the latest marketing and
advertising Journals. these contain invaluable tactics
for manipulating people and better yet have lots of
statistics on surveys which different associations do
to determine what works best to make people buy.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CONCLUSION
To conclude this article, the author will say, that it doesnt matter
what you choose to be in life. Whether you want to be a leader, a
follower, a propagandist, it is your decision and the purpose of this
article was not to recruit you into any particular line of thinking.
All I ask, is that whichever you want to be in life, you be an aware
individual who can identify influences in life. What you choose to
do with that information is solely up to you. Dont be a victim.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[End of Page]
© 2024 Packet Storm. All rights reserved.
%7Cutmcsr%3D(direct)%7Cutmcmd%3D(none)){kind=small}
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Subscribe to an RSS Feed