The Word
by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Originally, I drafted this article with a preface about the story Michael Hastings recently broke on BuzzFeed about an amendment to the latest defense authorization bill that would “legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences.” However, as I worked on it this morning, our very own poet laureate and research librarian extraordinaire Elaine Magliaro cut me off at the pass with her own excellent article on the subject. So instead of repeating the points she makes which illustrate why understanding propaganda is important, I will refer you to her post “How about Some Government Propaganda for the People Paid for by the People Being Propagandized?”
Now that the kid gloves have come off regarding the governmental efforts to control your mind by controlling both your information and how you receive it, let’s discuss the nature of propaganda. Now more than ever, it is important to know the basics of how propaganda works. Since words are the basic building block of the English language, we’ll start with asking what is propaganda, look at some general history of the practice, consider the importance of meaning of words, the ideas of connotation and denotation, and the process of selecting “value loaded” words.
What is propaganda? Webster’s defines the word as follows:
propaganda \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\, n.,
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions (ed. note: Not relevant, but interesting.)
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
But that’s not exactly what people feel when they hear the word, is it? Why do most people have a negative reaction to the word “propaganda”? After all, by definition, “propaganda” is much like the verb “to persuade” in meaning.
persuade \pər-ˈswād\, v., v.t.,
1: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action
2: to plead with : urge
Etymologically speaking, the word “propaganda” is fairly new as a political science term. “Propaganda” didn’t come into common use as a political science term until World War I. Even then it was not a pejorative in use like it is today. The word originated (some would say unsurprisingly so) as shorthand referring to the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregatio de Propaganda Fide or the “congregation for propagating the faith”. This committee of cardinals was established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions. The word “propaganda” is the feminine gerund of the Italian verb “propagando” which in turn is derived from the Latin verb prōpāgō, meaning “to propagate”.
propagate \ˈprä-pə-ˌgāt\, v., v.t.,
3a : to cause to spread out and affect a greater number or greater area : extend b : to foster growing knowledge of, familiarity with, or acceptance of (as an idea or belief) : publicize c : to transmit (as sound or light) through a medium
Clearly the largest distinction between persuasion and propaganda is that propaganda is a form of large scale persuasion. Persuasion isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Changing someone’s mind is a better tactic than violence. Persuasion is at the heart of society’s pillar and replacement for self-help justice and dispute resolution, the adversarial court system. Persuasion is an alternative to coercion.
So what is propaganda? It’s a tool to change people’s minds. Like any tool, it is capable of beneficial use and horrific misuse. This makes understanding how the tool works critical if you want to recognize (and possibly work to prevent) its misuse.
If that is the case the word originally had no pejorative use, then why do most people have an automatic negative reaction to the word “propaganda”? This brings us to the ideas of connotation and denotation. Plainly put, denotation is a direct specific meaning; the literal meaning of a word and nothing more. Connotation is a “something” suggested by a word or thing; an implied meaning. I suggest the negative connotation for the word “propaganda” comes from both the negative denotation built in to the word itself (part of the definition is “for the purpose of helping or injuring” and injury carries the negative notion of harm to self and/or others) and the recent historical use of propaganda to dastardly ends culminating to create an implied negative meaning beyond the definition. The denotation of a word is not the direct province of the propagandist. They have to know what the words actually mean, but that is of limited value to them. The edge of the propagandist’s knife so to speak lies in the connotation of words. More on that topic as we move along. In the 20th Century, we have seen what truly evil injury propaganda is capable of inflicting on a society. To know how we got to today, it is important to have a bit of historical perspective.
Historically, the idea of propaganda has been around as long as there have been society and governments. For example, in ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh Ramses II claimed a great victory over the Hittites in the Battles of Kadesh (possibly the largest chariot battle in history). The two most common forms of Egyptian records of the battles are known as “The Poem” and “The Bulletin”. Both are found carved into multiple sites in Egypt, all built or expanded upon by Ramses II – one of the greatest builders of ancient Egypt. “The Bulletin” is found on seven different temples or monuments and eight total sites have “The Poem”. When you add numerous other references on papyrus and in tangentially related carvings, this makes the Battles of Kadesh one of the best recorded battles of antiquity. The tale told is of an overwhelming victory for Ramses II and Egypt.
There’s only one problem with that depiction.
It is most certainly a lie at worst and an exaggeration at best.
Hittite records, although not as numerous, all tell the tale of a Hittite victory. Archaeological evidence is inconclusive. One of the two parties is lying and possibly both. Most modern historians have come to the conclusion that the battle likely ended in a draw. Given that, why did Ramses II carve his non-existent victory into stone? Propaganda is the answer. Ramses II wanted the reputation as a strong military leader even if the reality wasn’t so glorious. So he fluffed the details and spread the word that “Ramses II Kicks Ass!” Unless you were at the Battles of Kadesh, who were you to argue with a Living God? Then realizing that his chances for immediate military exploits were practically nil, Ramses II did what any respectable Pharaoh would do and a secondary exercise in propaganda: he returned to the building spree he started as a young man. Some would say the greatest building spree in the history of the ancient Egypt. Just like the Romans after him, Ramses knew that impressive buildings were a kind of psychological warfare – non-verbal propaganda geared at projecting the power of the throne to the masses, but more on this at a later date. The focus here is language and the basics of propaganda.
In the beginning, there was the word. Those with the word were limited. If they could not speak directly, they were limited by how many manual physical copies they could get out to the masses and how many of the masses could read. Then came the printing press in the 15th Century. When Guttenberg invented it, one of the early adopters of the technology was the Holy Roman Empire. By the end of the Renaissance, book making was industrialized to the point that printer/binders could produce between three and four thousand pages per day: a hundred fold increase in production compared to the most prolific of scribes. Books and written material went from rare treasures to common items. As knowledge became democratized, the use of printed propaganda grew in unison: public notices, political flyers and proto-newspapers became cheap and abundant.
The 20th Century was in some ways a Golden Age for deploying propaganda. Unlike any previous age, the 20th Century was the age of mass communications. Industrial mass printing of newspapers, radio, television, telephones and the Internet radically changed the way humans communicate. The word became King and the picture became Queen. Even illiteracy wasn’t the barrier it had posed to the ancient world as the spoken word supplemented the written and the truism that “a picture is worth a thousand words” is a truism for a reason. Even physical handicap was less of a barrier to getting the message out as those blind to the printed word and picture and deaf to the spoken word now had the channel of communication created by the 19th Century invention of Braille. As propaganda is large scale persuasion, mass media provided a natural accelerant. What had previously been a candle of propaganda became a bonfire necessarily becoming a political science term in common usage. The 20th Century saw probably the most devastating use of propaganda to date on any population. Propaganda was instrumental to both the Nazi war effort and their social engineering that allowed them to industrially murder six million Jews, Roma, homosexuals and handicapped. Propaganda was key to the crimes of the Khemer Rouge. Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Castro’s rise to power in Cuba. The wrongful, misguided and likely illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. These are a few of many examples where propaganda has been used to either garner public support for ethically wrong actions by government or obfuscate the truth to aid the guilty from being brought to justice. This point will be addressed further in a later column, but it goes a long way to explaining how a word of neutral value became a word of negative value due to recent history.
We are still left with the word. As far as the word “propaganda” proper, we know what it means. We know where it comes from. We know the goal of propaganda in general. That leaves us with word choice and the idea of “value loaded” word and how it relates to propaganda. What are words loaded with? They are loaded with implication. This is why connotation is the edge of the propagandist’s knife. Word choice is critical. As I noted earlier, the denotation of a word is not the direct province of the propagandist. The edge of the propagandist’s knife so to speak lies in the connotation of words. However, knowing the proper denotation of words – i.e. having a large vocabulary – puts one at a tactical advantage against the propagandist. If one knows the actual meaning of words, it becomes more difficult for the propagandist to use connotation against you.
For example, consider the use of media outlets like NPR that made a public and conscious decision to refrain from reporting on “torture” – a word with extremely negative denotation and connotation – and instead choosing to use the euphemistic language “enhanced interrogation”. Everyone with a conscience thinks torture is a bad thing and torturers are ethically abhorrent people. It’s not only a Federal crime, cruel and unusual punishment is specifically barred by the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. The word choice here is designed to clearly shift public attitudes from “those guys need to be prosecuted as criminals” to “maybe they aren’t so bad after all”. NPR (aided by the Bush Administration no doubt) chose words with a neutral/positive value load compared to the word “torture”. Connotation plays to your emotional response over your rational response. When the word choice becomes more subtle, the damage of connotations can be even more insidious. Compare:
- war – limited police action
- conquest – liberation
- famine – widespread hunger
- pestilence – outbreak
- death – casualties
Be aware and suspicious of word choice, certainly. Especially when dealing with adjectives as they have by their nature a great capacity to carry connotation. However, it is equally important to consider the speaker. When evaluating something you suspect is propaganda, ask these questions:
- Who is the speaker?
- What does the speaker want from me?
- What advantage does the speaker gain from my agreement or lose from my disagreement? And vice-versa?
- Does the speaker represent other interests that may not be obvious?
- Why is the speaker giving this message now?
What is your first line of defense against propaganda?
Be aware of the meaning and choice of words. To that end, work to strengthen your vocabulary. Buy a “Word A Day” calender or download an app for your phone, use a website or download a tickler program for your computer.
Always question the message and the messenger as well as any who may have sent the messenger. Practice reading with emotional detachment and a critical eye to not only what is said, but how it is said and by whom.
Keep in mind that propaganda is a tool. It is inherently neutral. The good or evil is found in the intent of the speaker and their desired actions and/or reactions on your part.
What is your first line of defense against propaganda? You are. And that is my unhidden message to you: Wake up. Civilization calls. The world is what we make it.
The next article in this series will address methodology, strategy and tactics in deploying propaganda.
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
The Propaganda Series;
Propaganda 105: How to Spot a Liar
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Streisand Effect and the Political Question
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Sound of Silence
Propaganda 104: Magica Verba Est Scientia Et Ars Es
Propaganda 103: The Word Changes, The Word Remains The Same
Propaganda 102 Supplemental: Holly Would “Zero Dark Thirty”
Propaganda 102: Holly Would and the Power of Images
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Child’s Play
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Build It And They Will Come (Around)
Related articles of interest;
David Blauw,
“Gene, the GR has nothing to do with Reciprocity, it is simply my life and values I choose to express. If I were to expect reward or commendation for my “exemplary” lifestyle I would die waiting. I am frail and fallible….exactly as every poster here is …though in different ways I’m sure. (except death).
That’s the “golden” ticket, I don’t act this way for your or “others” benefit.”
I think you are mistaking what I was saying about the dynamic nature of the GR for a motive in adopting it. The GR itself describes a reciprocal action. In fact, in the language of discussing ethics is it often called the ethic of reciprocity.
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
Compare to this to the meaning of the verb “reciprocate”, meaning to give and take mutually or to return in kind or degree and the adjective “reciprocal”, meaning inversely related, shared, felt, or shown by both sides, serving to reciprocate mutually corresponding or marked by or based on reciprocity.
Using the word “reciprocity” isn’t about the motive behind the action.
It is simply a description of what the action’s relational dynamic.
A reciprocal saw doesn’t follow the GR, but the action of the blade is still reciprocal (back and forth).
That you follow the GR without expectation of outcome has no impact to the nature of the action. To practice it, regardless of motive, requires empathy. It requires you put yourself in another’s position or at a minimum acknowledge that they to are people.
As to the rest of what you note about the nature of propaganda, I have no quibble with that other than to note you are talking about the pejorative form of the word “propaganda”; propaganda used for its worst end. Consider that the common workplace sign found in restaurants reading “All Employees Must Wash Hands Before Returning to Work” is just as much propaganda as “Jews are destroying Germany!”. The wash sign, however, isn’t about division of the other or destruction of the other but rather about personal hygiene and food safety. That’s an example of propaganda put to good use.
talkingback,
Are you kidding or are you for real? the non-state of Judea declared war on Germany in 1933 so that is why Hitler exterminated millions of Jews?
is anybody here disputing the fact that German civilians were deliberately starved to death in 1915-1919?
Is anybody here disputing the fact that Jewish leaders deliberately set out to starve German civilians from 1933-1938?
Can anybody present facts that demonstrate that Germans did anything to Jewish people that could be identified as a casus belli in response to which Jews “declared war on Germany” in March 1933?
Does a non-state have the right to declare a war on a sovereign nation, and to implicate another nation — the United States — in the prosecution of that war?
Are you all denying that newspapers headlines on March 24, 1933 stated, “Judea Declares War on Germany”?
Gene, the GR has nothing to do with Reciprocity, it is simply my life and values I choose to express. If I were to expect reward or commendation for my “exemplary” lifestyle I would die waiting. I am frail and fallible….exactly as every poster here is …though in different ways I’m sure. (except death).
That’s the “golden” ticket, I don’t act this way for your or “others” benefit.
I do not give so I will receive. The late nite preachers do. I give because I am equal, I wear my shoes, others wear theirs. How many “other” shoes have you walked in Gene….or anyone else that may find this ponderable.
My admission… I have been a letter carrier for 34 years in Roch. NY. walking outside everyday. I have had minimal control over my environment all those years. I have had to trust people and common sense for my security on many occasion.
I believe – (as in neg) propaganda starts with Do not trust your fellow humans. We as in Gov. Religion, Ethnicity, etc. etc. will fend for you.
Don’t trust “those or Them” I’m serious Gene. Divide and control. I have been privileged to cast my bones about unadorned, open to nature and the perogatives of humans daily. Yes I wore the “eagle”, when I began in 78 some old timers still had the horse!! The eagle did have some authoritative respect back then. (so did the statement”I;m getting in my jeep and leaving if you keep bugging me) :o) that’s true!!!! Again..People are People, the highest compliment given to any human is my trust….or your trust. Those that abuse it are sad figures in a sad life of their choosing. I have been burned….and I have been lucky, and I continue to value People more than money, color, creed, or whatever. This is just me Gene, if you read my comment about No. 8 (not the short and also true No. 5) (close enough for horseshoes) This is just me. In my ventures I have met a number of people that are just themselves. ….simple.. They I remember….They I admire … They I try to exemplarate (I may have made that word up..or spelled it wrong). Knowledge is great…the human condition is greater.- Propaganda works to subjugate humans for anothers benefit, if you know humans you will know -propaganda….. My opinion is equal to 7 billion others Gene….. So I have a need to be content within myself with mine.
Ps. being an Atheist is tough…my only reward is my self respect while I am alive……….
,
Elaine,
Yes, talkinback is suggesting that their were just too many of those pesky Jews for the good of the Reich. Yikes.
According to NIZKOR:
“The American Hebrew, October 31, 1919, page 582:
THE CRUCIFIXION OF JEWS MUST STOP!
By MARTIN H. GLYNN
(Former Governor of the State of N.Y.)
From across the sea SIX MILLION men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread.
[…] These children, these men and women are our FELLOW-MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY, with the same claim on life as we, the same susceptibility to the winter’s cold, the same PROPENSITY TO DEATH before the fangs of hunger. Within them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in SIX MILLION human beings. WE MAY NOT BE THEIR KEEPERS BUT WE OUGHT TO BE THEIR HELPERS.
[…]
IN THE FACE OF DEATH, IN THE THROES OF STARVATION there is no place for mental distinctions of creed, no place for physical differences of race. In this catastrophy, when SIX MILLION HUMAN BEINGS are being WHIRLED TOWARD THE GRAVE by a CRUEL AND RELENTLESS FATE, only the most idealistic promptings of human nature should sway the heart and move the hand.
SIX MILLION MEN AND WOMEN ARE DYING from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And THIS FATE is upon them through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a BIGOTED LUST FOR JEWISH BLOOD.
= = = = =
According to Edwin Black in The Transfer Agreement:
“The deterioration of the once powerful German economy really began in World War I, when German military and political leaders simply did not calculate the economic effects of a prolonged war. The Allied Blockade cut off Germany’s harbors and most of her land trade routes. Trade was decimated. Industry couldn’t export. War materiel and civilian necessities, including food, could not be imported.
Before the blockade was lifted, 800,000 malnourished German civilians perished. Actually, the blockade created less of a food shortage for Germany, which was 80 percent food self-sufficient before the war, than did the short-sighted policy of pulling Germany off the farms to fight without compensating for reduced food production. But the popular perception among Germans was that they had been starved into submission, defeated not on the battlefield but by political and economic warfare and connivance” (p. 21)
= = = = =
Churchill either did or did not say or act “starve Germans into submission.”
http www scottmanning com content churchill-had-no-starvation-blockade/
= = = = =
According to author Edwin Black, “Rabbi Wise and the other boycott leaders were determined to form one cohesive international movement under the banner “Starve Germany into submission this winter.”
http www jewishvirtuallibrary org slash jsource slash Holocaust slash Black dot html
= = = = =
http://libcom.org/files/blockade%20Germany_0.pdf
The Social and Political
Consequences of the Allied Food
Blockade of Germany, 1918-19
N. P. Howard (University of Shefield)
“The Allied blockade policy against Germany continued after the signing of the armistice in November 1918. It had already contributed greatly to the reduction of the supplies of food from all sources of the Central Powers by over 50 per cent in the final year of the war. Its impact increased population loss and spread death and disease, as famine encroached upon the civilian populations of Central Europe. Its prolongation by the Allies after the ceasefire was intended as a strategy to prevent the resurgence of German military power and to suppress revolutionary upheavals in Germany and in the states of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The first official histories of the blockade, those of Professor A. C. Bell and Brigadier-General Sir James E. Edmonds,’ differed widely in their accounts of its effects upon German food supplies, before and after the armistice. . . .
[I]n the period of demobilization from November 1918 to the official lifting of the blockade on 12 July 1919, its prolonged imposition was a major factor in the continuation of the widespread and severe malnutrition, and the consequent civilian deaths from hunger and deficiency diseases, that were a feature of the final year of the war.
The impact of the continued food blockade upon Republican Germany’s embryonic institutions, in particular on the soldiers’ and workers’ Councils, is examined in the central section of this study.”
= = = = =
Questions:
1. If “6 million Jews” “800,000 of them children” were about to starve to death in August 1919, why did Edwin Black write so dismissively of the starvation deaths of 800,000 Germans, but not mention how many of them were Jewish, nor how many were Jewish children? Was Glynn correct in his claims that “800,000 Jewish children” were threatened with starvation? How many Jews died of starvation? Why does Edwin Black fail to mention the “BIGOTED LUST FOR JEWISH BLOOD” that was causing the near-death starvation of 6 million Jews in Aug. 1919?
2. Who should be believed, Nizkor, Pat Buchanan, Edwin Black, or N.P. Howard, an unknown academic?
3. If Howard’s claims are true, that starvation affected the development of “Germany’s embryonic institutions,” then how might we assess the advisability of imposing a blockade, that is, sanctions, of ever increasing severity on Iran (intended to “cause Iran’s leaders to worry about how they will feed their 70 million people,” — Ephraim Sneh, June 2008, AIPAC conference) in order to “cause Iranian people to riot and overthrow their government (Congressman Ed Royce, Sept. 2007)?
4. Was the blockade on Germany legal? Was it effective? Was it legal, moral, or wise to blockade a nation in order to force it to agree to an onerous treaty? What is the legality of treaties entered into under duress? What did the imposed starvation accomplish? What does the imposition of starvation on a civilian population tell us about the imposing nations?
5. What are the sanctions on Iran intended to accomplish? Are they legal? Moral? Likely to be effective? Effective at what?
6. This morning Hillary Clinton announced a program of Food Aid to states in Africa. According to a USAID spokesman, elimination of hunger contributes to political stability, and to the extent that US corporations invest in the elimination of hunger in foreign states, everybody gains by the increased stability and expanded markets.
If this is so, then why does the same US State Department seek to de-stabilize Iran, a nation of 70 million dynamic and well-educated people? Wouldn’t it be wiser to seek to create a stable relationship with Iran?
Gene H.,
Right! They were just trying to help decrease the surplus population.
They were just misunderstood, Elaine.
So…is talkingbacktocspan disputing the fact that Hitler and his gang of thugs killed more than 6,000,000 people?
link free response to Elaine –
1, May 21, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Elaine M, you are operating on propaganda, not facts and evidence. Suggest you take a peek at The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 by C Paul Vincent.
added: The British gov’t archive discusses the situation. google ‘allied blockade.’ For a review of C Paul Vincent’s book, see libcom dot org slash files slash blockade%20Germany_0.pdf
added: above, Murry mentions the reaction of Cambodians to having been bombed — young people turned into “Lord of the Flies”. One of the arguments Paul Vincent makes is that the deliberate starvation of German civilians that killed 800,000 also affected the survivors of famine.
A 5-year old who was severely malnourished in 1919, and/or watched his family die of starvation, was permanently affected both physically & neurologically. Vincent wrote that a physician in charge of a kindergarten group in Germany observed that the children “consumed an incredible amount of bread and yet did not get any stronger. I found out that they hid all of the bread underneath their straw mattresses. The fear of hunger was so deeply rooted in the child that they collected stores instead of eating the food; a misguided animal instinct made the dread of hunger worse than the actual pangs. (p. 104)
In 1933, this cadre was ~18-years old. Hitler actually achieved a great deal in having infused with national spirit a group of young people who could have become wildmen, and tackled the problems deliberately laid on Germany by negotiators at Versailles.
On the other hand, the same partisans who “triumphed at Versailles” were determined to vanquish Germany. Reading Edwin Black’s The Transfer Agreement is quite revealing: He writes that going into 1933, the zionist project in Palestine was nearing bankruptcy; the provisions of the 1922 Churchill White Paper made it impossible for poor Jews to migrate to Palestine, and rich Jews, namely, German Jews, did not want to leave Germany for Palestine.
Black also mentions that, “a fortnight after Hitler took power,” i.e. around Feb 14, 1933, Louis Brandeis told Rabbi Stephen Wise, a major figure in anti-German activities, that “All Jews must leave Germany. . . .I urge that Germany shall be free of Jews . . . No Jew must live in Germany.” (p. 78).
By the first days of March, Jewish leaders from around the world met in Europe to decide the next move; on Mar 24, 1933 the London Daily Express blared the headline, “Judea Declares War on Germany; Jews of All the World Unite: Boycott of German Good.”
In an article on Jewish Virtual Library, Edwin Black writes: “Rabbi Wise and the other boycott leaders were determined to form one cohesive international movement under the banner “Starve Germany into submission this winter.”
Remember: the German people that Rabbi Wise and organized Jewry declared they intended to starve, had already experienced starvation.
As part of their campaign to ‘scare Jews out of Germany’ and, with their wealth, into Palestine and the US, Rabbi Wise & his lobbies (which possibly included Benzion Netanyahu) organized protest marches and rallies at Madison Sq. Garden; conducted two mock trials of the German government; sought to shut down the viability of US diplomatic relations with Germany (much like AIPAC etc. are manipulating US Congress to shut down US relations with Iran).
The Creel Commission (organized by Wilson in April 1917 to generate hatred of Germans toward WWI) had developed the “atrocity story,” which Wise & pals deployed to great effect against Hitler’s Germany.
“A particularly effective strategy for demonizing Germans was the use of atrocity stories. “A handy rule for arousing hate,” said Lasswell “is, if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man.” Unlike the pacifist, who argues that all wars are brutal, the atrocity story implies that war is only brutal when practiced by the enemy. Certain members of the CPI were relatively cautious about repeating unsubstantiated allegations, but the committee’s publications often relied on dubious material.” see http www dot 100megspop3 dot com slash bark slash Propaganda dot html
Hitler’s attention was committed to trying to salvage the German economy, beset by massive unemployment, and to rescuing Germany’s “Lord of the Flies” generation. The goal of Rabbi Wise & “international Jewry” was to further destabilize Germany in order to induce Jews to flee to Palestine, which needed their wealth.
Those are the facts behind the propaganda, Elaine, from the pens of the people who deployed the propaganda tactics.
Herbert Hoover toured Europe in 1938, met with Hitler, who thanked Hoover for his efforts in breaking the famine. Hoover came away convinced that Hitler’s agenda was NOT to in any way involve Western Europe; Hitler’s three-fold agenda was 1. to redress the injustices of Versailles; 2. to ensure that Germans never suffered starvation again; and 3. to destroy Bolshevic influence in Germany.
The German government had long had deep relations with zionists who were colonizing Palestine, and those relations extended to the NSDAP. They worked closely to carry out the “final solution” that Louis Brandeis demanded: move Jews out of Germany and TO Palestine, or Madagascar, or Uganda, or Dominican Republic, or USA.
For a slightly de-propagandized view of Hitler, try U.S. Navy Postgraduate professor R H S Stolfi’s Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny.
This review is informative and balanced: http afri dot au dot af dot mil slash review_full.asp?id=295
That so many persons who consider themselves well meaning and thoughtful reflexively cite Hitler, Nazism, and early 20th c. Germany as the paragons of evil, without, however, an awareness of the actual — not propagandized — context, or even of the holocaust endured by German civilians in both WWI (noted above) and WWII — see Jörg Friedrich, “The Fire: The Bombing of Germany 1940-1945, http www dot literaryreview dot co dot uk slash overy_03_07 dot html — is a tribute to the power of propaganda.
As John Dower and Sanho Tree discussed in a conversation about Dower’s book, “Culture of War,” one major goal of propaganda is to demonize the Other. “Demonization destroys the ability to think critically.” Propaganda uses a very powerful emotion, fear, to engender hatred. Fear is so powerful and visceral that it is almost impossible to reverse fear-engendered hatred by means of rational argument.
But UNLESS rational argument comes to the fore, the spiral of fear/hatred will perpetuate forever. Sorta the situation we are in today.
For the sake of a better world, take the first step to interrupt the cycle, Elaine.
Mike Spindell 1, May 21, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Gene,
What I think has gotten short shrift in the discussion that followed your blog was just how important it is that you made the distinction that propaganda is a concept that is quite ancient …
=======================================
And you have probably noticed that I have not tortured him with any hypothesis that propaganda first originated in microbes a couple of billion years ago.
He did a good job of setting the stage in a neutral, but compelling manner, so I am giving up “hijacking threads” for a week or so. 😉
Talkingbacktocspan,
As you can see it was not the content of your comment being censored. We had all been waiting with bated breath for your revelations. I must say that it was a perfect deadpan parody of classic propaganda. Bravo!
talkingbacktocspan,
It’s your time to waste. I told you why your comment was in moderation. I told you none of the editors here bother with the moderation queue for comments surpassing the link limit. That’s simply the way things work around here. Neither me nor the other guest bloggers are going to start babysitting the moderation queue just to please you. However, if you want to play the “release my comment or I’ll take my toys and go home” card? That simply merits indifference. I don’t care if you post again or not. If that creates a problem for you, I suggest that it is your problem.
David Blauw,
In considering my response to you, I think I should clarify as to why I don’t think the GR is a valuable tool for detection. Really subtle propaganda can make an inequitable relationship appear equitable without further/deeper examination, especially when an appeal to emotion is the basis for the attempted persuasion.
Consider for example (and in it’s most bare bones terms) the debate over abortion. The “pro-life” segment phrases their arguments in appeals to emotion because everyone allegedly loves babies. At the bottom of their argument though, they seek to ban a safe and legal medical procedure usually for religious reasons. The “pro-choice” segment phrases their arguments in a civil rights framework because of the 1st Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and your 4th Amendment rights to privacy in medical treatment. Although “It’s a baby, not a choice!” may sound equitable for the unborn baby, it is completely inequitable for the living woman who may or may not be bearing an unwanted or medically inadvisable child to term that she may or may not be able to care for. Laws are for the living, not the potentially living. To try to use the power of law to force a religious decision on others is plainly wrong. Legal abortions don’t equate to mandatory abortions. This is why “pro-choice” advocates use the label “pro-choice” – they aren’t for mandatory abortions or against babies. They are for women having the choice to get the procedure done safely with proper medical supervision according to the dictates of their own conscience. If you’ve known women who have had abortions, you’ll know that their reactions to their choice afterwards ranges from relief to regret, but the bottom line is to force them to endanger their lives to be able to make that choice is wrong but especially since the objections of others are based primarily in their religion of choice.
That is why I’m pro-choice although personally I frown upon abortion and favor personal responsibility in sexual practice. Then again, it was drilled into my head from a very early age that if I ever got a girl pregnant while I was in high school, that there would be Hell to pay from my family for being too stupid to wear a condom.
However, no matter your personal stance on abortion, I hope that illustrates why I think the GR is less useful for detection than for triage.
what’s with the attitude, Gene? A lot of work goes into writing comments, believe it or not. To spend 4 hrs in an attempt to be respectful, informative, persuasive, & have it end in limbo, is not childish, it’s wasteful.
I’m aware that my views are outside the mainstream; that’s why I have to be certain to rely on the strongest sources possible, and present those sources for others to view & assess,
David Blauw,
“My suggestion that, simply following the golden rule can be a valuable tool in detecting propaganda, did not seem to attract the interest of the posters. Propaganda is the water we swim in daily, we can not remove ourselves from it, no more then a fish can drive a car in Manhatten. Understanding it, recognizing it, will clearly elevate ones self choices.”
While I don’t think the Golden Rule is a valuable tool in detecting propaganda, I think it is a valuable tool for evaluating whether propaganda is beneficial or detrimental. If it doesn’t pass the reciprocal nature of the Golden Rule, that should be a good primary indication that something is probably wrong with the message. However wise I may personally find the Golden Rule, I leave such value judgments to the reader. My goal here is to help people learn the basics for detection purposes.
And thanks!
Gene mentioned religion as a source of propaganda.
We too often forget that.
Here is an example of hate filled propaganda posing as holy religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU&feature=player_embedded
Gene H. 1, May 21, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Dredd,
Do you want me to nuke that duplicate Thompson comment?
=====================================
Yes, I screwed up the first one.
Thanks.
Dredd,
Do you want me to nuke that duplicate Thompson comment?