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;
Gene, HA HA, good for you checking out the website. Hilarious!
TalkingBack: You’re not claiming any copyright protection for what you’re saying on this blog, are you? Because I sure want to quote it! And I’m preparing a great schtick — thanks to you. (And I won’t post it, because I want it to be copyrighted.)
Actually it’s a perfect analogy, Herr Uneducated. The Jews did nothing to merit industrialized genocide. The situation of Germany was simply not their doing. Just so, the victims of the Manson family were in no way responsible for the vile acts visited upon them. Manson was a crazy person leading the blind and the stupid to do his bidding.
I’ve got clothes smarter than you.
Why don’t you try again.
I like smacking down liars and Nazi sympathizers.
Talkingback, your take on things is informed by your wish to have things a certain way. If we were to use your logic, your loyal adherence to facts and implications as they are rather than as you like them, and if we were, at the same time, to scrupulously avoid “correcting for” certain research biases that you have revealed, we could come up with the conclusions that seem to give you so much comfort and joy. So arguendo, I’m going to take them and see where they end up. (Spoiler: They end up with YOU LOSE!)
Here we have it. Some Zionists are realizing that they simply cannot get a state of Israel going, and make it one of the most formidable powers in the world (which is their goal) unless they cause most people in the Western World to completely buy a ridiculous and counterintuitive story that will then paralize whole governments into doing wrong for years and years, maybe decades. So all they need is to do something that will have ALL THEIR INTENDED CONSEQUENCES so they can gain dominion over everyone’s mind, and therefore grab everyone’s purse, and establish their state, whereupon they will bring about World War III to their benefit — oh wait a minute, that’s a two-step, so first they have to create World War II, but no matter. They can do that too. Just a little preliminary.
So how to do it? How, How? Oh I know, says the clever old bearded Jew, “Let’s starve the Germans so they get really mad and start killing Jews (because the Jews who won’t give all their money to Palestine aren’t that valuable anyway) and then we can holler and scream and fuss and cry and stir up a lot of trouble, and then we can get all the countries of Europe (except maybe Italy or some silly countries like that) to do other acts of war to Germany and then if we’re really lucky, the Germans will kill five or six million Jews and about 12 million Russians and all like that, and by the time we’re done, everyone in the world will be mad at the Germans but we will have gotten all the richest Jews out by that time and they’ll be so grateful that all their money got given to Palestine that they won’t even notice how we did it, OK?”
And all this was found, by the way, in some old manuscripts, and it was all confirmed.
Now, the fact that AFTER Hitler came to power, having declared his intentions already, there was a deal cut to get Jews out of Germany and to Palestine, and the fact that concessions were made to Hitler to get that deal done, and the fact that it both benefitted the Zionists and put pressure on Hitler at a certain point before he had all the power he later acquired, actually PROVES THAT, so the manuscript itself isn’t so important, so I won’t tell you what it’s called but its subtitle is: “Protocol of the Elders among the Zionists who Plan to Stage WWII and then cause WWIII.”
The whole purpose of this declaration of war against Germany by the Jews was to effectuate a “sacrifice campaign” to give Jews the right to never be blamed for their bad behavior ever again.
And guess what: It worked.
The Jews managed to set up a state that has the best Defense Force imaginable, that has probably the best Intelligence Agency in the world, and that is now dominating the Middle East and behaving like a bully, so their whole plan worked.
It worked. They WON!
You (who are fair-minded and wouldn’t want that to happen) LOST!
Speaking of burning books, I noticed you removed the article from your blog where you were blaming Jews for 9/11, Herr Revisionist. Why is that? It was there both late last night and early this morning before pete suggested looking at your blog? I would have taken a screen capture if I’d known you were going to pull that kind of shenanigan.
Also, thanks for revealing your motives for being a Nazi sympathizer.
It makes it that much easier to dismiss what you say as propaganda in its own right.
Gene to Bron —
“Here’s an example by analogy: It’s like saying Charles Manson wasn’t responsible for his actions because of the political and social turmoil of the ’60′s.”
poor dear, you’re really not that smart, are you Gene?
It’s not an apt analogy at all because Charles Manson’s victims did not act against him in ways that caused him harm, and which actions the actors had no right to carry out.
In 1933, zionists DID act against Germany in ways that caused harm to Germany, with the stated and enacted specific intent to cause grievous harm to Germany, and as you said yourself, without the right, as a non-state, to do so.
try again.
Malisha:
1. What is the evidence that an ostrich fell on a café at the corner”
2. What is the connection between the war in Germany and the ostrich, or the war and the café at the corner?
3. Who gained and who lost as a result of the ostrich having fallen on the café?
3a. Did the ostrich fall on the cafe as a result of his own negligence, i.e. by burying his head in the sand?
4. Were those who were harmed justly compensated for their loss (in a civilization run by universally agreed upon rights and duties, and with the presumption of equity, a member of the community forms a social contract that he/she will submit grievances to be resolved equitably, according to the community’s agreed-upon standards. When such equity – or justice – is denied, then there is a natural tendency for an aggrieved to seek his/her own equity – human nature demands equity/balance/rationality.
Question 2:
“Who cares about the similarities between Israeli Jews and German youth in a discussion of propaganda?
In his massive history of “The Origins of the Spanish Inquisition,” Benzion Netanyahu (Benjamin’s father) wrote, in the chapter titled “Historical Background/The Jewish Question”: “A brief account of the evolution of . . .the Jewish problem from antiquity to the birth of the Spanish Inquisition . . .and above all of its patterns and key elements, seems essential to our discussion. Without it we can hardly explain the emergence of the Inquisition [holocaust?], its nature, its objectives and its historic course.
Accordingly, I was looking for the patterns and key elements of the holocaust relative to the present conflict between Israel and Iran. Given that Israel, and especially Benjamin Netanyahu, who was extremely close to his father, have frequently equated Iran with Germany and Ahmadinejad with Hitler, I thought the research was appropriate to understand what connection the Netanyahus were building upon. Didn’t Sun Tzu say, Know your enemy, and also know your own and your allies’ strengths and weaknesses?
If we can know, with as much accuracy and honesty as can be mustered, the facts of interactions between Germans and Jews during the period 1881-1945, that eventuated in what is called the holocaust, then perhaps we can intervene to prevent the same dynamics from playing out again.
Both Germans and Jews – and others – were losers in the 1881-1945 era; I would argue that Germans lost more, and were granted less ‘justice,’ than were Jews: the German people lost 2 million soldiers and 800,000 civilians in World War I. The terms of the Versailles treaty –which Germany signed under duress of continued starvation—stripped from Germany lands where German people lived as a despised minority; levied onerous reparations on Germany; and demanded that Germany ALONE accept culpability for a war that was the result of complex alliances and beneficiaries.
On the other hand, as Edwin Black writes, “zionists were triumphant at Versailles: Jews gained a homeland for Jews in Palestine AND the guarantee of protection of their rights in other nations in Europe where Jews lived.” By the time the Versailles treaty was signed, July 1919, Jews had already taken major roles in the establishment of the Weimar Republic in Germany, imposing on the majority German people styles of government, economic management, and culture that were antithetical to the cultural norms of the German majority, and that native German bureaucrats considered ill-advised, based upon their experience and expertise. The failure of the German economy under Weimar proved them correct.
The topic is relevant to a “discussion of propaganda” because, as I argued earlier, the second generation of Israeli Jews is, in the words of Avigail Abarbanel, “detached from reality,” in a psychotic state that she (and others) have described as “pre-traumatic stress syndrome.”
As Gene H. pointed out, propaganda is how the Roman Catholic church ‘kept the faith,’ i.e. taught/indoctrinated its adherents. It’s not a stretch to say that Jewish children are taught/indoctrinated/propagandized with the notions that Jews are always and everywhere facing annihilation.
So the question becomes, why are second- and later-generation Jews indoctrinated in the belief that they are facing annihilation? Does this indoctrination affect only the Israeli Jewish community or does it have wider implications? If it has wider implications, does the larger world community have the right or even the duty to intervene to correct indoctrination that is harming not only the domestic Jewish community but others as well?
Question/snide remark #3: “Publish this brilliant idea in a peer-reviewed journal, OK?”
Heh.
Ernst Zundel is in jail because he dared to advance a theory of the holocaust that is at odds with the required narrative.
David Irving has been fined and jailed for publishing research that draws conclusions at odds with the required narrative.
Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePauw university because of his views on the holocaust.
No peer reviewed journal that wishes to remain viable will publish any research that deviates from the required narrative.
My C Span blog is grossly out-of-date. Several days ago I heard journalist Anna Quindlen’s brief advert for a discussion of press freedom. I recall that she ended her 1-min. spot with the statement, “that’s why Nazis burned books.”
Burning books causes them to become invisible. Refusing to publish material other than the accepted narrative has the same outcome.
One more thing, then it’s time for chardonnay on the front porch: Why is the holocaust such a carefully controlled narrative? Why are those who deviate from the narrative punished with loss of their careers, their wealth, their freedom? I overdosed on Perry Mason when I was a kid. I learned that when the witness/defendant is trying to hide something, that’s where the incriminating evidence is.
One more one more thing – Why don’t I publish in a peer reviewed journal? I don’t have access to a peer reviewed journal because I do not have an education. My parents were too poor to pay for college, and they were too poor because my Mom had lost her home and my Dad had been permanently injured fighting in a war that did not have to be fought.
This is for you, Mom and Dad.
Bron,
Here’s an example by analogy: It’s like saying Charles Manson wasn’t responsible for his actions because of the political and social turmoil of the ’60’s.
Bron,
“There is some kernel of truth in what you say but overall how do you support Hitler’s regime and the industrial killing of 6-8 million human beings?”
By passing the buck for Nazi atrocities on to causation that – while it led up to the war – had nothing to do with the Nazis decision to implement the Final Solution or Hitler’s own innate antisemitism. Germany was ripe for takeover by a genocidal madman and it was made ripe by the interwar period, the global effects of the Great Depression and the draconian sanctions of the Allies at the Treaty of Versailles, but none of that negates that the acts of Hitler and the Nazi Party were willful, deliberate and taken of their own free will. Attempting to redeem the unredeemable crimes of the Nazis is supporting them. Surely you can see that.
talkingback:
just why are you a Nazi apologist? There is some kernel of truth in what you say but overall how do you support Hitler’s regime and the industrial killing of 6-8 million human beings?
A man like Hitler would have found some other group to use as scapegoats to pursue power. The Jews were just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
pete,
Unfortunately, I already have.
Gene and Malisha
click onto talkingbacks name to go to his wordpress site. that should explain everything.
Gene,
I think I would believe George W. Bush on economics before I would believe the “stuff” being suggested under Hoover’s name.
Talkin: WWII was the natural result of an ostrich having fallen upon a cafe at the corner two blocks down from where Geli lived in 1921…
REFUTE THAT if you can!
Can’t? Can’t? See, you lose!
Oh, PS: Who cares about similarities between Israeli Jews and German youth in a discussion of propaganda? YOu’re trying to prove that the Jews forced Hitler to do what he did in WWII somehow?
Publish this brilliant idea in a peer-reviewed journal, OK?
Bron,
Because Hoover was an isolationist. He wouldn’t have minded if Germany and the USSR had destroyed each other, but he wasn’t going to intervene in any active manner. However, even if he had? He couldn’t have without incurring the wrath of our European allies who saw both nations a threat – albeit to varied degrees and for different reasons. Any act would have been seen to strengthen two parties that no one in Europe wanted to see get stronger. It was either aid the allies against aggression or do nothing and since Hitler didn’t invade Poland until 1939 – six years after Hoover left office – there was nothing he could have done practically even if he had wanted to intervene (and he didn’t want to do anything).
talkingbacktocpan:
““let those two bastards [Russia and Germany] annihilate themselves.””
Hoover had it right and we should have helped them both destroy each other or helped Germany destroy the Soviet Union. Which leads to the question why didnt we?
Instead we should rely on some anonymous Nazi apologist quoting a book review for a book it sounds like he never actually read. You do realize that once war was declared that Hoover offered his services to the FDR administration and gave his full support to the effort despite his earlier (badly mistaken) isolationist efforts and assessment that the European powers could contain the Nazi military threat, don’t you?
As to the date, I not only corrected it? I put it in context, much to your chagrin, boot licker.
I didn’t write the review, Gene, I quoted someone else’s review. The book is on my desk; the review seems a fair representation.
Yer right, Herbert Hoover? pfft. What does he know.
Rely on Gene H. He’s got the real scoop. He spent years travelling in Europe before, during and after the war; talking with the principals; reading diplomatic cables. Gene H. is the MAN, man.
btw, did you fact check the dates (Mar 1933-Nov 1938) when zionists imposed the boycott vs the one day (Apr 1 1933) that Germans boycotted Jews?
“In spite of popular, propagandized, perception, the second world war was NOT all about Jews.”
No one said it was, straw man.
another astonishing aspect of “Freedom Betrayed.”
In ~900 pages, Jews are mentioned only 3 or 4 times.
In spite of popular, propagandized, perception, the second world war was NOT all about Jews.
Herbert Hoover?
The jokes practically write themselves.
As to the reason you have a better opinion of Hoover, that would be your confirmation bias in re the Nazis coming into play. That Hoover sucked was about the only thing I’ve ever agreed with that fascist tool Rothbard about, but then again, it’s hard to like a President who consistently shows up in the Top 10 on polls among academics about “The Worst American Presidents”.