HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
> > > http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/weber/PW20020120.html > > > Propaganda: Nobody > Does It > Better Than America. > > Paul Weber > Over the years, I have had the privilege of > meeting and having discussions with people > who came to America from countries known > for their adherence to totalitarianism: China, > Russia, and former east European satellites > of the Soviet Union. When we discussed > how the state managed to control public > opinion under totalitarianism, these people > would usually produce a weary, > knowledgeable, cynical smile and point out > that propaganda in those countries was really > done quite incompetently. If you really want > to know propaganda, they said, you need to > study American propaganda technique. > According to them, it is, undeniably, the best > in the world. > > "How can that be?" I asked, honestly > puzzled. > > Propaganda in those countries was too > obvious, they told me. As soon as you read > the first sentence you knew it was a bunch of > propaganda, so you didn?t even bother to > read it. If you heard a speech, you knew in > the first few words that it was propaganda, > and you tuned it out. > > "But," I then queried, "How do you know > when it?s just propaganda?" > > The expatriates explained that bad > propaganda uses obvious terminology that > anyone can see through. Anyone hearing the > phrase "capitalist running dogs", knows he?s > listening to incompetent propaganda and > tunes it out. Lousy propaganda, these > knowledgeable but jaded individuals would > tell me, appeals to an abstract theory, to a > rational thesis that can be disproved. Even > though communists had total control of the > press, the people just tuned it out (except for > those who were the most mentally > defective). Most people, they assured me, > just went about their lives as best they could, > paid lip service to the state, and just tried to > keep out of the way of the secret police. But > hardly anyone really believed the stuff. The > result, after many decades of suffering, was > the eventual collapse of the old order once > The Great Leader expired, whether his name > was Brezhnev, Mao, or Tito. > > American propaganda, however, is much > cleverer. American propaganda, they > patiently explained, relies entirely on > emotional appeals. It doesn?t depend on a > rational theory that can be disproved: it > appeals to things no one can object to. > > American propaganda had its birth, so far > as I can tell, in the advertising industry. The > pioneers of advertising-a truly loathsome > bunch-learned early on that people would > respond to purely emotional appeals. > Abstract theory and logical argument do > nothing to spur sales. However, appeals to > sexiness, to pride of ownership, to fear of > falling behind the neighbors are the stock in > trade of advertising executives. A man > walking down the street with beautiful > women hanging on his arms is not a logical > argument, but it sure sells after-shave. A > woman in a business suit with a briefcase, > strolling along with swaying hips, assuring > us she can "bring home the bacon, fry it up > in a pan, but never let you forget you?re a > man" really sells the perfume. > > Let?s take a moment and analyze the > particular emotions that this execrable ad > appealed to. If you guessed fear, you win the > prize. Women often have a fear of > inadequacy, particularly in this confused age > when they are expected to raise brilliant > kids, run a successful business, and be > unfailingly sexy, all the time. That silly > goal-foisted upon us by feminists and > popular culture-is impossible to reach. But > maybe there?s hope if you buy the right > perfume! Arguments from intimidation and > appeals to fear are powerful propaganda > tools. > > American advertising and propaganda has > been refined over the years into a malevolent > science, based on the assumption that most > people react, not to ideas, but to naked > emotion. When I worked at an ad agency > many years ago, I learned that the successful > agencies know how to appeal to emotions: > the stronger and baser, the better. The seven > deadly sins, ad agency wags often say, are > the key to selling products. Fear, envy, > greed, hatred, and lust: these are the basic > tools for good propaganda and effective > advertising. By far, the most powerful > motivating emotion-the top, > most-sought-after copy writers will tell you, > in an unguarded moment-is fear, followed > closely by greed. > > Good propaganda appeals to neither logic > nor morality. Morality and ethics are the > death of sales. This is why communist > propaganda actually hastened the collapse of > communism: the creatures running the > Commie Empire thought they should appeal > to morality by calling for people to engage in > sacrifice for the greater good. They gave > endless, droning speeches about the > inevitably of communist triumph, based on > the Hegelian dialectic. Not only were they > wrong: their approach to selling their > (virtually unsellable) theory was not clever > enough. American propagandists (we can be > jingoistically proud to say) would have been > able to maintain the absurd social > experiment called communism a little > longer. They would have scrapped all the > theory and focused on appealing images. > Though the Commies tried to do this through > huge, flag-waving rallies, the disparity > between their alleged ideals and the reality > they created was just too great. > > One tyrant who did take American > propaganda to heart was Adolph Hitler. > Hitler learned to admire American > propaganda through a young American > expatriate who described to him, in glowing > detail, how Americans enjoyed the > atmosphere at football games. This > American expatriate, with the memorable > name of Ernst "Putzi" Hanfstängl, told the > Führer how Americans could be whipped up > into a frenzy through blaring music, group > cheers, and chants against the enemy. Hitler, > genius of evil as he was, immediately saw > the value in this form of propaganda and > incorporated it into his own rise to power. > Prior to Hitler, German political rhetoric was > dry, intellectual, and uninspiring. Hitler > learned the value of spectacle in whipping > up the emotions; the famed Nuremberg > rallies were really little more than glorified > football halftime shows. Rejecting boring, > intellectual rhetoric, Hitler learned to appeal > to deeply emotional but meaningless > phrases, like the appeal to "blood and soil." > The German people bought it wholesale. > Hitler also called for blind loyalty to the > "Fatherland," which eerily echoes our own > new cabinet level post of "Homeland" > Security. > > If you study Nazi propaganda, you will be > struck by how well it appeals to gut-level > emotions and images-but not thought. You > will see pictures of elderly German women > hugging fresh-faced young babies, with > captions about the bright future the Führer > has brought to German. In fact, German > propaganda borrowed the American > technique of relying, not so much on words, > but on images alone: pictures of handsome > German soldiers, sturdy peasants in native > costume, and the like. Take a look at any > American car commercial featuring rugged > farmers tossing bales of hay into the backs of > their pickups, and you?ve seen the source > from which the Nazis borrowed their > propaganda techniques. > > The Germans have a well-deserved > reputation for producing a lot of really smart > people, but this did not prevent them from > being completely vulnerable to > American-style propaganda. Amazingly, a > nation raised on the greatest classical music, > the profoundest scientists, the greatest poets, > actually fell for propaganda that led them > into a hopeless, two-front war against most > of the world. Being smart is, in itself, no > defense against skilled American > propaganda, unless you know and > understand the techniques, so you can resist > them. > > American politicians learned, early in the > twentieth century, that using emotional sales > techniques won elections. Furthermore, they > learned that emotional appeals got them > what they wanted as they advanced towards > their long-term goal of becoming Masters of > the Universe. From this, we get our modern > lexicon of political speech, carefully crafted > to appeal to powerful emotions, with either > no appeal to reason, or (better yet) a vague > appeal to something that sounds foggily > reasonable, but is so obscure that no one will > bother to dissect it. > > Franklin Roosevelt understood this, which > is why he called for Social Security. Security > is an emotional appeal: no one is against > security, are they? Roosevelt backed up his > campaign with a masterful appeal to > emotions: images of happy, elderly > grandparents smiling while hugging their > grandchildren, with everything in the world > going right because of Social Security. All > kinds of government programs were sold on > the basis of appealing images and phrases. > Roosevelt even appealed to America?s > traditional love of freedom, spinning that > term by multiplying it into the new Four > Freedoms, including Freedom from Want > and Freedom from Fear. Well, what heartless > human being could possibly be against that? > The Four Freedoms were promoted with > images of parents tucking their children > cozily into bed, and a happy family gathered > around a Thanksgiving dinner, obviously > free from want. The campaign was also > based on that most powerful of all selling > emotions: fear. If you don?t support Social > Security, the ads suggested, you will live > your last years in utter destitution. > > Putzi Hanfstängl, viewing Roosevelt?s evil > brilliance from Nazi Germany, was probably > jealous. > > American advertising executives learned > the value of presenting a single image or > slogan, and repeating it over and over again > until it became ingrained in the public?s > consciousness. Thus we are all aware that > Ivory Soap is so pure that it floats: a point > that has been repeated for the better part of a > century. I?m not sure why I should be > impressed that a bar of soap floats, but on the > other hand, it?s not intended that I think that > far. Politicians now sell their programs the > way the advertising creeps sell soap: they > dream up a slogan and repeat it over and > over again. Thus we get empty slogans like > The New Frontier, The New World Order > (that one was poorly chosen; it sounds too > much like an actual idea), or Reinventing > Government (an idea that everyone should > favor, except that the idea behind it really > means Keeping Government the Same, only > no one is supposed to think that far). Empty > grandeur sells political products. > > Both German and American politicians > carried the use of banners to new heights. > Flags are impressive emotional symbols, > particularly when waved by thousands of > enthusiastic people: it?s a rare individual > who can resist the collective enthusiasm of > thousands of his fellow human beings, > cheering about their collective greatness. > Putzi Hanfstängl understood this, advising > Hitler to fill his public spectacles with not > just a few, but countless thousands of > swastika flags. The swastika, too, was a > brilliant stroke of advertising and > propaganda: it has become, in the public > consciousness, the official emblem of > Nazism, even though it had nothing to do > with Germany. In fact, swastikas were used > by ancient Hindus and American tribes, but > I?m not aware of it being used by anyone in > Germany prior to Hitler. > > Now observe how Americans in the current > crisis have taken to displaying huge flags on > their cars. Flags are not rational arguments; > they are instruments for whipping up the > Madness of Crowds. Observe how many > Americans have, with a straight face, called > for a constitutional amendment to outlaw > flag desecration, oblivious to the obvious > contradictions such an amendment would > have with the rest of the Constitution. But > again, if you learn nothing else about > propaganda, learn that it must not appeal to > rationality. > > Politicians don?t just use warm, fuzzy > images to sell us on the road to tyranny. > They also need emotional appeals to > intimidate their enemies. Thus the small > percentage of the population that really does > use thought and reason more than emotion > must be demonized. Roosevelt managed this > with some masterful propaganda strokes. > Those who opposed him were Isolationists, > and Malefactors of Great Wealth! (The > gut-level emotion appealed to here is envy.) > Roosevelt thus showed himself to be an early > master of what former California Governor > Jerry Brown called "buzz words"; that is, > words intended to silence counter-argument > by appealing to unassailable emotional > images. No one is for Isolation, and almost > everyone reacts to an appeal to hate anyone > who has a lot of money. The latter appeal, of > course, had great power during the Great > Depression, which Roosevelt managed to > maintain for the entire length of his > presidency, all the while blaming others for > its evils. Was this guy an evil genius, or > what? > > The propaganda cleverness used in > successfully branding anti-war people as > Isolationists is breathtaking. After all, a > rational person (ah, keep in mind, that?s not > a common individual) realizes that those > who oppose war are the exact opposite of > isolationists. The Old Right at the time called > for peaceful, commercial relations with all > nations, based on neutrality in foreign affairs. > If anything, those who oppose war and > meddling in other countries? affairs are the > opposite of Isolationists as they really stand > for open, profitable relationships with other > countries. The people who stand for such > ideas do not "sell" them by means of strictly > emotional appeals, so they tend to lose the > propaganda wars. When Roosevelt > succeeded in whipping the country up into a > war-frenzy after steering us into the Pearl > Harbor fiasco, the Old Right realized their > opposition to the war was hopeless. > > The role of the government propaganda > camps known as public schools cannot be > discounted in all this. Schools are not so > much centers of learning as they are > behavior conditioning camps in which > children are taught to be unquestioningly > obedient to authority. Since reason and > morality are the death of propaganda, > schools busy themselves with systematically > stunting students? ability to reason and think > in moral terms. Because the government > owns the propaganda camps, it?s not > surprising that the beneficiary of the > propaganda is almost always the > government. Americans accept obvious > absurdities because they were drilled into > their heads, year after year, in the > government propaganda camps until they > became true and unquestionable. Thus, > everyone knows Roosevelt got us out of the > Great Depression, even though the worst > depression years were precisely those in > which he and his party controlled every > branch of government. Everyone knows > Lincoln was a great president because he > saved "government by the people" and freed > the slaves, even though he became a war > tyrant and only freed the slaves when it was > politically convenient to do so. Wilson, > everyone knows, made the world "safe for > democracy", evidently by instituting a draft > and getting America involved in a European > war that was fought for reasons no one to this > day can fathom. When minds are young and > pliable-government experts understand this > principle-you can fill them with nonsense > that is practically impossible to root out. > Laughable falsehoods in effect become true > because everyone knows them to be true. > > Advertising executives learned, early on, > that companies could not be too obvious in > using their propaganda. If their agenda could > be clearly seen, then it could also be > rejected. The answer to this problem was the > American propaganda technique of the > "independent expert" and the "guy on the > street." One of these appeals to our timidity > before authority, and the other to our > smugness when dealing with someone at or > below our perceived social level. Of course, > these two techniques are really just two sides > of the same coin. In product advertising, > sports heroes and celebrities are used to sell > corn flakes because no one would listen to > the president of Kellogg telling us why corn > flakes are so good. In selling detergent, > plain-looking housewives are preferable to > sexy models because they look just like us. > In political propaganda, "experts" are often > trotted out to tell us, in convoluted, circular > reasoning, why minimum wage laws are > really good for us, why a little bit of inflation > is good, or why we just can?t rely on the free > market for something so crucially important > as education. Or, using the "guy on the > street" approach, we are told to support > idiotic wars because the common soldiers > ("our boys"), cannot function unless they > know we stand united behind them. If the > rare sensible person tries to argue against > war, he is accused of making things harder > for "our boys." > > This brings us to the latest iteration of > masterful American Propaganda: the War on > Terrorism. Any attempt to explain why the > terrorists (crazed as they obviously were) > felt motivated to attack the World Trade > Center is looked on as "siding with the > terrorists." Indeed, Ashcroft and Bush have > said, in so many words, that if you don?t > support them in everything they do, you > stand with the terrorists. Ashcroft and Bush > have evidently studied their propaganda > lessons from World War II, when Roosevelt > silenced all opposition by accusing anyone > who stood against him of undermining the > war effort. Anyone who suggests we should > not risk World War III by invading the > Middle East is alternately accused of siding > with the terrorists, of slandering the memory > of those who died, or (of course) of not > "standing by our boys" in times of great > need. It?s easy to feel alienated in a nation of > flag-wavers singing patriotic hymns. The > fact that they are marching lockstep to a > world in which the government will monitor > their e-mail, snoop into their bank accounts, > and eventually throw them in jail for voicing > opposition doesn?t seem to bother them one > bit. > > Now, most libertarians or otherwise > thoughtful people will react with dismay > when told that most of their fellow human > beings react so unthinkingly to > sock-you-in-the-gut emotional > propaganda. Unfortunately, most people are > not capable of really thinking things out. > Most people really do buy perfume because > of the emotional imagery. Most people really > do believe the "independent expert", whether > in politics or buying a car. Most people want > to go with the crowd, or follow the leader. To > do otherwise requires independent thought > and the willingness to be ostracized, which is > an unbearable psychological burden for > many. > > If you want to take heart, remember that the > Vietnam War ended because a few people > just continued to speak against it, despite the > overwhelming government propaganda for > it. The fact that a lot of the anti-war > protesters were motivated by the wrong > reasons (support of commies), doesn?t > matter in light of the fact they were able to > turn the tide. They were right, even if for the > wrong reasons. If advocates of freedom > continue to speak against the creeping > tyranny that our masters justify on the phony > grounds of the War on Terrorism, we might > just be able to prevent the transition from > Republic to Empire. The thing about > propaganda is that, once it is exposed for > what it is, no one listens anymore. People > tune it out, just as the slaves in Russia and > China learned to tune out their official > propaganda. > > Paul Weber?s novel, Transfiguration, is > available at > http://www.xlibris.com/Transfiguration.html. > > > > > > Volume I > Issue 21 > The Texas > Mercury's > Homepage > > Other > Articles > From This > Issue: > > Propaganda: > Nobody > Does It > Better Than > America > By Paul Weber > > St. > Petersburg > Idyll: Russia > in Winter > By Dave > Francis > > Peter > Jackson's > Fellowship > of the Ring: > Perfect > By Kyle > Lohmeier > > Racial > Profiling: > Say Hi to > Your > Big Brother > By Jeremiah > Mykytuk > > Left Media > Critics & > Fools-But I > Repeat > Myself > By James > Versluys > > Error & > Tragedy > By Derek > Copold > > A Word > from > the Ungodly > By Hank > Parnell > > The Day > MLK Died > By Bob Weir > > --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
