[QatzelOk]

First, a definition of propaganda.*

"It is the manipulation of information that is then transmitted through mass media (including education) aimed at inspiring a particular course of action or change in public opinion. It has an agenda, and its desired results are often measured in order to gauge the efficiency of the propaganda campaign."

*(This is a brief definition, and I realise there are many of them out there. The one that I provide is a vulgarisation of Jacques Ellul's definition.)

Some of the side effects that Ellul mentions are : increased public cynicism and generalised distortion of reality.

That is to say, it can make us both cynical AND stupid simultaneously.



Can you think of any more side effects of propaganda?

[redcarpet]

Depression, that's how many Americans feel about their country. They're not optimistic about life and their country.

[QatzelOk]

feel about their country

Propaganda can translate "feels about their country" into millions of dead people in a foreign country.

That is another side effect of nationalistic propaganda, most of which starts in schools.

The state makes you love the state, so that you're ready to kill if the state is perceived as hurt. "You hurt my state, I will kill some other states," is not rational at all.

[Verv]

I hate to bring up this can of worms but it would be unfair to discussion not to:

The absence of nationalism and the education in globalized values is in its'own right a propaganda.

When I was in school I had information manipulated towards me. We read a certain magazine whose name escapes me that essentially did everything in its power to force liberal, international causes on us (while educating us on the nature of the world).

There is something about internationalism that can lead people ignorant of their own nations and culture while it disappears; the result can be Koreans whot hink they are Americans and do not know their own histories and their own heritage, which is equally scary.

The resutl could potentially be death. By having no education of the past and having no national unity you have no national strengtha nd are susceptible to being victimized.

The Thai people have never emphasized their national heritage and their national religion and now they are doing battle against ethnic Malay Muslims who have killed some 2,000 people (often monks and school teachers).

Your portrayel of nationalism as a murderous ideology is too one sided.

[Kylie]

Propaganda as such can be that people react to it with such disdain, they decide to promote propaganda of their own, making THEIR side seem like it's the only way. They do so with interesting images, and branding of their own. Whether they do it to prove a point, or whether people believe it is one thing, but in the end, their point is muddled due to the propaganda.

[kami321]

the result can be Koreans whot hink they are Americans and do not know their own histories and their own heritage, which is equally scary.

What, you mean Koreans are NOT Americans? I'd bet the majority of them are, at least.

National cultures in first world countries pretty much ceased to exist some time ago, I can't determine exactly when. Too late to turn around, and no point in trying.

[Zyx]

OMFG Verv quit evoking Korea in every post . . . it's annoying now.

--

Ok, onto Qatz

Some of the side effects that Ellul mentions are : increased public cynicism and generalised distortion of reality.

That is to say, it can make us both cynical AND stupid simultaneously.

While public cynicism is natural; the idea that people are become more stupid is wrong.

Humans are not smart to begin with and so ANY education would make them more smart. What you mean to say is that information communicated is piss-poor and degenerate but that's subjective.

The "stupid" claim has no real manifestation here: To suggest that humans were smart and then dumbed down (as you are saying) rather than stupid and then misinformed is just manipulation on your part. Since the latter notion is true then your criticism should be to either non-universal education or human genetic flaws.

I say, if someone is stupid and they teach another person . . . you should more concern yourself with teaching the stupid to be smart rather than yelling at the stupid for teaching stupid.

Done.

[QatzelOk]

(Warning: spoilers)

Humans are not smart to begin with

You mean when they crawl out of their mothers? Or that they need some kind of manipulation of their information supplies in order to "look at the sun?"

[Zyx]

You mean when they crawl out of their mothers? Or that they need some kind of manipulation of their information supplies in order to "look at the sun?"

I assumed you were talking about Foreign policy, Sociology, Psychology, and other "Social Science" disciplines.

Since it is said that no one ever knows everyone in a nation to suggest that a government's commentary on such dumbs them down instead of ill-teaches them is incorrect. Propaganda tends to convey the unknown; in some instances it maybe a commentary on the (well or little) known but say we turn on the television and see a 8 Caucasian families living peacefully with an American flag in hand; the conveyed image is that Americans are Caucasian and leave peacefully and patriotically but this is not dumbing people down if they really have no idea what Americans are like. Agreed?

What I am saying is; Mis-information is not dumbing down the ill-informed; it is mis-informing the ill-informed.

[Verv]

National cultures in first world countries pretty much ceased to exist some time ago, I can't determine exactly when. Too late to turn around, and no point in trying.

I think the expression of national cultures has dramatically changed and the similarities between nations and the products they consume are similar yet the old culture stille xists. Just as how Korean culture or Chinese culture was not expressed identically for 6,000 years, it is always changing.

If you look at styles of pottery and styles of art and even things as stagnant as religion yuo can see the steady change of ideas and expressions throughout history. This is just another change.

Naturally, Korean art demonstrates a very obvious Chinese influence and China, being such a large state, has very different regional expressions that influence each other. Merely, change existed more slowly for longer, and more than that, it does not appear to be standing on its' own because we see something Chinese or Korean and think, that is Chinese or KOrean.

But people do not remember that the society was divided for thousands of years. There were multiple kingdoms and warring states.

In fact, the idea of a national culture is probably what? 100-150 years old? In the East the beginnings of this idea did not even come until Emperor Mejji of Japan in 1872. The nation-state has changed a lot.

Still, a culture exists and the differences exist.

Now, since we live similar lives, a lot of the national cultural differences are more subtle and do not exist on the surface. They do not wear Hanboks anymore, but they certainly are a different society with different values.

OMFG Verv quit evoking Korea in every post . . . it's annoying now.

I reference what I know, I speak from things taht I am familair with; it is a very good contrast to what we know so it si a very good and educational bit.

[Zyx]

I reference what I know, I speak from things taht I am familair with; it is a very good contrast to what we know so it si a very good and educational bit.

Fair it seems that you are bragging sometimes though;

"my girlfriend", "you gotta leave the USA", "Korea is great", "Blind Freedom", "Ignorance among masses" . . . granted little of this is verbatim but you know what I mean; dunno it's cool . . . just don't brag.

[QatzelOk]

National cultures in first world countries pretty much ceased to exist some time ago

And yet these countries are willing to kill millions of non-nationals to protect their national self image as if this national self image was some kind of a god that requires sacrifices.

The national culture that is a side effect of propaganda is called patriotism or nationalism. It is a chanelling of tribalism by modern mass media for its owners, who are usually the rich classes.

So this is another side effect of nationalistic propaganda, such as national mythology - national pride and its sidekick, national paranoia.

[MatthewJ]

Yuri Bezmenov on demoralization

Part 1
Part 2


The end result:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=76470

Young people's attitudes to a wide variety of topics such as morality, abortion, patriotism, God have changed almost beyond belief since the 1960's. You tell me this is a natural happening, that previously shared values or ideas that lasted for centuries have been pushed back to irrelevance in 50 years by a sheer coincidence? You talk about propaganda; I hope your tongue is firmly in cheek.

[kami321]

And yet these countries are willing to kill millions of non-nationals to protect their national self image as if this national self image was some kind of a god that requires sacrifices.

Qatz, if we really get a worldwide triumph of liberal democracy, then this god will simply die out in people's minds.
The corporate earnings and stock pricies will be the only gods.

Young people's attitudes to a wide variety of topics such as morality, abortion, patriotism, God have changed almost beyond belief since the 1960's.

Well this IS a function of the market and the media, and it can be described as propaganda if you wish, but it is only natural at the same time. Tell me, who do you think would be interested in changing these values? (Besides the communists who try to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids)
No one, besides Mr.Market.

[QatzelOk]

The corporate earnings and stock pricies will be the only gods.

That was one of the gods I was talking about. The Economy God.

[Zyx]

Young people's attitudes to a wide variety of topics such as morality, abortion, patriotism, God have changed almost beyond belief since the 1960's. You tell me this is a natural happening, that previously shared values or ideas that lasted for centuries have been pushed back to irrelevance in 50 years by a sheer coincidence? You talk about propaganda; I hope your tongue is firmly in cheek.

Pretty solid video MatthewJ; also to my merit I did not vote for the USA in that poll--I voted the UK.

My initial response before watching the video was . . . The US had Radio Free Europe in the USSR so . . . yunno propaganda went both ways; you claim it is effective on both sides but its more causality vs correlation; I'm sure guys were blaming Germany getting together for the Civil War but that's just not the case.

Maybe soviet influence was in place, after all many 60s rebels knew about socialism--duh, but that's just that. If Marx did not write it, someone else probably would have (especially considering he was not the first socialist!)--long story short . . . nice video but its nonsense, I would not commit it to heart if I were you. And worry not, I won't either.

[kami321]

The idea that the Soviets were somehow interested in changing these particular American values is as ridiculous as the present day Russian nationalist idea which claims the exact same thing but vice versa: That the Americans had deliberately tried and succeeded in morally crippling Russian nation.

They even source some kind of document by Mr.Allen Dulles who allegedly wrote the initial proposal for the idea.

[MatthewJ]

I did not vote for the USA in that poll--I voted the UK.

I guess that makes you even more moronic than the other useful idiots on the forum. I’d love to know the rationale behind that. A small, overcrowded country in deep decline, populated by liberals / self-loathing idiots, run by Fabian socialists, is a greater threat to world peace than Russia and China. Must be something in the water where you live?

Propaganda went both ways

More idiocy. Soviet Union was a closed society. The party made damn sure that nobody knew the truth about America because if they did there would have been a genuine revolution. Russian opinions were shaped by Russian government, nobody else. It was not possible for American media to penetrate the society.

The idea that the Soviets were somehow interested in changing these particular American values is as ridiculous……

Another idiotic statement. So idiotic it doesn’t warrant any further response.

[kami321]

Yeah and I was somehow hoping that MatthewJ for once decided to have an actual discussion. But people really never change, do they.

I guess that makes you even more moronic

It's your choice of course, but if I were you, Kumatto, I'd report this.

[Zyx]

More idiocy. Soviet Union was a closed society.

Everyone knows about "Radio Free Europe."

You are being ridiculous. Or did the Communist make that up?

It's your choice of course, but if I were you, Kumatto, I'd report this.

Meh; my belief is "those who know better should do better" but if someone doesn't know better than meh, yunno?