Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts

Sunday, 14 April 2019

HOW TO DETECT PROPAGANDA by Clyde Raymond Miller

HOW TO DETECT PROPAGANDA

Clyde Raymond Miller

If American citizens are to have clear understanding of present-day conditions and what to do about them, they must be able to recognize propaganda, to analyze it, and to appraise it.

But, what is propaganda?

As generally understood, propaganda is expression of opinion or action by individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence opinions or actions of other individuals or groups with reference to predetermined ends.

Thus, propaganda differs from scientific analysis. The propagandist is trying to “put something across,” good or bad, whereas the scientist is trying to discover truth and fact. Often, the propagandist does not want careful scrutiny and criticism; he wants to bring about a specific action. Because the action may be socially beneficial or socially harmful to millions of people, it is necessary to focus upon the propagandist and his activities the searchlight of scientific scrutiny. Socially desirable propaganda will not suffer from such examination, but the opposite type will be detected and revealed for what it is.

We are fooled by propaganda chiefly because we don’t recognize it when we see it. It may be fun to be fooled but, as the cigarette ads used to say, it is more fun to know. We can more easily recognize propaganda when we see it if we are familiar with the seven common propaganda devices. These are:


1. The Name Calling Device
2. The Glittering Generalities Device
3. The Transfer Device
4. The Testimonial Device
5. The Plain Folks Device
6. The Card Stacking Device
7. The Band Wagon Device

Why are we fooled by these devices? Because they appeal to our emotions rather than to our reason. They make us believe and do something we would not believe or do if we thought about it calmly, dispassionately. In examining these devices, note that they work most effectively at those times when we are too lazy to think for ourselves; also, they tie into emotions which sway us to be “for” or “against” nations, races, religions, ideals, economic and political policies and practices, and so on through automobiles, cigarettes, radios, toothpastes, presidents, and wars. With our emotions stirred, it may be fun and infinitely more to our own interests to know how they work.

Lincoln must have had in mind citizens who could balance their emotions with intelligence when he made his remark: “… but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”




NAME CALLING

“Name Calling” is a device to make us form a judgment without examining the evidence on which it should be based. Here the propagandist appeals to our hate and fear. He does this by giving “bad names” to those individuals, groups, nations, races, policies, practices, beliefs, and ideals which he would have us condemn and reject. For centuries the name “heretic” was bad. Thousands were oppressed, tortured, or put to death as heretics. Anybody who dissented from popular or group belief or practice was in danger of being called a heretic. In the light of today’s knowledge, some heresies were bad and some were good. Many of the pioneers of modern science were called heretics; witness the cases of Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno. Today’s bad names include: Fascist, demagogue, dictator, Red, financial oligarchy, Communist, muckraker, alien, outside agitator, economic royalist, Utopian, rabble-rouser, trouble-maker, Tory, Constitution wrecker.

“Al” Smith called (Franklin D.) Roosevelt a Communist by implication when he said in his Liberty League speech, “There can only be one capital, Washington or Moscow.” When “Al” Smith was running for the presidency many called him a tool of the pope, saying in effect, “We must choose between Washington and Rome.” That implied that Mr. Smith, if elected president, would take his orders from the pope. Likewise, Mr. Justice Hugo Black has been associated with a bad name, Ku Klux Klan. In these cases some propagandists have tried to make us form judgments without examining essential evidence and implications. “Al Smith is a Catholic. He must never be president.” “Roosevelt is a Red. Defeat his program.” “Hugo Black is or was a Klansman. Take him out of the Supreme Court.”

Use of “bad names” without presentation of their essential meaning, without all their pertinent implications, comprises perhaps the most common of all propaganda devices. Those who want to maintain the status quo apply bad names to those who would change it. For example, the (William Randolph) Hearst press applies bad names to Communists and Socialists. Those who want to change the status quo apply bad names to those who would maintain it. For example, the Daily Worker and the American Guardian apply bad names to conservative Republicans and Democrats.

GLITTERING GENERALITIES

“Glittering Generalities” is a device by which the propagandist identifies his program with virtue by use of “virtue words.” Here, he appeals to our emotions of love, generosity, and brotherhood. He uses words like truth, freedom, honor, liberty, social justice, public service, the right to work, loyalty, progress, democracy, the American way, Constitution defender. These words suggest shining ideals. All persons of good will believe in these ideals. Hence, the propagandist, by identifying his individual group, nation, race, policy, practice, or belief with such ideals, seeks to win us to his cause. As Name Calling is a device to make us form a judgment to reject and condemn, without examining the evidence, Glittering Generalities is a device to make us accept and approve, without examining the evidence.

For example, use of the phrases, “the right to work” and “social justice,” may be a device to make us accept programs for meeting the labor-capital problem which, if we examined them critically, we would not accept at all.


In the Name Calling and Glittering Generalities devices, words are used to stir up our emotions and to befog our thinking. In one device “bad words” are used to make us mad; in the other, “good words” are used to make us glad.

The propagandist is most effective in the use of these devices when his words make us create devils to fight or gods to adore. By his use of the “bad words,” we personify as a “devil” some nation, race, group, individual, policy, practice, or ideal; we are made fighting mad to destroy it. By use of “good words,” we personify as a godlike idol some nation, race, group, etc. Words which are “bad” to some are “good” to others, or may be made so. Thus, to some the New Deal is “a prophecy of social salvation” while to others it is “an omen of social disaster.”

From consideration of names, “bad” and “good,” we pass to institutions and symbols, also “bad” and “good.” We see these in the next device.

TRANSFER

“Transfer” is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept. For example, most of us respect and revere our church and our nation. If the propagandist succeeds in getting church or nation to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may accept something which otherwise we might reject.

In the Transfer device, symbols are constantly used. The cross represents the Christian Church. The flag represents the nation. Cartoons like Uncle Sam represent a consensus of public opinion. These symbols stir emotions. At their very sight, with the speed of light, is aroused the whole complex of feelings we have with respect to church or nation. A cartoonist by having Uncle Sam disapprove a budget for unemployment relief would have us feel that the whole United States disapproves relief costs. By drawing an Uncle Sam who approves the same budget, the cartoonist would have us feel that the American people approve it. Thus, the Transfer device is used both for and against causes and ideas.



TESTIMONIAL

The “Testimonial” is a device to make us accept anything from a patent medicine or a cigarette to a program of national policy. In this device the propagandist makes use of testimonials. “When I feel tired, I smoke a Camel and get the grandest ‘lift.’” “We believe the John L. Lewis plan of labor organization is splendid; the CIO should be supported.” This device works in reverse also; counter-testimonials may be employed. Seldom are these used against commercial products like patent medicines and cigarettes, but they are constantly employed in social, economic, and political issues. “We believe that the John L. Lewis plan of labor organization is bad; the CIO should not be supported.” (BJ: I would only note here that famous people are often used in the testimonial device, like actress Sally Field selling us bone-strengthening medicine.)

PLAIN FOLKS

“Plain Folks” is a device used by politicians, labor leaders, businessmen, and even by ministers and educators to win our confidence by appearing to be people like ourselves – “just plain folks among the neighbors.” In election years especially do candidates show their devotion to little children and the common, homey things of life. They have front porch campaigns. For the newspaper men, they raid the kitchen cupboard, finding there some of the good wife’s apple pie. They go to country picnics; they attend service at the old frame church; they pitch hay and go fishing; they show their belief in home and mother. In short, they would win our votes by showing that they’re just as common as the rest of us – “just plain folks,” – and therefore, wise and good. Business men often are “plain folks” with the factory hands. Even distillers use the device. “It’s our family’s whiskey, neighbor; and neighbor, it’s your price.”



CARD STACKING

“Card Stacking” is a device in which the propagandist employs all the arts of deception to win our support for himself, his group, nation, race, policy, practice, belief, or ideal. He stacks the cards against the truth. He uses under-emphasis and over-emphasis to dodge issues and evade facts. He resorts to lies, censorship, and distortion. He omits facts. He offers false testimony. He creates a smoke screen of clamor by raising a new issue when he wants an embarrassing matter forgotten. He draws a “red herring” across the trail to confuse and divert those in quest of facts he does not want revealed. He makes the unreal appear real and the real appear unreal. He lets half-truth masquerade as truth. By the Card Stacking device, a mediocre candidate, through the “build-up,” is made to appear an intellectual titan; an ordinary prize fighter a probable world champion; a worthless patent medicine a beneficent cure. By means of this device propagandists would convince us that a ruthless war of aggression is a crusade for righteousness. Some member nations of the Non-Intervention Committee send their troops to intervene in Spain. Card Stacking employs sham, hypocrisy, effrontery. (BJ: “The Big Lie” falls into this category: if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it. The release of falsified documents is included in “The Big Lie.”)

THE BAND WAGON

The “Band Wagon” is a device to make us follow the crowd, to accept the propagandist’s program en masse. Here his theme is: “Everybody’s doing it.” His techniques range from those of medicine show to dramatic spectacle. He hires a hall, fills a great stadium, marches a million men in parade. He employs symbols, colors, music, movement, all the dramatic arts. He appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to “follow the crowd.” Because he wants us to “follow the crowd” in masses, he directs his appeal to groups held together by common ties of nationality, religion, race, environment, sex, vocation. Thus, propagandists campaigning for or against a program will appeal to us as Catholics, Protestants or Jews; as members of the Nordic race or as Negroes; as farmers or as school teachers; as housewives or as miners. All the artifices of flattery are used to harness the fears and hatreds, prejudices and biases, convictions and ideals common to the group; thus, emotion is made to push and pull the group on to the Band Wagon. In newspaper articles and in the spoken word this device is also found. “Don’t throw your vote away. Vote for our candidate. He’s sure to win.” Nearly every candidate wins in every election – before the votes are in. (BJ: It is my fervent prayer that “one day a lemming will fly.”)




PROPAGANDA AND EMOTION

Observe that in all these devices our emotion is the stuff with which propagandists work. Without it, they are helpless; with it, harnessing it to their purposes, they can make us glow with pride or burn with hatred, they can make us zealots in behalf of the program they espouse. As we said at the beginning, propaganda as generally understood is expression of opinion or action by individuals or groups with reference to predetermined ends. Without the appeal to our emotion – to our fears and to our courage, to our selfishness and unselfishness, to our loves and to our hates – propagandists would influence few opinions and few actions.

To say this is not to condemn emotion, an essential part of life, or to assert that all predetermined ends of propagandists are “bad.” What we mean is that the intelligent citizen does not want propagandists to utilize his emotions, even to the attainment of “good” ends, without knowing what is going on. He does not want to be “used” in the attainment of ends he may later consider “bad.” He does not want to be gullible. He does not want to be fooled. He does not want to be duped, even in a “good” cause. He wants to know the facts and among these is included the fact of the utilization of his emotions.


Keeping in mind the seven common propaganda devices, turn to today’s newspapers and almost immediately you can spot examples of them all. At election time or during any campaign, Plain Folks and Band Wagon are common. Card Stacking is hardest to detect, because it is adroitly executed or because we lack the information necessary to nail the lie. A little practice with the daily newspapers in detecting these propaganda devices soon enables us to detect them elsewhere – in radio, newsreels, books, magazines, and in expression of labor unions, business groups, churches, schools, political parties.

Wednesday, 31 October 2018

EUexit is not about money, it is about Freedom

There are two sides to BRexit - the economic and the political. The reason why businesses do not have a vote is: society is comprised of people and people are, supposedly via the ‘social contract’, represented by government.  Business interests are of relevance but the economic is secondary to the political in terms of the interest’s of the people. 

Just because the economy and business would do better that would not, for example, justify having a despotic totalitarian government.  People come first.



Businesses have to fit-in with the political landscape that is generally best for people. That does not mean businesses needs are of no relevance, clearly society needs a thriving economy so it is greatly a balance. 

Where there is a fundamental people rule. Exiting the EU is a political fundamental. If the EU was just a common market as originally described we would still be a willing partner I am sure. But it is not. The EU has become a political construct and it is that which has been firmly rejected by a majority of British people in a democratic referendum. 


Live with this change. We will adapt. Stop whining about economic downsides because that is not what is important. Leave understands the political need for independence.

Thursday, 10 March 2016

Why I will vote in the Brexit Referendum

I shall not be voting to beg our political masters: please sir, can we leave this nest of vipers.

I will cast a 'vote' and by doing so I will be, simply and only, signalling the fact (putting on notice) that I no longer consider the political relationship between the UK and the EU to be a valid one or one that is applicable to me.

If the outcome is remain I shall be a dissident.

Remain a United Kingdom - Kiss EU Goodbye

What are you worried about, Dear Remmenents, what? Economic predictions, guesses, assumptions, estimates, opinions for the effect our nation's exit will somehow cause. Well my prediction, my guess, my assumption, my estimate, my opinion is that it will be all for the better and in the long term I am truly confident of that. But such matters not are the primary to me.

I want freedom, independence, autonomy, I want the established balance of the political and legislative system, that has been developed, tuned and worked so well in this country for so very long, to REMAIN. I am not voting to EXIT I am voting for this nation, to my mind the greatest mix of people and social system in the history of the world, to remain, remain a sovereign entity.


Even the language is false. Remain is the language of security, safety, ease. Exit is the language of fear, risk, the unknown. These are the choice of words that a Kafkaesque government would want to frame the question to err the minds of the gullible and pliant towards their version of 'truth'.

And such petty fears, of the remmenents, are just as simplistically formed by others too. Remmenents busy themselves with questions of business, finance and commercial interests when what should be foremost in their minds is enduring freedom. What poses the greatest risk? Being a part of a new, still forming state comprised from a hotchpotch of countries who have seen more shifting of boarders and powers in a hundred years than Britain has seen in ten thousand. If they want safety they are misguided as to the real nature of the real threat. The real risk.

It is not about short term prosperity it is about long term freedom.

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

Outline of the Plans for Global Governance

Global Union is the mandate of the UN - or to give it the UN's parlance: 'global governance'.

The future power structure the UN requires forming a series of ever-consolidating pan-continental regions.  The EU is the early template and test-bed.  The North American Union should be next.

Every geopolitical step can be recognised as a step towards this resolution, the ambition of which is occulted from the plain view of the uninquisitive, the incurious and the general standard: the outright gullible.

Within these unions the old nation states will be divided into regions.  Some small regions could reflect existing national borders, like Scotland.  Generally the old nation states will be split-up into regions who will report directly to the Union.  There will be no national governments, no need for that level of authority, but there will be geographical 'mega-regions' defined to help with development and such.

The justification is to allow for the scientific management of the world which, they believe, is precluded greatly by the present nation state type of system. 

The second major justification is the preclusion of war.  Instead of war between one nation and another the whole of humanity will be in the grasp of an soviet socialist authoritarian tyranny, which will be fascist as there will be an elite who operate and own the whole enterprise  - which will be nice.

Wednesday, 11 September 2013

The Dark Heart of the Union

I frankly, genuinely, do not doubt the sincerity of some, many, the majority even, of those involved within the European project.

There is bound to be corruption and ineptness when a new order is devised and implemented so quickly. This is typical of all governments, all public offices, all forms of authority. There will be abuse. Cookies will get stolen. It happens.


What people do not understand, including this gaggle of well intention and committed friends, is there is a covert darkness behind the whole enterprise and all are caused to be just playing right into it hands.

Too often the meaning of 'darkness' and of especially 'the occult' are completely misunderstood. This is not unintentional. 'To occult' means simply to hide and this is the clue to understanding what the occult is really about. Clearly it is the same inference with darkness.

Truth, clarity, openness. These are the sort of words one does not readily associate with darkness and the occult.


I think the truth of the EU has been hidden in darkness, occulted, from the minds of all but those who work to seek-out the hidden truth and actual meaning.

This is how states, of all forms, have conducted themselves to control and manipulate the people from time immemorial. And this, the oldest established legacy of prehistoric-mankind to still remain, the state and its utter dependency upon deception to function, needs to be seen for what it is and cast-out, got rid-off, ended for ever.

Tuesday, 10 September 2013

The Origin of the EU - by means of natural selection or, The Preservation of Races in the Struggle for Life

Robert Schuman drew up the Schuman Plan - an initiative to control the production steel and so prevent future arms production.  Published on the 9th of May 1950  this date is now regarded as the birth of the European Union.  Schuman, it is now clear, was funded, supported and encouraged by an OSS (early CIA) operation: The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), founded in 1948.


At this stage the UK was considered too anti-federalist as it appears to partially remain.  But in terms of being a useful device for the 'The Anglo-American Establishment' to continue to influence and monitor the EU, no better device than the UK has been found.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Committee_on_United_Europe

Telegraph: Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe
1948-60
Richard J. Aldrich
 University of Nottingham,
See: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/aldrich/publications/oss_cia_united_europe_eec_eu.pdf



Thursday, 4 November 2010

Herd Management Program

Without comprehension of the nature or the facts, the people of the various nation states comprising the EU have long-since been loaded into cattle-trucks (of various guises) and continue on their slow clanking journey to an unwitting destination. The route may be convoluted, obscure, delayed or apparently benign but their fate is their predetermined destiny and a part of this journey has to be that they will never be plainly told where all the tracks eventually head.

Too stupid a herd are people that the manifold benefits perceived for the full integration of old-style nations into continental supra-national unions and further into one omnipotent world governance would simple pass them by. Humans instinct for tribal loyalty and racial grouping would surmount and stifle any reasoned call with the supposed logic for the ultimate formation of a newly ordered single world authority.


And so instead this must be achieved by subterfuge and conniving manipulation. Our so called representatives share various conceptions for the merits of this goal and understand its purported benevolent and altruistic ambition along with the absolute necessity to resist its definition.

By its formation's very nature, that of its being assembled of illiberal covert means, it stands equal opportunity of, when ultimately realised, becoming a manifestation of the ugliness of which it is being born. All resistance will be at best futile and worst deemed necessary to completely oppress.

Wednesday, 3 November 2010

WANTED - Somebody to act in the interests of a nation

This government is defiantly becoming one dirty great big disappointment as for having an anti-EU breath in its body.   I was, in reality, expecting no more than we are getting - vigorously shafted.  But, in truth, I did have just a teeny-weeny bit of optomisium.  Do I never learn.  Do we never learn.

Nothing this joker and his fall-guy has done has shown one shard of getting the best out of the EU for the UK.  It is all a sham. 

Wednesday, 13 October 2010

All the bla-bla-bla terminology

What is an eurosceptic? The very word is overtly reminiscent of Newspeak. Hog-wash I say, the term is nothing less than pure EU-brainwashing terminology.

The EU can define all the bla-bla-bla terminology they wish for between themselves, but they may not cook-up that which describes their dissenters. That's for me, and my like, to define.

I am an EU dissenter, I am an EU atheist. I am not an EU agnostic.

To describe anyone and everyone who is not just a lock, stock and barrel EU zombie (or grubby-fingered benefactor) by use of such a handy little catch-all catch-phrase terminology as 'sceptic' is more than just a lazy writer's falsehood. It is a contribution to the EU's PR brainwashing agenda. A cog in the grinding-wheel, consciously granted or not.

The term 'sceptic' is a detractor devised to take-away any depth of objection from those who call-out against the imposition of this undemocratic tyranny to which our so called political representatives fain nothing but the most feeble and tepid of stances.

sceptic - a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions
doubt - a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction - archaic fear; be afraid
rhetoric - the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques - language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content