About
Community
Bad Ideas
Drugs
Ego
Erotica
Fringe
Society
Politics
Anarchism
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Corporatarchy - Rule by the Corporations
Economic Documents
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Foreign Military & Intelligence Agencies
Green Planet
International Banking / Money Laundering
Libertarianism
National Security Agency (NSA)
Police State
Political Documents
Political Spew
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters
The Nixon Project
The World Beyond the U.S.A.
U.S. Military
Technology
register | bbs | search | rss | faq | about
meet up | add to del.icio.us | digg it

Propaganda

by Aaron Delwiche

Propaganda

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

Why Think About Propaganda?
The Institute for Propaganda Analysis
Participate in the Public Forum
Propaganda Gallery (Video Clips)

COMMON TECHNIQUES

Word Games
Name-Calling
Glittering Generalities
Euphemisms
False Connections
Transfer
Testimonial
Special Appeals
Plain Folks
Bandwagon
Fear

LOGICAL FALLACIES

Bad Logic or Propaganda?
Unwarranted Extrapolations

WARTIME PROPAGANDA

World War I
The Drift Towards War
The Committee on Public Information
Demons, Atrocities, and Lies
Post-war Propaganda

EXAMPLES

Newt Gingrich
Gingrich's Glittering Generalities
Newt's Name-Calling Words
Democratic National Committee
International Socialist Organization
James "Bo" Gritz
International Workers Organization
John Birch Society
"Freedom's Last Stand"

REFERENCES

Footnotes
Credits

It may seem strange to suggest that the study of propaganda has relevance to contemporary politics. After all, when most people think about propaganda, they think of the enormous campaigns that were waged by Hitler and Stalin in the 1930s. Since nothing comparable is being disseminated in our society today, many believe that propaganda is no longer an issue.

But propaganda can be as blatant as a swastika or as subtle as a joke. Its persuasive techniques are regularly applied by politicians, advertisers, journalists, radio personalities, and others who are interested in influencing human behavior. Propagandistic messages can be used to accomplish positive social ends, as in campaigns to reduce drunk driving, but they are also used to win elections and to sell malt liquor.

As Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson point out, "every day we are bombarded with one persuasive communication after another. These appeals persuade not through the give-and-take of argument and debate, but through the manipulation of symbols and of our most basic human emotions. For better or worse, ours is an age of propaganda." (Pratkanis and Aronson, 1991)

With the growth of communication tools like the Internet, the flow of persuasive messages has been dramatically accelerated. For the first time ever, citizens around the world are participating in uncensored conversations about their collective future. This is a wonderful development, but there is a cost.

The information revolution has led to information overload, and people are confronted with hundreds of messages each day. Although few studies have looked at this topic, it seems fair to suggest that many people respond to this pressure by processing messages more quickly and, when possible, by taking mental short-cuts.

Propagandists love short-cuts -- particularly those which short-circuit rational thought. They encourage this by agitating emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending the rules of logic. As history shows, they can be quite successful.

Propaganda analysis exposes the tricks that propagandists use and suggests ways of resisting the short-cuts that they promote. This web-site discusses various propaganda techniques, provides contemporary examples of their use, and proposes strategies of mental self-defense.

Propaganda analysis is an antidote to the excesses of the Information Age.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis In 1937, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis was created to educate the American public about the widespread nature of political propaganda. Composed of social scientists and journalists, the IPA published a series of books, including:

The Fine Art of Propaganda
Propaganda Analysis
Group Leader's Guide to Propaganda Analysis
Propaganda: How To Recognize and Deal With It

The IPA is best-known for identifying the seven basic propaganda devices: Name-Calling, Glittering Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon. According to the authors of a recent book on propaganda, "these seven devices have been repeated so frequently in lectures, articles, and textbooks ever since that they have become virtually synonymous with the practice and analysis of propaganda in all of its aspects." (Combs and Nimmo, 1993)

Some have argued that the IPA's approach is too simplistic because many messages fall into more than one category. The IPA techniques have also been criticized because they do not account for differences between members of the audience, and they do not discuss the credibility of the propagandist.

There is some validity to these criticisms, but few could quibble with the IPA's basic goal of promoting critical thought among citizens. In The Fine Art of Propaganda, the IPA stated that "It is essential in a democratic society that young people and adults learn how to think, learn how to make up their minds. They must learn how to think independently, and they must learn how to think together. They must come to conclusions, but at the same time they must recognize the right of other men to come to opposite conclusions. So far as individuals are concerned, the art of democracy is the art of thinking and discussing independently together."

Propaganda Techniques: Word Games

Name Calling

"Bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen. They have been and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, tribes, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, sections of the country, nations, and races." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.

The most obvious type of name calling involves "bad names." For example, consider the following:

Commie
Fascist
Pig
Yuppie Scum
Bum
Queer
Feminazi A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected because they possess a negative emotional charge. Those who oppose budget cuts may characterize fiscally conservative politicians as "stingy." Supporters might prefer to describe them as "thrifty." Both words refer to the same behavior, but they have very different connotations. Other examples of negatively charged words include: social engineering
radical
stingy
counter-culture The name-calling technique was first identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) in 1938. According to the IPA, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we spot an example of name-calling. What does the name mean? Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name? Is an idea that serves my best interests being dismissed through giving it a name I don't like?

Leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?

Propaganda Techniques: Word Games

Glittering Generalities

"We believe in, fight for, live by virtue words about which we have deep-set ideas. Such words include civilization, Christianity, good, proper, right, democracy, patriotism, motherhood, fatherhood, science, medicine, health, and love.

For our purposes in propaganda analysis, we call these virtue words "Glittering Generalities" in order to focus attention upon this dangerous characteristic that they have: They mean different things to different people; they can be used in different ways.

This is not a criticism of these words as we understand them. Quite the contrary. It is a criticism of the uses to which propagandists put the cherished words and beliefs of unsuspecting people.

When someone talks to us about democracy, we immediately think of our own definite ideas about democracy, the ideas we learned at home, at school, and in church. Our first and natural reaction is to assume that the speaker is using the word in our sense, that he believes as we do on this important subject. This lowers our 'sales resistance' and makes us far less suspicious than we ought to be when the speaker begins telling us the things 'the United States must do to preserve democracy.'

The Glittering Generality is, in short, Name Calling in reverse. While Name Calling seeks to make us form a judgment to reject and condemn without examining the evidence, the Glittering Generality device seeks to make us approve and accept without examining the evidence. In acquainting ourselves with the Glittering Generality Device, therefore, all that has been said regarding Name Calling must be kept in mind..." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggested a number of questions that people should ask themselves when confronted with this technique:

What does the virtue word really mean? Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the word: Is an idea that does not serve my best interests being "sold" to me merely through its being given a name that I like? Leaving the virtue word out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?

Propaganda Techniques: Word Games

Euphemisms

When propagandists use glittering generalities and name-calling symbols, they are attempting to arouse their audience with vivid, emotionally suggestive words. In certain situations, however, the propagandist attempts to pacify the audience in order to make an unpleasant reality more palatable. This is accomplished by using words that are bland and euphemistic.

Since war is particularly unpleasant, military discourse is full of euphemisms. In the 1940's, America changed the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense. Under the Reagan Administration, the MX-Missile was renamed "The Peacekeeper." During war-time, civilian casualties are referred to as "collateral damage," and the word "liquidation" is used as a synonym for "murder."

The comedian George Carlin notes that, in the wake of the first world war, traumatized veterans were said to be suffering from "shell shock." The short, vivid phrase conveys the horrors of battle -- one can practically hear the shells exploding overhead. After the second world war, people began to use the term "combat fatigue" to characterize the same condition. The phrase is a bit more pleasant, but it still acknowledges combat as the source of discomfort.. In the wake of the Vietnam War, people referred to "post-traumatic stress disorder": a phrase that is completely disconnected from the reality of war altogether.

Propaganda Techniques: False Connections

Transfer

You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorn. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold! -- William Jennings Bryan, 1896

"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. Those 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." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

When a political activist closes her speech with a public prayer, she is attempting to transfer religious prestige to the ideas that she is advocating. As with all propaganda devices, the use of this technique is not limited to one side of the political spectrum. It can be found in the speeches of liberation theologists on the left, and in the sermons of religious activists on the right.

In a similar fashion, propagandists may attempt to transfer the reputation of "Science" or "Medicine" to a particular project or set of beliefs. A slogan for a popular cough drop encourages audiences to "Visit the halls of medicine." On TV commercials, actors in white lab coats tell us that the "Brand X is the most important pain reliever that can be bought without a prescription." In both of these examples, the transfer technique is at work.

These techniques can also take a more ominous turn. As Alfred Lee has argued, "even the most flagrantly anti-sicentific racists are wont to dress up their arguments at times with terms and carefully selected illustrations drawn from scientific works and presented out of all accurate context." The propaganda of Nazi Germany, for example, rationalized racist policies by appealing to both science and religion.

This does not mean that religion and science have no place in discussions about social issues! The point is that an idea or program should not be accepted or rejected simply because it has been linked to a symbol such as Medicine, Science, Democracy, or Christianity. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis has argued that, when confronted with the transfer device, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

In the most simple and concrete terms, what is the proposal of the speaker?

What is the meaning of the the thing from which the propagandist is seeking to transfer authority, sanction, and prestige?

Is there any legitimate connection between the proposal of the propagandist and the revered thing, person or institution?

Leaving the propagandistic trick out of the picture, what are the merits of the proposal viewed alone?

Propaganda Techniques: False Connections

Testimonial

Bruce Jenner is on the cereal box, promoting Wheaties as part of a balanced breakfast. Cher is endorsing a new line of cosmetics, and La Toya Jackson says that the Psychic Friends Network changed her life. The lead singer of R.E.M appears on a public service announcement and encourages fans to support the "Motor Voter Bill."

"This is the classic misuse of the Testimonial Device that comes to the minds of most of us when we hear the term. We recall it indulgently and tell ourselves how much more sophisticated we are than our grandparents or even our parents.

With our next breath, we begin a sentence, 'The Times said,' 'John L. Lewis said...,' 'Herbert Hoover said...', 'The President said...', 'My doctor said...,' 'Our minister said...' Some of these Testimonials may merely give greater emphasis to a legitimate and accurate idea, a fair use of the device; others, however, may represent the sugar-coating of a distortion, a falsehood, a misunderstood notion, an anti-social suggestion..." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

There is nothing wrong with citing a qualified source, and the testimonial technique can be used to construct a fair, well-balanced argument. However, it is often used in ways that are unfair and misleading.

The most common misuse of the testimonial involves citing individuals who are not qualified to make judgements about a particular issue. In 1992, Barbara Streisand supported Bill Clinton, and Arnold Schwarzenegger threw his weight behind George Bush. Both are popular performers, but there is no reason to think that they know what is best for this country.

Unfair testimonials are usually obvious, and most of us have probably seen through this rhetorical trick at some time or another. However, this probably happened when the testimonial was provided by a celebrity that we did not respect. When the testimony is provided by an admired celebrity, we are much less likely to be critical.

According to the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we encounter this device.

Who or what is quoted in the testimonial?

Why should we regard this person (or organization or publication) as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question?

What does the idea amount to on its own merits, without the benefit of the Testimonial?

You may have noticed the presence of the testimonial technique in the previous paragraph, which began by citing the Insitute for Propaganda Analysis. In this case, the technique is justified. Or is it?

Propaganda Techniques: Special Appeals

Plain-Folks By using the plain-folks technique, speakers attempt to convince their audience that they, and their ideas, are "of the people." The device is used by advertisers and politicans alike.

America's recent presidents have all been millionaires, but they have gone to great lengths to present themselves as ordinary citizens. Bill Clinton eats at McDonald's and reads trashy spy novels. George Bush hated broccoli, and he loved to fish. Ronald Reagan was often photographed chopping wood, and Jimmy Carter presented himself as a humble peanut farmer from Georgia.

We are all familiar with candidates who campaign as political outsiders, promising to "clean out the barn" and set things straight in Washington. The political landscape is dotted with politicians who challenge a mythical "cultural elite," presumably aligning themselves with "ordinary Americans." As baby boomers enter their fifth decade, we are starting to see politicans in blue jeans who listen to rock and roll.

During the 1980s, Bartels and James appeared on television in comfortable, farm-style clothing, and, with a folksy drawl, thanked consumers for their continued support. The irony was that these two "regular guys" who pushed wine coolers were actually multi-millionaires -- hardly like you or me. In all of these examples, the plain-folks device is at work.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis has argued that, when confronted with this device, we should suspend judgement and ask ourselves the following questions:

What are the propagandist's ideas worth when divorced from his or her personality?

What could he or she be trying to cover up with the plain-folks approach?

What are the facts?

Propaganda Techniques: Special Appeals

Band Wagon "The propagandist hires a hall, rents radio stations, fills a great stadium, marches a million or at least a lot of men in a parade. He employs symbols, colors, music, movement, all the dramatic arts. He gets us to write letters, to send telegrams, to contribute to his cause. 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 already by common ties, ties of nationality, religion, race, sex, vocation. Thus propagandists campaigning for or against a program will appeal to us as Catholics, Protestants, or Jews...as farmers or as school teachers; as housewives or as miners.

With the aid of all the other propaganda devices, all of the artifices of flattery are used to harness the fears and hatreds, prejudices and biases, convictions and ideals common to a group. Thus is emotion made to push and pull us as members of a group onto a Band Wagon." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

The basic theme of the Band Wagon appeal is that "everyone else is doing it, and so should you." Since few of us want to be left behind, this technique can be quite successful. However, as the IPA points out, "there is never quite as much of a rush to climb onto the Band Wagon as the propagandist tries to make us think there is." When confronted with this technique, it may be helpful to ask ourselves the following questions:

What is this propagandist's program?

What is the evidence for and against the program? Regardless of the fact that others are supporting this program, should I support it?

Does the program serve or undermine my individual and collective interests?

Propaganda Techniques: Special Appeals

Fear

"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive." - Adolf Hitler, 1932

When a propagandist warns members of her audience that disaster will ensue if they do not follow a particular course of action, she is using the fear appeal. By playing on the audience's deep-seated fears, practitioners of this technique hope to redirect attention away from the merits of a particular proposal and toward steps that can be taken to reduce the fear.

This technique can be highly effective when wielded by a fascist demagogue, but it is usually used in less dramatic ways. Consider the following:

A television commercial portrays a terrible automobile accident (the fear appeal), and reminds viewers to wear their seatbelts (the fear-reducing behavior).

A pamphlet from an insurance company includes pictures of houses destroyed by floods (the fear appeal), and follows up with details about home-owners' insurance (the fear-reducing behavior).

A letter from a pro-gun organization begins by describing a lawless America in which only criminals own guns (the fear appeal), and concludes by asking readers to oppose a ban on automatic weapons (the fear-reducing behavior). Ever since the end of the second world war, social psychologists and communication scholars have been conducting empirical studies in order to learn more about the effectiveness of fear appeals. Some have criticized the conceptualization of the studies, and others have found fault with the experimental methods, but the general conclusions are worth considering, if not accepting.

"All other things being equal, the more frightened a person is by a communication, the more likely her or she is to take positive preventive action." (Pratkanis and Aronson, 1991)

Fear appeals will not succeed in altering behavior if the audience feels powerless to change the situation.

Fear appeals are more likely to succeed in changing behavior if they contain specific recommendations for reducing the threat that the audience believes are both effective and doable. In summary, there are four elements to a successful fear appeal: 1) a threat, 2) a specific recommendation about how the audience should behave, 3) audience perception that the recommendation will be effective in addressing the threat, and 4) audience perception that they are capable of performing the recommended behavior.

When fear appeals do not include all four elements, they are likely to fail. Pratkanis and Aronson provide the example of the anti-nuclear movement, which successfully aroused public fear of nuclear war, but offered few specific recommendations that people perceived as effective or doable. By contrast, fall-out shelters were enormously popular during the 1950s because people believed that shelters would protect them from nuclear war, and installing a shelter was something that they could do.

In a similar fashion, during the 1964 campaign, Lyndon Johnson was said to have swayed many voters with a well-known television commercial that portrayed a young girl being annihilated in a nuclear blast. This commercial linked nuclear war to Barry Goldwater (Johnson's opponent), and proposed a vote for Johnson as an effective, doable way of avoiding the threat.

In contemporary politics, the fear-appeal continues to be widespread. When a politician agitates the public's fear of immigration, or crime, and proposes that voting for her will reduce the threat, she is using this technique. When confronted with persuasive messages that capitalize on our fear, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

Is the speaker exaggerating the fear or threat in order to obtain my support?

How legitimate is the fear that the speaker is provoking?

Will performing the recommended action actually reduce the supposed threat?

When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the speaker's proposal?

Propaganda Techniques: Logical Fallacies

Bad Logic or Propaganda?

Logic is the process of drawing a conclusion from one or more premises. A statement of fact, by itself, is neither logical or illogical (although it can be true or false).

As an example of how logic can be abused, consider the following argument which has been widely propagated on the Internet.

Premise 1: Bill Clinton supports gun-control legislation.

Premise 2: All fascist regimes of the twentieth century have passed gun-control legislation.

Conclusion: Bill Clinton is a fascist.

One way of testing the logic of an argument like this is to translate the basic terms and see if the conclusion still makes sense. As you can see, the premises may be correct, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow.

Premise 1: All Catholics believe in God.

Premise 2: All Muslims believe in God.

Conclusion: All Catholics are Muslims.

This is a rather extreme example of how logic can be abused. The following pages describe others.

It should be noted that a message can be illogical without being propagandistic -- we all make logical mistakes. The difference is that propagandists deliberately manipulate logic in order to promote their cause.

Propaganda Techniques: Logical Fallacies

Unwarranted Extrapolation

The tendency to make huge predictions about the future on the basis of a few small facts is a common logical fallacy. As Stuart Chase points out, "it is easy to see the persuasiveness in this type of argument. By pushing one's case to the limit... one forces the opposition into a weaker position. The whole future is lined up against him. Driven to the defensive, he finds it hard to disprove something which has not yet happened.

Extrapolation is what scientists call such predictions, with the warning that they must be used with caution. A homely illustration is the driver who found three gas stations per mile along a stretch of the Montreal highway in Vermont, and concluded that there must be plenty of gas all the way to the North Pole. You chart two or three points, draw a curve through them, and extend it indefinitely." (Chase, 1952)

This logical sleight of hand often provides the basis for an effective fear-appeal. Consider the following contemporary examples:

If Congress passes legislation limiting the availability of automatic weapons, America will slide down a slippery slope which will ultimately result in the banning of all guns, the destruction of the Constitution, and a totalitarian police state.

If the United States approves NAFTA, the giant sucking sound that we hear will be the sound of thousands of jobs and factories disappearing to Mexico.

The introduction of communication tools such as the Internet will lead to a radical decentralization of government, greater political participation, and a rebirth of community.

When a communicator attempts to convince you that a particular action will lead to disaster or to utopia, it may be helpful to ask the following questions:

Is there enough data to support the speaker's predictions about the future?

Can I think of other ways that things might turn out?

If there are many different ways that things could turn out, why is the speaker painting such an extreme picture?

Wartime Propaganda: World War I

The Drift Towards War

The following paper on World War I propaganda was prepared for a course in December of 1994. In the process of translating it into a format readable on the world-wide web, footnotes and references have been removed. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the footnotes, send electronic mail to: [email protected] Of Fraud and Force Fast Woven: Domestic Propaganda During the First World War

"Lead this people into war, and they'll forget there was ever such a thing as tolerance. To fight, you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into the very fibre of national life, infecting the Congress, the courts, the policeman on the beat, the man in the street."

It is one of history's great ironies that Woodrow Wilson, who was re- elected as a peace candidate in 1916, led America into the first world war. With the help of a propaganda apparatus that was unparalleled in world history, Wilson forged a nation of immigrants into a fighting whole. An examination of public opinion before the war, propaganda efforts during the war, and the endurance of propaganda in peacetime raises significant questions about the viability of democracy as a governing principle.

Like an undertow, America's drift toward war was subtle and forceful. According to the outspoken pacifist Randolph Bourne, war sentiment spread gradually among various intellectual groups. "With the aid of Roosevelt," wrote Bourne, "the murmurs became a monotonous chant, and finally a chorus so mighty that to be out of it was at first to be disreputable, and finally almost obscene." Once the war was underway, dissent was practically impossible. "[I]f you believed our going into this war was a mistake," wrote The Nation in a post-war editorial, "if you held, as President Wilson did early in 1917, that the ideal outcome would be 'peace without victory,' you were a traitor." Forced to stand quietly on the sidelines while their neighbors stampeded towards war, many pacifists would have agreed with Bertrand Russell that "the greatest difficulty was the purely psychological one of resisting mass suggestion, of which the force becomes terrific when the whole nation is in a state of violent collective excitement."

This frenzied support for the war was particularly remarkable in light of the fact that Wilson's re-election had been widely interpreted as a vote for peace. After all, in January of 1916, Wilson stated that "so far as I can remember, this is a government of the people, and this people is not going to choose war." In retrospect, it is apparent that the vote for Wilson cloaked profound cleavages in public opinion. At the time of his inauguration, immigrants constituted one third of the population. Allied and German propaganda revived old-world loyalties among "hyphenated" European- Americans, and opinions about US intervention were sharply polarized. More than 8 million German-Americans lived in this country, and many were sympathetic to the cause of their homeland. Meanwhile, anti-German feeling was strong among the upper classes on the Atlantic coast, and was particularly intense among those with social and business connections to Britain or France. Most Americans, however, were not connected to the European conflict by blood or capital, and were not interested in waging war overseas.

Wartime Propaganda: World War I

The Committee on Public Information

The absence of public unity was a primary concern when America entered the war on April 6, 1917. In Washington, unwavering public support was considered to be crucial to the entire wartime effort. On April 13, 1917, Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to promote the war domestically while publicizing American war aims abroad. Under the leadership of a muckraking journalist named George Creel, the CPI recruited heavily from business, media, academia, and the art world. The CPI blended advertising techniques with a sophisticated understanding of human psychology, and its efforts represent the first time that a modern government disseminated propaganda on such a large scale. It is fascinating that this phenomenon, often linked with totalitarian regimes, emerged in a democratic state.

Although George Creel was an outspoken critic of censorship at the hands of public servants, the CPI took immediate steps to limit damaging information. Invoking the threat of German propaganda, the CPI implemented "voluntary guidelines" for the news media and helped to pass the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. The CPI did not have explicit enforcement power, but it nevertheless "enjoyed censorship power which was tantamount to direct legal force." Like modern reporters who participate in Pentagon press pools, journalists grudgingly complied with the official guidelines in order to stay connected to the information loop. Radical newspapers, such as the socialist Appeal to Reason, were almost completely extinguished by wartime limitations on dissent. The CPI was not a censor in the strictest sense, but "it came as close to performing that function as any government agency in the US has ever done."

Censorship was only one element of the CPI's efforts. With all the sophistication of a modern advertising agency, the CPI examined the different ways that information flowed to the population and flooded these channels with pro-war material. The CPI's domestic division was composed of 19 sub-divisions, and each focused on a particular type of propaganda. A comprehensive survey is beyond the scope of this paper, but the use of newspapers, academics, artists, and filmmakers will be discussed.

One of the most important elements of the CPI was the Division of News, which distributed more than 6,000 press releases and acted as the primary conduit for war-related information. According to Creel, on any given week, more than 20,000 newspaper columns were filled with material gleaned from CPI handouts. Realizing that many Americans glided right past the front page and headed straight for the features section, the CPI also created the Division of Syndicated Features and recruited the help of leading novelists, short story writers, and essayists. These popular American writers presented the official line in an easily digestible form, and their work was said to have reached twelve million people every month.

The Division of Civic and Educational Cooperation relied heavily on scholars who churned out pamphlets with titles such as The German Whisper, German War Practices, and Conquest and Kultur. The academic rigor of many of these pieces was questionable, but more respectable thinkers, such as John Dewey and Walter Lippmann, also voiced their support for the war. Even in the face of this trend, however, a few scholars refused to fall in line. Randolph Bourne had been one John Dewey's star students, and he felt betrayed by his mentor's collaboration with the war effort. In one of several eloquent wartime essays, Bourne savagely attacked his colleagues for self-consciously guiding the country into the conflict. "[T]he German intellectuals went to war to save their culture from barbarization," wrote Bourne. "And the French went to war to save their beautiful France!... Are not our intellectuals equally fatuous when they tell us that our war of all wars is stainless and thrillingly achieving for good?"

The CPI did not limit its promotional efforts to the written word. The Division of Pictorial Publicity "had at its disposal many of the most talented advertising illustrators and cartoonists of the time," and these artists worked closely with publicity experts in the Advertising Division. Newspapers and magazines eagerly donated advertising space, and it was almost impossible to pick up a periodical without encountering CPI material. Powerful posters, painted in patriotic colors, were plastered on billboards across the country. Even from the cynical vantage point of the mid 1990s, there is something compelling about these images that leaps across the decades and stirs a deep yearning to buy liberty bonds or enlist in the navy.

Moving images were even more popular than still ones, and the Division of Films ensured that the war was promoted in the cinema. The film industry suffered from a sleazy reputation, and producers sought respectability by lending wholehearted support to the war effort. Hollywood's mood was summed up in a 1917 editorial in The Motion Picture News which proclaimed that "every individual at work in this industry wants to do his share" and promised that "through slides, film leaders and trailers, posters, and newspaper publicity they will spread that propaganda so necessary to the immediate mobilization of the country's great resources." Movies with titles like The Kaiser: The Beast of Berlin, Wolves of Kultur, and Pershing's Crusaders flooded American theaters. One picture, To Hell With The Kaiser, was so popular that Massachusetts riot police were summoned to deal with an angry mob that had been denied admission.

The preceding discussion merely hints at the breadth of CPI domestic propaganda activities. From lecture hall podiums and movie screens to the pages of popular fiction and the inside of payroll envelopes, the cause of the Allies was creatively publicized in almost every available communication channel. But this is only part of the story. The propaganda techniques employed by the CPI are also fascinating, and, from the standpoint of democratic government, much more significant.

Wartime Propaganda: World War I

Demons, Atrocities, and Lies Defining Propaganda

The word "propaganda" has already been used several times, and the reader may wonder how this term is being used. The definition of propaganda has been widely debated, but there is little agreement about what it means. Some argue that all persuasive communication is propagandistic, while others suggest that only dishonest messages can be considered propaganda. Political activists of all stripes claim that they speak the truth while their opponents preach propaganda. In order to accommodate the breadth of the CPI's activities, this discussion relies on Harold Lasswell's broad interpretation of the term. "Not bombs nor bread," wrote Lasswell, "but words, pictures, songs, parades, and many similar devices are the typical means of making propaganda." According to Lasswell, "propaganda relies on symbols to attain its end: the manipulation of collective attitudes."

Propagandists usually attempt to influence individuals while leading each one to behave "as though his response were his own decision." Mass communication tools extend the propagandist's reach and make it possible to shape the attitudes of many individuals simultaneously. Because propagandists attempt to "do the other fellow's thinking for him," they prefer indirect messages to overt, logical arguments. During the war, the CPI accomplished this by making calculated emotional appeals, by demonizing Germany, by linking the war to the goals of various social groups, and, when necessary, by lying outright.

Emotional Appeals

CPI propaganda typically appealed to the heart, not to the mind. Emotional agitation is a favorite technique of the propagandist, because "any emotion may be 'drained off' into any activity by skillful manipulation." An article which appeared in Scientific Monthly shortly after the war argued that "the detailed suffering of a little girl and her kitten can motivate our hatred against the Germans, arouse our sympathy for Armenians, make us enthusiastic for the Red Cross, or lead us to give money for a home for cats." Wartime slogans such as "Bleeding Belgium," "The Criminal Kaiser," and "Make the World Safe For Democracy," suggest that the CPI was no stranger to this idea. Evidence of this technique can be seen in a typical propaganda poster that portrayed an aggressive, bayonet-wielding German soldier above the caption "Beat Back The Hun With Liberty Bonds." In this example, the emotions of hate and fear were redirected toward giving money to the war effort. It is an interesting side-note that many analysts attribute the failure of German propaganda in America to the fact that it emphasized logic over passion. According to Count von Bernstorff, a German diplomat, "the outstanding characteristic of the average American is rather a great, though superficial, sentimentality," and German press telegrams completely failed to grasp this fact.

Demonization

A second propaganda technique used by the CPI was demonization of the enemy. "So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations," wrote Lasswell "that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor. There must be no ambiguity about who the public is to hate." American propaganda was not the only source of anti-German feeling, but most historians agree that the CPI pamphlets went too far in portraying Germans as depraved, brutal aggressors. For example, in one CPI publication, Professor Vernon Kellogg asked "will it be any wonder if, after the war, the people of the world, when they recognize any human being as a German, will shrink aside so that they may not touch him as he passes, or stoop for stones to drive him from their path?"

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. After the war, Edward Bernays, who directed CPI propaganda efforts in Latin America, openly admitted that his colleagues used alleged atrocities to provoke a public outcry against Germany. Some of the atrocity stories which were circulated during the war, such as the one about a tub full of eyeballs or the story of the seven-year old boy who confronted German soldiers with a wooden gun, were actually recycled from previous conflicts. In his seminal work on wartime propaganda, Lasswell speculated that atrocity stories will always be popular because the audience is able to feel self-righteous indignation toward the enemy, and, at some level, identify with the perpetrators of the crimes. "A young woman, ravished by the enemy," he wrote "yields secret satisfaction to a host of vicarious ravishers on the other side of the border."

Anti-German propaganda fueled support for the war, but it also contributed to intolerance on the home front. Dachshunds were renamed liberty dogs, German measles were renamed liberty measles, and the City University of New York reduced by one credit every course in German. Fourteen states banned the speaking of German in public schools. The military adversary was thousands of miles away, but German-Americans provided convenient local scapegoats. In Van Houten, New Mexico, an angry mob accused an immigrant miner of supporting Germany and forced him to kneel before them, kiss the flag, and shout "To hell with the Kaiser." In Illinois, a group of zealous patriots accused Robert Prager, a German coal miner, of hoarding explosives. Though Prager asserted his loyalty to the very end, he was lynched by the angry mob. Explosives were never found.

The War to End All Wars

Emotional appeals and simplistic caricatures of the enemy influenced many Americans, but the CPI recognized that certain social groups had more complex propaganda needs. In order to reach intellectuals and pacifists, the CPI claimed that military intervention would bring about a democratic League of Nations and end warfare forever. With other social groups, the CPI modified its arguments, and interpreted the war as "a conflict to destroy the threat of German industrial competition (business group), to protect the American standard of living (labor), to remove certain baneful German influences in our education (teachers), to destroy German music - itself a subtle propaganda (musicians), to preserve civilization, 'we' and `civilization' being synonymous (nationalists), to make the world safe for democracy, crush militarism, [and] establish the rights of small nations et al. (religious and idealistic groups)." It is impossible to make rigorous statements about which one of these appeals was most effective, but this is the advantage that the propagandist has over the communications scholar. The propagandist is primarily concerned with effectiveness and can afford to ignore the methodological demands of social science.

Dishonesty

Finally, like most propagandists, the CPI was frequently dishonest. Despite George Creel's claim that the CPI strived for unflinching accuracy, many of his employees later admitted that they were quite willing to lie. Will Irwin, an ex-CPI member who published several confessional pieces after the war, felt that the CPI was more honest than other propaganda ministries, but made it clear that "we never told the whole truth - not by any manner of means." Citing an intelligence officer who bluntly said "you can't tell them the truth," G.S Viereck argued that, as on all fronts, victories were routinely manufactured by American military authorities. The professional propagandist realizes that, when a single lie is exposed, the entire campaign is jeopardized. Dishonesty is discouraged, but on strategic, not moral, grounds.

Wartime Propaganda: World War I

Post-War Propaganda

In the final months of 1918, as the war drew to a close, the CPI fell under increasing scrutiny from a war-weary American public and from the Republican majority that had gained control of Congress. On November 12, 1918, George Creel halted the domestic activities of the CPI. The activities of the foreign division were ended, amidst great controversy, a few months later. One might assume that the wartime propagandists then put down their pens and paintbrushes and returned to ordinary life. This was not the case.

According to Lasswell, many former agents of the CPI stayed in Washington and New York and took advantage of their skill and contacts. Two years later, the Director of the CPI's Foreign Division argued that "the history of propaganda in the war would scarcely be worthy of consideration here, but for one fact - it did not stop with the armistice. No indeed! The methods invented and tried out in the war were too valuable for the uses of governments, factions, and special interests." Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, took the techniques he learned in the CPI directly to Madison Avenue and became an outspoken proponent of propaganda as a tool for democratic government. "It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind," wrote Bernays in his 1928 bombshell Propaganda. "It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace."

This peacetime application of what was, after all, a tool of war, began to trouble Americans who suspected that they had been misled. In The New Republic, John Dewey questioned the paternalistic assumptions of those who disguised propaganda as news. "There is uneasiness and solicitude about what men hear and learn," wrote Dewey, and the "paternalistic care for the source of men's beliefs, once generated by war, carries over to the troubles of peace." Dewey argued that the manipulation of information was particularly evident in coverage of post-Revolutionary Russia. The Nation agreed in 1919, arguing that "what has happened in regard to Russia is the most striking case in point as showing what may be accomplished by Government propaganda... Bartholomew nights that never take place, together with the wildest rumors of communism in women, and of murder and bloodshed, taken from obscure Scandinavian newspapers, are hastily relayed to the US, while everything favorable to the Soviets, every bit of constructive accomplishment, is suppressed."

When one considers the horrible legacy of the war, it is tempting to pin complete responsibility for American involvement on hate-mongering militarists in the CPI. Such retroactive condemnation is no more complex than a wartime slogan. Ultimately, their guilt is less important than the questions their activities raised about the role of propaganda in a democratic society.

Democratic theory, as interpreted by Jefferson and Paine, was rooted in the Enlightenment belief that free citizens could form respectable opinions about issues of the day and use these opinions to guide their own destiny. Communication between citizens was assumed to be a necessary element of the democratic process. During the first world war, America's leaders felt that citizens were not making the correct decisions quickly enough, so they flooded the channels of communication with dishonest messages that were designed to stir up emotions and provoke hatred of Germany. The war came to an end, but propaganda did not. For the past seven decades, those who lead our nation, along with those who seek to overthrow it, have mouthed the ideals of Jefferson while behaving like Bernays.

Is propaganda compatible with democracy, or does it undermine the population's ability to think critically about world events? What happens when simplistic, emotional appeals are endlessly repeated? During the war, Bourne complained that "simple syllogisms are substituted for analysis, things are known by their labels, [and] our heart's desire dictates what we shall see." Could this description apply equally to a political climate in which slogans like "Three Strikes, You're Out," "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and "Just Say No" are treated as if they were actual policies for dealing with social needs?

What of the propagandist's argument that the complexity of the modern world makes obsolete the Enlightenment faith in popular wisdom? It is impossible for one person to simultaneously be an expert in foreign policy, labor disputes, the environment, the educational system, health care, constitutional law, and scientific regulation. Even the President is forced to rely on the advice of key advisors. Should America follow Bernays' prescription and accept the wisdom of "a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses?" Or is "leadership democracy" simply one stage of our democratic development? Could it someday be replaced by something more far reaching?

What contribution will emerging communication technologies make to the dissemination of propaganda? Does the myth of "interactivity" legitimize an unbalanced social relationship, or does it make it possible for the audience to challenge the propagandist? The hosts of radio talk shows claim that theirs is a democratic medium, but callers are screened in advance and filtered through a three-second time delay. Are truly interactive tools on the horizon?

The important difference between our "leadership democracy" and a totalitarian state is that we are allowed to raise questions such as these. However, history shows that, in times of political crisis and social dislocation, this freedom is one of the first to disappear. As we approach the end of the twentieth century, finding answers to these questions is more important than ever.

Examples

How Newt Gingrich Uses These Techniques

Four years before Contract With America became a household phrase, Newt Gingrich's political action committee (GOPAC) mailed a pamphlet entitled Language, A Key Mechanism of Control to Republicans across the country. The booklet offered rhetorical advice to Republican candidates who wanted to "speak like Newt." It was awarded a Doublespeak Award by the National Conference of Teachers of English in 1990.

The booklet contained two lists of words. GOP candidates were instructed to use one set of "positive, governing words," (glittering generalities) when speaking about themselves. A second set of negative words (name-calling words) were to be used against their opponents.

A brief glance at the words on Gingrich's lists suggests that he continues to use these techniques. Words such as "vision, courage, lead, learn, commitment, empower, and freedom" can be found throughout Contract With America. Gingrich frequently uses words like "ideological, liberal, bureaucracy, crisis, endanger, and lie" to describe his opponents.

Gingrich understands the power of propaganda. When Language, A Key Mechanism of Control was first reported in the press, Gingrich's spokesman Thomas Blankley said "''Obviously, the general concept is something Newt has been pressing in his public speaking for a long time, that Republicans need to use vivid language to describe the values of people we oppose politically.'' As recently as January 20th, 1995, Gingrich called upon his colleagues to "paint a vivid, brilliant word picture" in order to truly become a majority by April of 1997.

(Sources: Chicago Tribune, September 19, 1990; Orlando Sentinel Tribune, September 14, 1990; New York Times September 9, 1990)

Examples

Gingrich's Glittering Generalities

This is the list of "positive, governing words" that GOP candidates were told to use when speaking about themselves or their policies.

Active(ly)
Activist
Building
Candid(ly)
Care(ing)
Challenge
Change
Children
Choice/choose
Citizen
Commitment
Common sense
Compete
Confident
Conflict
Control
Courage
Crusade
Debate
Dream
Duty
Eliminate good-time in prison
Empower(ment)
Fair
Family
Freedom
Hard work
Help
Humane
Incentive
Initiative
Lead
Learn
Legacy
Liberty
Light
Listen
Mobilize
Moral
Movement
Opportunity
Passionate
Peace
Pioneer
Precious
Premise
Preserve
Principle(d)
Pristine
Pro-(issue) flag, children, environment
Prosperity
Protect
Proud/pride
Provide
Reform
Rights
Share
Strength
Success
Tough
Truth
Unique
Vision
We/us/our
Workfare

Examples

Newt's Name-Calling Words This is the list of negative words and phrases that GOP candidates were told to use when speaking about their opponents.

"Compassion" is not enough. Anti-(issue) flag, family, child, jobs
Betray
Coercion
Collapse
Consequences
Corruption
Crisis
Decay
Deeper
Destroy
Destructive
Devour
Endanger
Failure
Greed
Hypocrisy
Ideological
Impose
Incompetent
Insecure
Liberal
Lie
Limit(s)
Pathetic
Permissive attitude
Radical
Self-serving
Sensationalists
Shallow
Sick
They/them
Threaten
Traitors
Unionized bureaucracy
Urgent
Waste

Examples

Democratic National Committee The following press release was found on the Democratic National Committee's web site. What propaganda techniques or logical fallacies, if any, can you identify?

Grassroot Support Continues to Grow for Democratic Party

Greenville (Pennsylvania) resident Joyce Drake will travel to Washington on Wednesday February 7, 1996 to meet President Bill Clinton. Drake, a retired bookkeeper and office worker, was the 500,000th new contributing member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 1995.

Drake and daughter Jan Bartholomew are scheduled to have their picture taken with President Clinton and DNC National Chairman Don Fowler at 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday.

Drake said she donated to the DNC because "I wanted to put my money where my mouth is. I like President Clinton and I want him re-elected. I believe in the Democratic Party."

Drake decried Republicans who criticize the President as "more concerned with the needs of the rich than the middle class and people like me." She praised the President, "He's working as hard as he can to solve our problems - and to top it all off, he can play the saxophone."

Spurred by their support for the Democratic agenda and their opposition to the extremist policies of the Republican Congress, more than 530,000 new donors gave to the DNC in 1995, a record. Most of these new donors contributed less than $100.

"Thousands of people across the country agree with Joyce Drake that President Clinton offers the vision, ideas, and leadership for a better America," said DNC National Chairman Don Fowler.

Examples

International Socialist Organization The following excerpt is taken from a flyer that was distributed by the International Socialist Organization in Seattle, Washington. What sort of propaganda techniques or logical fallacies, if any, can you find in the following message?

Contract On America: How do we stop the Republicans?

After taking power in January, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans promised to implement their "Contract with America." The "Contract" is a nasty piece of work.

Together, these policy proposals represent the biggest attack on workers and the poor since the 1920s.

The Republicans want to throw people off welfare -- whether they have a job or not. They want to restrict the rights of ordinary people to sue corporations.

Newt and his gang want to cut taxes for the rich, raise defense spending and destroy the National Endowment for the Arts.

These proposals show what the Republicans are all about -- defending the interests of the rich and the corporations which financed their election.

Examples

James Bo Gritz

Colonel James "Bo" Gritz is the author of A Nation Betrayed and Called to Serve. In 1988, ex-Klansman David Duke ran for President under the auspices of the Populist Party. Four years later, Gritz was the same party's candidate for President. The following passages are excerpted from his campaign materials. What sort of propaganda techniques and logical fallacies, if any, can you identify?

AMERICA FIRST COALITION
VOTE FOR "BO" ... PUT AMERICA FIRST

JAMES "BO" GRITZ FOR PRESIDENT

"We've got one more hill to take --- Capitol Hill! Together we'll win."

WHAT DOES "BO" STAND FOR?

Christian ethic and Constitutional government under the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Bo is the only presidental candidate with a positive plan to get us out of debt, balance the federal budget, secure the economy and allow you to keep what you make. Bo gives us a confident preference over the Republicrat "evil of two lessors."

* INSTITUTE "WORKFARE" IN LIEU OF WELFARE. America needs a "HAND-UP" not a HAND-OUT! We stop paying farmers not to produce. We stop issuing stamps and instead offer food and opportunity to the truly poor. We enforce immigration laws and quotas. We halt the illegal alien invasion. Our own citizens are being denied assistance, education, and work by thousands who sneak across our borders each year. Citizenship should not be available to those who evade the INS. Provide for our own instead of outsiders...DEFEND OUR BORDERS, BUT NO MORE WORLD POLICEMAN!

200 years ago our forefathers roared for liberty. Today people whimper for security. Like a sleeping giant, threads of tyranny are being spun to keep us down. It's Rip Van Winkle time...AMERICA, WAKE UP! We need a second American Revolution. WE'VE GOT ONE MORE HILL TO TAKE...CAPITOL HILL. This time we'll win with ballots instead of bullets. There are 24 million American Veterans who took an oath of true faith and allegiance to defend our Constitution against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. I can't do it alone, but (READ II KINGS 6:15-17). TOGETHER, AS AMER-I-CANS, WE'LL WIN!

VOTE GRITZ FOR RIGHTS IN '92!

Bo is a true American Patriot who is serious about protecting our nation, restoring states rights, rejecting global government, and safeguarding personal liberty. A RETURN TO CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IS OUR BEST SECURITY FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE!

America is on the brink of disaster, BUT CAN BE SAVED BY genuine patriots like YOU taking heroic action!

PLEASE HELP SUPPORT "BO" GRITZ FOR PRESIDENT IN '92

"BO" NEEDS VOLUNTEERS IN EVERY STATE AND CITY. HE NEEDS LEADERS TO FORM ACTION CENTERS. WE NEED PATRIOTS TO SECURE BALLOT SIGNATURES.

"BO" NEEDS 10,000 TALENTED, ETHICAL CITIZENS WILLING TO HELP HIM ADMINISTER "OUR" GOVERNMENT AFTER ELECTION!

Our children will inherit the fruits of our labor. Don't let us be the first generation to take more than we give.

WILL YOU GIVE OF YOUR TIME AND TALENT?

Examples

International Workers Organization The following passages are excerpted from the "Principles, Goals & Statutes of the International Workers Association." They were adopted at the first Congress in Berlin 1922, amended at subsequent Congresses, and reaffirmed at the Congress in Paris in 1979. What sort of propaganda techniques or logical fallacies, if any, can you detect?

The age-old battle between the exploiters and the exploited has taken on a forbidding dimension. Omnipotent capital once again raises its monstrous head. Despite the internal struggles that tear apart the managerial and bourgeois classes, these forces have created a powerful relationship that enables them to throw themselves with more strength and unity against the proletariat and chain it to the capital's triumphant chariot.

Capitalism is organizing and is moving from the defensive position it found itself in to an offensive strategy of attacking the working class on all fronts. This offensive has its origins in specific causes: in the confusion of ideas and principles in the ranks of the workers' movement, in the lack of clarity and agreement on the present and future goals of the working class, and in the division of the working class into innumerable factions; in short, in the weakness and disorganization of the workers' movement.

There can be only one answer to this relentless international attack by every kind of exploiter: the immediate organization of a proletarian army into a fighting structure that gathers to its breast all the revolutionary workers of all countries; forming with them a granite block against which every capitalist maneuver will be smashed and eventually overwhelmed due to our crushing weight.

This movement for emancipation cannot accept the line of action urged by those currents of the workers' movement that aspire to a harmony between capital and labor; desiring an international peace with capitalism and incorporation into the bourgeois state. Neither can it accept those currents that propagate the principles of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is contrary to the goal for a society based upon the greatest possible liberty and well-being for all, which after all is the goal of all conscientious workers.

Against the offensive of capital and politicians of all hues, all the revolutionary workers of the world must build a real International Association of Workers, in which, each member will know that the emancipation of the working class will only be possible when the workers themselves, in their capacities as producers, manage to prepare themselves in their economic organizations to take possession of the land and the factories and enable themselves to administer them jointly, in such a way that they will be able to continue production and social life.

Considering this perspective and this goal before it, the duty of the workers is to participate in all actions that lead towards a revolutionary transformation of society, always striving to move towards our final goals. We must make our strength felt through this participation, always striving to give our movement, through propaganda and organization, the necessary means to supplant our adversaries. Similarly, wherever possible, we must realize our social system through the means of model and example, and our organizations must exert, to the limits of their possibilities, the greatest possible influence on other tendencies in order that they may be incorporated into our struggle, which is the common struggle against all statist and capitalist adversaries, always keeping in mind the circumstances of place and time, but remaining faithful to the goals of the movement for workers' emancipation.

Examples

John Birch Society The following description of the Council on Foreign Relations was published by the John Birch society. What sort of propaganda techniques or logical fallacies, if any, can you detect?

Why would anyone who professes to be an American hold membership in the Council on Foreign Relations?

It is a time-honored and sensible practice to judge others by the company they keep and the organizations they join.

Everyone not only employs such a test on a regular basis; we also expect it to be used to judge our own worth.

Members of the privately run, New York-based Council on Foreign Relations belong to one of the most prestigious groups in the United States. But this little-known organization is hardly one where any patriotic American should be found.

The CFR:

was founded by a man who touted Marxism and spent his entire adult life working to fasten its freedom-destroying grip on the United States; (From his lofty position as top assistant to President Woodrow Wilson, Edward Mandell House led the group that founded the CFR. In his 1912 book, PHILLIP DRU, ADMINISTRATOR, House explained that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.")

has for seven decades consistently advocated scrapping the independence of the U.S. in favor of a socialistic new world order; (The December 1922 issue of FOREIGN AFFAIRS, the CFR's quarterly journal, called for an "international system" and "world government;" in 1974, one of its articles boldly suggested "an end run around national sovereignty eroding it piece by piece;" in 1988, another article sought "internationalism" at the expense of national independence. In 1944, a CFR publication denounced "the sovereignty fetish" existing in the United States; in 1959; a Council document called for "international order" where all nations are "interdependent.")

has attracted domestic Communists to membership, (Communist Alger Hiss, Lauchlin Currie held CFR membership in the 1940s. After Hiss had been exposed as a Communist agent, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, a CFR member publicly announced that he would never turn his back on Hiss - and he never did.)

and repeatedly given overseas Communists a forum to dispense their deceit; (Continuing a long-standing policy, the CFR presented spokesmen at its closed meetings during 1987 and 1988 from the following Communist countries: Hungary, Poland, USSR, Bulgaria, East Germany, Mozanbique, China, Nicaragua, and Cuba.)

has chosen for its leader one man who boasted of his long record of dealing with murderous Communist regimes (In 1982, when asked how his Chase Manhattan Bank could do business with socialist or Communist nations, then-CFR Chairman David Rockefeller stated, "We have found we can deal with just about any kind of government, provided they are orderly and responsible."); and another who publicly advocated economic policies that would destroy the free enterprise system and the sovereignty of this nation (Current CFR Chairman Peter G. Peterson served as one of two U.S. representatives on the Socialist International's Brandt Commission (1977-1980). In its 1980 report, this commission recommended international authority to regulate world commerce, international currency, a World Development Fund to finance Communist nations, and "a new international economic order." In short, the Brandt Commission's recommendations, endorsed by the CFR Chairman Peter G. Peterson, call for the end of U.S. economic and political freedom.)

The CFR currently lists approximately 2,500 persons as members. Numbered among this minuscule percentage of the U.S. population, however, are over 300 federal officials, several hundred media executives and journalists, hundreds of corporate leaders, and even America's top military officers.

Perhaps some of these individuals accepted CFR membership without full knowledge of the organization's history and subversive goals. Perhaps others joined because they are determined to create an all-powerful world government - run by them - that would supplant an independent America. Any CFR member who belongs to this latter category could not swear an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution without committing perjury. CFR members who joined the organization without complete knowledge of what it stands for ought to consider rethinking their affiliation.

Examples

"Freedom's Last Stand" The following passages are excerpted from an article by Steven Weaver entitled "Freedom's Last Stand." The article was originally printed in a September 1994 issue of Guns and Ammo and was made available to the Internet via the web-server of the National Rifle Association. What sort of propaganda techniques or logical fallacies, if any, can you identify? Freedom's Last Stand Are You Willing To Fight for Your Guns?

" The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". Thomas Jefferson

During the latter stages of the Rhodesian Bush war, in the late 1970's a particularly salient tactical point was demonstrated to those with eyes to see. Embattled Rhodesia, fighting for its very life and ostracized by virtually the entire world, quietly adopted a policy change for its armed forces. As a result, the selector switches on thousands of FN-FAL rifles were deliberately switched from the full-auto mode to semi-automatic as a matter of standard procedure. The reason was the shortage of amm unition brought about by international sanction efforts. The effects were startling in that nothing changed as far as battle outcome in spite of a better-armed and equipped enemy in increasingly superior numbers penetrating Rhodesia from three fronts. The communist-trained and supplied terrorist maintained the full auto mode with their AK-47s right up until the end. When the final battles came. the outnumbered and outgunned Rhodesians had never lost a single encounter; rather, their demise came at the negotiation table-which is a point for deep reflection.

What this proves is that semi-auto fire is a match for full-auto in the hands of determined and committed personnel fighting for home and hearth. As we stand today with the threat of legislation banning the possession and/or manufacture of semiautomatic weapons. we had best pause and consider this carefully. And a ban of so called assault rifles today will become a ban on your Remington 1100 tomorrow-bet on it. The Second Amendment has been dealt numerous and severe infractions in multiple, localized instances over the past half-century. But never before has it faced the broad onslaught we now see. The avowed goal of those in our very government is to strip us of our rights under the Second Amendment. Should this occur, however, it will ultimately be our fault, not theirs. The reason for this is the Second Amendment. As an American in the middle of my fourth decade in this life I, like many others, look around in utter shock and dismay at the rapid unraveling of our culture. I've managed to get to this point in life without running afoul of our laws even once. I am not associated with or an adherent to any group espousing supremacist views, Nor do I advocate the violent overthrow of the government...ant this point in time. I will confess to holding numerous politically incorrect attitudes, however.

I've been fortunate to be able to live abroad in several countries, which has given me a good deal of perspective from which to speak, But, I speak as an American whose family has been in this country since before the revolution. Now I look at the fast- approaching tomorrow when I may be legislated a criminal for what is my legal right today. This is because I own a couple of semi-automatic weapons. One of them was bequeathed to me by my late father and was purchased by him in the middle 1920's-insidious weaponry indeed! Yet I face the possibility that I could wake up one day and be felon unless I immediately turn in these weapons. This is something I will not do.

Those words are not written lightly or without the awareness that someone will read them that I would rather not have reading them. Nevertheless I am compelled to write this, under my own name, because I cannot, in good conscience, keep quiet on the issue. Should such legislation pass in this country, I do expect the possibility that I might not live for any great period of time thereafter. For at that point I will bear arms against the so-called government of that day. I will do so if I have to do it alone and I will do it for several very good and legal reasons.

It is legal, now, for me to write and for this to be published because we have a first Amendment. We have that because some vestiges of the Constitution are still intact. Right behind our freedom of speech and freedom of religion our forefathers place d a second pillar of this republic, the right to bear arms. In many ways it has supported and still does support the rest. I'll not go into a long discourse about the legal basis for our Second Amendment rights. That's been done by better legal minds t han mine and is readily available to the inquiring mind. I'll suffice to say that, in the succinct words of a bumper sticker, "the Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting." What it is about is our culture, our country and our whole way of life I'll not give that up without a fight.

The late Christian theologian Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer once made a statement that has stuck with me for many years: "If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been make autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the pla ce of the Living God." The thrust of what Dr. Schaeffer has said here is as relevant to the secular as it is to the Christian audience he addressed. In a nutshell, if you don't have a defensible bottom line, you've just make the government your personal god. The context of the discourse from which this quote was taken was the rule of law in our culture. In the American expression of western culture the rule of law is embodied in the Constitution of the United States, of which the Second Amendment is an integral part. To an American, then, this is our relevant bottom line, from a secular governmental perspective. In the words of the Constitution itself, Article VI, Section 2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be mad e in pursuance, thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land."

The Second Amendment is a part of these Constitution and is not in the authority of Congress to alter save by an amending process as submitted to the states. No 51-49 vote can legally supersede it. All powers in our Constitution are delegated at three levels: Federal, State and the People. This is where our Second Amendment rights lay, with the people. Very simply, Congress would be breaking the supreme law if it infringed on our Second Amendment right It does not have that legal power and never ha s. Neither do the courts. Banning semiautos is a clear infringement in the same way I would handle it when encountered in the form of some dirtball on the street. I'm not in the habit of handing over my guns to any criminal, regardless of title or elected office.

This too is an American attitude older than our Republic, It was essentially a British gun-grabbing attempt that ignited our Revolution. The lessons of Lexington and the conviction of Concord are sorely needed in out time. The Declaration of Independence has a lot to say about the reasons to dispose of government. And none of them are to be taken lightly. In this writer's opinion we are far beyond the of tyranny, which the minds of Jefferson, Washington and Madison decided was their bottom line. If we are not now on the verge of a similar point, with similar actions presenting themselves as strong possibilities, then we have tacitly declared Jefferson and company criminals, and their subsequent government illegitimate. but history has shown thi s is decidedly not the case; the greatest experimentation in government has not been a complete failure. We've just let our elected government and its bureaucracies slip from the "chains" that Mr. Jefferson knew were the proper abode for all government.

It is not time to scrap our Constitution, it is time to reinstate it as the lawful rule in this country. That is best done with the Constitution itself.

Either we take the preamble of our Constitution seriously or we submit to the illegitimate and illegal actions of our elected officials as god in our lives. Our forefathers gave us a great gift: "We the People in Order to ...secure the Blessings of Lib erty to ourselves and our Posterity [that's us] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Founders are gone, but what they gave us is still alive enough to save the "blessings of Liberty" if we've the courage to use it. It is to this point that I write these words and sign them with the intent of pledging my "life, any other free Americans left who will do likewise?

There are those who will honestly question the need to draw such a line at this point. In rebuttal to that I'll point to the example of Rhodesia and the great concern of our founders over standing armies with the need to have an equally armed Militia. We cannot hope to prevail against a tyrannical government armed with fully automatic weapons when we are reduced to bolt actions or worse. We can prevail with our semi's, and they know it-from behind every tree and rock, in a wholly American expression of "don't tread on me." You see, it is not street crime driving the anti-gunners, it is the complete disarmament of the American populace. If they've taken our semi's, they'll eventually get the rest without risk. Do I know what I'm suggesting here? Yes , I do.

I am speaking of the specter of civil war while adamantly hoping it can be avoided. It is true that one shot could ignite a civil war under such a scenario but if so, as a Lexington, it would be a "shot heard round the world". Because if it were to occur our goal ought to be the reinstitution of the Constitution and the rule of law in our unraveling society. Further. it should be taken to the doors of those instigating such illegal acts that might precipitate a civil war; their vote for such a bill will mean they are to be put on trial for treason and conspiracy to violate our civil rights. This would include the president who signs it and perhaps the newspaper columnist and broadcast media who rail for its passage.

In the words of Sir Winston Churchill, whose mother incidentally was an American, "Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ' To those who would consider burying their semi's in the backyard, I suggest a careful consideration of these words. We are nearly at a critical crossroads in the course of this nation. What we bequeath to our children (our posterity) should be no less than what was given us, the chance to live as free men and women. will you act when this critical moment arrives, or bow at the feet of your newfound god-feet that would soon be found to be wearing jackboots when they come to kick in your unprotected do or?

References

Chase, Stuart. Guides to Straight Thinking. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956.

Combs, James and Nimmo, Dan. The New Propaganda: The Dictatorship of Palavar in Contemporary Politics. New York: Longman Publishing Group, 1993.

Doob, Leonard. Propaganda: Its Psychology and Technique. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1935.

Edwards, Violet. Group Leader's Guide to Propaganda Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938.

Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes. New York: Vintage Books, 1965.

Hummel, William and Huntress, Keith. The Analysis of Propaganda. New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949.

Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Propaganda Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938.

Institute for Propaganda Analysis. The Fine Art of Propaganda. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1939.

Lee, Alfred McClung. How to Understand Propaganda. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1952.

Lowenthal, Leo and Guterman, Norbert. Prophets of Deceit. 1949. Palo Alto: Pacific Books Publishers, 1970.

Miller, Clyde. The Process of Persuasion. New York: Crown Publishers, 1946.

Pratkanis, Anthony and Aronson, Elliot. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1991.

Rank, Hugh. Language and Public Policy. New York: Citation Press, 1974.

Thum, Gladys and Thum, Marcella. The Persuaders: Propaganda in War and Peace. New York: Atheneum, 1972.

 
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.

 

totse.com certificate signatures
 
 
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
Hot Topics
george galloway what do you think of him?
Hinchey Amendment
why UK accepts US subjugation and infiltration?
George galloway suspended from HP
Why Marxism IS Economically Exploitive...
Situation in Turkey
Putin not playing nicely
So, I hear they have Mcdonalds in China...
 
Sponsored Links
 
Ads presented by the
AdBrite Ad Network

 

TSHIRT HELL T-SHIRTS