In part one, the introduction to propaganda is laid out in which some, in straining to define propaganda say the familiar line of 'hard to define; unmistakable when present', yet we are not at the mercy of being unable to discern truth from deception, and should not be of those who discount everything that is said.
Recall the HLN analyst who jokingly dismissed Casey Anthony's statements with "I know Casey is lying; her lips are moving."
Comical, yes, but most unhelpful. For within deception lies content. Content is something we need if we seek the truth.
Remember: Even if a statement is deceptive, at statistical height, it is possible that every sentence is truthful, and that the deception is from withheld or suppressed information. Therefore, within the sentence structure is content of value for us.
Thus it is with propaganda.
I began with a nod towards Nazi Germany, specifically during the period of time just post WWI ("just" being a decade, as we look back over several decades) where dissatisfaction, demoralized citizens was evident, but the economic boom of the 1920's kept this at bay. People working are often too busy or tired to complain. The young nationalist socialist party (think "national" socialism versus "international" socialism today)
Propaganda Pattern in Speech
1. Initiate ---light comments, interjections. These are often adverbs added for emphasis. After the Treaty of Versailles, the anti-semetic (that is, anti Jewish) rhetoric was often restrained and sometimes included the obvious Jewish names attached to the banking or manufacturing industry. This 'name dropping' had an emotional impact associating the "betrayal of the fatherland" (Germany) with Jewish business professionals. The association was deliberate. After the crash of the US and worldwide stock markets, the Treaty of Versailles was targeted as the cause of economic woes and unemployment.
2. Increase the frequency--repetition means sensitivity or importance. When a word is repeated, it is important. Repeat something often enough, no matter how false, and people will become accostomed to it, via the natural "dulled listening" that Statement Analysis reverses. When a topic is repeated often enough, we must ask why. Why is this needed to be repeated over and over? Is there a message that I am getting that I am supposed to accept without question? This leads us to
3. Seek 'moral high ground' with words like "as well all know" and "of course" and the opposition is ridiculed as "ignorant", but more so, "less moral" or "less ethical." If you do not "see" something so "obvious", there is a defect found within you, and not the topic at hand. This is "elitist" thinking at its political best. The Nazis used it, and today it is back in vogue, in a large way, in our country.
This is also often found in "the negative", that is, what a movement or ideology is "not." There were even early denials of anti-Semitism in the Nazi movement (though they quickly did not see the need to tone down much), and often sought to assure religious organizations of what they were "not" after.
When promises, for example, are made in the negative, they are very important and should be taken note of. "We just want rights for A, we are not seeking B" is the most common tactic in the negative and should certainly cause the listener to think that:
a. The need to introduce B is to make A sound more palatable.
b. The real target is B, and once A is obtained, B will be sought.
Always mark that which is in the negative as important.
This technique uses comparison (once I have scared you by flaunting B in our face, A seemed more palatable to your taste) and it uses negation, that is, what something is not. This has gained prominence in "all things Muslim" coming from our White House, in earnest. "Sharia Law", once a phrase that made people shutter, now is heard, over and over again. We are being told where it is "not" being practiced.
4. Diversionary language is when a new topic is introduced (sometimes in the same sentence as the topic) in order to divert attention away. It is the need to persuade that is noted in Part 2, and it is in the need to divert that is flagged here.
The national socialist party diverted attention away from its own agenda and onto communists, with increasing frequency, which was done to unite those who would normally be opposed; democrats and socialists, in the fear of what communism would do to a society.
Recently in a comment about the killing of Coptic Christians in Egypt, Barak Obama introducing wars of 1000 years ago, to divert the attention from the timely Muslim violence. This language must be flagged as "out of the boundary of the topic", therefore, "very important"
This is usually a stage where we move from "sensitive" to deception indicated", in that there is enough without a speech (statement) to clearly indicate the additional language is deceptive. This still may be with much "missing information" within it.
"It's the ideology, stupid."
That Obama now takes out the specific element of "religion" from the murders and violence against non adherents show a need to change the language (propagandize) of the news and how it is perceived.
The principle for the reader/interviewer/analyst remains the same: if a question is posed and answered, but the answer goes beyond the boundary of the question, the information is critical.
When asked how far her missing daughter, Hailey, had to walk to get to a sleep over, the mother answered the question in the number of blocks, which would have sufficed. Then she said, "She wasn't allowed to just..." which:
a. Showed the mother of a missing child referencing her in the past tense, an indication of knowledge that Hailey was dead;
b. The need to persuade that she was a good mother underscoring the very opposite.
That the child was missing and the mother knew she was dead and the mother needed an alibi came in less than 25 words, or about 15 seconds of speech.
5. Outright deception --the "10%" factor.
This is where a lie is told where the lie reinvents reality.
"Polish regular army has fired upon German citizens at a radio station..." which is the outright fabrication of reality. This is where 'the gloves come off' and a new position takes over. This was the German cover story, believed by its people, to justify troops sent into Poland in September, 1939, thrusting the world into its second mechanized warfare that would soon engulf the world and tens of millions of lives would be lost.
People often forget why World War II was fought.
WWII was found to save Poland.
How did that end? As victories were celebrated by the allied countries, Poland was enslaved for the next 4 + decades.
History books are authored by the victors, not the losers.
What we have learned about the Benghazi cover up is the same "False Flag" method of deception; presenting something as if it is one thing, while it is another.
Ideological opposition is no longer simply answered, it is now going to suffer by some form of punishment, and this is usually seen in language that shows steady increase:
a. "Coal in the mouth", that is, the 'hot word' that should not be spoken as it is dangerous. Making certain words more "dangerous" to utter due to consequences, including loss of social privilege, boycott, or even loss of employment.
This is also seen in the negative.
It is not just that "loyal" adherents are given influential jobs and promotions, others who are more worthy are "not hired", or "not promoted" due to the holding of the belief that is against the propaganda, or for exposing the propaganda news (that which seeks to influence).
b. Financial threats can move towards court law suits.
c. Loss of freedom: Imprisonment.
d. Where imprisonment did not work, the National Socialists Party moved to death.
What propaganda is being pushed today?
For years we have been worried about a Muslim country obtaining the nuclear bomb and have supported Israel's right to exist. These two facts are mutually exclusive, as we have known that should a Muslim nation (that is, a nation that is ruled by Muslims) obtain the nuclear bomb, it would be used against Israel.
Now, the United States, under Barak Obama, is seeking to make certain Iran gets the nuclear reactor necessary to build the world's most devastating bomb. The White House (that is, the President and his varied spokespersons federally) has
a. sought to portray Iran as an ally of the United States
b. sought to marginalize the Prime Minister of Israel by deliberate language
c. sought to influence Israel's election against the current PM.
d. has betrayed its strongest ally in the area.
When Obama was first running for President, his full name, "Barak Hussein Obama" was used, but it was then "coal in the mouth" to use his full name, with claims of racism. This was a diversion from his Muslim heritage.
His Muslim heritage and subsequent beliefs were not revealed to the American people in a clear manner until after his reelection.
Any criticism of his policies was met with "racism", which, linguistically, is a diversionary tactic. This put the "coal in the mouth" of critics of his policies to silence.
We have now reached a point where "all things Islam" are being portrayed in media with the mantra "Islam is a religion of peace", which is necessary to counter:
a. Islam teaching for order by coercion from the Koran
b. Islam history.
By using diversion (introducing Christianity into the statement on Islamic violence) Obama has shown the need for propaganda.
When the head of the FBI feels the need to lecture the American people on Islamic theology, there is an unveiling of just how far reaching the influences (by either appointment or fear/threat) this propaganda has gone. He should be lecturing us on criminal investigations, not a theology that demands world conquest.
There are no Jews hiding bombs under their yarmulkes, nor Christians wearing "WWJD" bracelets made of explosives, running into women and children at public events, in order to destroy lives. There has always been and always will be, those who take religion as a cloak to masquerade their intentions in violence and conquest, but the Mohammad religion, "Islam" (order) or commonly called "Muslim religion" is one in which its main instruction is the Koran, which has explicitly violent instructions towards those who do not 'yield' to its teaching. No other major religion teaches conquest by violence other than the Muslim religion.
With Benghazi, there was a need to portray the Islamic attack in a different context than what it was. When the Coptic Christians were killed for being Christian, Obama had the need to change the language, but instead of diversionary language, he outright stated that they did not die due to religion.
It may have begun what George W. Bush said that a "peaceful religion" had been "hijacked" which was stated while standing upon the ruble of dead bodies, it has since increased in frequency and intensity, in 2008, but far more since 2012.
The Islamic propaganda by the White House indicates language that, at least for some, is not believed. (See the FBI statement for one who does not believe what he asserts about the "tenants" of Islam.)
Note the change of language of definition by Obama when it comes to "transparency" and its meaning.
Note the violation of the constitution and the rule of law under "executive order" as well as the outright threats to law enforcement (by federal employees) to not enforce our immigration laws.
Note the lack of response from Women's Rights Advocates regarding Islamic teaching on women's education, or their basic role in Islamic rule. Nothing. Silence, or almost robotic language defending Barak Hussein Obama.
Note the increase in law suits, realized or threatened, against disagreement of today's relevant issues.
Note the absence of real dialog and debate, both in Nazi Germany of the 1930's and of the United States today. Certain positions are shouted down, with threats of law suit, termination of employment and more.
Note the lack of use of the phrase "freedom of speech" today.
In 1976, we celebrated our bicentennial birthday as a nation. I was a young boy and thoroughly enjoyed the year. I did not hear the word "succession"in any form, that I can recall. I do recall, however, the abundance of pride in our "freedom of speech" where we had the right to be idiots should we so wish, but to think for ourselves. It was precious to us. I believed that since the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, that death rates due to wars have plummeted, and that in my life time, I would not see a bomb detonated in anger.
When tensions increased between India and Pakistan, I, like millions of others, waited and wondered if we would see such a terrible weapon used.
Indoctrination of children was important to the Nazi cause, just as it is important to Obama today. How is this being done?
One watchdog group over terrorism took out ads warning the homosexual community in San Francisco against Islamic teaching.
They reported that the city counsel "condemned" the ads as "hate speech."
ISIS then showed a picture of a gay man being thrown off a roof, stoned by the waiting crowd.
Each day, even when main-stream media edits out or ignores, video and testimony arises of more dead at the hands of the practitioners of Islam. Who are the victims? What do they have in common?
The victims are singular: men, women and children of all races who hold one thing in common:
Refused to submit to Islam.
This was their cause of death.
Obama told us it was their economic plight, and not "Allah" that they were really shouting as they blew up, decapitated, burned alive, or machete'd victims to death.
From a recent article, money is going to be critical to the wording:
"In 2004, Obama released an update of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” with a little-noticed new preface about the attacks.