Saturday, September 19, 2015
Hiring: The Impact of Propaganda on Deception
Some deception is attempt to persuade, while using imbalance as its tool, while other is much more blatant in its presentation to the point of fabrication of reality.
America and Europe is seeing propaganda in a level and scope that has superseded anything like it in World War I and World War II.
The propaganda of World War I was especially insidious.
I liken it to a journalist who interviewed a social service child abuse investigator in a suburb of New Jersey who portrays child abuse as common to the entire state of New Jersey so that the reader of the article is left with the impression: Do not move to New Jersey lest your children certainly be abused because everyone there is an abuser.
The article could take a town of 30,000 citizens and give out five very real and very brutal cases of child abuse and present it as if the whole state was abusive.
In World War I, the propaganda about "the Hun" was similar: it was so severe that relatively few examples of brutality were presented as the norm for German troops.
How bad was the British propaganda?
It was bad enough for Americans to, only twenty years later, dismiss allegations of whole scale murder of Jews as just more propaganda.
It had its cost. Initial reports of genocide were dismissed as "just more propaganda" from Europe. It was too cruel to sound true.
In World War II, we saw propaganda films out of Hollywood which made bloodshed a "hoo-ray" like patriotic "excitement" for 18 year old males, with extreme testosterone levels want to "get to the action" only to meet up with life changing and life ending brutality that left even the support troops with scars. When a film, like "December 7th" had too much carnage, the Army vetoed its release until it was edited down.
Franklin Roosevelt, indicated for deception in analysis denying his motives for war and socialism, had friends in Hollywood sympathetic to him make movies showing the superiority, for example, of a president who "needed to" deceive and suspend the constitution" with story lines that are chuckled at today, including 'the angel Gabriel coming to the president to advise him...' in the 30's.
The narrative itself was key to propaganda: the story that was to be told, and it would be, at least in different times in history, challenging to find out who was behind the narrative and the familiar line of "follow the money" proved most often to be true.
Every narrative seeks to persuade, but would propaganda go to the point of sacrificing truth?
Today we continually apologize for the internment of Japanese American citizens with the narrative leaving the viewer with the impression: not one single Japanese American was a spy for Japan. This is 70 years hence and what is buried beneath the persuasion is the spying for Japan that did take place: no stories are told any longer. Thousands of loyal citizens were interned (but not murdered like in Germany, or tortured like in Japan), and the protection of the Constitution was voided, making its law unapplied to American citizens who had legally immigrated from Japan. How could Americans discern when they saw even cartoons lampooning Japanese people, yet they also heard reports from Battaan of unspeakable cruelty by the Japanese. As is most always the case: the truth takes effort to discern, while the propaganda (or bumper sticker) is the candy of the lazy minded.
The pendulum often swings in great waves.
Do readers of Statement Analysis recognize the propaganda that takes place today?
I think about this a great deal while I read through the comments on the various articles especially in cases where a rush to judgement is much easier than working through a case in detail.
What are the various narratives that are presented today, even to the sacrifice of truth?
Who is behind these narratives?
The second question is best answered by following the money line.
Negate the laws of the land regarding illegal immigration by a ruling class and who will the millions vote for?
Who owns the factories that produced the arms that were stockpiling up due to poor sales, just prior to the outbreak of World War I?
A small example:
Do you note any difference between photos and videos regarding the European migrant crisis?
I have noticed the abundance of photos show women and children, but when I watch the videos, I see the exact opposite.
Someone, somewhere, will benefit from the propaganda and the money trail, often through votes, is not that difficult to follow.
But what impact does today's propaganda have upon deception, overall, in our country?
This impact is as predicted: a certain de-sensitizing of the populace regarding deception takes place to the point where what shocked the public on Monday, bored them on Thursday, but by Saturday, it was embraced.
Even when the narrative seeks to destroy truth, people go from shock, to indifference, to embracing.
Barak Obama talked about how the White House hosted the first "Ramadan Dinner" that Thomas Jefferson held for a visiting dignitary.
Question: Can you report what critical information he omitted from this account of history?
An entire movement "Black Lives Matter" is founded upon an event that did not take place. "Hands Up! Don't Shoot" is costing lives and it did not happen but that which was met with outrage, with "It is not true!" went to a stale indifference, to inviting an organization that is causing harm to citizens to the White House, granting it legitimacy. Police are demonized as racist bullies all across America, and it is leading to more violence.
How about a more innocuous news story?
What about the 14 year old boy invited to the White House?
What do you know about him? Is he a Muslim hero who was justly invited to the White House to show how "Islamophobia" has run amok, or, was the truth something that took more time to learn?
For most people, the headline is enough, but it is my hope that readers here not only complete the article, but use the analytical discernment while reading and seek truth.
Who do you think the average 18 year old American believes:
Jack Black on the Iran Nuclear Deal, or...
The Ayatollah of Iran?
I think most of you get the point and this is the point for businesses hiring in America:
It is becoming more and more acceptable to lie and this is not only seeping into courts and juries, but into the new generation of potential workers who have less commitment to truth and honesty than those you may have previously hired.
Crime is up.
Violent crime among females is up dramatically in 30 years.
Theft is up.
Deception is becoming rewarded and corporations that do not screen for deception are setting themselves up for loss, even with the millions of dollars spent on security making outright theft more difficult.
The emergence of "The Victim" in America is a direct threat to truthful employers who wish to pay an honest wage for an honest day's work. Each day, a new victim status is claimed and suits are filed.
Two high school kids blindsided a ref in a football game. Both of these kids were strong and well armed with strong helmets and shoulder pads. The victim was much older, and had no protection on to blunt the blows.
The kids assaulted him and he is now being investigated because the kids said he called them names.
The kids were the "victims" of a "hate crime", as they claimed he was a racist.
Would you like to hire either of these two? Would you be comfortable believing that they would, if push came to shove, report honestly what happened in your company?
Do you feel comfortable knowing that neither of these two will resort to work place violence if insulted?
Do you recognize that their violence was pre-mediated?
Do you recognize that their violence was without warning and gave the older man no chance to protect himself?
Seattle Police were prepared to let Cynthia Witlach keep her job if she only admitted lying. (this is to show a lack of understanding into the nature of a pathological liar) Although I give them "kudos" for firing her, what could they have possibly be thinking about keeping such a dangerous and damaged racist on the force? Could it be they feared her claiming "victim status" for her sexuality?
Attacks are up against police and the response has been "Police Lives Matter, too!" and some very angry comments directed to the White House about his propagation of hate towards both police, and authority in general. Statistics are deliberately manipulated to encourage anarchy and the result is now violence against police.
One police chief called "Black Lives Matter" a "terrorist" group. Why? Because they marched chanting slogans about killing police.
He lost his job.
I read about the Oktoberfest in Germany today.
The "multiculturalism" narrative took a black eye when one of the politicians said that not only did they need to keep the migrants away from the festival, they had to separate the different "types of migrants" from each other due to violence.
One news article portrayed the migrants as "saintly" while portraying the Germans as beastly drunks "vomiting in the streets" as an "affront" to the migrants. The same news story elsewhere stated that the campaign to stop Oktoberfest "was a fake", yet, the website only verified that the Dutch citizen, himself, closed the campaign.
So, which is it?
Are the migrants intolerant of the German festival, or are the Germans drunken louts without culture who deserve to be overrun by another culture?
We now learn that Germany's "about face" in closing off its border was due to the 1.2 billion euro festival that brings 6 million tourists in so suddenly, with the reminder of the money, they closed their border and even announced a cut back in welfare to future migrants. Will the border remained this "closed" in 2 weeks when Oktoberfest is complete? Stay tuned.
The truth can be sacrificed to the narrative.
The police were portrayed as bullies for arresting a 14 year old boy who had, depending upon which news story you follow, marvelously built an alarm clock, showing how wonderful Muslim intellects really are, who was then invited to the White House by the President, himself, highlighting yet another Muslim addition to Yankee ingenuity, and a slap in the face at "Islamophbia" and those "evil police" or...
did he, as police now say, act "passive aggressive", refuse to answer questions, and deliberately know that he was going to create a panic?
In fact, a video came out showing that he did not build a clock at all; he just took apart an old one from the 70's.
Which do you believe?
In fact, as you go through news stories, you will find that "narrative", that is, what one wishes to convey, is often very consistent in its presentation.
Did Hillary Clinton erase thousands of emails, or "just a few personal ones"?
Some narratives carried her "care and concern" about "women who are victims of sexual assault", while refusing to play the audio (or carry the story) of how she pummeled a little girl victim of rape, portraying her as promiscuous, even heard laughing about it?
Which do you believe?
Most will simply follow the herd which may be their political party.
This has always been and will always be, unless discernment and critical thinking becomes more popular.
Regardless of your discernment, millions of people do not discern and as deception becomes more and more acceptable, to the point of being praised, these "millions" of people are today and tomorrow's jury pools, and they are your future employees.
Businesses must use discernment because, still, well documented truth is the best defense against the most trending popular form of larceny: the fraudulent suit.
Human Resource professionals must have the tools to exercise discernment, if nothing more than to understand that if in 2001 40% of applicants had theft of some form planned, what is the climate of our society today, 15 years later?
What is our attitude towards deception?
Who and what is blamed, and why?
The bulwark against clever larceny of any time is set up with pre-employment interview screening questions.
While shrinkage continues to hurt corporate America and impact prices and wages, insurance costs are becoming prohibitive to small business. Payouts to fraudulent claims are less expensive and taxing than fighting in court...
the company has well documented proof to the contrary.
This, alone, has a heavy psychological impact upon the one making the fraudulent claim and nothing is faster in taking the wind out of the lying thief's sails than viewing the documentation that is true, short, bold and plainly presented, that he is attempting to extort money by fraudulent means.
This is for those who make it through the door past the screening process.
The reduction in theft, unemployment and insurance is a strong motivation for discernment in hiring. The training is critical. The propaganda of today infects especially the young people; those who in the upcoming months and years, will be applying for jobs.
The acceptance is part of the power of propaganda and an entire generation of kids are growing up seeing how lies and liars are rewarded.
This must be considered when you seek to hire the "best and brightest" for your company. The smaller the business, the greater the impact one deceptive person can have.
For more information on how to host a training, or for individual courses, see HYATT ANALYSIS