Howard Is
Lucky Mud
So you are happy to make propaganda legal, and give the job to PsyOps.
How very libertarian.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Weaponised Fake News
- Thread starter Howard Is
- Start date
So you are happy to make propaganda legal, and give the job to PsyOps.
How very libertarian.
PureX
Veteran Member
Only if the people he is lying to, do. And as a people, we do not. The collective toxicity of all the lies we have been told would kill us, if we were to remember them all.
It's libertarian to oppose regulation which presents more problems than it solves.
Rather than making it illegal for others to propagandize, I'll allow the free market
of information & ideas to counter misinformation & evil advocacy.
Restrictive speech regulation is much like socialism....both will work well if we
have honest intelligent competent people in charge. But this is the real world.
PureX
Veteran Member
... As opposed to corporate advertising, political "spin", religious proselytizing, media hyperbole, and hyper-sensationalized entertainment? Is one more player in the ocean of lies that we are living in really that auspicious?
leov
Well-Known Member
Now when we have weights tied to our ankles we are trying to cross deep waters.
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
You keep reframing the situation as if it is about making propaganda illegal.
It is in fact about tasking powerful military intelligence organisations to manage propaganda.
That is an entirely different proposition.
leov
Well-Known Member
Joseph Goebbels:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
leov
Well-Known Member
Prescott Bush paid for Hitler's taxi cab ride to Reichstag we made two presidents from his seed.
PureX
Veteran Member
They don't want to stop the lying, they just want to control it for their own purposes. How are you surprised by this? And no offense, but "America" was always a lie: a "narrative" invented and sold for control, and for profit. They've just gotten so much better at it thanks to technology.
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
True. The Bush family helped to bankroll the Nazis.
The US airforce did not bomb the I G Farben factory which manufactured Zyklon B, though they easily could have.
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
leov
Well-Known Member
Then was Paperclip, all invited...
joe1776
Well-Known Member
"The military" isn't one brain with power. Collusion of that sort among many disconnected minds is impossible.
The real threat is a repeat of the kind that was exposed by the Ellsberg papers. It caused the US entry into Vietnam and required seven presidents in succession, using a top secret national security classification to cover their positions.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Sadly, yes. It' not that people don't want it, it's just that they don't want to do what it takes to demand it of themselves, and of others. You are an idealist, like me, living among a species resigned to selfish practicality. We do the right thing when it's easy. Otherwise, it's every man for himself.
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
Stanyon
WWMRD?
"The advantage of MindWar is that it conducts wars in nonlethal, noninjurious,and nondestructive ways. Essentially you overwhelm your enemy with argument. You seize control of all the means by which his government and populace process infromation to make up their minds, and you adjust it so that those minds are made up as you desire"
source:
MindWar
Der Film als Waffe (Film as a Weapon)
source:
Film as a Weapon
by Dr. Fritz Hippler
"If one compares the directness and intensity of the effect that the various means of propaganda have on the great masses, film is without question the most powerful. The written and spoken word depend entirely on the content or on the emotional appeal of the speaker, but film uses pictures, pictures that for almost a decade have been accompanied by sound. We know that the impact of a message is greater if it is less abstract, more visual. That makes it clear why film, with its series of continually moving images, must have particular persuasive force.Some circles recognized this effectiveness early. It also makes it plain why film’s relatively great costs “pay off”: film stock, equipment, studios, the large technical and artistic staffs, etc., all cost a lot of money, but the result, the finished film, may bring in tens of thousands whose admission fees not only cover the costs, but result in a good profit.
Government offices and educated circles looked upon film’s growth either with indifference or with distrust. Hardly anyone recognized the enormous possibilities. As a result, in the area of the weekly newsreel the German market was taken over by French films (beginning around 1909-1910). At the beginning of the World War, Germany was completely helpless in this area, while its enemies had a dangerous weapon in their smoothly functioning newsreel systems. Metzter, the great German film pioneer, published The Film as a Means of Political Advertising in 1916. He ended with the warning that it was time that “our responsible offices immediately begin thinking about how the masses can be reached with pictures.” However, the World War was ending and world opinion about Germany was as the opinion makers wanted it to be.
This brief account is sufficient to show how important film is in influencing opinion abroad. Whether in a newsreel or a German feature film, it is the mirror in which the broad masses of the world see Germany. It is also, like radio, the way that the poorer classes of the people can be presented with culture inexpensively. It is foolish and short-sighted for bourgeois aesthetes to shake their heads and say that film cannot be art, that it is a danger to the theater. The latter of these two contradictory opinions is refuted by the facts. The first is fundamentally false. It is entirely possible to make films that are great works of art. Doing so is a matter of costs and paybacks. A film of Stephan George’s literary creations is indeed possible, but would surely lose money. The film must be directed to mass sensibilities. It of course has an educational responsibility, and may not avoid all standards in order to meet the public’s tastes.
One may also note that ever since the Classical Era, there has been a certain relationship between theater, literature, and the public, without damage to cultural standards. Arnold Bennett once said that: “an artist who demands that the public submit absolutely and completely to his own demands is either a god or a complete and utter fool.” The same is true of film, which is forced for these as well as economic reasons to appeal to the masses not only through its pictures, but also through its content.
German citizens have been increasingly drawn to film in recent years. We surpassed England, the previous European leader, in film theaters last year. There is no doubt that a systematic increase in the number of film theaters is not only economically important, it is also necessary to increase the impact of film. The prospects for growth are clear if we look to other nations. In 1934, 413 English per 1000 went to the movies each week, 343 per 1000 of Americans, and 160 per 1000 French. In Germany, only 86 of 1000 went to the movies! Leaving aside the cultural and historic differences between Germany and these other nations, it is clear that increasing German film attendance is among the most important tasks of German film policy, and that doing so would increase the effectiveness of film in propaganda and popular enlightenment."
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Article is dated 2012... Can you check and confirm if this is actually anything current?