https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=603KWII-OZg

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQhY4OToROw

“There is a moment when God honours falsehood.”

       Aeschylus (525—456 BC), Greek tragedian. Fragments, l. 273.

THE NEED FOR PUBLIC FORUM IS PARAMOUNT... SINCE THE INVENTION OF THE PAMPHLET, THESE DAYS, PUBLIC FORUM HAS BEEN ENLARGED VIA THE INTERNET TO "SOCIAL MEDIA" WHICH, TO US, IS A PEJORATIVE MISNOMER. IT SHOULD BE CALLED PUBLIC MEDIA...WHETHER IT CONTAINS RIGHT OR WRONG INFORMATION.

MOST OF WHAT WE ACCEPT AS NEWS IS NOT THE TRUTH — BUT THE MAJORITY OF INTERPRETATION OF SHIFTING EVOLVING FACTS THAT ARE FULL OF MANIPULATED HISTORICAL UNDERCURRENTS — IN A PROPORTION THAT IS CRITICALLY ABOVE THAT OF THE BYZANTINE EQUATION OR 67 PER CENT ACCEPTANCE.

GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA THEREFORE AIMS TO CONTROL ACCEPTANCE OF NEWS IN ORDER TO CONTROL THE MAJORITY MOOD OF THE POPULACE: FOR THE MOMENT — "ASSAD BAD, REBELS (TERRORISTS) GOOD, WE LOVE ISRAEL DESPITE".

THE COUNTER-PROPAGANDA IS AIMED AT REVEALING THE BAD DEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL PROPAGANDA THAT PROTECTS GOVERNMENTAL GOOFS AND DELIBERATE CORRUPTION OF INTENT AND THE LAW — SUCH AS "JOE BIDEN PARDONING HIS SON".

AS WELL INFLUENCES FROM ABROAD ARE OFTEN DISPROPORTIONALLY USED TO BOOST OUR PERCEPTION OF PROPAGANDA — SUCH AS THE RUSSIAGATE AFFAIR. IN THE VIDEO ABOVE, DONALD TRUMP EXPLAINS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HATE AND DO NOT WANT TO KNOW (BECAUSE TRUMP IS "EVIL")... BELOW IS AN ARTICLE FROM 1927, THAT EXPLAINS THE WAR MENTALITY OF THE USA... PARAGRAPH BOLD BY GUS.

The Defense Against Propaganda
By K. L. Buell
May 1927 Proceedings Vol. 53/5/291

THERE is no subject, with the possible exception of war and military affairs, about which the average man knows so little, yet thinks that he knows so much, about which there is so much muddled thinking and so many false ideas, as that of propaganda. Propaganda is an art that has reached a high degree of perfection in Europe, that requires highly specialized skill and that is extremely dangerous in unskilled hands. It is an art that can get results, far reaching, important results, with surprising accuracy and speed. Yet it is a subject about which there seems to hang an air of mystery and suspicion.

Everyone, of course, uses propaganda in some form, whether it is in the form of paid advertising for his business, or in the form of dress and ceremonial manner designed to attract attention to his profession, or merely the attempt to live and behave in such a way as to create a favorable impression upon his neighbors. Many persons of wealth and position go much further and engage in activities that frankly use propaganda, or publicity as it is usually called, to attract attention to a cause. It is publicity when you use it yourself and propaganda when the other man uses it.

In the early days of the republic, when the stability of the nation was uncertain and we were in constant danger of being swallowed up by the great military powers of Europe, there was a great deal of nationalistic, patriotic propaganda, so much, indeed, that we gained a reputation abroad for being unduly boastful and for waving the flag in season and out. But as time has elapsed we have grown in strength. This excessive national enthusiasm has grown distasteful. Those of us who still believe that this country is the finest in the world, that it has a unique mission to perform in the development of mankind, are not so diligent in keeping that idea before the people as a whole. We are inclined to rest on our laurels. But in the meantime communications have vastly improved, facilities for the dissemination of ideas have multiplied enormously and we have become necessary to the plans of other powers.

These other powers have kept up-to-date in their use of propaganda. They have skilled men constantly working at that one problem. They use every means for the dissemination of thought—the press, the theater, the moving picture, the radio and the lecture platform—and they employ every bit of the knowledge that the newer psychology has produced, together with the skill gained in centuries of intrigue, to inculcate their own ideas in the mind of the American public. Meanwhile, we continue to use the firecrackers (considerably censored for the safety of immigrant children) and the stereotyped patriotic speech of Revolutionary days to keep the American ideal before our people. And, of course, we are losing ground. Foreign ideas, subversive ideas, un-American ideas are slowly but surely permeating the body politic. If we are to combat this highly skilled, very modern foreign propaganda, we must do more than regret the situation.

Glimmerings of this idea, as applied to national affairs, have occurred from time to time to persons connected with the government. During the war we had a great machine for the dissemination of propaganda. In spite of the fact that it was overdone in some respects, and clumsily done in others, it was exceedingly effective. But the lessons learned at that time have not been applied to keeping up the national defense in peace time, though they have been absorbed and are now being used by our potential enemies. Occasionally and sporadically there is a feeble attempt on the part of the government to do something about it. Bolshevik propaganda of the violent type is suppressed. Statements are issued from time to time, of course, and mysterious “spokesmen” make comments. But when it comes to anything more subtle, our government agencies, in contrast to those of Europe, are surprisingly inept.

The greatest difficulty in the way of a constructive program for an adequate attack upon foreign propaganda, and an adequate defense of our own ideals, is the attitude of the most respectable and patriotic section of our best people toward the use of propaganda. In spite of the fact that this weapon is being used against us, there is a strong aversion to adopting it for our own use. The idea seems to be that, while our enemies may be wicked, may stoop to the use of these modern and unusual weapons, we must remain pure, dignified and sportsmanlike and continue to fight in the time honored manner. Our attitude towards propaganda is much like that of the knights in armor against a certain invention that put them hors de combat before they had had a chance to fight. And this is in spite of the fact that we have before us a horrible example of this particular fallacy in the pacifist propaganda itself.

The truth of the matter is that those who, through accident or choice, have had occasion to use propaganda for one or another purpose, and who have thus become skilled in its use, see a very clear menace to the safety of our country and its institutions through our lack of defense on matters of opinion. When the government does speak it has, of recent years at least, spoken to good effect. But there is a great mass of propaganda being spread throughout the country by private, or supposedly private, agencies against which we have prepared no defense whatever, leaving it to private interests to supply the remedy. Mr. Garet Garrett in a recent article in the Saturday Evening Post, quoted at some length in the Proceedings for February, brings out this point admirably and lists numerous agencies of the sort described. If space had permitted, he could, no doubt, have listed a great many more. But neither he, nor the Post in its editorial, nor any substantial conservative group of which the writer is aware, suggests any adequate method by which this propaganda may be combatted. The idea seems to be that if we will all be calm and use reason and withhold judgment until we have heard all the facts, assuming we can get all the facts, we shall not be susceptible to propaganda. Quite so. And it is also true that if all men were kind, generous, intelligent and calm we should have no war. The two positions are analogous.

The pacifists have a poster which, from time to time, breaks out like a rash in various communities. It reads “Law not War." This particular bit of exasperating propaganda has, of course, a superficial plausibility. If all the nations of the world could agree upon a code of laws and would live up to them, war might no longer be necessary. But the effect that the poster is intended to convey, and does convey to many minds, is that the United States of America should set an example of peaceful intent by refusing to arm for defense. And the immediate effect upon the individual voter is to induce him to bring pressure to bear against adequate appropriations for the Army and the Navy.

The argument presented by many well-meaning persons against the use of propaganda is, in essence, exactly the same as the “Law not War” slogan. In the editorial from the Saturday Evening Post previously referred to, under the caption “Propaganda and the Antidote” occurs this statement, “The most important lesson that Americans can learn today is to recognize propaganda for just what it is whenever they hear it or wherever they read it, and then to get the other facts; to decide important questions that affect the welfare of the nation with their minds and not with their emotions. It is not enough to feel deeply; one must think deeply.” This sentiment, reduced to a slogan, reads “Reason not Propaganda.” And this attitude of the Post is by no means unique. It is shared by a large portion of the most responsible men of the nation, backed up by almost the entire press. The people who are most scornful of those simple souls who are misled by the “Law not War” slogan are the very ones who cherish most carefully the “Reason not Propaganda” slogan.

It is impossible, in the brief space allotted, to give the practical steps required for an adequate defense of this country against foreign propaganda, just as it would be impossible to give, in the same space, the practical steps necessary for the country’s physical defense. This knowledge exists but our best minds are at present too proud to use it. Of course, it would be possible to suggest an outline for the solving of this problem but before any practical steps can be taken it will be necessary to revise the attitude of our best opinion towards the whole matter of propaganda defense.

It is useless to meet heavy artillery with pop guns. It is equally useless to try to meet skillful, highly emotionalized propaganda with an appeal to reason. It simply can’t be done. We can’t give all the people all the facts. Moreover, while we are probably, as a people, the most highly educated and the most reasonable in the world, to educate every man, woman and child to the point where he will think deeply, make an honest search for the facts and decide upon the basis of pure reason the numerous questions that come before him for judgment is a gigantic task that will take years, perhaps centuries, to accomplish. We should certainly work toward that millennium. But in the meantime we must take the human mind as it is. We must use skill to fight skill, and emotionalism to fight emotionalism. Any other course is as foolish as to scrap our national military defenses and to wait helplessly for the day when all men will be brothers.

The best defense is a vigorous offense. If it is true, and there is adequate evidence to support the belief, that there is a highly skilled foreign propaganda at work in this country, the only possible defense is to meet it, either here or abroad, or both, with a propaganda equally skilled. If it is true, as Mr. Garrett states, that, “We have in this country, for example, a British point of view and a French point of view on the war debts; in neither England nor France is there an American point of view on the war debts,” then something should be done about it. If our point of view is not represented abroad, the propagandist arises to inquire “Why isn’t it?” If the good will of the world is of value to the United States it would seem nothing short of folly to permit the other governments of the world to work their people into a frenzy of hate without taking measures to combat this government propaganda in the countries of its origin. If English and French propagandists, for instance, are so successful in influencing public opinion in this country, why have we no adequate staff of propagandists playing the same game abroad? It may be that diplomacy is supposed to handle this problem. But the wholly adequate answer is that diplomacy has not done so, if Mr. Garrett’s observations are correct. It may be difficult to persuade the average voter that he should be taxed to maintain speakers and writers abroad, but the fact remains, as pointed out by Mr. Garrett, that he is now paying for foreign propaganda in this country. It is exactly as though the public preferred to support an invading army rather than to oppose it. It is a case of millions for tribute, but not one cent for defense.

Moreover, it is only common sense, reasonable caution, and enlightened self-interest, to meet the invasion of foreign opinion in this country in a manner that will assure success, to so place the American point of view before the people that they will not be susceptible to the other side. It is a battle that should be fought to win. All the weight of inertia is already on the side of patriotism —conservatism, a sturdy native shrewdness. If the emotionalized foreign point of view is gaining headway against this inertia there is something wrong with the methods of those who are charged, or have charged themselves, with the defense of American institutions.

There is no question, for instance, but that the needs of the Army and the Navy are inadequately understood by the mass of the people. It is not safe to assume that the public understands anything. There are many voters, especially among the new women voters who do not know enough about history, and about foreign affairs, to know that we need a national defense. They have no really clear idea as to why it is necessary to back up our moral influence with force. This is not due to stupidity or perversity but to the fact that pacifists, internationalists, socialists, and foreign powers working through these groups, are using every possible weapon of propaganda, including the appeal to emotionalism, while the needs of the military establishment and even the purpose of the military establishment are assumed to be understood. Without clear knowledge of the facts these new voters are susceptible to emotional appeal. When told that a big navy will frighten poor, dear, Europeans, they are inclined to believe it. But if the facts are presented to them in language that can be understood and in a form that is palatable they will be as inclined to support the national defense as they are now inclined to vote against it. But it must be skillfully done. It must be done in such a way as to reach the people who most need to be reached and it must be done with emotionalism. The answer, for instance, to the appeal for the brotherhood of man—a deeply emotional ideal fostered through centuries by the Christian church— may be an argument on the psychology of the Orient or may be the sight of the Stars and Stripes waving in the breeze and the singing of Home, Sweet Home.

It is supposed to be unethical or improper to appeal to the emotions of mankind rather than to reason; to select facts and arguments skillfully rather than to throw out a chaotic hodge podge from which the average citizen is supposed to select the truth, on the theory, apparently, that the truth will prevail. The worst thing that can be said of an opponent is that he uses propaganda. This is the official respectable point of view. Yet no such procedure is actually put into practice by the individual, or the organization, or the paper, who has a cause or an end in view. Each man presents to the public his own private cause and his own personal aspirations in the most favorable light, as a matter of course.

This procedure has been honored through the centuries in the law courts where each side presents its case as favorably as possible in order that the jury, having heard both sides presented with bias, may weigh the two points of view and come to a just decision. If one side is adequately presented and the other side very badly presented it will be difficult to reach a just decision. To make sure that a man who may be slow wit- ted or inarticulate has a chance to present his case properly specialists represent him and speak for him. But when it comes to large questions of national importance that must be decided by the whole people it is considered enough that someone to whom propaganda is only a side issue shall take care of the subject in his off moments.

There was an attempt, for instance, made by Congress not long ago to get at the bottom of prohibition propaganda, for and against. Congress appointed an investigating committee and witnesses were called from all over the country. It was a golden opportunity to reveal the workings of nongovernmental propaganda on a large scale. But the lawyers, no doubt extremely able in their own field, were so unfamiliar with the subject of propaganda that they did not ask the questions that would have brought out the facts. Again and again they led the witness up to a point where another question or two would have brought out a startling revelation and then failed to ask the question. This, however, was a failure in technique rather than a failure of the idea. It would aid greatly in the suppression of false foreign propaganda if there were a permanent congressional committee charged with the investigation of this subject with power to subpoena witnesses and with permission to hold public hearings on a variety of controversial subjects. The source of much foreign propaganda, its personnel and its financial backing, would thus be revealed. The records over a period of years would show some surprising correlations. Some such plan as this would help the public to arrive at the facts.

But even those thinkers who agree that the public needs some help in the discovery and selection of the facts balk at the emotional appeal. There seems to be a feeling that it is undignified to hold an opinion with enthusiasm. There is a prejudice against arousing any public emotion, even that of patriotism and national pride. Things have reached a point where it is possible for veterans to be scoffed at in the public streets without causing a violent reaction on the part of good citizens. The most patriotic of our newspapers and the most loyal of our patriotic societies are so afraid of hurting the feelings of some immigrant group that they will not defend American institutions with fire and enthusiasm. And the idea that public emotions may be aroused deliberately, in a good cause, is everywhere decried. Yet it is a commonplace of psychology that an intellectual opinion must have emotional force behind it, if it is to be stable and lead to action. Or, in other language, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. It is therefore obvious that any proposition, no matter how sound, any sentiment, no matter how noble, must make an appeal to the emotions, as well as to the reason, or it will fail in its effect. Not even national safety is an exception to this rule.

The only possible alternative is a complete bureaucratic control of all speech. It is simply impossible to prevent the spread of propaganda in any other way. If a paper refuses to print an article by a man with a cause he will hire a hall, make a speech and have it printed as news. Failing that, he may get it into the movies, or convert some editor to his point of view. And, of course, a complete abrogation of our rights of free speech would be so drastic a measure that the cure would be worse than the disease. Such a step would be a help in national defense, unquestionably, but the country would no longer be worth defending. To take such a course would be to surrender to superior foreign strategy without the firing of a single shot.

If, then, we are to meet the invasion of foreign propaganda effectually, if we are to preserve characteristic American ideals against the onslaught of foreign opinion, much of it false opinion manufactured for our injury, we must take action that will have some hope of success. We must disabuse our minds of the prejudice against propaganda as such and make ready to use that weapon ourselves. By all means let us set up foreign ideas as something to hate, whenever they can be shown to be disingenuous ideas spread for unfriendly purpose. But let us make the fight against the ideas themselves and not against the methods used in their dissemination.

The remedy for foreign propaganda, therefore, is to fight fire with fire, to use airplanes against airplanes, to match poison gas with stronger poison gas. To do anything else is to class ourselves with the pacifists and all those other dainty souls who are too proud to fight. To refuse to use our most effective weapons because we are told by our potential enemies that they will not look upon this course with approval is to do exactly what those potential enemies wish us to do. If, as we are told by foreign propagandists, pacifists and others, such a course will annoy our enemies, it is simply too bad. They can very quickly and easily solve the difficulty by ceasing to annoy us.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1927/may/defense-against-propaganda

PONDER AND READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.