Propaganda for the Masses

crooked22

Member
Jan 8, 2004
187
0
0
Elections coming up soon, and people's emotion are going to be running high. Many will not
think, and others simply will follow blindly. Add to that those who make mistakes and disasters
start to boil.

So, in a non-partisan message, I beg of you: Vote Wisely.

A lot of times we vote without really knowing why we vote. You don't *just* vote because is
your right, but because you have control of the destiny of the nation. And as a nation,
candidates like to make sure they got you on their side even if they know you don't like them.

Is like a business. The customer is always right as long as he keeps coming back.

Now, these salespersons (politician to the presidency) are going to try anything they can in
order to sell you that used car with dents on the front right fender. I already made up my
mind for whom I am going to vote, I reflected on this and I am positive. I will not be side tracked.
And neither should you. Remember, Hitler "convinced" his Government to authorize him
FULL dictatorial powers with only ONE incident in which the Reichstag was supposedly burned
by "communists". Focus, and watch what happens.

So without many more delays, I will point to you to Chapter 6 of Mein Kampf, a book by
History most famous dictator: Adolf Hitler.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html

To whom should propaganda be addressed? To the scientifically trained intelligentsia or to the less educated masses?
It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses.
What the intelligentsia-or those who today unfortunately often go by that name-what they need is not propaganda but scientific instruction. The content of propaganda is not science any more than the object represented in a poster is art. The art of the poster lies in the designer's ability to attract the attention of the crowd by form and color. A poster advertising an art exhibit must direct the attention of the public to the art being exhibited; the better it succeeds in this, the greater is the art of the poster itself. The poster should give the masses an idea of the significance of the exhibition, it should not be a substitute for the art on display. Anyone who wants to concern himself with the art itself must do more than study the poster; and it will not be enough for him just to saunter through the exhibition. We may expect him to examine and immerse himself in the individual works, and thus little by little form a fair opinion.
A similar situation prevails with what we today call propaganda.
The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.
The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function, like the poster, consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success in pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in sloans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have to think outside the box is because you are trapped in one.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: crooked22

So, in a non-partisan message, ...

.
.
.

BUSH == HITLER! OMG!!!!!!!1111one (paraphrased)
Riiiiiiight... :disgust:



Edit: Edited, for the anal-retentive and reading comprehension-impaired.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Dude, I'm so glad you posted this. The US is in the same position as Germany in the 1930s and Bush looks just like Hitler. Thanks for the advice, but I have to go break some windows and burn some books.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
I see no mention of Bush, maybe you are drawing conclusions. Maybe you see what you want to see. Maybe Bush and his Rove are as good as Hitler at controlling the masses. Who knows.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: Todd33
I see no mention of Bush, maybe you are drawing conclusions. Maybe you see what you want to see. Maybe Bush and his Rove are as good as Hitler at controlling the masses. Who knows.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Let's ignore that fact that there are really only 2 candidates that are getting press attention and have a chance of winning (Bush & Kerry.) And let's also ignore the constant mentioning of Bush supporters being "ignorant, Nascar-watching, rednecks" and Kerry supporters being "enlightened and intellectual free-thinkers." And then let's ignore the passages highlighted by the OP which describe Hitler being supported by the "less educated" and those "of small intelligence."

Yeah, when you ignore all that, you may have a point. But then again, why are you ignoring all of that? Who's seeing only what they want to see?
 

crooked22

Member
Jan 8, 2004
187
0
0
Actually, my thread was supposed to make you think about what they are offering to you. To not let
yourself go blind about one or the other. All coincidence between Bush and Hitler and Kerry and the
"intelligensia" is purely coincidental, albeit I knew it was there. I did not called anyone Hitler.

So far *only* Todd had it right, and only when he said "Maybe you see what you want to see".

And if you see a coincidence, then be aware... and do what you think.

But since sons of republicans are really son of bitches......
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Bush and Hitler have similarities:
-both are fanatics
-both are obsessed with Poland
-both hate France
-both are secretive
-both will do anything to destroy their enemies
-both start wars with others in the name of their country
-both are authoritarians
-both are fascists
-both have carefully orchestrated political gatherings
-both don't care about civil liberties

Of course they are different too: Hitler was better with German than Bush is with English. Also Bush doesn't have the mustache. Finally, Hitler as a young man served in his country's armed forces in wartime, Bush didn't.
 

crooked22

Member
Jan 8, 2004
187
0
0
THAT message wasnt non partisan.
The first one was.

Besides, I can say the same of both parties.
I owe allegiance to no one.
 

marcello

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2004
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Todd33
I see no mention of Bush, maybe you are drawing conclusions. Maybe you see what you want to see. Maybe Bush and his Rove are as good as Hitler at controlling the masses. Who knows.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Let's ignore that fact that there are really only 2 candidates that are getting press attention and have a chance of winning (Bush & Kerry.) And let's also ignore the constant mentioning of Bush supporters being "ignorant, Nascar-watching, rednecks" and Kerry supporters being "enlightened and intellectual free-thinkers." And then let's ignore the passages highlighted by the OP which describe Hitler being supported by the "less educated" and those "of small intelligence."

Yeah, when you ignore all that, you may have a point. But then again, why are you ignoring all of that? Who's seeing only what they want to see?

I agree with crooked22, you're the one drawing comparisons between Hitler and Bush. You should think about why that is, but maybe this will help:

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
The biggest mistake most of you guys are making is that you are assuming that American facism will represent German facism verbatim.

An American facist would do well to take America over in an American way rather than a prussian way.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
The biggest mistake most of you guys are making is that you are assuming that American facism will represent German facism verbatim.

An American facist would do well to take America over in an American way rather than a prussian way.
Actually, my assumption of American fascism leans more towards the Mussolini brand of the same. Though, I may be a bit biased since I'm part Italian.

Then again, Bush's admin is actually nowhere near fascist. Being able to ascribe certain qualities to a thing does not make it that which you ascribed to it. I could provide numerous examples of that statement, if absolutely necessary, but hopefully you already understand what I mean.

Edit: Clarified content
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Let's see, oh yes, the Judges have ruled that the first post is an automatic Godwin's Law violation, thank you for playing, your consolation prize is a trip to How to win an argument.

:thumbsdown:
And the Appellate Court has ruled your misapplication of Godwin's Law constitutes an example of Freiler's Maxim, with an additional count of Embarrassing Foolishness added for failing to read your own link to educate yourself about said "law". To wit:
Godwin's standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate semantic impact.
Case dismissed. You lose.

 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: marcello

I agree with crooked22, you're the one drawing comparisons between Hitler and Bush. You should think about why that is, but maybe this will help:

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

Some interesting facts about Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy:

* Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
* John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

* Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
* John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

* The names Lincoln and Kennedy both contain seven letters.
* Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
* Both their wives lost children while living in the White House.

* Both Presidents were shot on Friday.
* Both were shot in the head.

* Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
* Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.

* Both were assassinated by southerners.
* Both were succeeded by southerners.

* Both successors were named Johnson.
* Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
* Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

* John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
* Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

* Both assassins were known by 3 names.
* Both names comprise of fifteen letters.

* Booth ran from the theater and was caught in the warehouse.
* Oswald ran from the warehouse and was caught in a theatre.

* Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.


So by your same "logic," I can conclude that JFK was actually Lincoln - but in super-human robotic form!

You can find similarities between any 2 people/things/ideas you want, that doesn't mean there's a connection. The OP can go back to alt.conspiracy.liberal.circlejerk.hitler.is.cool and post his quotes from Mein Kampf there if he wants to rally people around him. I'd like to think that P&N is a little above that kind of junk. (*snicker*)
 

marcello

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2004
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
The biggest mistake most of you guys are making is that you are assuming that American facism will represent German facism verbatim.

An American facist would do well to take America over in an American way rather than a prussian way.
Actually, my assumption of American fascism leans more towards the Mussolini brand of the same. Though, I may be a bit biased since I'm part Italian.

Then again, Bush's admin is actually nowhere near fascist. Being able to ascribe certain qualities to a thing does not make it that thing. I could provide numerous examples of that statement, if absolutely necessary, but hopefully you already understand what I mean.

No, I understand completely what you're saying, but I still think there is a lot of similarity between our current administration and fascism. If it looks, talks, and acts like a fascist, it just might be one.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
[ Absurd straw man omitted ]
Now that you have that out of your system, would you care to offer an intelligent, informed refutation of the OP and subsequent points raised, or will you continue to try to divert the thread?


Edit: typo
 

marcello

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2004
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: marcello

I agree with crooked22, you're the one drawing comparisons between Hitler and Bush. You should think about why that is, but maybe this will help:

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

Some interesting facts about Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy:

* Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
* John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

* Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
* John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

* The names Lincoln and Kennedy both contain seven letters.
* Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
* Both their wives lost children while living in the White House.

* Both Presidents were shot on Friday.
* Both were shot in the head.

* Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
* Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.

* Both were assassinated by southerners.
* Both were succeeded by southerners.

* Both successors were named Johnson.
* Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
* Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

* John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
* Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

* Both assassins were known by 3 names.
* Both names comprise of fifteen letters.

* Booth ran from the theater and was caught in the warehouse.
* Oswald ran from the warehouse and was caught in a theatre.

* Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.


So by your same "logic," I can conclude that JFK was actually Lincoln - but in super-human robotic form!

You can find similarities between any 2 people/things/ideas you want, that doesn't mean there's a connection. The OP can go back to alt.conspiracy.liberal.circlejerk.hitler.is.cool and post his quotes from Mein Kampf there if he wants to rally people around him. I'd like to think that P&N is a little above that kind of junk. (*snicker*)

Um......worst argument ever. Nice try though. You're comparing events that happened in their lives, I'm comparing ideologies, laws passed, and general character traits. A little different.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: marcello
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
The biggest mistake most of you guys are making is that you are assuming that American facism will represent German facism verbatim.

An American facist would do well to take America over in an American way rather than a prussian way.
Actually, my assumption of American fascism leans more towards the Mussolini brand of the same. Though, I may be a bit biased since I'm part Italian.

Then again, Bush's admin is actually nowhere near fascist. Being able to ascribe certain qualities to a thing does not make it that thing. I could provide numerous examples of that statement, if absolutely necessary, but hopefully you already understand what I mean.

No, I understand completely what you're saying, but I still think there is a lot of similarity between our current administration and fascism. If it looks, talks, and acts like a fascist, it just might be one.
We had a fairly reasonable discussion about this months ago. IIRC, burnedout did much excellent research to analyze the ways in which the Bush administration did and did NOT parallel Hitler's rise to power. There are, in fact, far too many disturbing parallels; we've only scratched the surface in this thread. Nonetheless, I think there was some consensus that Bush is nowhere near being another Hitler, but, by intention or coincidence, his administration is proceeding along a path dangerously similar to Hitler's.

The conclusion is that Americans should be vigilant to ensure we are not pulled into fascism the way Germans were 70 years ago. In short, we must remember history so we do not repeat it.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: marcello

Um......worst argument ever. Nice try though. You're comparing events that happened in their lives, I'm comparing ideologies, laws passed, and general character traits. A little different.

:thumbsup: