The Language of Propaganda

[dust]

Kind of a spin-off on the "Language we trick ourselves with" angle; what language are our governments currently using to hoodwink people?

 

Let's have a quick look at various definitions of propaganda:

 

Propaganda is a form of information that panders to our insecurities and anxieties.
-Jacques Ellul

Propaganda is indifferent to truth and truthfulness, knowledge and understanding; it is a form of strategic communication that uses any means to accomplish its ends.
-Walter Cunningham

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
-Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell

Propaganda is a form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels.
-Richard Alan Nelson

Propaganda is intentionally-designed communication that invites us to respond emotionally, immediately, and in a either-or manner.
-Neil Postman

 

I am suggesting that we limit the scope to examples of propaganda (as defined in any of the above ways) used by current or very recent governments or other authoritative entities, and in the form of language manipulation. I'd imagine that most propaganda involves manipulation of language.

 

 

 

Now, a video.

 

democracy, peace process, humanitarian aid; Chomsky on some tricky language (from 1990 but still relevant, I think):

 

 

 

 

 

Then, something fairly recent from the UK:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/to-help-fuel-their-propaganda-machine-against-the-poor-our-government-has-now-decided-to-redefine-the-word-welfare-9873127.html

 

Including: redefining "welfare" to include certain state pensions (including teachers' pensions) and child protection, and redefining the fire service as a part of "criminal justice".

 

 

I'm certain that my fellow bums can come up with some far more sophisticated examples, however. Whatever you think fits the bill. And I'd really love explanations as far as possible so that everyone who reads through this at any point is clear on what's being suggested..

Edited July 24, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Brian]

I'll start by contributing the US Office of Population Affairs. The Ministry of Truth would be proud.

[liminal_luke]

Brian,

 

If you´d like to, I´d be interested to hear in more detail what you find objectionable about the Office of Population Affairs. My own observation is that the name has a certain chillingly ominous ring. As though they were intent on modifying how people decide or don´t decide to give birth in some malacious way. I´m not sure if that´s really the case though.

 

I did read one of their policy guideline papers on HIV testing. They were advocating what they called opt-out testing--in other words, members of the population in question could "opt-out" of being tested but if they choose not to the test was automatic. If you believe that it´s in everybodies interest to know their HIV status then the policy makes a certain sense but it does seem a little nefariously manipulative. I would prefer to receive all medical tests and treatment on an opt-in basis.

 

Liminal

[Karl]

Is this about language tricks or 'propaganda' ? I'm not sure there is an adequate definition for propaganda as it's now used as a perjorative.

 

 

Language trickery though I have many examples and can construct them. Hypnotic language is particularly interesting and I use that when writing fiction. Shakespeare was a fine user of language tricks, but they used them as punchy in jokes back then.

 

 

Anyway. One of my favourites-though if you get on any train, bus or metro you can find many examples once you get your eye in-is by the milk marketing board who were trying to come up with a punchy slogan about the 'free range' nature of dairy herds, over the confined nature of some beef ranches.

 

"We put cows in space"

 

It works on an amphibolous level and equivocation on the the word 'space'. Fantastic bit of work, masterful.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Karl

[dust]

Brian,

 

If you´d like to, I´d be interested to hear in more detail what you find objectionable about the Office of Population Affairs. My own observation is that the name has a certain chillingly ominous ring. As though they were intent on modifying how people decide or don´t decide to give birth in some malacious way. I´m not sure if that´s really the case though.

 

I think what he's getting at is simply that the name is ambiguous. Population Affairs could mean anything. A term such as Office of Population Control for Low Income Households might be more accurate...?

 

 

 

Is this about language tricks or 'propaganda' ? I'm not sure there is an adequate definition for propaganda as it's now used as a perjorative.

 

I've edited the OP to make a little more clear. Without getting into a debate over the definition of propaganda, anything that fits those definitions and involves (manipulation of) language.

 

 

Language trickery though I have many examples and can construct them. Hypnotic language is particularly interesting and I use that when writing fiction. Shakespeare was a fine user of language tricks, but they used them as punchy in jokes back then.

 

If you have some examples that would fit here please bring them along. That topic is concerned with language / parts of speech we use ourselves, that is embedded in English (or any other language), part of our everyday lives, that we don't realize is misleading or confusing in some way.

 

 

Anyway. One of my favourites-though if you get on any train, bus or metro you can find many examples once you get your eye in-is by the milk marketing board who were trying to come up with a punchy slogan about the 'free range' nature of dairy herds, over the confined nature of some beef ranches.

 

"We put cows in space"

 

It works on an amphibolous level and equivocation on the the word 'space'. Fantastic bit of work, masterful.

 

Clever, though I might suggest that this is pretty direct advertising. The average person is surely aware that this is advertising, and as such intended to manipulate? And that we allow ourselves to be impressed by it, but choose (on a semi-conscious level) whether or not to be influenced by it?

Edited July 24, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

I think what he's getting at is simply that the name is ambiguous. Population Affairs could mean anything. A term such as Office of Population Control for Low Income Households might be more accurate...?

 

 

 

 

 

I've edited the OP to make a little more clear. Without getting into a debate over the definition of propaganda, anything that fits those definitions and involves (manipulation of) language.

 

 

 

 

If you have some examples that would fit here please bring them along. That topic is concerned with language / parts of speech we use ourselves, that is embedded in English (or any other language), part of our everyday lives, that we don't realize is misleading or confusing in some way.

 

 

 

 

Clever, though I might suggest that this is pretty direct advertising. The average person is surely aware that this is advertising, and as such intended to manipulate? And that we allow ourselves to be impressed by it, but choose (on a semi-conscious level) whether or not to be influenced by it?

 

Just pick up any of Obama's or Janet Yellens speeches.

 

I hope you realise where you are headed with this :-)

 

I have promised myself never to use these methods knowingly in any language. You should be aware this is an ancient craft. Some things that you might describe as propaganda are just straight communication. Some effective work doesn't even require words, just pictures, sounds or pauses.

 

This has been my work for the last 10 years. I said it's a craft, but it's not one that is simply regurgitated onto paper, it's experiential, you need to learn the methods. You could read a speech on a page and it would be ineffective at doing much at all. It is the inflections, pauses, tone, body language, pace and pauses that sell it. You need to learn pacing for instance. This is where the speaker must connect with the audience by leading and pacing until the dominant characters in the crowd are brought into alignment.

 

Janet Yellen is an example of the new breed of techno propagandiser. She speaks both to men and machine. The algobots of the trading floor are sampling her text both directly and through the media. Her latest prepared statement talks of interest rate rises. To the casual listener it sounds very much like she intends to increase rates and yet again appears to be a kindly old lady looking after her grandchildren who won't hurt anyone unnecessarily. Her entire persona and style have been chosen as propaganda. She has to look, inoffensive, caring, wise, cautious, but also tough, fair etc.

 

You can get me to talk for hours on this subject.

 

[Apech]

@Karl

 

'amphibolous' ... nice.

[Karl]

I'm going to give you a longish piece that we worked out as conversational hypnotic language. Within it are many of linguistic tricks necessary, but for positive guidance only.

 

 

I must stress here that these things are dual natured. People use them as weapons-they are immensely powerful and I would ask that you don't use them for reasons of control. It will rebound on you. In the context of crowd and speaker-in any sense-the effect on those who speak the words are in equal proportion to those that listen to them. It creates a feedback that the speaker is not immune from.

 

 

So, read this slowly, carefully, pace it and breath deeply and slowly to create a natural rhythm to the words:

 

 

"I know you know...you know...it makes a lot of sense because I can see it in your eyes and that means you are changing many things on every level, all the time, simply because you have to...create new learnings, integrations and insights, and you can, can't you. People can....you know...that's the major difference between learning this way and as you sit there, looking at the screen, listening to the sounds around you're unconscious...can make all the integration it needs instantaneously or maybe even quicker than that. Do you realise this is something you can do? I...remember several years ago, being at a meeting, the speaker mentioned that a friend of his had worked with propaganda and his client had said that his budget dictated that he had to change in just one session and he said that's right...write the amount on the check...it's ok if your unconscious...knows that hypnotising hypnotist scan be difficult so speaking to you as someone who knows it can be easy ...does it"

 

Now compare and contrast with Obama's speeches, particularly think of the intended pauses that settle the mind of the listener and prepare you to listen more intently to the important next word. Some words are spoken as command words, 'low' and some as self questioning doubts 'high'.

 

It's a snippet, but you will notice similarities with political rhetoric.

 

Now, as Morpheus said " do you want to know ...what...it....is" ?

 

More importantly, do you wish to know how to defend yourself from it. You must know the weapons and learn the mental parries. If people are interested I will post a document which contains the first steps to the Trivium and Quadrivium. This isn't easy stuff, but very worthwhile. You will know what has been kept hidden from the mass of the population for nearly 5000 years.

 

It isn't enough to post examples. That is like showing a weapon that you are unfamiliar with and it won't help you to defend against it unless you know precisely the opponents utilisation of it.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Karl

[Brian]

Brian,

 

If you´d like to, I´d be interested to hear in more detail what you find objectionable about the Office of Population Affairs. My own observation is that the name has a certain chillingly ominous ring. As though they were intent on modifying how people decide or don´t decide to give birth in some malacious way. I´m not sure if that´s really the case though.

 

I did read one of their policy guideline papers on HIV testing. They were advocating what they called opt-out testing--in other words, members of the population in question could "opt-out" of being tested but if they choose not to the test was automatic. If you believe that it´s in everybodies interest to know their HIV status then the policy makes a certain sense but it does seem a little nefariously manipulative. I would prefer to receive all medical tests and treatment on an opt-in basis.

 

Liminal

To put it bluntly, the OPA, and its sub-group called the Office of Family Planning, are thinly disguised eugenics programs.

 

dustybeijing hits it on the head when he says:

I think what he's getting at is simply that the name is ambiguous. Population Affairs could mean anything. A term such as Office of Population Control for Low Income Households might be more accurate...?

<snip>

This is precisely the purpose. Yes, they publish on a variety of other topics such as sexually transmitted diseases and they clearly stipulate, in accordance with federal law, that the money they hand out cannot be used directly for abortion but the truth is that they take their guidance from the abortion industry and they hand out hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the US's abortion industry.

 

Sounds inflammatory, right? I mean, "abortion industry"??? Please...

 

Well, we can get into the "safe, legal and rare" discussion in another thread if you'd like, and we can talk about the disparate impact on minority populations in another thread if you'd like, and we can discuss the recent disclosures of profiteering on the baby-part market in another thread if you'd like but, for now, please consider and research the individual members of the "Expert Work Group" relied upon by the OPA & CDCP for their joint report last year entitled, "Providing Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs":

 

Courtney Benedict, MSN, Marin Community Clinics

Jan Chapin, MPH, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Clare Coleman, President and CEO, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association

Vanessa Cullins, MD, Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Daryn Eikner, MS, Family Planning Council

Jule Hallerdin, MN, Advisor to the Office of Population Affairs

Mark Hathaway, MD, Unity Health Care and Washington Hospital Center

Seiji Hayashi, MD, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration

Beth Jordan, MD, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals

Ann Loeffler, MSPH, John Snow Research and Training Institute

Arik V. Marcell, MD, The Johns Hopkins University and the Male Training Center

Tom Miller, MD, Alabama Department of Health

Deborah Nucatola, MD, Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Michael Policar, MD, State of California and UCSF Bixby Center

Adrienne Stith-Butler, PhD, Keck Center of the National Academies

Denise Wheeler, ARNP, Iowa Department of Public Health

Gayla Winston, MPH, Indiana Family Health Council

Jacki Witt, MSN, Clinical Training Center for Family Planning, University of Missouri—Kansas City

Jamal Gwathney, MD, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration

 

Don't just read their titles as listed here, dig a little into their past lives, too. As a clue, I'll tell you to start with Deborah Nucatola -- she was the first one revealed last week, talking about the Planned Parenthood website where clients could request specific baby-parts they'd like to buy and PP's abortionists would be careful to not crush those parts in order to fill their pick-lists.

 

Regardless of one's views on "when life begins" or on "a woman's right to choose," I suspect most who take the time to investigate will agree than this has become a particularly ghoulish industry -- and it is directly supported and subsidized by the euphemistically named "Office of Population Affairs."

[dust]

I hope you realise where you are headed with this :-)

 

No idea.. just the way I like it..

 

I must stress here that these things are dual natured. People use them as weapons-they are immensely powerful and I would ask that you don't use them for reasons of control. It will rebound on you. In the context of crowd and speaker-in any sense-the effect on those who speak the words are in equal proportion to those that listen to them. It creates a feedback that the speaker is not immune from.

 

Really, I suppose my main hope is to learn a little more about my own thoughts, and those of others.

 

Janet Yellen is an example of the new breed of techno propagandiser. She speaks both to men and machine. The algobots of the trading floor are sampling her text both directly and through the media. Her latest prepared statement talks of interest rate rises. To the casual listener it sounds very much like she intends to increase rates and yet again appears to be a kindly old lady looking after her grandchildren who won't hurt anyone unnecessarily. Her entire persona and style have been chosen as propaganda. She has to look, inoffensive, caring, wise, cautious, but also tough, fair etc. You can get me to talk for hours on this subject.

 

Interesting. I will look at finding some of her statements/text.

 

It's a snippet, but you will notice similarities with political rhetoric.

 

Yes.

 

More importantly, do you wish to know how to defend yourself from it. You must know the weapons and learn the mental parries. If people are interested I will post a document which contains the first steps to the Trivium and Quadrivium. This isn't easy stuff, but very worthwhile. You will know what has been kept hidden from the mass of the population for nearly 5000 years.

 

I'm now not quite sure what you're talking about.. but yes, if you feel that individual examples are insufficient I'm sure many of us would be interested in any other documents/analyses you have to offer.

[thelerner]

These days I find the language of propaganda is the language of Outrage.  A picture or small clip, somewhat edited, an inflammatory headline that only tells a partial, highly partisan side of the story. 

 

All sides seem to use it. 

Edited August 3, 2015 by thelerner