Tag Archives: war

...and other stuff, BULLSHIT, LIVES

PROGAGANDA TECHNIQUES 101

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Propaganda Techniques  

Edward Filene helped establish the Institute of Propaganda Analysis in 1937 to educate the American public about the nature of propaganda and how to recognize propaganda techniques. Filene and his colleagues identified the seven most common “tricks of the trade” used by successful propagandists. These seven techniques are called: 

  • Name Calling
  • Glittering Generalities
  • Transfer
  • Testimonial
  • Plain Folks
  • Card Stacking
  • Band Wagon

     These techniques are designed to fool us because the appeal to our emotions rather than to our reason.The techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis are further refined by Aaron Delwich in his website, Propaganda where he “discusses various propaganda techniques, provides contemporary examples of their use, and proposes strategies of mental self-defense.” By pointing out these techniques, we hope to join with others who have written on this topic to create awareness and encourage serious consideration of the influence of contemporary propaganda directed at us through the various media and suggest ways to guard against its influence on our lives.

Name Calling: Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. It is often employed using sarcasm and ridicule in political cartoons and writing.

Glittering Generalities: Propagandists employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason. They appeal to such notions as honor, glory, love of country, desire for peace, freedom, and family values. The words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people but the implication is always favorable. It cannot be proved true or false because it really says little or nothing at all. 
Transfer: Transfer is a technique used to carry over the authority and approval of something we respect and revere to something the propagandist would have us accept. Propagandists often employ symbols (e.g., waving the flag) to stir our emotions and win our approval. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves these questions when confronted with this technique. What is the speaker trying to pitch? What is the meaning of the thing the propagandist is trying to impart? Is there a legitimate connection between the suggestion made by the propagandist and the person or product? Is there merit in the proposal by itself? When confronted with this technique, question the merits of the idea or proposal independently of the convictions about other persons, ideas, or proposals.

Testimonial: Propagandists use this technique to associate a respected person or someone with experience to endorse a product or cause by giving it their stamp of approval hoping that the intended audience will follow their example. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following question when confronted with this technique. Who is quoted in the testimonial?  Why should we regard this person as an expert or trust their testimony? Is there merit to the idea or product without the testimony? You can guard yourself against this technique by demonstrating that the person giving the testimonial is not a recognized authority, prove they have an agenda or vested interest, or show there is disagreement by other experts.

Plain Folks: Propagandists use this approach to convince the audience that the spokesperson is from humble origins, someone they can trust and who has their interests at heart. Propagandists have the speaker use ordinary language and mannerisms to reach the audience and identify with their point of view.

Bandwagon: Propagandists use this technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd. This device creates the impression of widespread support. It reinforces the human desire to be on the winning side. It also plays on feelings of loneliness and isolation. Propagandists use this technique to convince people not already on the bandwagon to join in a mass movement while simultaneously reassuring that those on or partially on should stay aboard. Bandwagon propaganda has taken on a new twist. Propagandists are now trying to convince the target audience that if they don’t join in they will be left out. The implication is that if you don’t jump on the bandwagon the parade will pass you by. While this is contrary to the other method, it has the same effect: getting the audience to join in with the crowd.

Card Stacking: Propagandist uses this technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument while attempting to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion. In other words, the propagandist stacks the cards against the truth. Card stacking is the most difficult technique to detect because it does not provide all of the information necessary for the audience to make an informed decision. The audience must decide what is missing.

(Read the entire article about the history and use of Propaganda)
...and other stuff, BULLSHIT

BODIES FOR MONEY

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

PROFESSIONAL KILLERS (SOLDIERS) BEFORE THE BATTLE OF VERDUN IN 1916

before-verdun-1916
The vast area around the French city of Verdun remains suspended in the year 1916. During the First World War, these hills and gorges were cratered by a continuous ten-month-long artillery bombardment more intense than any before and any since. The mature beech forests that cover the hills were home to some of the Great War’s most bitter fighting; as many as 150 shells fell for every square meter of this battlefield. As well as being the longest battle of the Great War, the Battle of Verdun also has the ignominy of being the first test of modern industrialized slaughter.
 Over 60 million shells were fired into this area between February 21 and December 18, 1916, killing 305,440 men out of 708,777 casualties.

14million-shells-Verdun85,000 SHELLS FIRED FOR EACH DEAD BODY AT VERDUN

Research has proven that Rothschild bankers, and other war profiteers, financed the building of weapons for every war since the Napoleonic wars (1803–1815).
 20 million  Military deaths (world total) in World War II
30 million  Civilian deaths (world total) in World War II
8.6 million  Military deaths (world total) in World War I
6.5 million Civilian deaths (world total) in World War I
9.1 million Casualties in the Vietnam War
2.5 million Casualties (all sides) in the Korean War

HOW MUCH MONEY DO THE ROTHSCHILD BANKERS AND OTHER WAR CRIMINAL PROFITEERS MAKE FOR EACH DEAD BODY?

Verdun

 

 

FREE ADVICE, POETIC NONSENSE

WITHHOLD A PIECE FOR PEACE, LADIES

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

A synopsis of the play “LYSISTRATA” by the Greek poet and play writer, Aristophanes ( 411 B.C.E.)

The Peloponnesian War has been dragging on for eighteen long years, and the beautiful Lysistrata, in common with the other wives of Athens, is heartily tired of the intermittent absence of their warrior husbands. She decides that it is time to bring an end to this situation. The only solution, she concludes, is a boycott to deprive the husbands of their wives’ love.

Lysistrata sets out to enlist the other women in the plan, but finds them somewhat reluctant. One thinks that to so punish their husbands would be punishing themselves; others offer similar excuses. Lysistrata tells them that they are cowards and that the poets’ jibes about women’s frailty are well deserved.

But she perseveres in her determination, and convinces the women at last that peace surely will come if they all dress, powder and perfume themselves irresistibly, then withhold their favors from their men unless they promise to take steps to end the war forthwith. The wives agree to try the scheme, and, for a start, seize the public funds. The old men of Athens try to burn them out of the treasury, but the embattled women retaliate with pitchers of water upon their heads. The President of the Senate arrives at this juncture, ordering the arrest of “that traitress,” Lysistrata.

The women win the scuffle that follows, the President admitting defeat; but he asks an explanation for the feminine onslaught upon the treasury. Lysistrata blandly explains their purpose: to save the public money so that the men won’t fight any wars over it. The President protests the absurdity of their fancy that the war is being fought over mere money. Lysistrata assures him that of course it is; that every war is for the sake of money–else why are politicians always manufacturing wars? Merely as an occasion to steal, she says.

Then Lysistrata announces that, from now on, things are going to be different: the men won’t be able to get any money for fighting because the women are going to take over the treasury. And why not? They manage the household finances. But household finances, the President tolerantly explains, are quite different; the public money is necessary for the fighting. To this Lysistrata readily agrees, but adds that the fighting itself is hardly necessary.

The listening women, weary of the argument by this time, seize the President, unclothe him and dress him as a woman. They tell him that they are going to take the state into their own hands, rescue it from the muddling of men, unravel the knots of war just as they straighten out a skein of wool, and unite all nations into a single thread of peace and good will.

But the President persists: war, after all, is the business of men, he says. Nothing of the kind, Lysistrata replies, it is the business of women–for who suffers most in the loss on the battlefields of sons and husbands? To end the debate, the women again seize the official and garb him as a corpse. He retreats in terror.

After a time, the wives of the enemy city of Sparta join in the boycott. The plan is a success: the husbands of both cities surrender to their wives, and, to recapture their love, agree to end the war. Here a male chorus observes that it was a wise philosopher who called women the paradoxical sex: you cannot live with them and you cannot live without them. A female chorus replies that, say what you will and do what you will, the women always have the last word, for theirs is the unanswerable argument. Together the choruses agree that there has been enough of idle quarrels: they urge that the discord cease.

Lysistrata is chosen as intermediary between the Athenian and Spartan envoys for formal termination of the conflict, and she lectures them soundly at the start of their conference. She is a woman, she says, but hopes that she is not without some sense; she reminds them that they are all of the same blood, the same gods and the same language. Why, then, do they kill each other? Why should they not come to terms? She agrees that it may be necessary for animals to fight, but certainly not for men–particularly for Greek men–to fight among themselves while barbarians are looking on.

A Spartan delegate announces that his side is ready to make peace if it gets what it wants, and an Athenian observes that what both the Spartans and Athenians want is to get their wives back again. Lysistrata sees some feasibility in this, but orders that first the former enemies must go off to a feast to repair their friendship. After that, she says, each warrior may take his woman home.

The warriors try Lysistrata’s program, and at length return as bosom friends. This accomplished, she bids them each take his woman, and all join in a dance of peace as the chorus pleads:A Spartan seconds this idea, proposing further, that they all get drunk–a suggestion not unpleasant to one Athenian who notes that people are surliest when most sober. If there were more drinking bouts among diplomats, he thinks, there would be no war; they would drown their quarrels in wine, have some singing together, and decide that, after all, an enemy could still be a good fellow.

“O let us prayTo the gods today
While in peace we eatOur bread and our meat.
That every fieldMay its harvest yield,
O Venus, arrayed in love, restore
The hopes and joys we have lost in the war…
Let the sword be forgotten for evermore.”
BULLSHIT

WAR FACTORY

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

giphyWAR FACTORY:

  1. BANKERS HIRE “THINK TANKS” TO CREATE “ENEMIES” AND “REASONS FOR WAR”.
  2. BANKERS CREATE PROPAGANDA MACHINE (MEDIA) AND HIRE POLITICIANS / PRIESTS TO PREACH THE IDEA OF  “ENEMIES” AND “REASONS FOR WAR” TO PEASANTS THROUGH THE MEDIA.
  3. BANKERS LOAN MONEY TO MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONS TO  MANUFACTURE WEAPONS WHICH ARE PAID FOR BY TAXES  IMPOSED ON THE PEASANT BY POLITICIANS / PRIESTS.
  4. BANKERS CREATE AN ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY OF MONEY  (“ECONOMIC DEPRESSION”) SO PEASANTS  WILL STARVE AND DIE WITHOUT GOING TO WAR AGAINST THE “ENEMY”.
  5. BANKERS LOAN MONEY TO POLITICIAN / PRIESTS TO PAY PEASANTS TO DESTROY AND / OR STEAL PROPERTY FROM “ENEMY” PEASANTS.
  6. POLITICIANS / PRIESTS REPAY LOANS TO BANKERS FROM SPOILS OF WAR.
  7. PEASANTS BORROW MONEY FROM BANKERS  (AT INTEREST) TO REBUILD PROPERTY  THAT WILL BE DESTROYED IN THE NEXT WAR.
  8. REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT…..