🚀 go-pugleaf

hey i read the same thing about this chive person in
another ng think it was aoef or one of them

"Chive Mynde" <chyveminde@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:90fe7m$ap1$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <90endn$q70$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   Chive Mynde <chyveminde@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Environmental Propgandists:
> >
> > john smith <john@gilanet.com>
> > lunatree <lunatree@my-deja.com>
> >
> > TACTICS:
> >
> > Debunkers and Propaganda: The Black Art of the Information Age
> >
> > Propaganda...becomes at last more credible to its disseminators than
> to
> > its targets ---Garry Willis
> >
> > The essence of propaganda is the presentation of one side of the
> > picture only, the deliberate limitation of free thought and question.
> > --- J.A.C. Brown
> >
> > Propaganda by its very nature is an enterprise for perverting the
> > significance of events and of insinuating false intentions...The
> > propagandist must insist on the purity of his own intentions and, at
> > the same time, hurl accusations at his enemy.
> > --- Jacques Ellul
> >
> > Propaganda has only one object: to conquer the masses.  Every means
> > that furthers this aim is good; every means that hinders it is bad
> > --- Joesph Goebbels
> >
> > The first documented use of the term propaganda occurred in 1622 when
> > Pope Gregory XV established the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide
> as
> > a means of coordinating efforts at creating voluntary acceptance of
> > church doctrines. It eventually superseded the Inquisition as the
> means
> > of choice in the creation of acceptance of doctrine.
> >
> > The term Propaganda has had various connotations since then (both
> > positive and negative) but has come generally to mean "suggestion or
> > influence through the manipulation of symbols and the psychology of
> the
> > individual".
> >
> > Propaganda (in the sell mode) is communication with the ultimate goal
> > of having the recipient come to "voluntarily" accept a position or set
> > of ideas as if it were his own.
> >
> > In the attack mode it is a communication with the ultimate goal of
> > having the recipient reject the position of a targeted third party
> > (e.g. a competitor) or reject the third party's set of ideas.
> >
> > The mechanics of propaganda are separate from the morality of
> > propaganda and it's use. A "bad" group or organization can be quite
> > effective at it, and a "good" group or organization can be ineffective
> > at it.
> >
> > You can say that fact of using propaganda methods itself is "good"
> > or "bad" but that doesn't change the fact that you are the recipient
> of
> > loads of propaganda every week, unless you live on Neptune. Once a
> > person grasps the basics they will notice that propaganda is rampant
> > and is in use everywhere from everyday conversations at work to
> > national debates and political campaigns.
> >
> > This draft is a partial compendium of common propaganda methods. Most
> > are shown in their negative (or attack) mode for clarity even though
> > most can be used in their positive (or sell) mode.
> >
> > Most are generally used in conjunction with others or blended with
> > others, and sometimes it can be hard to tell where one ends and
> another
> > starts. All can and do have variations and spin-offs. All can be
> either
> > subtle or blatant, and most all can be used in all the
> > various "approaches" mentioned in section two.
> >
> > Many are too "strong" to be useful in selling soap, and would be
> > reserved for wars and other very highly charged debates (or greatly
> > toned down). You can often determine the level of emotional risk
> taking
> > and commitment or charge' in a debate by how strong the measures they
> > use are.
> >
> > These are presented in no particular order. Please e-mail me if you
> > have identified one to include, or if you spot where I have failed to
> > stay "issue neutral" as is my goal.
> >
> > Section 1, Methods (are broad, as compared to the more
> > narrow "approach" see section 2):
> >
> > Method 1. Devaluing a source (generally used on a source contrary to
> > ones own sphere of intent).
> >
> > 1A. The strait Ad Hominem: An attempt to establish the lack of
> > value of data by establishing a lack of value in or of the source of
> > the data. Such as " Joe is a lawyer, what would he know about
> > disease?". Other possible important information often is omitted i.e.
> > Joe may also be a Doctor, or Joe may have a disease (and know a lot
> > about it ). The positive (sell) mode would be "listen to MJ, he's cool
> > and MUST know about briefs (or Wheaties)".
> >
> > 1B. The so called "Dead Agent" ploy (first named by a former OAS
> > section chief for its almost invariable result - a Dead Agent): The
> > insertion into the data stream of information that is calculated
> > to "prove" to an Agents control (the public in the case of PR) that
> the
> > agent has been co-opted or "turned" and is now a double agent, when
> > this is not the fact.
> >
> > 1C. The "Crazy Agent" variation (to 1B): Convince the agents control
> > that his agent has gone "round the bend". This has the added advantage
> > of invalidating much (if not all) of the agents prior
> > intelligence, since the control can not be certain when the agent
> > started "losing it". Paranoia and schizophrenia being common in
> > the "spy" game, this has often had rave results.
> >
> > 1D. The "Irrefutable counter-source": AKA "appeal to authority" - If
> > Einstein said it, it must be true (even though it might have been a
> > comment about laundry soap, a subject Albert may not  have been expert
> > on). Often used with "context shifting" (see below).
> >
> > 1E. The "Dirty Towel": If your target is above reproach, sometimes you
> > can hang a "dirty towel" around his neck by devaluing his associates
> or
> > even family.  This is a favorite in politics and is often used when
> you
> > don't want the target to fathom where the attack is coming from.
> >
> > 1F. The "Stone Bucket": Figuratively you tie a bucket around your
> > targets neck (and tie his hands) then you put him in a pond and toss
> > rocks at the bucket, based on an old Celtic form of torture.
> >
> > For example you expose that a political opponent is a
> > closet bigot (the bucket). While this doesn't sink him at first, since
> > he (of course) denies it, it gives you a wonderful place to aim rocks
> > (sound bites) at. One of the best rocks would be the "Knife in the
> back
> > defense" where you state that you think the press's rumor mongering
> > about the alleged' bigotry is a sad commentary on our system. Each
> time
> > you (or the press) say the word bigot it's another rock. It works best
> > if the data establishing the bucket is true, (but this is not
> required).
> >
> > 1G. Bait and Badger: One of the older forms, the general idea is to
> > have one of your "Disposable Agents" (see approach 4. below) badger,
> > bait and harass the target into making a faux pas that the press snaps
> > up. Getting the target to punch the disposable agent is considered a
> > win. The (sell mode) positive end of this is the "shill" who asks only
> > flattering questions etc.
> >
> > 1H. The "Ringer": Insert one or more "Disposable Agents" into your
> > targets camp posing as friends (or at least kindred spirits) of the
> > target. The agents can then use several ploys, a long time favorite is
> > the "slippery slope" approach.
> >
> > Method 2. Devalue the Data (generally used on data from a source
> > opposing your own).
> >
> > 2A. The "overwhump" (sometimes called the "shout-down"): This involves
> > barraging the recipient with so much data, that the opposing data is
> > drowned out.  Imagine standing at a Hitler speech  and shouting "Jews
> > are OK" for an idea of this (well actually you might receive a 2B
> > response).
> >
> > 2B. Actual or threatened violence: This is the oldest form of
> > "conversion" and is still used in many  parts of the world today
> > although most propagandists today consider it unnecessarily messy.
> Also
> > it can easily backfire and do much PR damage to you. Use caution.
> >
> > Many people will devalue their own data when valuing it
> > results in a vicious and heated attack as in 2A or 2B. But for some it
> > will result in a digging in' mentality and actually have a reverse
> > effect from what the propagandist desires. While 2A. and 2B. are the
> > most common form of  "street propaganda" they are usually performed by
> > amateurs. A pro would be very aware of and allow for (and possibly
> even
> > use) this backfire syndrome'.
> >
> > 2C. The "Big Lie": Sadly misnamed this method works equally well
> > whether the "big" is a lie or the truth. What it involves is
> > introducing to the data stream data that is so broad, general and all
> > encompassing that it is impossible to refute even though the recipient
> > doesn't literally believe it. An example is "Nobody doesn't like Sara
> > Lee". While in actual fact at least some people don't "like" Sara Lee
> > (diabetics spring to mind), if you point this out your recipient will
> > first react with "I know, but its only a slogan" and then sometimes
> > question your motives in pointing it out.
> >
> > 2D. The "Little Lie": Also works with "True" as well. This involves
> > creating a background piece by piece until everybody Knows (as in the
> > 50's) "The Peaceful Atom is working For Us" and approves Atomic power
> > plants left, right and center.
> >
> > 2E. "Blending": Putting a bit of false data into a "sound" data
> stream,
> > so that it goes undetected but slowly erodes the targets credibility
> or
> > position.
> >
> > 2F. "Positioning": A Madison Ave. favorite -You counter the target
> data
> > with "better" data (can even be true) and put one of your ads next to
> > one of there's whenever and wherever possible.
> >
> > 2G. The "Poisoned Pill": You "slip" a hot bit of info to your target
> > (he doesn't know it's from you), he uses it, but you have the "rest of
> > the story" that you can later use to cook him.
> >
> > 2H. "Redefining Symbols": You all have seen this - Homosexual is
> > to "harsh" - so it becomes "Gay" or it's not "harsh enough" and it
> > becomes (well you know). To some "Pro choice" the opposition is
> > now "Anti-choice" while to some "Pro life" the others are now "Pro
> > abortion" or even "Pro-Death". This can be devastating if properly
> > used, and is one of the most powerful tools in the propagandist's tool
> > box.
> >
> > Section 2, Approaches:
> >
> > Approach 1.
> > Straight "misdirection": Can take many forms, from
> > outright lies to psycho-babble to even "controlled" truth. This is
> only
> > limited by the imagination of the propagandist, and is considered
> > the "pepper" of propaganda. Basically if you don't want the recipient
> > to look at "A" point him at "J" or "Y" or "K" and keep pointing.
> >
> > Approach 1A.
> > The "Stalking Horse": You give your opposition
> > something benign to see (and/or shoot at), all the
> > while you are busy sneaking up from another direction unseen.
> >
> > Approach 2.
> > "Context Shifting". An old standby, the "omitted
> > qualifier" and the "omitted actual  target" (made to look like A even
> > though it was B) fit here. Actually limited only by how audaciously
> the
> > propagandist is willing to cut up and reissue the target's words.
> >
> > Approach 3.
> > The "Rumor Tree": AKA the "Whisper Campaign". This approach had it's
> > defining moment when William
> > Randolph Hearst used his newspapers to kill Orson Wells' career by
> > subtle implication that he refused to serve in the war and might even
> > be a communist. The basic plan is:
> > 1. start a rumor (preferably nasty)
> > 2. water
> > 3. watch it branch out and leaf in.
> >
> > Approach 4.
> > The "Disposable Agent": AKA the "Strawman" An agent who does "work"
> for
> > you but can't be traced back to you and is expendable (this means
> > different things in different arenas). The work can be either direct
> > attack (or sell) or reversed (see #10 below).
> >
> > Approach 5.
> > The "knife in the back defense": Someone asks "do you still beat your
> > wife?" and the "defender" springs in with "I know he hasn't for years"
> > (implying that you DID long ago, actually he hasn't seen you do it for
> > years because you NEVER did). Get it?
> >
> > Approach 6.
> > "Mindless repetition": The most vile thing can become
> > benign if it is familiar enough.  It's used with other approach's and
> > is considered the "salt" of cooking with propaganda.
> >
> > Approach 7.
> > "Guilt by association": If Target B is shown to
> > "possibly" have been an SDS member ( or even better the L word,
> whether
> > TRUE or not) his "weight" will be lessened.
> >
> > Approach 8.
> > Straight "ridicule": AKA The "humor bomb" You all know this one, its
> > the old "when they handed out brains Fred thought they said trains,
> and
> > took the caboose". Use sparingly, or it can backfire.
> >
> > Approach 9.
> > The "leading question": This is the old "Do you still beat your wife?"
> > routine. A properly worded LQ has no win (for the target) connected
> > with any answer. The really stellar ones don't "ripen" until hours or
> > days after the target HAS answered them (Clinton's bane; Did you
> > inhale? comes to mind). The last sentence points out that the LQ
> > doesn't need to be actually asked it can be implied. It's the
> > provocative answer that counts.
> >
> > Approach 10.
> > The "Reverse": This is where you make it appear that
> > your opponent (the target) is using "vicious attack propaganda" on
> you,
> > thereby generating a feeling of support for the underdog. Capable of
> > spectacular results, but adventurous and not for the amateur.
> >
> > G.S.
> > gos890@aol.com
> > --
> > We are taught you must blame your father, your sisters, your brothers,
> > the school, the teachers--you can blame anyone, but never blame
> > yourself. It's never your fault. But it's ALWAYS your fault, because
> if
> > you wanted to change, you're the one who has got to change. It's as
> > simple as that, isn't it? ~ Katharine Hepburn
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> --
> --
> We are taught you must blame your father, your sisters, your brothers,
> the school,
> the teachers--you can blame anyone, but never blame yourself. It's
> never your fault.
> But it's ALWAYS your fault, because if you wanted to change, you're the
> one who has
> got to change. It's as simple as that, isn't it? ~ Katharine Hepburn
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.