🚀 go-pugleaf

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 It eventually superseded the Inquisition as the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.