Propaganda: Your reaction

[Madrigal]

This is the beginning of what is probably one of the most famous pieces of political propaganda here from the 60s-70s. It's actually just the introduction to a documentary explaining what is referred to here as neo-colonial oppression. It was made during a military dictatorship here in the late 60s.

I think using film for propaganda purposes is completely legitimate and useful. I think this is a brilliant piece of work. I was wondering what people's reactions were to this video. Does it succeed in transmitting the feelings it attempts to transmit? Do you see it as an attempt to brainwash you? How do you you feel while watching this video and after it ends? What do you like / dislike about it? Do you see value in it?

What do you think about the use of film for propaganda purposes?

(subtitling is mine)

The Hour

[PenguinHunter]

Do you feel the same about propaganda working in the opposite direction?

[Madrigal]

Do you feel the same about propaganda working in the opposite direction?
No, I'm against it. Not because it's propaganda but because of its message.

[PenguinHunter]

But do you think it's a legitimate way for an organization you oppose to promote themselves?

[jyng1]

No, I'm against it. Not because it's propaganda but because of its message.

So you're saying the use of film to you is ineffective if you already have a viewpoint formed on the message.

To put another way, propaganda is only effective if you are uninformed or undecided?

e.g. I watched a report on slavery in the chocolate industry yesterday; it was something I didn't know anything about, but I will only buy certified slave free chocolate from now on.

[Madrigal]

But do you think it's a legitimate way for an organization you oppose to promote themselves?
No, I don't think they should promote themselves in any way. For example I might be in favor of violence but only if it's for the aims I agree with. It's the same with everything including propaganda.

I guess my question is more about how people respond to blatantly biased material and whether they see value in it.


So you're saying the use of film to you is ineffective if you already have a viewpoint formed on the message.

To put another way, propaganda is only effective if you are uninformed or undecided?
Maybe - but I still think you can have a certain view and be influenced in the opposite direction by good propaganda. I'd count myself in among those people but not for certain things I've already given a lot of thought to over the years. I think however that this video is more about motivating people who are not yet acting on certain views or perceptions / feelings that they already have.

The movie actually starts by stating: "Every spectator is a coward or a traitor", implying that you have to act.

[PenguinHunter]

e.g. I watched a report on slavery in the chocolate industry yesterday; it was something I didn't know anything about, but I will only buy certified slave free chocolate from now on.

Is that propaganda or just documentation?

It seems to me that there is a difference between propaganda and documentary. A documentary is designed to give you information and let you make a decision on your own. Propaganda is designed to make the decision for you without providing context or discussion. An intellectual response versus an emotional response.

Madrigal's film was obviously the latter whereas your "report" sounds like the former.

[Madrigal]

Propaganda is designed to make the decision for you without providing context or discussion. An intellectual response versus an emotional response.


This video was screened in clandestine circles, with workers and activists. It was used to trigger debate. After the movie would end they would discuss what was seen and discuss organization / resistance methods. That was why they made it.

So while the propaganda appeals to emotions, it is a tool for discussion, leading to action. Actually, it is a trilogy that is presented as an audiovisual history book with "chapters" on history, resistance and future perspectives. So it's highly "intellectual" material. ;)

[jyng1]

Is that propaganda or just documentation?

It seems to me that there is a difference between propaganda and documentary. A documentary is designed to give you information and let you make a decision on your own. Propaganda is designed to make the decision for you without providing context or discussion. An intellectual response versus an emotional response.

Madrigal's film was obviously the latter whereas your "report" sounds like the former.

Oh right... There's been a referendum on a recently passed law against the use of reasonable force on children here; commonly called the anti smacking bill (which is a misrepresentation). The information from the pro smacking side has deliberately misrepresented the facts surrounding the law for months to promote their own view. I guess this would be called propaganda as it appeals to the general populaces' emotions. It's resulted in 86% of the voters voting to have the bill repealed.

[Madrigal]

Oh right... There's been a referendum on a recently passed law against the use of reasonable force on children here; commonly called the anti smacking bill (which is a misrepresentation). The information from the pro smacking side has deliberately misrepresented the facts surrounding the law for months to promote their own view. I guess this would be called propaganda as it appeals to the general populaces' emotions. It's resulted in 86% of the voters voting to have the bill repealed.

The thing is that I think documentaries can also be propaganda because once you decide what to show and what not to show, once you place the camera at a certain angle, and decide to provide certain infomation, you are already being biased. I think "propaganda" is a good word for material that is made with a political goal in mind. It can be masked as neutral, it can be subtle or not. And it doesn't necessarily have to appeal only to emotions, propaganda can be very intellectual, just as much as a "documentary".

I had a film teacher that said documentary films were the most deceptive genre, because they claim to portray an objective truth. While I think that's a cynical view, it is true that a documentary is always necessarily subjective.

[PenguinHunter]

No, I don't think they should promote themselves in any way. For example I might be in favor of violence but only if it's for the aims I agree with. It's the same with everything including propaganda.

I guess my question is more about how people respond to blatantly biased material and whether they see value in it.


So would you advocate a system where anyone opposed to your views does not have the right to represent themselves?

I'm generally opposed to blatantly biased material simply because I instinctively feel like I'm being manipulated. I'm generally sympathetic to post/anti-colonial causes but I didn't find the film particularly inspiring or useful. Part of that comes from a time gap. The other part is that I simply don't like that style of film. Rather than waving slogans at me, tell me what this group of people has done that is morally reprehensible. It seemed to me that the film was intentionally uninformative and was designed only to create anger. As a result I refused to participate.


This video was screened in clandestine circles, with workers and activists. It was used to trigger debate. After the movie would end they would discuss what was seen and discuss organization / resistance methods. That was why they made it.

So while the propaganda appeals to emotions, it is a tool for discussion, leading to action. Actually, it is a trilogy that is presented as an audiovisual history book with "chapters" on history, resistance and future perspectives. So it's highly "intellectual" material. ;)

I understand that any film which triggers an emotional response can be useful for starting debate. However would the discussions in the context of your film have been about the philosophy of the movement, asking critical questions about its purpose and direction or would they have already assumed the voice of righteous rebellion and been discussing the game plan for revolution.

What I'm trying to get at here is that some people are more easily swayed than others. Having watched that film they might have immediately been riled up ready to march into the streets with torches and pitchforks, without really considering why. How does that short film help those people make an informed decision? Is there ever a situation where informed decisions are not important?

Personally, I dislike the idea of people acting (especially with violence) without having carefully evaluated their situation. . . no matter how just the cause might be.

[Madrigal]

So would you advocate a system where anyone opposed to your views does not have the right to represent themselves?
No, the system I advocate would have a level of representation for all. I would be opposed to "enemy propaganda" in the context of war and revolution though. When you are in a war, propaganda is a weapon just like a gun, and propaganda by either side is destroyed by the other, which is logical.

In a state of "peace" under capitalism I would condemn the messages I oppose in whatever form they adopt, but I would not be in favor of institutionalized censorship, because the institutions don't represent my views (and then they would just censor mine). In a socialist state, capitalist views should not be given space in the state media as far as I'm concerned. Opposing views on other levels would be productive. For example, differing views on how to advance in socialization, or other things.


I'm generally opposed to blatantly biased material simply because I instinctively feel like I'm being manipulated. I'm generally sympathetic to post/anti-colonial causes but I didn't find the film particularly inspiring or useful. Part of that comes from a time gap. The other part is that I simply don't like that style of film.
That's the thing, I never feel offended anyone is trying to manipulate me. When I'm exposed to propaganda of any sort I am offended - or not - at the message itself. Not at how it is presented. Of course, if the movie sucked I'd think it's a pity the message is good but they didn't present it properly.

This film has actually inspired generations of activists and filmmakers in the country and the continent. It is like an archetype by now. There were many vanguards debating this style of cinema in Latin America back then, and it's still copied today.

I think the language is very well thought out. The music is indigenous music and the tempo increases, to represent liberation of native american peoples. The images are presented in fractured shots interrupted by a dark screen. If I had to do some psuedo-analysis right now I'd say this technique attempts to underline the fact that the history of peoples' resistance is silenced. Resistance seems to explode intermittently and is repressed and encloaked. The images are less spaced out as the introduction progresses, implying that the resistance is growing in strength and gaining momentum. So cinematographically I think it is very well done.


Rather than waving slogans at me, tell me what this group of people has done that is morally reprehensible. It seemed to me that the film was intentionally uninformative and was designed only to create anger. As a result I refused to participate.
As I said this is only the introduction to a break-down of latin american history, colonization and resistance movements, as well as a proposal to organize. It is a three-hour trilogy. Also, it is used as a tool for debate and therefore political enlightenment. It does however appeal to emotions in many parts, like this one - which I think is a masterpiece to tell you the truth. :D


I understand that any film which triggers an emotional response can be useful for starting debate. However would the discussions in the context of your film have been about the philosophy of the movement, asking critical questions about its purpose and direction or would they have already assumed the voice of righteous rebellion and been discussing the game plan for revolution.
I dunno since I wasn't there. ;) It was meant to stimulate debate. The view is left-wing Peronist. I'm not a Peronist but I think it's valuable as a trigger. We have to think of when this was made and who watched it. It's not like screening something like this today. I have screened movies for debate in many places, even occupied factories. Despite many of the viewers being activists, they do not always engage in debate even when encouraged. Show this at a mainstream cinema instead of left-wing circles and debate is even worse or non-existent, even when promoted. That is because this is their generation, really, and they are not living in a revolutionary era like the 60s, where everyone had a strong opinion and was dying to discuss it.

So I wasn't there, but I imagine the viewers were not passive sheep listening, watching and being told what to do, or accepting something without questions. I think it was a time of collective intelligence which has been lost, but which can be recovered. When people begin to question, collectively, then you have an era of collective intelligence.


What I'm trying to get at here is that some people are more easily swayed than others. Having watched that film they might have immediately been riled up ready to march into the streets with torches and pitchforks, without really considering why. How does that short film help those people make an informed decision? Is there ever a situation where informed decisions are not important?
I think I already answered this. I think it is aimed to inform people, not blindly rile them up. :)


Personally, I dislike the idea of people acting (especially with violence) without having carefully evaluated their situation. . . no matter how just the cause might be.
Me too.

[Madrigal]

LOL: "Indignation - Pity - Offense as a viewer". I knew there'd be a combo like that.

People should remember this was made under a dictatorship. The violence was not just in this video - it was real. It's not like you're sitting at home eating cheetos and watching TV when someone interrupts your peace with something incendiary that has no connection with reality.

Even then, I think you have to have a pre-existing sensitivity towards certain injustices to feel an impact. When I watch it, I feel my blood boil. And I feel impressed with how it is composed. It also makes me feel proud. In short it's a motivating clip for me. I would like to make something half as good someday.

[LongSilence]

This video was screened in clandestine circles, with workers and activists. It was used to trigger debate. After the movie would end they would discuss what was seen and discuss organization / resistance methods. That was why they made it.

So while the propaganda appeals to emotions, it is a tool for discussion, leading to action. Actually, it is a trilogy that is presented as an audiovisual history book with "chapters" on history, resistance and future perspectives. So it's highly "intellectual" material. ;)

It's a very effective propaganda piece, almost overtly subliminal or even "surliminal". On one hand, it's hard to argue with the message that violence is almost inevitably part of the process that changes social orders, at least in the timeframe of one lifespan. However, this does not justify the inciting of others to violence for either yours or their aims. A full and satisfactory analysis is unfortunately curtailed by the lack of the rest of the presentation but I can say that the piece does make me want to watch more to see if it backs itself up with more than just choice words and videos of outrage and rebellion. I want to see more than simple 'Zeitgeist: the movie'like rapidfire gut punches designed to whip up our basic cores into emotion.

For instance, polarization of forces into black and white, good and evil is great for inspiring activity but it's crippling for critical thought. In truth, this "intellectual" material does not appeal to the discerning minds of the people, it calls to their instinctual responses with illustrations of suffering designed to goad our pity, indignation, anger and fear into gear. Let me ask- how often do activists countenance the question of how much 'better' they are or will be than the 'enemy'? How critical are they are if / when they try to distinguish between their selfish and honourable reasons for doing what they do?

To give this thread its requisite Godwinner- In essence, is communist propaganda not so very similar to that of the Nazis in the sense that it's really just a call to war as much as it is a summoning to an ideology?

[ocop]

I have a very negative reflexive reaction to propaganda in general, even in cases where I support the cause being propagandized.

Granted the reaction varies: I'll get angry at something I disagree with ("I'm smarter than that, bastards!") and more ashamed/embarrassed at something I agree with ("Unnghhh, you're undermining the cause...").

However, the reality is that a passably constructed propaganda campaign will actually help whatever cause, so it's hard to actually fault its use from a utility perspective. At the end of the day I know I'm probably not the ideal target and the creators, particularly on the Left, just need to line up warm bodies. Fiery populist rhetoric and propaganda are pretty effective instruments for that.

[Madrigal]

It's a very effective propaganda piece, almost overtly subliminal or even "surliminal". On one hand, it's hard to argue with the message that violence is almost inevitably part of the process that changes social orders, at least in the timeframe of one lifespan. However, this does not justify the inciting of others to violence for either yours or their aims.
Why not?


A full and satisfactory analysis is unfortunately curtailed by the lack of the rest of the presentation but I can say that the piece does make me want to watch more to see if it backs itself up with more than just choice words and videos of outrage and rebellion. I want to see more than simple 'Zeitgeist: the movie'like rapidfire gut punches designed to whip up our basic cores into emotion.
Sorry, but I can't subtitle the whole thing, and nobody would care to watch it. You'll just have to believe me. It is separated into three parts, each of them with chapters. The first part is the history of colonial oppression. It explains economic concepts, statistics, etc. The second is a history of the workers' movement, peronist to be exact. The third is a call to organize and resist the dictatorship and make a revolution. Including an exclusive interview with Peron himself, but I won't get into that. It is not always as fast-paced as this and it does get slow and analytical at times. You know, like a documentary.


For instance, polarization of forces into black and white, good and evil is great for inspiring activity but it's crippling for critical thought.
See, in a way, reality is very black and white. This was made during a coup. If you were caught watching it, who knows what could hapen to you. That's black and white right there. I do not think that presenting opposing forces is cripling to a productive thought process.


In truth, this "intellectual" material does not appeal to the discerning minds of the people, it calls to their instinctual responses with illustrations of suffering designed to goad our pity, indignation, anger and fear into gear.
Well, they were suffering what is seen in the video. It is not alien to them, as it is to you. Immediately, the people viewing it feel a strong identification. This is why some people are turned off - they don't identify on any level.


Let me ask- how often do activists countenance the question of how much 'better' they are or will be than the 'enemy'? How critical are they are if / when they try to distinguish between their selfish and honourable reasons for doing what they do?
Not really sure what you mean. No activist will think they are going to be worse than their enemies if they seized power. But an intelligent person would study history so as not to make the same mistakes, which they are not immune to making. Revolution is an art and a science, not a bunch of unbridled emotions spreading chaos.


To give this thread its requisite Godwinner- In essence, is communist propaganda not so very similar to that of the Nazis in the sense that it's really just a call to war as much as it is a summoning to an ideology?
Sure, in that sense, it is similar. In every other way - moral, political, social, etc - it's completely the opposite. But I oppose studying the forms and overlooking content. As a film student at uni I was presented with "The Triumph of the Will" and "October" as two comparable pieces. They are not comparable, and should not be presented that way.

On the other hand, another professor at the same university screened this movie for us, added it to our film list, and defended it. I wrote a thesis on it. :-p


At the end of the day I know I'm probably not the ideal target and the creators, particularly on the Left, just need to line up warm bodies. Fiery populist rhetoric and propaganda are pretty effective instruments for that.
It really depends on what kind of "Left" you're talking about here. If you recruit and organize mindless people without critical thought, that'll make for a shitty revolution indeed, if at all. Saying you are not the target may be correct, only in the sense that you do not care to particpate. But not in the sense that you are critical, while the target audience is not. You are not *in the least* above - or more critical than - the people who conspired in clandestinity to overthrow a dictatorship.

[ocop]

It really depends on what kind of "Left" you're talking about here. If you recruit and organize mindless people without critical thought, that'll make for a shitty revolution indeed, if at all.

That wasn't necessarily meant to insult, but I think the "Left" you are envisioning does have to line up warm bodies, no matter how well educated (hence the propaganda), particularly when the "Right" has most of the guns and money.

[Madrigal]

That wasn't necessarily meant to insult, but I think the "Left" you are envisioning does have to line up warm bodies, no matter how well educated (hence the propaganda), particularly when the "Right" has most of the guns and money.

Okay, I thought you meant to say line up cannon fodder.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Hey, I'm a capitalist. I believe someone can use their film however they damned well want, including propaganda. Because of that, I picked Amusement (I'm an ass). I am quite amused.

Also, I too am against the imperialism of the US. And opposed to a repressive state.

[Hustler]

This is the beginning of what is probably one of the most famous pieces of political propaganda here from the 60s-70s. It's actually just the introduction to a documentary explaining what is referred to here as neo-colonial oppression. It was made during a military dictatorship here in the late 60s.

What do you think about the use of film for propaganda purposes?

This isn't even a film. It's more like a picture book where the pictures are black and white video instead of illustrations or photographs. All of the content is really still in the written words. If you want to see how to use film as propaganda, I think the best place to look is somewhere like Baraka (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103767/). This is a method of using film that requires no writing, no subtitles, no language at all, but it does have a message. It makes its statement through the medium of film and not through another medium with film clips interspersed like photographs in a history book.

Remember: The medium is the message. This very fact means there is legitimacy to using film as a means of propaganda, because it can create a message that other media cannot, but it also means that imitations of film, such as that you linked, will not be able to create the same sort of message as real film.

Also, that film seemed kind of PG. I would like to see the R rated version, where the full extent of oppression is shown, and in color, so that we can see all of the red running through every frame.

[Madrigal]

This isn't even a film. It's more like a picture book where the pictures are black and white video instead of illustrations or photographs. All of the content is really still in the written words.
Totally see what you mean but the rest of the film is not like that at all. This is an introduction that is a lot like a political pamphlet, and I think that's on purpose (the wordiness). Still I think that cinematographically it is brilliant, I love the montage they made (which I explained to PH).


If you want to see how to use film as propaganda, I think the best place to look is somewhere like Baraka (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103767/). This is a method of using film that requires no writing, no subtitles, no language at all, but it does have a message. It makes its statement through the medium of film and not through another medium with film clips interspersed like photographs in a history book.
I like the least words possible in film too. I watched that movie a long time ago and I was impressed.


Remember: The medium is the message. This very fact means there is legitimacy to using film as a means of propaganda, because it can create a message that other media cannot, but it also means that imitations of film, such as that you linked, will not be able to create the same sort of message as real film.
Again, I agree with the medium being the message. But I disagree that this is a psuedo-film piece in any way.


Also, that film seemed kind of PG. I would like to see the R rated version, where the full extent of oppression is shown, and in color, so that we can see all of the red running through every frame.
:P

[LongSilence]

Why not?

I guess I am conflicted on this. On the one hand, I accept that physical conflict and war is something that mankind has always practiced and that sometimes it is the most effective / only way that certain issues can be resolved. Humanity is a race of differentiated individuals who are driven to interact with one another in order to achieve combined and greater aims and endeavours. Unfortunately and fortunately, these goals and efforts clash frequently as we are not all compelled to think the same way and want the same things. War has also historically been a very 'natural' yet rather barbaric means of dealing with overpopulation.

Then again, this presentation is also reinforcement of this idea / status quo that mankind IS at war. That oppression is dealt with by nurturing one's hate and demonizing other sections of humanity. Such a call to arms can tend to summon certain types of people, whose negative traits include the angry, the embittered, the self-righteous and the paranoid. And what they promise is change when actually they are calling the people to do the same thing that leaders have always done- "go to war in the name of X and glory, riches and happiness await after we've vanquished those guys [we've told] you [to] hate!" And then what'll happen? Just how rosy will the future be? What do the leaders promise to the people and what will they deliver? And most importantly, will they not be exercising their power in just the same way that their predecessors did? After all, a group united by their ambitions of violent revolution and solidified through their takeover- are they suddenly going to become gentle giants once they get power?

Or are they not going to stick to the methods that brought them together and helped them to succeed- people who use and are inspired by such "black and white" perspectives continue to think and act as such. That is why violent revolutionaries tend to become violent leaders who struggle to keep hold of their vision. This is my main problem with such propaganda- it's all well and good but the people who relate to it I believe have to take a backseat once their talents have secured the revolution and let men who can be diplomatic and considerate of the 'grey areas' that spring up in the running of any small group, let alone an entire nation.

[Anonymous]

Wait, shit, I should have read the whole post before voting. I thought you meant propaganda in general. Watching that video, I didn't really feel anything. It's not that I'm unsympathetic to that sort of thing, it's just that there's so much of it going on that I don't have the emotional energy to feel something every single time.

[SensEye]

Wait, shit, I should have read the whole post before voting. I thought you meant propaganda in general. Watching that video, I didn't really feel anything. It's not that I'm unsympathetic to that sort of thing, it's just that there's so much of it going on that I don't have the emotional energy to feel something every single time.Same. I have little familiarity with Agentina's politcal history (I know in general the country has been a bit of a basket case with Peronism followed by military dictatorship followed by some sort of democratic republic in the most recent era) so the video had little impact on me.

In general, I find propaganda annoying, but it is not really the propaganda itself that annoys me, but the fact that it is effective. It disappoints me people dont' question things more.

For example, in the video there is a line Madrigal has translated as "the history we have been taught is false". I'm thinking: It is? On what basis do you make this claim? What alternative history are you proposing? How will I know your alternative is more accurate?

If people watched propaganda films with this kind of mindset, I suspect their impact would be minimal.

[stuck]

Does it succeed in transmitting the feelings it attempts to transmit?

Yes, but I don't think it was for me.


Do you see it as an attempt to brainwash you?

No, only because it's so bald. Brainwashing has to have a better element of hypnosis and "bait and switch". You know you're watching a revolutionary 60s vid right from the beginning.


How do you you feel while watching this video and after it ends?


Slightly agitated.



What do you like / dislike about it?

Not enough context, too many slogans. No analysis.


Do you see value in it?

Minor value. Maybe more value if I were steeped in the de-colonization movement of the 60s. It's dated.



What do you think about the use of film for propaganda purposes?


Inevitable. Every piece of film or video is some kind of propaganda. Most of it these days is "everything is fine" propaganda, but distraction is propaganda just the same.

[stuck]

I had a film teacher that said documentary films were the most deceptive genre, because they claim to portray an objective truth.

Exactly.

The only decent documentary I've ever seen was "Grizzly Man," because Werner Herzog actually puts himself in front of the lens to tell you how he is biased.

In short, there is a major gap between what people understand and what they are given. This is the hole of suspended disbelief through which 'reality tv' has been shoved down our throats. Most people simply aren't as media-saavy as they think they are. Nowhere close.

To give you an idea, I'm in the industry and I'm still constantly shocked. I know how some things work. That means that joe public doesn't have a chance in hell.

[Harion]

That means that joe public doesn't have a chance in hell.
amen

[euterpenc]

e.g. I watched a report on slavery in the chocolate industry yesterday; it was something I didn't know anything about, but I will only buy certified slave free chocolate from now on.

This just made me think: maybe all this "free-trade" and "slave-free" stuff is just a marketing ploy, and those films are just propaganda to get you to change what products you buy.

/derail

[euterpenc]

I was unmoved by the video, perhaps because I wasn't living in that environment. Maybe it's just something about be a young white male in the "E.U." that makes me think violence isn't the answer. Inevitable yes, the answer to our problems, no.

Personally the only value I see in propaganda is novelty entertainment. Sometimes there's funny or absurd pieces that are amusing. Perhaps it is effective at portraying a message, however, I think the means is rather underhanded and dishonest. The attempts to play and pull at people's emotions to incite any behavior are essentially caricatures of childhood bullying; you know, "getting your goat." It seems like the aim is to get you to support some movement or action without giving it considered thought. To me, lack of considered thought = recipe for disaster.

Propaganda seems to play on "flaws" in human nature, exploiting them to achieve an agenda, which is often dubious. In the recognition of these "flaws," could not something more constructive be done? Like bringing people to an awareness of themselves and their motivations rather than trying to manipulate them into something?

[egregious cerebrum]

I polled indignation, anger, and offense as a viewer.
For me, it is simple: I do not like coming to conclusions or making decisions without 100% of my own personal reflection and volition; I dislike external influence for its own sake.

[Thirsty]

I do have a problem with propaganda; it's not that I'm affected, I'm really not, it's that your typical idiot is affected. The driving force behind political decisions is, in America, voting certain people into office. Unfortunately, everyone, even the stupid people, have voting rights in this country, and as result, propaganda can easily sway the general populaces' mind. It's irritating knowing that a bogus video or a piece of media can brainwash a typical individual.

[egregious cerebrum]

It's irritating knowing that a bogus video or a piece of media can brainwash a typical individual.

The lugubrious truth is that most people are stupid. It also happens to be true that those people's minds become especially littered with biases, biases which are detrimental the political decision-making process when applied en masse.

[Thirsty]

The lugubrious truth is that most people are stupid. It also happens to be true that those people's minds become especially littered with biases, biases which are detrimental the political decision-making process when applied en masse.

Agreed; we should all check option 9 in this poll.

[Ferrus]

Surely though the problem with propoganda is that the majority of humans are hard-wired to respond to conservative messages propogated by traditional cultural institutions and figures. Certainly groups with little previously political background can be influenced by such propoganda - but were you to try to indoctrinate much of the industrial proletariat in modern countries, especial first world, you would find a reflex hostility imposed by conservative propoganda. Because there is no sense in a mere emotional message, it becomes impossible to counter one irrational message with another. Which is why it strikes me there has to be some element of honesty and truthful rationality by any message that attempts to break through the anti-conservative wall - and those regimes that have based their image on propoganda very often end up falling back to conservative messages during times of crisis. Look at Soviet propoganda during WW2 which was full of Russia nationalism, nostalgic visions of the past and even vague whiffs of an Orthodox 'holy war'.

[Within]

Add indifference to the poll. :mellow: