I want to present a little bit more info first before we talk about that. I'd like to discuss Nazi propaganda and how the German populace was lead to believe in an alternate reality (yes, seriously). An excellent article by Slate.com (that I also beg everyone to read) analyzes how this could happen, exposing the tactics of the leaders in power in a chilling and enlightening way, and presenting the psychology of the general populace who followed them.
This article states that "The purpose of Nazi propaganda was not to brainwash ordinary Germans, and it was not intended to deceive the masses even though it did enable the movement to gain new recruits. The principal objective, according to historian Neil Gregor, was “to absorb the individual into a mass of like-minded people, and the purpose of the ‘suggestion’ was not to deceive but to articulate that which the crowd already believed.”"
"One of the foundations of their propaganda was repetition, or the “repeated exposure effect.” They didn't so much want to convince everyone of what they said, but simply exhaust people into going along with things. "The citizen was not a target to be persuaded so much as a victim to be conquered, ravished even. They wanted internal commitment, not just external compliance." The article stated it another way, that "Nazism did not ask for belief but for surrender—not through coercion, primarily, but by assaulting consciousness. The essential aim was the extinction of independent thought. . ."
According to the article, "Another core part of Nazi grand theory was the dethronement of reason and the celebration of emotion. Nazism felt rather than thought, and therefore the nature of its propaganda appeal was also to feeling rather than thinking. The mobilization of emotion lay at the heart of everything the Nazis did. . ." They knew their propaganda was simple and primitive. It had to be. They weren't trying to appeal to the intellectuals or the critical thinkers. Walther Schulze-Wechsungen wrote: “Many . . . laughed at the propaganda of the [Nazis] in the past from a position of superiority. It is true that we had only one thing to say, and we yelled and screamed and propagandized it again and again with a stubbornness that drove the ‘wise’ to desperation. We proclaimed it with such simplicity that they thought it absurd and almost childish. They did not understand that repetition is the precursor to success and simplicity is the key to the emotional and mental world of the masses. We wanted to appeal to the intuitive world of the great masses, not the understanding of the intellectuals.”
Hitler understood how powerful tribalism could be. He understood the need to create serial enemies and the power of fear. The slate article states that, "His construction of tribal passion could arouse the emotions and therefore render people vulnerable to any kind of visionary persuasion or invocation to epic quest."
Now, lest you say, but Val, are you arguing that we're being taken over by Nazis? No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that it seems increasingly likely that we are deliberately being manipulated by individuals who have meticulously studied one of the most successful Propaganda campaigns in history and re-branded it in order to control us. So, with that said, let's discuss several propaganda tactics that seem like they're being used today in much the same way that they were used in Germany in the past to manipulate the general public. Here are a few:
* Anti-Religion
*Emotion over Logic
*Either or Philosophy
* Creation of Serial Enemies
* Redefinition of Words
* Rejection of Independent Thought
* Censorship
Anti-Religion
People repeatedly argue that the separation of church and state means that religion has no place in public life. It has no place in politics. You are free to believe and do whatever you want to believe or do, as long as you do it out of my sight so I don't have to be offended by your religious sensibilities. These people argue that our Constitutional right of Freedom of Religion is actually Freedom from Religion, and there are actually groups seeking to change the language of the constitution to reflect that. What the text actually says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . " We are supposed to be guaranteed the right that the lawmakers will not make laws favoring one belief system over the other, which would be akin to establishing a state sponsored religion. I would like others to be able to live their beliefs, but I want to be able to disagree with them without being publicly shamed, vilified, or silenced. It appears at times that our government is seeking to establish a state sponsored religion without regard to other systems of belief. I only say this because of people getting fired over saying the wrong thing or being publicly shamed by having the wrong opinion. Is there some push to establish a state religion? It sometimes seems like it.
People opposed to religion often characterize religious people as narrow-minded, rooted in tradition, unscientific, believing in fantasies, brainwashed, or just plain stupid. Everyone has a religion, because one's religion is merely one's values and belief system. Those opposed to organized religion tout the claim that they believe in science like the two are somehow mutually exclusive. Having a different value or belief system than someone else doesn't negate your ability to believe in reason, education, or physics. Reason, logic, and the scientific method are things which we should all be able to agree on regardless of values.
Emotion over Logic
Many of the debates today center around how people "feel", disregarding or vilifying and hating those who would disagree or those who point out statistics, facts, or truth. Without trying to cause problems, I'd like to compare some of the recent protests.
I think that the people protesting for their Right to Work had legitimate grievances. I think that people need to be able to work, earn a living, and feed their families. I don't think that the state should be able to arbitrarily decide which businesses are "essential" and which are not. This was actually a tactic of Nazi Germany as well, a connection I made on my own. Only now did I look it up and found that others had made the same comparisons. But the headlines openly mock this parallel and dismiss it as absurd. These people were protesting because their lives (ability to feed and shelter their families) were threatened. This is one of the unalienable rights listed in our Constitution. At the core, these protesters were demonstrating because they believed their Constitutional Rights had been violated. Individuals derisively mock these protesters for "wanting a haircut." The protesters had convictions in their Constitutional Rights to such a degree they were willing to risk illness or possible death to make their voices heard. These people protested, their objections were heard, and adjustments were made.
Some people were upset that while they were allowed to shop, they weren't allowed to attend religious services. To these people, being able to "peaceably assemble" and freely exercise their Constitutional Rights was being violated. I don't think anyone was advocating meeting without provisions with regards to continued safety, they were just advocating for their ability to meet at all. Individuals mock these people, too, accusing them of valuing superstition over other's lives. The protesters had convictions in their Constitutional Rights to such a degree they were willing to risk illness or possible death to make their voices heard. It was my understanding that there were formerly restrictions placed on religious services that weren't placed on protests, even if both were held outdoors in a similar venue.
The Black Lives Matter (BLM) and George Floyd protests protests are about addressing police brutality and racism. At their core, these protests too are about equal Constitutional Rights of all citizens. BLM advocates are shouting that "Black people have the same right to life, liberty, and happiness as everyone else" with an emphasis on the word "life." Black people should have equal citizenship and rights under the law. The people protesting with BLM believe that they are also about Constitutional Rights. These protesters had convictions in their Constitutional Rights to such a degree they were willing to risk illness or possible death to make their voices heard. They are protesting so that their objections will be heard and adjustments will be made. The argument for emotion over logic comes in here. Why were these protests praised by media and many on social media, while the others were mocked? What makes this cause, the case of securing Constitutional Rights different from the others?
If all of these groups (and others) within the US are trying to ensure their Constitutional Liberties, then why are some of them praised for it and others mocked? Why is there a disparity? If other Americans are concerned about the exact same things we are, why aren't we working together, pledging together to ensure one another's rights? If Black Advocacy Groups, and LGBTQ+ groups, and Religious Freedom Groups, and Gun Rights Advocates are all worried about their rights and equal protection and status under the law, then why aren't we working together? Why aren't we on the same team? Even LGBTQ+ groups and Religious Freedom groups wouldn't have to be at odds if we could just agree to disagree.
While I admire homogeneous groups allying themselves with one another to try to defend and preserve their own rights, I wonder if we aren’t thinking too small. If the issue at the root of many of these conflicts is concern about the critical civil rights of various groups, wouldn’t it make more sense for us to unite with more groups who are dissimilar to our own as a pledge to uphold one another’s liberties? I would try to create this group myself if I had the temperament or the connections.
Envision a coalition among groups like the Religious Freedom Groups banding together with BLM, the top LGBTQ+ groups, even NRA groups, to establish an overarching group of Americans committed to defending one another’s Constitutional Rights. Someone could draft a document, a type of pledge that vows to uphold the rights of all Americans to live according to their beliefs and preserve the freedom of speech, expression, and religion (belief system). This would remove the pervasive “us vs them” mentality that many seem to have. Ensuring the rights of others doesn’t diminish our own rights, it shores them up and strengthens them. Why is no one doing this? I imagine the power and the unity such a pledge to defend Constitutional Liberties of all Americans, signed by all the most prominent groups from ideologies across the board would have. It would be a powerful display of solidarity and unity that put everyone on the same team. If the fight was centered around defending the Constitution, suddenly it is a cause that most Americans are personally affected by and passionate about. Suddenly it is we, the people, struggling together to secure our rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness according to our law.
Instead of logically trying to discover the root of our problems, we emotionally argue our own viewpoints, dismissing the experiences and ideas of others, and resorting to name calling. Why are we so emotional? Why do we have an aversion to dealing with facts and reason?
Either or Philosophy
This problem is pervasive in our society. It's everywhere. You are either a demon or a saint. You either want to stay locked down forever or you want little old ladies to die. Cops are either good or bad. Racism is either systemic or it doesn't exist. You either agree with us and are a friend, or you disagree and you're an enemy. You either admit there's systemic racism or you're a racist. Either Biden wins this election or all is lost and America will be obliterated. Either Trump wins this election or the country is destroyed never to recover. You're either a Republican or Democrat. You either support LGBTQ+ rights or you hate LGBTQ+ people. You either belong to the party of Morality, Goodness, and Science, or you don't believe in any of those things and you're evil. Come on now, this is absurd. Have we forgotten that different approaches to problems and different perspectives are actually helpful? What the heck is up with this kind of mentality? I could go on and on with these. Where is the nuance? Where is the middle ground? Where is the recognition that life is complex? Things are never as black and white or as simple as we seem to want to believe.
Creation of Serial Enemies
Why is our society so pitted against one another? Men vs. Women. Conservatives vs. Liberals. Republicans vs. Democrats. Rich vs. Poor. Black vs. Whites. People vs. Cops. Etc, etc, etc. Keeping people in a heightened emotional or trauma state keeps them from feeling safe. It keeps them from using rational thought and reason (study trauma this is literally a thing, I'd reccommend the book Healing the Shattered Selves of Trauma Survivors or The Body Keeps the Score). If we can be kept afraid, we will continue to use emotion and not logic. We'll continue to react instead of plan. Historian and psychologist Jay Y. Gonen said, “In a world that is seen through a narcissistic tunnel vision, only oneself or one’s group has any rights.”
I am willing to bet the majority of us want the same things. We want our own rights and the rights of others to be protected. We want to improve educational and job opportunities for all Americans. We want to improve the living standards and quality of life of ourselves and others. Our goals are not at odds! So why are we??? Is there a deliberate push to keep us divided? If so why? By whom?
If people communicated more, would they realize they aren't enemies, and that their goals are the same?
Redefinition of Words
In the 1987 classic movie The Princess Bride, Inigo Montoya utters these words, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Our precision of language has been polluted to the point where words are meaningless. They are relative and mean what you want them to mean. It's no wonder we can't communicate. A riot is not a protest. There are distinct differences. They aren't synonyms and shouldn't be used interchangeably. Peaceful protests are not characterized by police precincts engulfed in roaring flames. That's not what peaceful means. That's a violent riot. Why are we so reluctant to call things what they are?
We've reached the level of absurdity where man doesn't mean male, it means anyone who wants to be male. And woman doesn't mean woman, it means anyone who wants to be a woman. I say absurdity because people are now talking about ways that they can protect and preserve the rights of biological women in things like sports, changing rooms, and sex-specific shelters, by mandating that perhaps we should group them by XX and XY so that you're categorized according to your chromosomal category and not your sex or gender. Sports are so twisted trying to accommodate transgender athletes, that they decided to do it by hormone level. If your hormones exceed a certain level, you no longer qualify as a "woman" and you have to chemically adjust your hormone levels to be able to compete, even if you're a biological woman.
Our society claims to want to celebrate diversity, but when girls wear Asian style dresses the outrage about cultural appropriation is deafening. Everything it seems is cultural appropriation and insensitive, but to appropriate an entire gender is acceptable and even celebrated. Where is the logic in this?
The debate between Socialism and Capitalism is extremely heated, but when Liberals and Conservatives talk about it, they're not even close to the same page. The new definition of socialism means government services or social programs, while the old definition is a soft form of communism where the government controls what you can buy, at what prices, and how much you get paid to work. Here is an excellent commentary regarding this debate by author Larry Correia detailing why we can't communicate about this. Are you starting to feel crazy, questioning your sanity or the sanity of the world? There's a term for this. It's called gaslighting.
Rejection of Independent Thought
How many people are being "canceled" because they have a dissenting opinion? Why do we suddenly have to hate JK Rowling just because she said that there's a term for "people who menstruate" and that term is women? How come we have to hate Terry Crews because he tweeted "Defeating White supremacy without White people creates Black supremacy. Equality is the truth. Like it or not, we are all in this together." How many people are being fired from their jobs for expressing an opinion that the social mob doesn't like? How many people are ridiculed or shamed for trying to question why there are so many double standards? Why are we trying to make rules for every possible exception to the rule? Does our society actually value free thinkers and open minds like it claims, or are they seeking internal and external compliance to an arbitrary standard they've set?
Censorship
Political Correctness has taught us to censure ourselves. Microaggressions have taught us to very carefully and constantly censure our thoughts. Who has the mental stamina for critical thinking when you have to tread so very carefully to be an acceptable member of society? A virtue signaling mob has been taught that words are akin to violence, and they have taken it upon themselves to "call one another out," shame people with the wrong opinions, and to throw fits if people refuse to be "educated." The mob tries to destroy people's livelihoods and careers if they dare to express anything contrary to the narrative. There are rumors of people's posts on social media being flagged or taken down. Social media is the new public square. Are some people being denied their freedom of speech because someone, somewhere doesn't like what they have to say? How much freedom to speak and express our beliefs do we really have right now?
There are more propaganda tactics that we're dangerously close to paralleling, but I don't have the time or inclination to try to write about all of them. It would fill a book. Regardless of who you are or your political persuasion, we would all do well to ask ourselves if we are being manipulated. Do the facts support what you "know" to be true? George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 has some grim insights and parallels to the time we're living in. Do we have our own thought police? Has someone engineered a world where up is down, left is right, and right is wrong? Have they done this deliberately? It seems like it. If it were true, who would be responsible?
Do we really think that the problems facing our nation are just too hard to solve? Do we really think that with all of the technology, genius, ingenuity, goodwill, and innovation available that this crippled, class and race divided society is the best we can do? The book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson discusses who benefits from the status quo and states a hypothesis that those who control the current political environment and those who control the wealth often collude together for one another's benefit to the detriment of the rest of the citizens and the society.
So now, I ask you to consider this question: If someone were seeking to divide and/or destroy America, who would it be and why? Who would benefit from maintaining the status quo?
A) Boogaloo, Hawaiian shirt wearing, AR-15 toting, Nazi-sympathizing white supremacists who are intent on destroying America?
B) Internet trolls who are ignorant 600lb red neck fools who don't leave the house or ever interact with real people and maliciously want to destroy America with their keyboard commando thought weapons?
C) Antifa, the upper middle class 150lb pound pasty white, entitled, commie sympathizers who worship dictators and want to play anarchy and see if they can destroy civilized society?
D) Vladimir Putin, an evil mastermind genius the likes of a Bond villain who has the cunning and skill to take on all of the United States, all of the people, all of the intelligence agencies, all of the politicians, and all of the critical thinkers and make our current President dance like a puppet to his whims without leaving enough evidence to convict him despite massive investigations?
E) Corrupt people currently in government and the largest corporations who want to maintain their economic privilege and political power by pointing anywhere else to distract us?
Ocham's razor tells us the simplest explanation is the right one. The answer to who's behind the curtain is obvious if the hypothesis of Why Nations Fail is correct. It is in someone's best interest to keep things the way they are. Who benefits from political power or money if the status quo remains the same? Who is getting rich from the system as it is? That's who's behind the curtain.
No comments:
Post a Comment