Reply With Quote
Learn something. Entire text here. http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html
Propaganda (1928)by Edward Bernays
[The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.
So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.
This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.
His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.
—Noam Chomsky
(From Chomsky's "What Makes Mainstream Media
Mainstream": a talk at Z Media Ins ute, June 1997)
CHAPTER I
ORGANIZING CHAOS
THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society cons ute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the iden y of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.
They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever at ude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.
It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our Cons ution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four.
In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time.
In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market. In practice, if every one went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed. To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea.
It might be better to have, instead of propaganda and special pleading, committees of wise men who would choose our rulers, dictate our conduct, private and public, and decide upon the best types of clothes for us to wear and the best kinds of food for us to eat. But we have chosen the opposite method, that of open compe ion. We must find a way to make free compe ion function with reasonable smoothness. To achieve this society has consented to permit free compe ion to be organized by leadership and propaganda.
Some of the phenomena of this process are criticized—the manipulation of news, the inflation of personality, and the general ballyhoo by which politicians and commercial products and social ideas are brought to the consciousness of the masses. The instruments by which public opinion is organized and focused may be misused. But such organization and focusing are necessary to orderly life.
As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented.
Learn something. Entire text here. http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html
tldr;
Tell me what you think I should really take away from this.
Bernays, working for the administration of Woodrow Wilson during World War I with the Committee on Public Information, was influential in promoting the idea that America's war efforts were primarily aimed at “bringing democracy to all of Europe". Following the war, he was invited by Woodrow Wilson to attend the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.
Stunned by the degree to which the democracy slogan had swayed the public both at home and abroad, he wondered whether this propaganda model could be employed during peacetime. Due to negative implications surrounding the word propaganda because of its use by the Germans in World War I, he promoted the term "Public Relations".[6] According to the BBC interview with Bernays's daughter Anne, Bernays felt that the public's democratic judgment was "not to be relied upon" and he feared that "they [the American public] could very easily vote for the wrong man or want the wrong thing, so that they had to be guided from above". This "guidance" was interpreted by Anne to mean that her father believed in a sort of "enlightened despotism" ideology.[7]
This thinking was heavily shared and influenced by Walter Lippmann, one of the most prominent American political columnists at the time. Bernays and Lippmann sat together on the U.S. Committee on Public Information, and Bernays quotes Lippmann extensively in his seminal work Propaganda.[citation needed]
Bernays also drew on the ideas of the French writer Gustave LeBon, the originator of crowd psychology, and of Wilfred Trotter, who promoted similar ideas in the anglophone world in his book Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War. Bernays refers to these two names in his writings. Trotter, who was a head and neck surgeon at University College Hospital, London, read Freud's works, and it was he who introduced Wilfred Bion, whom he lived and worked with, to Freud's ideas. When Freud fled Vienna for London after the Anschluss, Trotter became his personal physician, and Wilfred Bion and Ernest Jones became key members of the Freudian psychoanalysis movement in England, and would develop the field of Group Dynamics, largely associated with the Tavistock Ins ute where many of Freud's followers worked. Thus ideas of group psychology and psychoanalysis came together in London around World War II.[citation needed]
Bernays's public relations efforts helped to popularize Freud's theories in the United States. Bernays also pioneered the PR industry's use of psychology and other social sciences to design its public persuasion campaigns:
If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.[8]He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the 'engineering of consent'.[9]
Bernays began his career as press agent in 1913, counseling to theaters, concerts and the ballet. In 1917, US President Woodrow Wilson engaged George Creel and realizing one of his ideas, he founded the Committee on Public Information. Bernays, Carl Byoir and John Price Jones worked together to influence public opinion towards supporting American participation in World War I.[citation needed]
In 1919, he opened an office as Public Relations Counselor in New York. He held the first Public Relations course at New York University in 1923, publishing the first groundbreaking book on public relations en led Crystallizing Public Opinion that same year.[10]
Conspirabots really are incapable of independent thought.
Benays (Frued's nephew) sold WW I to the US people for Wilson. He literally wrote the book on propaganda to steer the masses, utilizing the "herd instinct." His approach is still being used to this day. Or, as he put it, "THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society."
You are a herd animal.
So now that you have that out of your system, do you think the Capitol Police stand down at the Naval Yard was done for nefarious purposes?
I don't.
I don't need an opinion about this event. I know that these events have been planned by the government in the past, and that domestic media will be colored by the very lenses that Bernays forged in the early 20th Century, through modern prac ioners. I only need to keep reaching through the propaganda for the truth. Something you don't give a damn about. You care only about opinion and conjecture, and controlling perception. And you are afraid to not immediately brand some new information with your approval/ disapproval/ criticism/ disdain/ hysterical smilies. Im not like you. I can embrace facts as facts, without the need to color them to suit me.
In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others- as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders- serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God.A very few- as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men- serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least:
"I am too high-born to be propertied, To be a secondary at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world."
Civil Disobedience
By Henry David Thoreau
1849
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/WA...ays/civil.html Read that for your own benefit chump.
Of course, you just showed what colors your opinions -- when you have the courage to actually state them.
You just throw out conspiracy innuendo and then are quickly reduced to a babbling pastebot when asked to expand upon your foundation of crap.
I think you have nothing to offer me aside from innuendo and pasting.
Prove me wrong if you can. I don't think you can.
Mainstream media reports, declassified government do ents, and widely understood U.S. history hardly classifies as "conspiracy innuendo," does it? Yes or no.
Learn some history chump. it would do you good. And if you need me to explain that quote to you...well I don't really have the fuggin time, tbh.
Your innuendo is your innuendo.
I called you on it in this case and you yourself.
You had time to look up and copy and paste all this to distract from the fact you couldn't answer a simple yes or no question.
You have the time.
Actually, you are squirming like a in church because I limit this encounter to the facts. Because the facts tend to favor my agenda, which is "question domestic plot-lines."
These mofos are still using Bernays' methods.
And Operation Northwoods still makes good sense to a very many traitors in this country.
Why do you think it was done?
Why do you favor the traitors, chump?
Well the facts are already known and the investigation is already underway -- so what is you point?
There was probably confusion as to how this incident fit into the overall mission of the Capitol Police, as they are a separate en y from the DC Metro Police and exist for a different reason.
Who do you claim to be the traitors?
Name them.
Traitors are anyone who would take us to war via propaganda. I see a couple of actors above. Lets start there. Charles Jaco. CNN chick. Carl Roc e. Their boss. Their boss's boss. And lets include all of the Joint Chiefs who signed off on Operation Northwoods. They are all known conspirators.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
