Propaganda methods and technologies based on specific examples

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Someone considers the manipulation of the masses to be a high art, and people who do such things are top-class professionals. In fact, due to the lack of any individuality in the crowd, it is elementary to manage it. All these methods of management and control are universal for all countries of the world, and many of them have been actively practiced for a hundred (or even more) years. Why invent something new when the well-proven old works.

If someone thinks that it is difficult to deceive the broad masses, and to force them to do something in your interests - and even more so, remember the absurd story with death groups, which, obviously, were invented to increase the loyalty of the population to the impending serious prohibitive measures in the Internet. There is not a single fact or proof that at least one child committed suicide under the influence of these groups, the media use non-existent statistics, responsible people openly lie and manipulate numbers, inventing a 60% increase in suicides when it actually falls, etc. etc. in his desire to intensify the hysteria around the sore subject, since most ordinary viewers are unlikely to feel the trick and climb up to double-check the information. Thus, by manipulating the official statistics of suicides, and somewhere with the help of outright lies, the authorities set the average person to support any actions, especially with regard to the Internet, which for many is still as little studied as the moods of their own children.

I'm not even talking about the fact that the very idea of death groups is more like a low-quality horror film of category B. And look how the widest masses were led to a frankly delusional story that does not have any factual basis at all. And you say it's difficult! Elementary!

In the context of this material, we will not consider the manifestations of political PR, which is often referred to as propaganda. Moreover, it is equally simple, unchanging and universal throughout the world. In general, when you understand what's what, it's very funny to watch how stereotyped actions occur in different parts of the world, repeating each other, like a carbon copy. Moreover, often the same actions take place almost simultaneously, which makes the theater of absurdity called "Politics" more comical. For example, absolutely any self-respecting president is simply obliged to catch a pregnant woman or grandmother who has fainted during some solemn event.

During the speeches of big politicians in the world, in general, some kind of rockfall from old women and pregnant women begins. Enter the keywords "pregnant woman faints obama" into Google, and you will see how, during Obama's speech, a pregnant woman suddenly becomes ill, and he deftly picks her up with a dexterous movement of his hand, like a savior on a white horse, saving the unfortunate woman from an imminent collision with the asphalt. At this time, overseas in Russia, the old woman-veteran of the war is feeling bad, and she is just as cleverly picked up by Putin, who happened to be nearby: “Putin caught a stumbled woman-veteran in Chita”. Heh, well, they would have survived at least a pause of five years, otherwise it somehow turns out completely indecent. I walk alone, like a fool, and neither veterans nor pregnant women fall on me. They know who is more useful to fall on.

In general, we will talk specifically about propaganda, which is equally universal and one-sided throughout the world. Moreover, the extent to which all processes are similar is truly amazing. Take Serbia during the conflict with Croatia, for example. If you grab an individual Serb from the 90s and bring him to Russia today, he will not notice this, because how identical everything is - it will take your breath away. For example, here is an ancient note from the Serbian media after the overthrow of Milosevic:

“The Serbian state television and radio company has apologized to all residents of the territory of the former Yugoslavia for the propaganda of the Slobodan Milosevic regime, which was actively carried out in the 90s. The company acknowledged that the campaign materials aired contributed to inciting ethnic hatred among various ethnic groups. Television separately apologized to other journalists, opposition representatives, Serbian intellectuals and other victims of propaganda materials.

The propaganda of the Milosevic regime portrayed Serbs as victims of ethnic attacks. The television called the oppositionists foreign mercenaries, traitors and enemies of the state."

Hmm … does it look like anything?) Serbs came to Croatia and shouted that Croatia was a Serbian land, and in response to disagreement they accused the latter of fascism. Doesn't it look like anything? The Croats, of course, answered them for this with ardent mutual love:

Inscription: "Srbe on vrbe" (Serb on willow) Compare: +

Everything is repeated, as we can see, down to the smallest detail. True, there were no mysterious snipers. But they were in many other months. I have a colleague in the shop, known to many of you Kungurov, for two months (in December) predicted the appearance of mysterious snipers on the Maidan. And in February they appeared. Is Kungurov a prophet? No. He just worked all his life on the political technology front. He knows very well that mysterious snipers shot demonstrators in Vilnius near the TV tower at 91, in Russia at 93 (here is an ancient film about mysterious snipers at the White House), in Bishkek in 2010, in Yemen in 2011, in Libya, in Tunisia - in general, wherever it was hot. All carbon copy.

Forces interested in the coup send their snipers to the rooftops to fire at the protesters to further inflame their anger. The protesters, of course, believe that the authorities are shooting at them, and therefore they are getting into a very wild frenzy and begin to sweep away everything in their path.

In general, the same techniques and technologies have been applied on all fronts for decades and even centuries. And it works always and flawlessly. But we deviated a little, moving from PR to organizing coups. Now is the time to approach specific methods of direct propaganda using specific examples.

* * * * * * * * * *

Method "40 by 60"

The method was invented by old Goebbels. It consists in creating mass media, which provide most of their information in the interests of the opposition. But, having thus earned her trust, they periodically use this resource for extremely effective, thanks to this trust, disinformation. During World War II, there was a radio station that the anti-fascist world listened to. She was believed to be British. It was only after the war that it became clear that in fact it was Goebbels' radio station, which worked according to the "40 by 60" principle he had developed.

Nowadays, according to this method, there are "Novaya Gazeta" and "Echo of Moscow". Both Novaya Gazeta and Ekho Moskvy, if the authorities need it, will cover what they are told. Not permanently, no. These will be single throws of information so as not to expose the resource. And the editorial staff are unable to resist this, since they are completely dependent, not to mention the editorial staff. Such resources of the authorities are necessary for them to have the authority of the independent and liberal, but from time to time they subtly participate in the general information campaign.

Today it is generally ineffective to completely prohibit alternative sources of information: people who need such information, even with a complete ban, will always be able to find new sources, which are horrible! - may turn out to be completely beyond the control of the authorities. Therefore, it is more profitable to keep in sight the pocket opposition media, where everything is in sight and under control, than to completely destroy them.

And so it turns out: when such editorial offices amuse themselves with independence, they are gaining their authority for the audience, waiting for the moment when the authority will use the gained authority. The clearest example of such use is the hysteria about the "Death Groups", thrown through the liberal opposition media and promoted by them. Throw in such information through the same, completely discredited Life or Ren TV - this effect would not have happened, because everyone would have decided that this is another overdose of these clowns. But the appearance of such a publication in the opposition media is a bomb that cannot but go unnoticed.

Depersonalization, De-face

One of the components of the well-known military technique "Dehumanization" and ordinary discrediting.

It is psychologically difficult for a person to kill his own kind, therefore, in a war, his opponent is maximally dehumanized by the nicknames “dill”, “colorada” and so on - it is easier to kill a plant or beetle than a real person.

Everyone already knows about the discrediting. The symbiosis of these two premas is depersonalization

To create a bad attitude towards a person, it is enough to deprive him of his face or such an important component of his personality as his name. Then the person will be more hostile and less compassionate on the part of the public. Since ancient times, during executions, victims were put on a sack on their heads, and during rassrels - a bandage over their eyes. This is due not at all to concern for the psychological state of the victim, but to concern for the state of the executioner: it is easier to kill a person without a face (with a bag on his head or with a bandage over his eyes) than with an open face. And the audience will thus have less compassion for the victim. This is a very interesting psychological mechanism, known since ancient times. Christians smashed pagan statues or knocked off their noses and arms. Muslims knocked Christian frescoes off the walls, scraped out their faces or eyes. The Egyptians knocked down the hieroglyphs of the name of the previous pharaoh from the historical texts. Schoolboy Petrov demands that all his friends call schoolboy Sidorov not "Sidorov", but "Pidorov" - these are all phenomena of the same order. This is all one of the manifestations of a very deep human psychological mechanism of perceiving oneself and the other, this is all part of deface. Today, by the way, civilization is more developed, so nobody's eyes are gouged out, but in the face with brilliant green - please.

Deprive a person (or any symbol) of a person or a name - and even if there are no sins behind this person, hostility towards him will appear among the most primative-minded individuals. The most striking example is the versatility of Navalny, whom the paid kremlebots call Anal, Oval, Crap, Nasral, Carnival, etc. Please note: the misrepresentation of the name is in this case the only argument against the person involved. So if you see this on the network, you can be sure: in 80 percent of cases, bots in front of you perform the task assigned to them to de-face (depersonalize) the victim.

Sacrifice

Anyone who has ever been in a limited society - at school, in the army, in a work collective - is well aware of the fact that nothing holds the team together like a victim that can be bullied and mocked. The same rule applies to such a social structure as the state.

Nothing brings two people closer together like vilifying a third. I even know how, at times, surrendering to oblivion, you get lost with someone in a narrow circle and voluptuously wash the bones of various acquaintances. Oh, nothing unites and brings closer together like this wondrous occupation. This fascinating phenomenon has been known since time immemorial,only then it wore more barbaric and savage forms: all ancient sacrifices or the medieval inquisition were built precisely on this remarkable factor of unification through the persecution of someone - for example, witches from a neighboring village in the 14th century.

Today it is more and more civilized, but in general nothing has changed: people periodically need to lower the victim on the ropes, otherwise you will become their victim. So they sit and curse on what the light is, for example, Makarevich. And if it weren't for him, they could start cursing someone else;)

Even in the most misanthropic regimes, enemies may have been shot / imprisoned, but not all. Some were left alive and free to poison, thus uniting the masses around them. The brightest examples from Stalin's times are Zoshchenko, Akhmatova or academician Nikolai Luzin. They were enemies of the people, why weren't they imprisoned / shot like the rest? So if you put everyone in prison, there will be no one to incite society. So then they left some enemies of the people.

Today it is Makarevich. And since one person cannot be used for a long time - it gets boring - from time to time society is set against other people - for example, against a certain Bozena Rynska. And I know that the persecution after her tweet about NTVoshek on the plane was completely organized and paid for by higher authorities. Individuals were also paid for organizing all these petitions demanding to revoke her citizenship.

How do I know this? It's very simple: my colleague in the advertising shop, two hours later, after the publication of that ill-fated tweet, he received an offer to prepare blogging platforms to participate in her persecution. I don’t know about Makarevich, but, being guided by what I know about the others, I would expect that the persecution of Makarevich was also initiated from above and paid for.

False quotes

Despite its simplicity, a relatively new technology that came to us from America. There, for example, it was actively used in the last elections as part of a campaign to discredit Trump. The technology is simple and uncomplicated, like the very brain of the electorate: we attribute quotes to the enemy that he did not say. And that's all. Technology is as elementary as its power is deadly! The brightest example in Russia - the same Makarevich or from more recent ones - the famous economist Vladislav Zhukovsky, who so nightmare our economy with his gloomy forecasts that we had to conduct a large-scale campaign against him from fake quotes designed to show that all his forecasts are worthless and listen to there is absolutely no need for it: +

Naturally, he never said or wrote that. Moreover, the communication style is not his: he has never used such slang in his life. But here is the piquancy of the situation - it is impossible to wash off such stuffing. Imagine: you are on the bus, and in front of you is your grandfather. And suddenly this grandfather farts so loudly at the whole salon, after which he looks at you and says: "Bring everything to me, I'm old, I am allowed!" And that's it! The whole bus is sure you farted. And it’s impossible to get out of this situation: you’ll make excuses “What are you doing! It’s not me”- will not help. It's the same here: no matter how you make excuses, everyone will nod with a malicious grin: “Yes, of course, you didn't say that! And when will you cut off the eggs?"

Big lie

Well, there is nothing to write here, I will limit myself to just a quote from Hitler:

“These gentlemen proceeded from the correct calculation that the more monstrous you lie, the sooner they will believe you. Ordinary people would rather believe big lies than small ones. This is in keeping with their primitive soul. They know that in little things they themselves are capable of lying, but they are probably ashamed to lie very much. Big lies just won't even cross their minds. That is why the masses cannot imagine that others would be capable of too monstrous lies, of too shameless perversion of facts. And even when it is explained to them that it is about a lie of monstrous proportions, they will still continue to doubt and tend to believe that there is probably some truth here. That is why virtuosos of lies and entire parties, built exclusively on lies, always resort to this method. These liars are well aware of this property of the mass. Just lie harder - let something of your lie remain."

On my own behalf, I will only add that in our days, due to the development of the Internet, any big lie will soon be exposed to no less great exposure, so the technique is used only in those moments when, in the shortest possible time, in an emergency mode, it is necessary to mobilize or use the broadest layers of the population. Those. in emergency situations, when it is necessary right HERE and NOW, without thinking about the day of tomorrow and imminent exposure. The clearest examples are concentration camps for Russians, which were built by order of Yatsenyuk (example), the introduction of sterilization of Russian women and children in Ukraine (example). This was talked about on Russian TV in all the news and even filmed entire documentaries, which were shown in prime time at a time when, in an emergency mode, it was necessary to mobilize as many people as possible to participate in the military conflict in Donbass by any means. Well, talking about the crucified boy, I think, is already bad manners. It was all Big Lies.

Absolute Evidence

For example, the stamp "86% for Putin" and other "opinion polls".

Do you doubt 86%? I also doubt it and at the same time - no. They are correct in asserting this number. 99% could have said, and they would also be close to the truth. The audience is very dynamic, and the majority of people rarely determine their opinion on political events on their own, they are guided by the environment in which they live, by their environment. These are relatives, friends, colleagues, neighbors. They argue, but all the same, a single or close to a common opinion is formed between them. They are all interdependent and interconnected in their daily relationships. So 86% can be considered a real figure. Another thing is that it is very mobile and unstable. Today it is so, but in a month it is completely different. After all, the figure of 86% was also not formed within a century or even a decade. If that were the case, it would be very stable. No, it was formed on a surge, spurred on and stimulated by the authorities through the media and sociological services, which means that it is capable of collapsing just as quickly. That is, this number is not only unsteady, but also conditional.

But in order to try to keep this number at the required level, only TV and state propaganda are not enough. Necessary incl. juggle with resources that position themselves as liberal and independent, such as, again, Echo Moskvy or Novaya Gazeta, which to this day neatly instill: “Rating - 86%! Nothing can be changed here!"

This is not true. Today the rating is clearly lower. Moreover, it is significantly lower. To understand this, it is enough to look at the results of the autumn elections, when United Russia did not get even 50% of the votes (namely, 49). United Russia and Putin are one whole! These are inseparable concepts, just like Brezhnev and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, for example. If Putin's ratings are high, then the ratings of United Russia should be similar. The past elections refute this figure.

In total then 28 million people voted for United Russia. From them we subtract the number of those regions where the turnout was more than 90% and the number of votes for United Russia was also more than 90%, because it is obvious that everyone there was forced to vote for a particular party, and this is Tyva, Tatarstan, Mordovia, Dagestan, Chechnya, Kabardino Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkess Republic and Ingushetia. This is 10, 5 million people. Officially, 90% came, i.e. 9,450,000. Of these, 90% voted for United Russia. 8, 5 million people In real elections in these regions, it is obvious that the turnout would not be 90%, but at best half, i.e. 5 millionHalf of them, at best, would vote for United Russia, i.e. 2.5 million, not 8, 5. Thus, 6 million votes can be safely taken out of the EP's piggy bank as falsified / compulsory. And now we get not 28 million people, but 22. The difference due to these regions turned out to be significant. Thus, today it can be stated that only 22 million out of 150 really support the president (and therefore his party), and the rest are either indifferent to politics (therefore they do not go to the elections), or the rest prefer other candidates, which, you must agree, how something doesn't really fit in with 86% ratings, does it?

Thus, a person gets a feeling of confidence that the majority of members of a group, a certain social community and, in particular, with which he identifies himself, accept specific values, ideas, programs, and share the proposed point of view. The appeal to “all” takes into account that people usually believe in the overcoming power and correctness of the majority opinion, and therefore, naturally, they want to be with those who make it up. There is an uncritical acceptance of the assessments, points of view, etc. stated in the message.

The illusion of absolute obviousness is based on the same human psychology, and the method is based on the famous experiment of Asch, which at one time showed that an insufficiently stubborn person under the pressure of the opinion of the absolute majority can deny the most obvious things; it is essentially an extended version of Asch's experiment.

This topic was covered in great detail in the 1971 documentary "Me and Others" (article about the film in Wikipedia).

Also, this technique has names: "Common carriage", "Common platform" or "Wagon with orchestra" (band wagon)

Black legend

Well, this is our classic: "and they lynch blacks", "and they have migrants outraged", "and they have a bad spirit", "and they have gays, and in general they rot." There is even nothing to paint here.

Propaganda needs to create for the consumer the illusion that he lives in a fairy-tale country, in contrast to the enemy who will soon simply perish. The name came from the colonial squabbles between Great Britain and Spain, when the first, all over the world, came up with such an effective way to inspire their citizens.

Playing on contrasts

An instrument of a very broad spectrum of action, a very effective mechanism. Society tends to progress, moreover, each new generation becomes a little better and smarter than the previous one, and along with this, the standard of living naturally improves (if it were not so, we would still be sitting in caves). Example: before Stalin it was worse, because the peasants were generally a wicked brute, and 90% could not read and write. So under Stalin, in spite of all the famines of the Volga region and the laws on three ears of wheat, on the whole it became better: people even received housing. Even though they are communal apartments, they are no longer huts. And then it got better under Khrushchev: there is no hunger in the Volga region, so they still do not shoot anyone. And then it got better under Gorbachev: the same deficit, the same communal apartments, but now you can still say whatever you want. And then it got better under Yeltsin, in spite of all his shoals. Although there was crime, it became possible to privatize housing, it became possible to do whatever you want. If earlier, having been born in a communal apartment, you were doomed to die in it, now you have the opportunity to buy a house or even go abroad. And then it got better under Putin: the deficit disappeared, there was less crime, and salaries were no longer delayed.

Despite the huge number of failures of the Putin and post-Putin governments, this cannot be compared with the mess of the nineties in terms of the standard of living of the average citizen. All merits for the natural process of development of society are awarded to the incumbent president, and the question is put sideways: if not he, then WHO? If not him, then we will again return to the times of Yeltsin's lawlessness, Brezhnev's deficit, etc. Guided by this very principle, we traditionally trample each new ruler in the mud of the previous one and the entire period of his reign. Lenin to Nikolasha, Stalin to Lenin, Khrushchev to Stalin, etc. Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin - they all trampled previous leaders in the mud to play on contrasts.

"Own guys" or "Playing with the common people" (plain folks)

The purpose of this technique is to try to establish a trusting relationship with the audience, as with like-minded people, on the basis that the communicator, his ideas, suggestions, statements are good, since they belong to the common people. The initiation of associative connections between the personality of the communicator and his judgments with positive values is carried out because of their nationality or his own belonging to the people, as a descendant of ordinary, ordinary people. Example: Putin, who, like a simple man, goes fishing and accidentally, like a simple man, meets simple (dummy) fishermen with varnished stumps and crystal dishes. We all remember that epic story.

Method of negative assignment groups

The technique of using this method, regardless of the content of views and ideas, is the same. In each case, it is argued that the given set of views is the only correct one. All those who share these views have some valuable qualities and in a certain sense are better than those who share others, often opposite or fundamentally different from those promoted. Simply put, it is the process of creating the illusion of elitism among people belonging to a particular group of people, because everyone wants to feel important. As you can imagine, it is precisely those who support the government that become elite. Examples: masterful genre of spirituality, god, special way of adhering to the course of the Kremlin

Promotion through mediators

This technique is based on the fact that the process of perceiving significant information and, in particular, certain values, views, ideas, assessments, is often two-stage. This means that effective informational influence on a person is often carried out not directly from the mass media, but through authoritative people who are significant to him.

This phenomenon is reflected in the two-stage communication flow model developed in the USA by Paul Lazarsfeld in the mid-1950s. In the model he proposed, the distinguished two-stage nature of the mass communication process is taken into account, firstly, as the interaction between the communicator and the authorities of the microsocial level, who are designated as “opinion leaders” or “mediators”, and secondly, as the interaction of opinion leaders or mediators with members of microsocial groups.

Informal leaders, politicians, representatives of religious confessions, cultural workers, scientists, art workers, athletes, military men, etc. can act as mediators in different situations and for different social groups and strata. Examples: Gundyaev, Zoldostanov, Okhlobystin, Monson, pop stars or aging American celebrities like Roy Jones, Mickey Rourke, Steven Seagal, who, upon their arrival in Russia, will certainly praise Putin. In the United States, it was very actively used in the last elections, when celebrities, appealing to their fans, urged to vote for Clinton and campaigned against Trump.

Distraction

A method developed by a man with the expected name - Noam Chomsky. Just to quote the master:

“Constantly divert the attention of citizens from real social problems, keeping them captivated by issues that have no real meaning. Society should be busy, busy and busy, it should never think: straight from the field - to the corral, to other animals."

Example: Hysteria with Diana Shurygina. Also for this purpose, many deputies act out the roles of outright freaks (Milonov, Fedorov): they are ordinary lightning rods, not influencing politics, but notably drawing all public attention to themselves. For example, Milonov is not even a believer - I personally saw how in a restaurant in the midst of fasting he ate a pork knuckle in the company of some of his comrades, to which he ordered two bottles of champagne and a bottle of wine, which, as we understand, is unthinkable for such orthodox, which depicts Milonov.

I'll just quote from one famous person:

“Our entire political system, and together with it the Duma, perform the only function - they distract the attention of society, showing it this political spectacle. It's like American democracy, when power is concentrated in one place, and it is played in another place.

And I would not say that such initiatives discredit our Duma. After all, the theater does not discredit if jesters play on its stage instead of kings. Such is the theater - such is the Duma. As a deputy from the first convocation, I understand very well that this is the body where the artists sit. These people are selected according to this principle. It is precisely their artistic ability, the ability to speak well, to be in public that is required of them. At the same time, no one needs deputies with a pronounced inclination to strategic thinking. Only people who have passed such a casting get into the political system, and then they win the elections.

The main task of the political system is to divert the attention of citizens from the true mechanisms of decision-making. All methods are good here, so the brighter the game, the better. If only people did not pay attention to the fact that in fact all important decisions are made in a completely different place. So that they, God forbid, would not want to understand this and would not think to influence the adoption of these decisions. Therefore, the more stupid and curious an initiative is, the more it attracts the attention of the media and the electorate, the more it will benefit.

The authors of such bills understand that they are not being created for adoption, but for the performance. Not a single such law has been adopted recently. Such is the theater - such is the Duma. A good artist, like a good deputy, is a serious person. He understands well that he is an artist, and knows well the rules by which he must play.

I think all the deputies adequately assess the degree of seriousness and importance of their initiatives. At the same time, I did not notice that my colleagues somewhere on the sidelines were boasting to each other of yet another resonant stupidity. A good artist, like a good deputy, is a serious person. He understands well that he is an artist, and knows well the rules by which he must play. Before getting into the State Duma, you have to spend 10-15 years on a political career. During this time, any person learns all the rules so well, so gets used to this role that he no longer leaves it."

Ready to catch the name of the author of this great quote? READY??? Oh, how many will be surprised now - I already froze in anticipation. Well, are you really ready? This is from an old interview, then just taking the first steps in politics … today's head of the NOD and the deputy of the United Russia Yevgeny Fedorov!

This, of course, is just a drop in the bucket. So we will probably continue.