Military Review

Propaganda - a snake biting its own tail

82
Propaganda - a snake biting its own tail

Who expects from the article to analyze the current situation in the world or News - I will disappoint. There will not even be a washing of bones for individuals - only definitions of terms and an explanation on simple analogies.


To begin with, let's define the essence of the concept. Literally the word "propaganda" can be translated from Latin as "subject to dissemination." And initially it was used in the spread of Catholicism ("congregātiō de proragandā fidē" - the name of the organization founded by the Pope in the seventeenth century to spread the faith). In modern times, this term means systematic process open dissemination in society of ideas, views and opinions. The goal is to form public opinion in relation to the subject of propaganda with subsequent appropriate actions.

The subject of propaganda can be anyone or anything: from a specific person or event, to a state system or an era. We are all an object.

It turns out that any person or organization that broadcasts an opinion in order to influence the interlocutor / opponent is a propagandist. Convinced a friend to go to the film, simply by telling the most successful moments in the film - a propagandist. I convinced my colleagues to celebrate the holiday in a restaurant, because there is good cuisine - a propagandist.

But one should not confuse propaganda with advertising, and even more so with the manipulation of consciousness. Advertising is property presentation product or service. Consciousness manipulation is way to manage actions the object to which it is directed. Agitation is a private form of political propaganda.

According to its properties, propaganda is divided into constructive (positive) and destructive (negative). If the constructive one shows the positive aspects of the idea of ​​the propagandist himself, then the destructive one demonstrates why someone else's idea is bad. In both cases, propagandists often do not disclose their minuses and other people's pluses (but more on that below). Also, do not confuse destructive propaganda with slander, disinformation and banal lies.

Forms of propaganda can be presented as purely informational (posters, brochures, books, magazines, films, works of literature) and informational and analytical materials (lectures, talks, TV programs). Propaganda channels - any channel for disseminating information.

The main advantage of propaganda is that, with successful propaganda, the subject himself makes a decision that is beneficial to the propagandist, and further defends it. The main disadvantage is that if the propagandized idea itself is weak, it will not have an impact.

Thus, the propagandist must himself be sure of the correctness of the views that he is spreading, and be able to defend them in front of the object. Often, the propagandist himself came to the idea, looking at the world around him, saw its confirmation and is firmly convinced of its correctness. Otherwise, it is not a propagandist. An entity that benefits from a lie is not a propagandist, and a lie is not propaganda, but a lie.

So why is propaganda the ouroboros of modern information warfare?

The fact is that the dissemination and further upholding of their ideas in the realities of the surrounding world is associated with going beyond this very propaganda. The propagandist is forced to take measures that discredit the idea itself or its goals. If this is not done, then the opponent will use them earlier and win. And the one who accepted his idea will defend it, and react extremely negatively to your propaganda.

And vice versa - by applying a bit of lies or understatements, your idea (undoubtedly correct) becomes dominant. And a bright future is just around the corner. But in the end you have to make excuses or influence the dissatisfied. Vicious circle. A snake devouring itself.

So we get a lot of propagandists, both from one side and from the other, who broadcast correct thoughts and reliable facts, but there is no trust in them.

In general, propaganda itself is tool!

And in whose hands it is and what purposes it serves is a completely different question.
Author:
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The popuas
    The popuas April 25 2021 15: 08
    +1
    Hmm, OK
    1. Anatole Klim
      Anatole Klim April 25 2021 15: 44
      +2
      Quote: Popuas
      Hmm, OK

      No offense to the Author, but started reading the article, thought Shpakovsky returned to his topic PR-design and PR-promotion, but the Author Gavrilov Dmitry, I wish him success hi
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 25 2021 16: 30
      +7
      Gavrilov served as Captain,
      He was obviously broadcasting ...

      laughing

      The author reminds of the lecturer from 'It was in Penkovo' - a thousand words about nothing and a conclusion that is obvious to the point of banality.
      1. The popuas
        The popuas April 25 2021 19: 31
        +1
        Here I am about the same ... hi
      2. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar April 26 2021 05: 56
        0
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Gavrilov served as Captain,
        .

        Gavrila wrote on Topvar
        So that it was in the morning for gasoline
  2. nnm
    nnm April 25 2021 15: 15
    +10
    This topic can be discussed endlessly:
    1. What are the goals of P .;
    1.1. Do they coincide with the request of the society;
    1.2. Validity of goals;
    2. Performers;
    3. Methods;
    4. Reasonableness;
    5. What to do with variation of opinions;
    6. How not to turn P into stupidity
    etc.
    Namely, a short article, it seems to me, only leads away from an important topic.
    I don't quite agree that:
    The fact is that the dissemination and further upholding of their ideas in the realities of the surrounding world are associated with going beyond this very propaganda. The propagandist is forced to take measures that discredit the idea itself or its goals.

    - can you find out how it looks like on the example of P. healthy lifestyle or the importance of education?
    1. Yura
      Yura April 25 2021 15: 53
      +1
      Quote: nnm
      - you can find out how it looks like in the example of P

      Here on the resource there are a lot of such examples, as an example, some comrades in the heat of righteous anger, for various reasons, and in some of their tasks, going too far, sometimes distorting facts, using omissions, hushing up inconvenient facts, discredit excellent ideas, adherents which are.
    2. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx April 25 2021 16: 13
      +3
      good Add from myself ...
      But one should not confuse propaganda with advertising, and even more so with the manipulation of consciousness. Advertising is a presentation of the properties of a product or service. Manipulation of consciousness is a way of controlling the actions of the object at which it is directed. Agitation is a private form of political propaganda.

      I will try to argue with you that I see propaganda as a kind of provision of information of various kinds in order to involve an object in a particular process of public life.
      Agitation - propaganda by methods of moral and material coercion.
      Advertising is no different from propaganda (this is why there are terms: advertising of a healthy lifestyle, promotion of a healthy lifestyle), except that it can bring (as opposed to propaganda) material benefits.
      Actually, the topic you raised has long been sorted out, and it makes no sense to prioritize formulations for similar processes.
      Another occupation is to expose the falsity of propaganda (agitation, advertising) and give arguments in favor of truly truthful things.
      What does this imply? Yes, only the established disinterestedness of the propagandist (agitator, advertiser).
      In general, propaganda itself is a tool!
      And in whose hands it is and what purposes it serves is a completely different question.

      It is also difficult to agree with this. Propaganda is a means of doubting the authenticity of one's own opinion, a true opinion. The tool is precisely agitation - a compulsory moral (material, physical) impact on a person based on his feelings and the instinct of self-preservation.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex April 26 2021 01: 07
        +1
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Advertising is no different from propaganda (this is why there are terms: advertising of a healthy lifestyle, promotion of a healthy lifestyle), except that it can bring (as opposed to propaganda) material benefits.

        Differs in the subject of promotion. The author simply (I don't understand why) forgot that propaganda is inextricably linked with ideology. Advocacy promotes a collection of IDEAS. The sum of thoughts.

        Advertising promotes the sum of the properties of the GOODS. I'm talking about clean advertising. Advertising is a way of doing trade within the ideology of a market economy. It's like mechanics - a section of Physics.
      2. Old Michael
        Old Michael April 30 2021 16: 43
        0
        ROSS 42:
        agitation - forced moral (material, physical) impact on a person based on his feelings and instinct of self-preservation


        The purpose of propaganda is to form the required attitude towards the subject, its perception and assessment.
        The purpose of agitation is to induce a specific deed or actions of the required direction. How this is achieved (with a stick or a carrot) seems to be secondary. Although, to call the racketeer an agitator is a great idea for you!
    3. Gardener91
      Gardener91 April 25 2021 17: 01
      +1
      Quote: nnm
      This topic can be discussed endlessly:
      1. What are the goals of P .;

      So stop. Censorship already begins here)
    4. abc_alex
      abc_alex April 26 2021 01: 02
      +1
      Quote: nnm
      1. What are the goals of P .;

      Popularization of ideology. Or promotion. Or distribution. Call the process whatever you want. But the point is precisely that a certain ideology is conveyed to the objects of propaganda.

      Quote: nnm
      1.1. Do they coincide with the request of the society;

      What kind of society? Propaganda promotes ideology. Ideology is inherent in a community. For example, the ideology of sobriety is inherent in the non-drinker community. Anti-alcohol propaganda certainly coincides with the request of the teetotal society. Your question is not correct.

      Quote: nnm
      2. Performers;

      What are the performers? Could you explain?


      Quote: nnm
      5. What to do with variation of opinions;

      Nothing. Within the framework of propaganda, there is no variation of opinion. It is the promotion of ideology as a consolidated opinion. Opinion variations exist within the framework of the competition of ideologies. Each ideology carries out its own propaganda.

      Quote: nnm
      6. How not to turn P into stupidity

      How to turn propaganda into stupidity? It is not propaganda that is dulling, but the monopoly on ideology. Simplification of ideology, its templating.

      Quote: nnm
      can you find out how it looks like in the example of P. healthy lifestyle or the importance of education?

      Easily. For example, as part of promoting a healthy lifestyle, they begin to offer you certain simulators, certain sportswear, and certain nutrition. Or, for example, they scare that every time after a meal, Sodom and Gomorrah are going on in your mouth. :)
      And by promoting the importance of education, they are promoting bank loans for education abroad.
    5. midivan
      midivan April 26 2021 06: 16
      +2
      Quote: nnm
      you can find out how it looks on the example of P. healthy lifestyle

      Quote: nnm
      or the importance of education?

      What did VVP say the other day about history books? Maybe not entirely successful examples, or maybe completely unsuccessful, but as it is. On the Russia-24 channel last week and earlier, there was a program about Tsarist Russia and WWI, which was led by a priest, the broadcast is based on a comparison of RI with post-revolutionary times and communism, the main message is that then it was better than after the 17th year, during WWI there were no groceries cards, and Nikalay 2 is a more literate "commander" than I.V. Stalin. That's why it is, why in this context? Honestly, I looked at it in fits and starts and how I got to her, maybe I did not understand everything correctly, but I think I was not mistaken. I can't say for what purpose this program was released, but the residue remained and the church for me personally became even further, such games with history will not lead to good stupid trampling on the bones and building the future on this, the future should be built looking back at the past without trampling it into mud. PS - the goal is clear, but it will have the opposite effect for many, and perhaps for most people. I am not a supporter of communism, not a tsar, if that.
  3. Hwostatij
    Hwostatij April 25 2021 15: 16
    +2
    In general, propaganda itself is a tool!

    Wash the brains with powder (c). In general, there used to be an educational program as the purpose of disseminating information. And now it's the other way around It's sad.
  4. knn54
    knn54 April 25 2021 15: 20
    0
    One of the most effective and simple ways is that I’m not good, it’s bad.
    Even among the Romans, each ruler hayal the previous one and praised the previous one, with rare exceptions.
  5. businessv
    businessv April 25 2021 15: 29
    +4
    In general, propaganda itself is a tool!
    As I understand it, in the next article we will discuss the essence of "overtone windows" without getting close to their actual use. Thanks for the article, she reminded me of the reply: "I will buy an overlock, inexpensively - at least I know what it is!" smile
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee April 25 2021 15: 36
      +12
      propaganda itself is a tool!
      The tool is in the hands of propagandists! wassat
  6. Konstantin Gogolev
    Konstantin Gogolev April 25 2021 15: 37
    +2
    In general, the role of propaganda in the world is understandable. Remember even the Crusades. It is clear that attack will be better than defense. It is even understandable that skillful manipulation of facts completely turns absolutely everything upside down.
    It would be extremely interesting to read, and even to take part in a discussion on Steven Mann's theory of controlled chaos, which (in my amateur opinion) is being used quite actively by the new administration of the White House. A lot is falling into place: the BLM, the Czech Republic, and even the recognition of the Armenian genocide. I recommend to the authors - you can dig up a lot with a sober analysis.
  7. motorized rifle
    motorized rifle April 25 2021 16: 40
    +2
    Somewhere I came across a phrase: - Real propaganda should consist of 95% of the truth and 5% of silence, there should not be any lies.
    1. Egoza
      Egoza April 25 2021 16: 46
      +1
      Quote: motorized infantryman
      - Real propaganda should consist of 95% of the truth and 5% of suppression, there should be no lies.

      Have you met this?
      1. Gardener91
        Gardener91 April 25 2021 17: 08
        0
        Quote: Egoza
        Have you met this?

        Bible)
        1. Gato
          Gato April 25 2021 17: 17
          +2
          Bible

          95% true laughing... The figure is somehow strangely correlated with Sturgeon's law that "95% of anything is complete nonsense"
          1. Gardener91
            Gardener91 April 25 2021 17: 21
            +3
            Quote: Gato
            "95% of anything

            95% is not only valuable fur, but 3-4 kg of easily digestible meat (text))
          2. Black lotos
            Black lotos April 25 2021 19: 37
            +1
            Quote: Gato
            The figure is somehow strangely correlated with Sturgeon's law that "95% of anything is complete nonsense"

            it seems not, but it can be dangerous for immature brains to read collections of fairy tales. Fairy tales have an age index for reading. Let's say Russian fairy tales are understandable even for five-year-olds, but British or Scottish ones already need a couple of three years to be perceived.
            And the biblical is much more ... especially there are fierce primitive habits of heroes.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Konstantin Gogolev
              Konstantin Gogolev April 25 2021 22: 14
              0
              Quote: Black Lotos
              Fairy tales have an age index for reading.


              Once I read an analysis of fairy tales (Kolobok, etc.) from the point of view of psychoanalysis - you learn a lot. Although the question arises about the reality of the depth of the embedded meaning, or still sucked out of the finger. But it is extremely curious.
      2. motorized rifle
        motorized rifle April 26 2021 19: 57
        0

        Fidget (Elena)
        Yesterday, 16: 46



        Have you met this?


        Of course, for example:
        "On measures to strengthen discipline and order in the Red Army and prohibit unauthorized withdrawal from combat positions" or, in common parlance, "Not a step back!" - Order No. 227 of the USSR People's Commissar for Defense I. V. Stalin of July 28, 1942.
  8. tatra
    tatra April 25 2021 16: 47
    -2
    By what we write and talk about others, we prove everything about ourselves. Is that what the enemies of the communists proved about themselves with their anti-Soviet propaganda after they seized the USSR during their Perestroika? First, that they seized the USSR for criminal purposes, and for this they slandered those from whom they took the country. If people do something for good purposes, they will never slander others for this. Secondly, that they are all pathological liars, slanderers, hypocrites, and you can never believe them in anything.
    Thirdly, that they are all enemies of their country and people, because they hate the best state for their country and people - the USSR, in comparison with the Russian Empire, and the states on the territory of the former USSR.
    1. Antonio_Mariarti
      Antonio_Mariarti April 25 2021 17: 19
      -9
      Quote: tatra
      By what we write and talk about others, we prove everything about ourselves. Is that what the enemies of the communists proved about themselves with their anti-Soviet propaganda after they seized the USSR during their Perestroika? First, that they seized the USSR for criminal purposes, and for this they slandered those from whom they took the country. If people do something for good purposes, they will never slander others for this. Secondly, that they are all pathological liars, slanderers, hypocrites, and you can never believe them in anything.
      Thirdly, that they are all enemies of their country and people, because they hate the best state for their country and people - the USSR, in comparison with the Russian Empire, and the states on the territory of the former USSR.

      the best anti-Soviet propaganda - this is what the USSR left behind. For 70 years, creating the ground for the republics to have the right to leave and lose the lands that our ancestors had been mining with sweat and blood for hundreds of years is the best illustration of the USSR.
      1. tatra
        tatra April 25 2021 18: 04
        -2
        That's what I wrote about that anti-Soviet propaganda is a lie and slander, including slanderous accusations of communists of responsibility for the dismemberment of the USSR by the enemies of the communists under the spell of "freedom and independence" on their evil anti-Soviet-Russophobic states. And if the enemies of the communists blamed for the destruction of the USSR, on the communists and their supporters, they themselves admitted that the destruction of the USSR is a crime against the country and the people.
        1. Antonio_Mariarti
          Antonio_Mariarti April 25 2021 18: 56
          -7
          Quote: tatra
          That's what I wrote about that anti-Soviet propaganda is a lie and slander, including slanderous accusations of communists of responsibility for the dismemberment of the USSR by the enemies of the communists under the spell of "freedom and independence" on their evil anti-Soviet-Russophobic states. And if the enemies of the communists blamed for the destruction of the USSR, on the communists and their supporters, they themselves admitted that the destruction of the USSR is a crime against the country and the people.

          The communists themselves - and laid down in the constitution of the USSR that the republics of the USSR have the right to secede. Or was it also the enemies laid? Wow, damned liberals, they were already in power then! Remind, how did the enemies come to power in the USSR? Yes, the collapse of the USSR is a crime against the people, but the people are to blame for calling such a power to exist. As the saying goes: we deserve the government we have. The most interesting thing is that the collapse of the USSR was predetermined back in the 60s. The dates did not coincide, the USSR collapsed earlier ...
          1. tatra
            tatra April 25 2021 19: 08
            -3
            Well, again, slander against the communists and justification of criminals who dismembered, not even just the USSR, but de facto, centuries-old Russia, and made this crime their main state holiday in all the republics of the USSR that they captured.
      2. agond
        agond April 25 2021 18: 09
        0
        Any propaganda is an artificial collection of data, the reliability of which still needs to be checked, by the way, 2500 years ago, Buddha Guatama taught - "have your own reason and your own common sense and do not take anything for granted only by virtue of traditions, even if it was highly revered by many generations and in various Do not believe anything on the basis of what many say about it Do not blindly worship the faith of the sages of the past Do not believe what you have created in your imagination, convincing yourself that it is a divine revelation Do not believe anything on the basis of your authority mentors or confessors. After research, believe only what you yourself checked and found justified, and only then agree with this your behavior. " Even any science is an artificial collection of data, including deliberately false ones, for example. Doctor of Technical Sciences Yu.S. Rybnikov specifically advised not to believe scientists and mathematicians as "they lie"
    2. zenion
      zenion April 25 2021 17: 58
      +1
      People have always convinced themselves that they are doing everything right. And when they open a source of information, they are always looking for evidence that they are right, even if that evidence is a lie. Those who have lost the country that belonged to them now say it was so necessary, because the country was falling apart, it calms them down, as if.
      1. tatra
        tatra April 25 2021 18: 08
        -1
        Ha, and those who took the country away have been whining in chorus for 30 years that they have nothing to do with the seizure of the country, and this calms them down. After all, they do not bear any responsibility for the country and the people, for everything that they have done to the country and the people for 30 years after the capture.
  9. nikvic46
    nikvic46 April 25 2021 17: 44
    +1
    Let's say there is propaganda of force. It's a good idea. But many strong people, feeling their superiority in strength, allow laziness in mental exercises. Not everyone is like Yuri Vlasov. It is approximately the same with states. The last articles raise the question, can such a statement of content be taken from China.
  10. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter April 25 2021 18: 23
    0
    Agitation and propaganda is a matter of paramount importance.
    It is especially necessary to work in terms of educating young people. Which, as it turns out in personal conversations, nicherta does not know about the history of the country. Damn me!
    A person who graduated from the FKSMT! ...
    I almost finished it!
    Brings me such rubbish ...
    That balls on the forehead climb! ...
    I do not speak for the fact that as a specialist, he is equal to zero request
    He studied for a month ... learned nothing ... From the best welder in the brigade ...
  11. bzbo
    bzbo April 25 2021 18: 26
    -6
    Literally translation of Pro (Pair) -Pagan-Da - "For the Pagans" or "As the Pagans" That is, an opinion that defended the interests of the Ancient Beliefs

    And if you go deeper, then Pag-an (Pog-an) are those for whom "The sky is closed"
    In the word AREO PAG - the closed territory of the Aryans

    And the Dorians themselves are Macedonians or those Greeks who are Russians and not Arabs or Mycenaeans believed that An-Tropos "Going to Heaven" Trail + An (sky)

    The words are old, perhaps there were no Jews yet how ours used the word Paganye for strangers

    pag [ENCLOSE] (2x: Old Babylonian, Middle Babylonian) wr. pag "to enclose, confine, CLOSED
    an [SKY] (1598x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, unknown) wr. an "sky, heaven; upper;

    aria [STEPPE] (26x: Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. a-ri-a "steppe" Akk. harbu; namû
  12. kalibr
    kalibr April 25 2021 18: 53
    0
    Actually, it would be nice to give examples, refer to some works ... In general, a difficult topic not for professionals should start with historiography and end with a list of references!
  13. evgen1221
    evgen1221 April 25 2021 19: 06
    +1
    The best propaganda is the confirmation by the deed of the propagandist and, preferably, by the propagandist who is in front.
    1. Black lotos
      Black lotos April 25 2021 19: 45
      -2
      Quote: evgen1221
      The best propaganda is the confirmation by the deed of the propagandist and, preferably, by the propagandist who is in front.

      type of healthy lifestyle propaganda?
      or aggressive propaganda of veganism?
      Or female discrimination?
      Or banning weapons ... laughing
      Unfortunately, all manipulations over us are possible only because we are animals, and our primitive organisms do not have the ability to fully resist.
      Even the superbrain is also given to us for solving animal problems, and we crawled out on it and on society.
      Thanks in part to propaganda. All states, one way or another, are tough in their propaganda.
      Even the propaganda of freedom is propaganda of the illusion of freedom.
  14. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart April 25 2021 19: 53
    -2
    Too laconic, I would even say a little dry for an Article with a capital letter.
    What are the advantages of propaganda? In the modern realities of the information society and the availability of knowledge, I do not see any advantages. All those who are drawn to something in essence, nature, interests or aspirations find it quite easily, for others, propaganda is just another information garbage like annoying advertising. Now life is overloaded with information, our life is often overloaded with emotions and accentuation that have nothing to do with us at all - in our spiritual and emotional sphere, all these agitprop tricks have long been firmly registered, making us despise, fear, hate or somehow relate to things that happen absolutely WITHOUT us, moreover, these processes are generally purple in our attitude, our authoritarian policy also, for the most part, it is violet on the attitude of the population to something (considering all these little laws, which quite characteristically show how the authorities relate to rallies and referendums). Therefore, this useless seething for the sake of useless seething is worth a penny on a market day.
    What is the harm of propaganda? Propaganda creates in people a narrow-minded complex of ideas, in which they think they begin to orient themselves. If the propaganda is large-scale and holistic, these ideas embrace an increasingly large part of the worldview of such people, at the output we have zombie patriots who are ready to throw footcloths around everything and, as a rule, very severely suffering from clashes with the real_state_of_of_of_of_of_the_of_the_of_the_the boundaries imposed on them by propaganda.
    The more such people surrounds a particular subject, the more any nonsense becomes an element of a closed reality, at the end we have such wonderful phenomena as Nazism, Polotism, Maoism, McCarthyism and other -isms. Often, rational activity based on objective factors is paralyzed or undergoes significant resistance in the context of the consequences of large-scale propaganda - for example, the large-scale propaganda of everything capitalist as "pernicious" practically ruined the economy of the USSR and forced the authorities to expand the system to NEP, subsequently, including because of propaganda, the Soviet market experienced everything these hellish torments associated with the resolution of cooperation.

    In a society with an insufficient speed of information dissemination (post-revolutionary Russia, for example), certain propaganda was valuable - yesterday's bastards were explained that they needed to wash their hands or that gonorrhea was a bad thing, but with the expansion of literacy and the network of libraries, the expansion of cinema and the quality of education, the need for such propaganda was practically disappeared, or rather so - it practically ceased to be conducted, and the state began to use this tool exclusively for the purpose of transforming consciousness and zombifying.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex April 26 2021 01: 19
      +1
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      What are the advantages of propaganda?

      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      What is the harm of propaganda?

      Not with anything. Propaganda is the way ideologies exist in society. After all, ideas cannot exist without being expressed. And the expression of ideas is already propaganda.

      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      In a society with an insufficient speed of information dissemination (post-revolutionary Russia, for example), certain propaganda was valuable - yesterday's bastards were explained that they need to wash their hands or that gonorrhea is a bad thing


      You have an extremely simplified understanding of the role of propaganda in post-revolutionary Russia. And you are totally wrong. You are confusing, propaganda is the dissemination of IDEAS, not information. Information plays a role in propaganda, but not by itself, but being filtered. And I'll tell you more, no amount of information can either downgrade or increase the importance of propaganda. To many, for example, at least as much information as possible, but they will all repeat that the USSR is keijibi and goulags.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart April 26 2021 10: 42
        -3
        A typically leftist view of things is felt immediately.
        Propaganda is not so much the dissemination of ideas as the dissemination of information with emphasis... it is through this form that one and the same dish can be served time after time on the table under the guise of different ones and either drive the eaters crazy (doublethink), or make them think "correctly" (zombie).
        Ideas are often too heavy to stuff them into an edible message, but giving information skewed in one direction or another is the very thing to create a person's "correct" ideas or reactions to things with which he often does not even interact.
        The idea of ​​"sort of like" should be formed by reverse engineering in the minds of the "propagandized", but in fact, in most cases, Augean stables are formed there, full of blind denial of things that do not fit in, xenophobia, a sense of false heroism and false superiority. In general, an extremely distorted picture of the world, with mostly inappropriate assessments of objectivity. Comparing the superficial and his life or analytical experience, a low-intellectual or naive person weeds out the contradictions that inevitably arise, and either begins to see the world like a cat in two tones, or organically gets used to doublethink. A more intellectually developed person is inevitably oppressed by the abundance of lies and the pressure of its presentation, than the system achieves his antipathy of varying severity.
        The worst thing that happened in the USSR was the fanatical desire of the authorities to make people live and breathe "according to a ruler", to exist not for themselves but for "something", to standardize them wherever the state could reach. And after all this - the fact that such a system firmly believed that with each wave to do whatever it wants, that everyone owes its grave to it.
        It was for all this game that Propaganda worked.
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex April 26 2021 13: 53
          +1
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          A typically leftist view of things is felt immediately.

          A typical higher education in the humanities is not felt? :)
          Just imagine, you are standing and listening to a person who convinces you: a wheel in a car is an extra element, no one needs it, and is imposed on the buyer against his interests. That he has been driving all his life and never used a wheel, and the modern world is developed in such a way that a car does not need a wheel at all. You think he's crazy. No, he just means by the term "wheel" not what you are. He talks about spare wheel.
          Is it strange for you? I don't.
          Now political science terms fill with meaning all and sundry. Meanwhile, there is a canonical interpretation. And only within the framework of these interpretations it is possible to understand what and how it works.

          Once again: propaganda is the promotion of ideology. Ideology is the sum of ideas that dominate in a group or society. Within the framework of ideology, there may exist what you called "information dissemination with emphasis", that is, verification and separation according to the principle of acceptability and conformity to ideology.
          If you want to call a cupboard an ideology - for God's sake, but then arguing with you does not make sense, just as it makes no sense to solve a physical problem of movement, if everyone understands their own by speed.

          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          Ideas are often too heavy to stuff them into an edible message, but giving information skewed in one direction or another is the very thing to create a person's "correct" ideas or reactions to things with which he often does not even interact.


          Truth? Idea - the operation of a transistor is described within the framework of scientific knowledge. Give you information describing the physical processes in a transistor? For comparison, what and how is it easier for you to "cram"? :)
          Ideology is not created in an "ivory tower" by one person. If it has reached the stage of propaganda, it means that it has already been "processed" by the brains of various representatives of society. This, of course, does not mean that it has become simple. For example, no matter how you simplify the theory of scientific communism within the framework of communist ideology, it will not become fully comprehensible to a peasant with 3 classes of CPSH. And no matter how much you separate information for him, it will not help you.

          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          The idea of ​​"sort of like" should be formed by reverse engineering in the minds of the "propagandized"

          :)
          I wonder how you are going to shape something that has not yet been formed? In order to form an Idea by separating information somewhere, this idea first needs to be formed at home in the head. How you will carry out the promotion of your idea is the second question. It's a matter of WAY. This is what the author is talking about:

          The fact is that the dissemination and further upholding of their ideas in the realities of the surrounding world are associated with going beyond this very propaganda.

          Propaganda is simply replaced by what goes beyond propaganda. You do not convince a person of the usefulness of your Idea, but simply lie to him. And now the lie as a means is no longer used to promote ideas, but as a professional technique, to make money.

          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          Comparing the superficial and his life or analytical experience, a low-intellectual or naive person weeds out the contradictions that inevitably arise, and either begins to see the world like a cat in two tones, or organically gets used to doublethink.


          Here I am ready to agree. For example, seeing the powerful propaganda of "liberal values" within the framework of bourgeois ideology, such a person believes that no one is imposing anything on him, but simply informs. :) And he sees the bombing of Belgrade as justified.

          Well, okay, I will not be clever. See where you are wrong. You are confusing end and means. Initially, a certain community develops an ideology. Ideology does not come up at once. It has been taking shape over the years, like an agreement between hundreds of people of different levels of income and education. Then, this group begins to promote its ideology outward, carrying out propaganda. And it is precisely the promotion of IDEAS that is propaganda. And this promotion, propaganda, can be carried out in different WAYS. Ideally, there should be a competition of ideas. Whose idea is closer to the convinced, he will win. But in real life, it all depends on the role of the propagandist. And it is he who determines the methods of propaganda. He can long and patiently explain the essence of his idea and achieve its conscious acceptance. Or it can lie, intimidate, separate information.
          But now the situation is different. Now the problem is that lies, intimidation and separation of information are no longer carried out within the framework of propaganda, but within the framework of the realization of group commercial interests. What many label as propaganda is not actually promoting ideas, but serving corporate interests.
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart April 26 2021 17: 16
            0
            Now political science terms fill with meaning all and sundry. Meanwhile, there is a canonical interpretation. And only within the framework of these interpretations it is possible to understand what and how it works.

            If we are talking about a spherical horse in a vacuum, then this is one thing, if we are talking about an existing and changing real phenomenon over time, then this is another. It doesn't matter to me what Zarathustra or Lenin said about the propaganda - we are dealing with a fully formed phenomenon of high penetrating ability that affects the minds. You can endlessly dig yourself into literalism, formulating exactly what it is, but it is understood that the issue of side effects from the use of a brainwashing complex for simplicity, called "propaganda" is its most important property, which determines the presence or absence of real propaganda and not some of its highly theoretical forms.
            In short, there is scientific communism, and there is what we observe in fact in a set of experiments - and if I'm talking about propaganda, then by analogy I mean propaganda in action and not some kind of mathematical distilled model.

            Once again: propaganda is the promotion of ideology


            You are now talking like a gopnik, for whom a banal "squeeze" is not theft but a kind of high-value process. If we take any action - who cares about what we originally intended, if the end result of what we do is something else that does not correspond to the letter or spirit of our initial planning? The "mathematical propaganda" that you are talking about, clinging to the distillate of formulations, is absolutely NOT the same phenomenon that is realized in practice - and in which SEPARATE ELEMENTS of the promoted ideology, falling into the final goal (of a person) through propaganda, are built in him in a completely random and unpredictable way, often inconsistent with the original goal that you call "promoting ideology."
            If the sower, instead of seeds, scatters individual pieces of DNA from these seeds or different amino acids from their composition, then this will be completely different from sowing. Real propaganda deals with fragmentation distribution, the result of which differs from seeding as well, as a result of the above analogy. And again - I will emphasize that I mean modern propaganda, not educational or religious propaganda of the time of the Tsar of the Peas. The more complex the phenomenon (idea), the more unpredictable the consequences of the fragmented distribution of parts of this phenomenon - in ancient times, in the case of religious propaganda, people faced this phenomenon in the form of emerging hotbeds of "heresy", when the fragmented information gathered among the adepts did not line up in the initially canonical form, without conflicting with the content / letter of the fragments.

            Ideology is not created in an "ivory tower" by one person

            Unfortunately, the 20th century will not agree with you. You can endlessly argue that everyone "brings something", but figures with colossal power in totalitarian societies or within societies with a well-built agitprop machine can do whatever they want with an idea, twisting its essence inside the form, stripping it to a completely unrecognizable state ... If the overwhelming majority of the existing idea undergoes a radical transformation - then this is actually "the creation of ideology in an ivory tower" - what Stalin did with the post-Leninist USSR, for example, what Mao did with China, what Kim Il Sung did with the DPRK is essentially a sole design from A to Z. If we take the ideology of philosophical teachings - the same Confucius "taking as a basis" some scattered rules rearranged and substantiated them as a single concept, on the scale of such work, that the influence of the "basis" is a negligible element.

            :)
            I wonder how you are going to shape something that has not yet been formed?

            And again I see your perception through the prism of a deep theoretician of Marxism-Leninism. There is a theory - there is a practice, in the reality around us there are often large and exaggerated processes, which are much talked about and which inspire, but few people ask themselves the question - is there a mechanism inside the Turk, or is it just a cunning stuff that some guy was put in there and he moves the figures.
            People often operate with abstractions, and convincing them that by cutting off a piece of foreskin or not eating pork they bring the probability of getting into the kingdom of heaven closer - this is really a thing that works ON AN EMPTY PLACE.
            Also, many processes-phenomena around us, they can exist without being complete or complete, but possessing a certain form (inside which there can be a lot of voids and the logic of a complete manual mode).
            Manual mode says - today we will promote free relations and decisions made by gatherings of soldiers! Propaganda blazes. Tomorrow the regime says - it is necessary to propagandize that promiscuity is evil, it is necessary to return the old order to the army. Propaganda is once again blamed.
            Inside an ALREADY FORMED idea, such torments would be impossible in principle, if we take the philosophical teachings of antiquity or the Torah-Koran, everything is extremely rigidly regulated there in the smallest details, and vice versa - often a modern rather shaky set of postulates can be held by periodically adjusted propaganda in the form of "at first full idea look.

            I will finish the thought with the fact that I can clearly see how differently you and I perceive the question. You look at Propaganda as a pure theoretical instrument, just as Guillotin or Oppenheimer saw their inventions as a pure instrument. But the theoretical tool and the tool used are two big differences - in the real world, as I have already noted, real propaganda as a phenomenon is a destructive tool, devoid of accuracy and "decontamination time", it is like minefields in the vastness of Kosovo or Laos, which are abundantly thrown over without thinking at all about what will happen tomorrow.
            I believe that a person with sufficient intellectual abilities in today's world can collect a package of his values ​​and build his own picture of the world from FACTUAL, unaccented material and personal experience.
            For people for whom it is not important or less intellectually developed - the side "pushing" distorts the picture of the world, gives too simple answers to complex questions and makes them wander in a labyrinth of complete dead ends and lies. This is definitely harmful.
            As a tool to counteract the disintegration of a state or society, unfortunately, propaganda is a necessary evil (probably). However, the issue of dosing this tool and the limits of its use has now completely gone out of under any reasonable control, eclipsing grains of benefit with harmful side effects.
            1. abc_alex
              abc_alex April 27 2021 12: 34
              0
              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              You look at Propaganda as a pure theoretical instrument, just as Guillotin or Oppenheimer saw their inventions as a pure instrument.

              No, I just want my interlocutor to call the wardrobe a wardrobe, and boots boots. Otherwise, we will never agree on anything. In any dispute, always, the first thing to do is to agree on definitions. You are not trying to put your own meaning into the concept of "acceleration" or "degree of number". Why, then, do you want to interpret political science terms as an individual? There is nothing "theoretical" in the classical definition of propaganda. This is a purely practical system of actions.

              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              Real propaganda as a phenomenon is a destructive tool, devoid of precision and "decontamination time", it is like minefields in the vastness of Kosovo or Laos, which are abundantly thrown over the edge, completely without thinking about what will happen tomorrow.


              You're wrong. You look at propaganda as violence against a person. And this is not the correct interpretation. Moreover, this is an imposed misinterpretation.
              Look. Any community of people has its own ideology. Even more, ideology makes a community out of individuals. Just a bunch of people, this is not a community. Community arises on the basis of some ideas. Let's say you have gathered 1000 football fans at the stadium. Leave them for a while and you will see how they are pumped up according to the principle of "who is rooting for whom", and Spartak fans will fight with Dynamo fans. :) People tend to create communities based on ideas. That is, ideology is the basis of human community. It doesn't matter if we are talking about a church choir, a breeders' club of Airedale terriers, a gang of barsetters or the state. There is no community without ideology. It falls apart without her. And propaganda is a natural property of ideology. Just as it is human to breathe, so is ideology to expand. Otherwise, she will simply die along with the first carriers. Do you understand? Advocacy is a natural action of any community. To deprive a community of the right to propagate its ideas is to deprive the community of its future. That is why communities ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE seek to suppress enemy propaganda, and the state seeks to suppress propaganda that runs counter to the interests of the ruling stratum. To deprive a human community of the possibility of propaganda means to kill its future.
              That is why there has been an active attack on the phenomena of ideology and propaganda since the 90s. At first we were convinced that ideology is a fuuuuu nightmare! Then that propaganda is gulag, keybidzhi, blood and Stalin. The attack is not against the means and methods, but against the phenomena themselves! Our society was deprived of the right to develop its own ideology (convincing that there are some universal "European values") and propaganda (convincing that it is always violence against a person). At the same time, making information attacks in the very style that upsets you so much. That is, separating information. Focusing on black and turning us away from white. And part of this attack is the substitution of concepts. When a photograph of a concentration camp is glued under the word "ideology", and empty store shelves under the word "propaganda". As a result, they create, like you, an active rejection of the very term "propaganda". Do you know what for? And so that any inconvenient idea, even yours, could be nailed down like a nail in the head with a shout of "propaganda !!!!", and you yourself would have recoiled from it. A psychological barrier is being created for you, you are being manipulated. You are already convinced that propaganda is always bad. In extreme cases, forced. Meanwhile, propaganda is natural. And when they shout to you "you are a propagandist!" you should, in theory, answer "yes, but what's wrong with that?" You have ideas and you are promoting them. Right now, in our dispute, you are promoting your ideas.

              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              I believe that a person with sufficient intellectual abilities in today's world can collect a package of his values ​​and build his own picture of the world from FACTUAL, unaccented material and personal experience.


              Immediately questions:
              1) what will you do with children, teenagers and young people. They either have no personal experience, or critically little. And children are not at all able to perceive UNprepared, not separated information.
              2) what will you do if the result of "building your picture of the world from FACTUAL, unaccented material and personal experience" becomes Nazism? He, too, did not fall from the moon to Germany in the 30s. How will you confront destructive ideologies? Than?
              3) how will you form the laws according to which the society lives? After all, the law is a codified ideology. And if you prohibit the promotion of ideology (propaganda), how do you justify the restrictions by law?
              While three, there are others. :)

              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              For people for whom it is not important or less intellectually developed - the side "pushing" distorts the picture of the world, gives too simple answers to complex questions and makes them wander in a labyrinth of complete dead ends and lies. It is definitely harmful.

              I again give you an example with the physics of a transistor. This is a very complicated process. It is practically impossible to explain it to an unprepared person. But it is possible to deliberately simplify the "picture of the world" by giving an analogy at the level of a water supply system. You will not give a complete and correct understanding, even distort the picture of the world. But a person will be able to quite consciously and correctly use a transistor for simple circuits. So, have you hurt a person?
              But the matter is even more complicated. Try to explain to a Sunni Muslim the physics of a transistor. Face a fundamental misunderstanding: he is an agnostic. He will not even perceive reliable information from you as you expect. Ideologies are different.

              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              As a tool to counteract the disintegration of a state or society, unfortunately, propaganda is a necessary evil (probably). However, the issue of dosing this tool and the limits of its use has now completely gone out of under any reasonable control, eclipsing grains of benefit with harmful side effects.


              Yes, the fact is that propaganda is not a tool. This is a form of the existence of ideology. How did Christianity begin? From the sermon. And what is a sermon, a cake is not the introduction of ideas into the consciousness of society? That is, propaganda. And what has Christianity been doing throughout its history? Missionary work. And what's that? Propaganda.
              That which disgusts you so much, as the author rightly noted, is not propaganda. There is no Idea behind the modern media press, there is no ideology. Well, do not take the same ideology to justify the right of the United States to bomb unwanted countries. Or the idea of ​​the exclusivity of the US "nation". The media press today is not just engaged in ideology, it is engaged in serving the interests of certain groups. Moreover, the interests are purely mercantile, selfish. Well, what is the idea behind the destruction of the press center in Belgrade? Only one - we are stronger, no one decree for us. Do you understand? There is no ideology there. There is simply a war. There is media pressure as part of a military operation. When at first a decision is made to use violence, and then a kind of "virtual reality" is created in which this violence is seen as justified. Is there an ideology behind the media attack on SP-2 now? Not. There is a selfish interest in the United States. And so that Russians cannot seriously resist such media attacks, since the 90s they have been hammered into their heads with hatred, contempt and disgust of the concepts of "ideology" and "propaganda", so that they despise and hate the very process of promoting ideas by organized methods, even if these ideas they are close to them. And they hammered in, by the way. For example, you are sincerely convinced that the atomization of society is a blessing. That society is not able to develop an adequate ideology, and propaganda is always violence.
              The paradox is that your contempt for propaganda is itself a product of propaganda. :)

              Let me summarize. Society is possible only around ideology. Propaganda is inherent in ideology. That is, propaganda is a natural phenomenon in any society.
              Modern media, as a rule, do not promote ideas, they serve interests.
              Being a propagandist is not ashamed or shameful, does not mean walking with your hands up to your elbows in blood and inheriting the horrors of bloody dungeons. It means promoting ideas. Your communities and those close to you.
              1. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart April 27 2021 14: 05
                0
                You are not trying to put your own meaning into the concept of "acceleration" or "degree of number". Why, then, do you want to interpret political science terms as an individual?

                Here I can give you an example with "Eugenics". Initially, Eugenics pursued very good goals - the improvement of the human breed through scientific knowledge of the last decades, the prospect of reducing suffering through reducing inheritance. diseases, etc. In other words, it existed as a kind of theoretical, good teaching. Then Adolf Aloizovich and his less brilliant American colleagues took up this theorist, and at the end we have Eugenics as a practically taboo and riveted "pseudoscience", and very few people care about its theoretical essence - thanks to the club-footed practitioners who made a slender theoretician.
                Similar to this analogy, I once again point out to you that in addition to the theoretical description of Propaganda, in which everything is good, beautiful and harmonious, there is a much greater practical implementation, and as the sins of this implementation, the theoretical definition will cause less and less interest. You are comparing social terminology with the definitions of the exact sciences - this is not particularly correct, because social processes and accents over time undergo deformations, shifts in emphasis and rethinking on the basis of successful-unsuccessful experiences (which, for example, we can observe from the state of the socialist idea today), then the terms of the exact sciences undergo much less changes due to the difference in the approach to the accuracy and application of the described concepts.

                You're wrong. You look at propaganda as violence against a person. And this is not the correct interpretation. Moreover, this is an imposed misinterpretation.

                Any system is based on violence against a person, coercion, deception, taking away a part of what has been extracted. This is the essence of the design of any system that delegates to itself any kind of exclusive authority in matters of interpersonal interactions between the participants in this system. Vasya has one point of view on something, Fedya has a different one - but since the head of Zheka, both Vasya and Fedya will be worn out, and the carriage will go further - why not violence? Zheka will prove to both of them that his point of view is the most optimal - and to come into conflict with it means to come into conflict with the "power" - in fact, this is the same projection of violence through suppression, confronting the fact.
                Here again a socialist says in you - you think that some ideas are taken from people from adherents of certain ALREADY existing trends. Well, they say, Navalny flew in and brought in some kind of aggressive false idea, concocted in Washington, in his beak. The roots of this perception grow from the initial position of the leftist currents in our country - they looked at most of the population as unwashed bastards or blind adherents of petty-bourgeois views - in general, this is the Ego in its pure form, which eventually resulted in StatePaternalism and rampant fostering with the imposition of values from the state. Why stand on ceremony with fools? If they are fools, we will civilize them, because we are smart! The Americans now adhere to a similar point of view - they believe that the world is not mature and smart enough to digest and accept their correct ideas, and therefore it is possible / necessary to cram these ideas with a tarpaulin boot into F, after all, this is a good thing, right? :)
                So, I will note that different philosophical currents of sufficient elaboration existed for millennia before the Bolsheviks, the United States and all the projectors of "truth in the first instance" - people quite themselves found the truth FOR YOURSELF and existed well in this state. They did not need a shepherd and "imposed interpretations" at all - the architecture of their philosophy was open to reflection and debate, which distinguished it from what we see now. Learn to accept that good ideas come naturally or in small groups rather than being generated by "power" or "enemies." These ideas are no worse than something mossy and warped by time. You do not like that I defend my point of view and you are trying to rub in on me that it is not mine)) For you, this is Propaganda and a certain element of an endless battle of ideologies - for me this is an episode of the formation of a picture of the world a little closer to the objective one.

                Immediately questions:
                1) what will you do with children, teenagers and young people. They either have no personal experience, or critically little. And children are not at all able to perceive UNprepared, not separated information.
                2) what will you do if the result of "building your picture of the world from FACTUAL, unaccented material and personal experience" becomes Nazism? He, too, did not fall from the moon to Germany in the 30s. How will you confront destructive ideologies? Than?
                3) how will you form the laws according to which the society lives? After all, the law is a codified ideology. And if you prohibit the promotion of ideology (propaganda), how do you justify the restrictions by law?


                1) History is the essence of a set of facts - if you approach the teaching of history as considering a set of facts - with a deepening into the most resonant at the request of those considering, then in the presence of a moral basis formed in any person from childhood in at least some religious or moral environment - people will have quite a similar picture of the historical process without the use of propaganda tricks. The facts will be perceived as the consequences and consequences of correct or incorrect (from the point of view of the width of the event horizon) decisions - depending on this, everyone will form a point of view, close to an objective one, about whether this or that policy, this or that state figure was effective. etc.
                Over time, a more or less inquisitive person will accumulate a sufficient number of examples of actions-consequences so that he begins to INDEPENDENTLY understand the state is in full swing in his career or we are on the rise. Those who do not learn to understand this on their own - for that it is not an important element or part of existence.
                In nature and in the material world, the concepts of "good / bad", "successful / unsuccessful" "effective / ineffective" are quite specific concepts on which you live tomorrow or you were eaten. These concepts are applicable to our reality and are increasingly distorted by agitprop for tactical reasons.

                2) The chance that the result will be Nazism or fascism or communism - within a single individual or a group of individuals is absolutely equal for the emergence of any other system of views. Within society as a whole, unhealthy currents take over only when there is a prolonged and unhealthy environment that strengthens these currents. Otherwise, these currents coexist with many others and their life or extinction directly depends on the totality of efficiency parameters relative to others. All this is like in evolution - the environment sets the parameters, and whoever adapts to them better is the winner. Regardless of my or your desire, in the case of ideal conditions in any environment, even if there will be red pipers on every house and everyone will know all the songs of the Second World War from an early age - fascism may arise. It will arise with a high degree of probability in every subordinate point in space and, having reached a high degree of saturation, will acquire a "leader" - neither propaganda nor the huge KGB staff will protect against this. A good analogy is the collapse of the USSR - the colossal resources of agitprop and the system of suppression did not in the least prevent the maturation of the petty-bourgeois counter-revolution BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS EXISTED FOR A LONG TIME.
                Thus, a healthy climate and maximum competition of ideas based on a healthy compromise between morality and pragmatics (as two related things) is the best defense of any system from evil. Much better than propaganda.
                3) The law must be UNDERSTANDED, moreover, it must be INTUITIVELY UNDERSTANDED. Moreover, it should be JUSTIFIED as accurately and clearly as possible. Departures from these simple principles are observed the greater, the greater the interest in the robbery of the individual and / or murky activities the state has.
                In some information-laden areas, the use of JUSTIFIED amendments and additions is acceptable.
                The laws of peaceful coexistence have long been formed - these are not God knows what rules that are intuitive enough for the most part. It is quite possible to refine them to the level of simple and understandable laws and, in turn, adapt these laws for all spheres of activity.
                I am a supporter of instilling in people from childhood the rules of interaction with each other - in the case of methodical activity in this area, the issues of "gray zones" between legislation and morality will decrease, which will allow creating the best laws possible.
                1. abc_alex
                  abc_alex April 27 2021 15: 42
                  +1
                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  Here I can give you an example with "Eugenics". .... worries - thanks to the club-footed practitioners who dirtied the harmonious theoretician.


                  I quote:
                  “In my practice, there was one large family from Samara who suffered from hereditary motor-sensory neuropathy (HMSN). This disease is unpleasant, but not fatal. The first symptoms appear in childhood, by the age of sixty the patient is already in a wheelchair. fifteen years to determine the gene that causes the disease.The molecular cause of the disease was established in 2015. Six early prenatal diagnostics have already been carried out for different branches of this family.Unfortunately, not all with a favorable prognosis. In this case, the pregnancy is terminated. These people gave birth to healthy children. Imagine, five generations of the family suffered from HMS, and their descendants will no longer have this mutation ", - says Olga Shchagina, a doctor - laboratory geneticist.


                  There is no denial of eugenics as a scientifically substantiated change in the human genome, and there cannot be. It's just that at the level of mass consciousness, the term "eugenics" was filled with negative, not characteristic of it content. Therefore, it is now being replaced by terms such as "genetic engineering".
                  By the way, Hitler and chemistry with physics were far from being used for humanitarian purposes. There is no desire to fill these terms with new content?


                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  You are comparing social terminology with the definitions of the exact sciences - this is not particularly correct, because social processes and accents undergo deformations over time ... then the terms of the exact sciences undergo much less changes due to the difference in the approach to the accuracy and application of the described concepts.

                  Because technical terms are much less prone to vulgarization at the everyday level. Few would dare to argue with an expert in nuclear physics about the content of the term "thermonuclear fusion". For example, filling it with the unambiguous content "death, blood, end of civilization." So? You would not dare to call a nuclear physicist a scoundrel and a scoundrel because he is an expert in thermonuclear fusion, simply because you interpret this term in your own way. But political science terms, for certain reasons, are interpreted by all and sundry. That is why they "change", although in reality their interpretation is no more flexible than the description of the process of exchange of the tempo in physics.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  Here again the socialist says in you - you think that some ideas are taken from people from adherents of certain ALREADY existing trends

                  Where did you read that from me? Don't make it up for me. I say very clearly that ideas are a product of society, community. This is a product of collective creativity, if you will, communist phraseology. But, yes, ideologies do not arise from scratch. And they are always based on something.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  The roots of this perception grow from the initial position of the leftist currents in our country.

                  Here you are fundamentally wrong, but now I will not comment on this, we will go far away, from the topic. I just want to say that what I am telling you does not apply to the left or the right. This is the basis for the development of society in general, regardless of Nazism, Libertarianism, Catholicism or communism.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  people quite found the truth for themselves and existed well in this state

                  Exactly! That's what I'm talking about - ideology is a property of SOCIETY. People do not need to be forced to create an ideology, they do it themselves, within the framework of socialization. You think of a specific "ism" as an ideology. This is not the case. This is fundamentally different.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  Learn to accept that good ideas come naturally or in small groups rather than being generated by "power" or "enemies."

                  I wrote this to you in different words 5 times already :) I don't have to learn to admit it, I know it. How did you manage not to read this? :)

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  You do not like that I defend my point of view and you are trying to rub me in that she is not mine


                  Oh, how you understand everything ... Strange. Well, how can I tell you so that you don't stand up again ... I basically don't care what you think. I don’t know you, you don’t influence my life, and therefore I don’t feel emotions for you. I see that you are wrong and your error is not unique. And I try to explain exactly where you are going wrong. I do not even discuss your point of view, I ignore your anti-communism and diligent attempts to pin the "crimes of the bloody regime" on me :). You have taken up political science, but you stubbornly refuse to use its terminology correctly. In my opinion, this is strange.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  History is essentially a collection of facts - if you approach history teaching as a collection of facts ...

                  ... you cannot teach it. Since the volume of veils in the history of mankind is so great that your students will simply drown in them. Anytime, anywhere, teaching History begins with the philosophy of history, the logical framework of the course. For example, you were taught within the framework of formation theory and historical materialism. And so far, no one has proposed any more harmonious philosophical framework.
                  But that's not even the point. And the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the facts of history are not suitable for teaching. Can you imagine what will happen in the head of a 5th grade student if he is taught ancient history in an unseparated and unprocessed form? Is this how it is? Do you understand that the ethics of the ancient world is deeply opposed to the modern one? But okay, I'm not going to pedagogy.
                  For example, remember the Marathon battle? From the 5th grade textbook. Have you ever seen its full description? Take an interest. Will deliver.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  The facts will be perceived as the consequences and consequences of correct or incorrect (from the point of view of the width of the event horizon) decisions - depending on this, everyone will form a point of view, close to an objective one, about whether this or that policy, this or that state figure was effective. etc.

                  No, they will not do. Because to create causal relationships in the volume of unformalized data, you need abstract thinking. And it is formed (this is developmental psychology and the psychology of cognition) only in late adolescence. That is, until the age of 15-16, you will simply, against the wishes of the children, hammer facts that they do not need into their heads, which they will actively ignore.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  In nature and in the material world, the concepts of "good / bad" "successful / unsuccessful" "effective / ineffective" are quite specific concepts

                  Yes. But society is not nature. In nature, devouring the weak and forcing the female is a sign of success and efficiency. In society, it is a crime.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  Regardless of my or your desire, in the case of ideal conditions in any environment, even if there will be red pipers on every house and everyone will know all the songs of the Second World War from an early age - fascism may arise


                  By the way, you again, apparently, are not using the term correctly. I was talking about Nazism. Fascism is another political ideology.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  The law must be UNDERSTANDED, moreover, it must be INTUITIVELY UNDERSTANDED. Moreover, it should be JUSTIFIED as accurately and clearly as possible.

                  +5! And even +10. Now try to explain for yourself in which case the law will be understandable and justified to you. Is it not if it matches your views on, for example, justice? Your ideology. And if you do not understand the law, you probably want to convey your point of view, your ideology to others? That is, you will be engaged in propaganda. And you probably won't like it if this attempt is met with hatred simply because your opponents were brought up to hate the word "propaganda" and are ready to spit on anyone who will be branded with this word. So?
                  1. Knell wardenheart
                    Knell wardenheart April 27 2021 16: 57
                    0
                    I will not skate kilometers of text again - even though our discussion is quite interesting, but there is zero practical benefit, because everything around will remain unchanged, and you and I, as we have been on established positions, will remain on them.
                    I will go through as laconically as possible, to the minimum.
                    You do not deny the negativization of the term "Eugenics" and you yourself admit that a rebranding of these ideas was needed, but at the same time you deliberately do not want to separate theoretical propaganda and propaganda as an existing and harmful phenomenon. The very propaganda whose godfather is still Goebbels and not Coubertin - for you it is still a "tool" free from superficial, and, apparently, this is how you will see it, unlike me. I have seen and see a systematic and disgustingly directed use of this tool, which does not give the slightest hope that this destructive tendency will change. For me, he is "de facto" just like that, and in this case, the theoretician is purple.

                    Nevertheless, you strive to equate political science terms with the terms of the exact sciences, which is funny in itself.

                    Where did you read that from me? Do not invent for me

                    It was a direct conclusion from your lunge
                    You're wrong. You look at propaganda as violence against a person. And this is not the correct interpretation. Moreover, this is an imposed misinterpretation.

                    In all the variety of information and opportunities that surround us, you immediately concluded that your interlocutor dragged it off someone's desk and did not come to it in his own way.

                    Exactly! That's what I'm talking about - ideology is a property of SOCIETY

                    Society historically held on to PROFIT, however, over time, incompetent losers who fell into power and did not want to be directly responsible for their personal shoals began to hide behind a variety of openwork constructions, with which they eventually learned to justify anything. This is what you call "ideology" - a complex of imposed notions that sophisticatedly substantiate why we are bad, but at the same time "not bad" and our neighbors are good, but at the same time seem to be not, but do not draw constructive conclusions from this ...

                    I wrote this to you in different words 5 times already :) I don't have to learn to admit it, I know it. How did you manage not to read this? :)

                    However, your logic runs counter to this - you reason through the concept of "true / false", that is, you consider emerging ideas through the prism of the already established ones, like some kind of childish self-indulgence. And propaganda for you is a means of managing this pampering in the interests of "real things" on which "society, the state and other super mega cool things" are based.
                    That is, roughly speaking, there is your position and there is a wrong position, this is your root postulate.


                    You have taken up political science, but you stubbornly refuse to use its terminology correctly

                    Once again, you have a poor understanding of the difference between the exact and the humanities. I can only breathe for this.


                    ... you cannot teach it. Since the volume of veils in the history of mankind is so great that your students will simply drown in them

                    You know how I mastered it. The important thing is that you quickly learn to separate from all the garbage if you work with large volumes of material. Your derogatory attitude towards the abilities of children and adolescents quite harmoniously exists within your idea of ​​state paternalism. That is why I turned my attention to the left-sidedness of your views. For you, this is an unshakable axiom, which you do not doubt as any fanatic.


                    No, they will not do. Since to create causal relationships in the volume of unformalized data, you need abstract thinking

                    A child already playing with sand cakes knows very well what is "effective / ineffective". The morality that surrounds us from childhood and the ability to empathize and put oneself in the place of others, which is characteristic of normal people, without developmental delays, also contributes to the fact that the child already UNDERSTAND the degree of effectiveness and as a result of the justification of certain events. Has the result been achieved that is comparable to the cost? Why hasn't it been achieved? Is it better than yesterday - and if so, why? This is the main question that history should pose - past and present. School history does not usually ask this question, focusing on secondary factors and unimportant detailing. If we consider the overly infantile, greenhouse children of our time, perhaps yes, they will not master it. But if we look at how history was taught in antiquity or how it is taught at the highest level - how it was taught to the children of kings or nobles, then this is another story, and not some kind of ersatz built on memorizing details.


                    Yes. But society is not nature. In nature, devouring the weak and forcing the female is a sign of success and efficiency. In society - a crime

                    And human society in this respect is no different from nature except sophistication. "Crime" is a consequence of a lack of sophistication, nothing more.

                    even if there will be red beads on every house and everyone will know all the songs of the Great Patriotic War from an early age - fascism may arise

                    You missed the example, mistaking it for distorting your thought. Above or below what is written, I divided the terms fascism and Nazism.

                    Now try to explain yourself in which case the law will be understandable and justified to you.

                    It's simpler than simple - if it will be explained to me how I will interfere with the implementation of the rights of another real person, within conventionally neutral boundaries, by exercising my right.

                    Isn't it if it matches your views on, for example, justice?

                    "Justice" is an abstraction, in itself the separation of this term and the law comes from the distortion of laws by the state, from selfish desires that have nothing to do with the effective solution of contradictions between real people. It is the separation of "justice" and "legality" that indicates the imperfection of the state of laws and morality relative to each other, their distance from the real state of affairs and problems and a bias towards abstraction and virtualization of sufficiently material objects / subjects of law.


                    And if you do not understand the law, you probably want to convey your point of view, your ideology to others?

                    Sooner or later, the overload of third-party and superficial systems does not lead to the desire to "convey one's point of view to others" but to the collapse and restart of such systems. In the absence of effective institutions for "communicating one's point of view" within society, this process is only accelerating. Opposing it is the same as opposing the laws of physics - it only leads to greater dependence on them in the end and greater effectiveness of the collapse.
                    There is a state of the system that is useless to repair - in my opinion, we exist in such a system and it regresses. So no, I have no particular desire to "inform" anyone, anything. Putting it all together because I have a certain passion for precision, detail, and getting closer to perfection.
                    1. abc_alex
                      abc_alex April 27 2021 18: 42
                      +1
                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      I will not skate kilometers of text again - even though our discussion is quite interesting, but there is zero practical benefit, because everything around will remain unchanged, and you and I, as we have been on established positions, will remain on them.



                      Let's do it this way. I understand you. I disagree with you. Unfortunately, you lack abstract thinking. You are tied tightly to one single historical period and geographic point and do not want to abandon this tie. If you want to continue the argument, try to abandon this binding, otherwise you will endlessly repeat "gulag, keijibi, KPSS". Understand that the USSR as a society, as a state, did not invent anything new, it developed within the framework of the classical laws of the development of society. These laws are inherent and manifested in ALL countries of the world including the USA and all European countries. If you agree to admit this fact, let's argue further. Perhaps then we will come to understand the methods of propaganda and dividing them into permissible and not permissible. And let's move on to an analysis of what is happening in the media environment now. Otherwise, well, really, I'm talking about 2021, and you about 1971. :)

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      Nevertheless, you strive to equate political science terms with the terms of the exact sciences, which is funny in itself.


                      Are you a techie? They alone have this squeamish disregard for the terminology of the humanities. :) And so techies endlessly generate strange theories and doctrines that can only surprise.
                      By the way, the most "humanitarian" of all the "exact" sciences is mathematics. But for some reason it does not occur to you to freely interpret mathematical terms.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      In all the variety of information and opportunities that surround us, you immediately concluded that your interlocutor dragged it off someone's desk and did not come to it in his own way.


                      Not. I just pointed out that this paradigm is artificially introduced into our ideological field. This does not at all exclude the fact that you came to her yourself.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      Society historically held on to PROFIT, however, over time, incompetent losers who fell into power and did not want to be directly responsible for their personal shoals began to hide behind a variety of openwork constructions, with which they eventually learned to justify anything


                      No community will emerge from benefit. Because the benefit is always individual and momentary. And sooner or later it leads to violence. Because the easiest way to get a benefit is coercion.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      Your derogatory attitude towards the abilities of children and adolescents quite harmoniously exists within your idea of ​​state paternalism.


                      This is not my attitude. These are the sciences of developmental psychology, developmental neurophysiology, and the section "Age characteristics" in the theory of knowledge. There is no connection with state paternalism here.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      A child already playing with sand cakes knows very well what is "effective / ineffective". Morality that has surrounded us since childhood and the ability to empathize and put oneself in the shoes of others, which is inherent in normal people


                      Now try to compare your highlighted text with your own denial of the development of ideas on the basis of the previous ones.

                      Now about the children. Not me. Specialists:
                      I start the conversation with a familiar and even stereotypical question: "How can children - with a minimum of life experience - be so hard-hearted? .."

                      “Are these baby souls clean? - the psychotherapist with twenty years of experience, Yaroslav Kustormin, is surprised. “Maybe you’ll also say that they are cherubim in the flesh?” I am a psychotherapist with great experience, but I avoid working with schoolchildren and adolescents. I will say more - I am afraid of them. They are all extremely aggressive, some constructive, some destructive. Sometimes their “murderous” energy is directed at the neighbor. Crime tabloids are full of reports of teenage crimes, characterized by phenomenal cruelty.

                      “Let's talk about child cruelty and its causes,” says child psychologist Marina Zvyagintseva, “child aggression can be of two“ types ”- fragmented and stable. The first is manifested in the unexpected actions of the child, which is generally not typical of aggressive behavior. ... everything is clear here: six to seven years is a turning point. The child learns to observe himself from the outside, he is already building someone out of himself. But he does it extremely awkwardly: he saw somewhere this or that pattern of behavior and tried it on for himself. Usually at such a moment we see interest in his eyes: what will happen if I do this and that? With the help of aggressive antics, children sometimes define the boundaries of what is permissible for themselves.


                      Earnestly? About the ability to empathize.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      A child already playing with sand cakes knows very well what is "effective / ineffective".


                      Yes, as far as Easter cakes are concerned. But he can no longer transfer this experience to making pies. There is not enough abstraction layer. A well-known fact. Therefore, for example, children are taught to write and draw separately.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      That is, roughly speaking, there is your position and there is a wrong position, this is your root postulate.

                      Nothing like this. You will break away from your attachment of ideology and propaganda to political repression in the USSR. And finally understand that they are inherent in ANY society. Anyone in general.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      This is the main question that history should pose - past and present.


                      Not. History as a science poses one question: why? She studies the laws of the historical development of society. And whether it has become better or worse is sometimes simply impossible to assess.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      You know how I mastered it. The important thing is that you quickly learn to separate from all the garbage if you work with large volumes of material.

                      You, like most techies, simply do not see the horizons of historical facts. You do not work in archives; as a rule, even from special literature you read only the "recommended" ones. You don't even know what an insignificant array of historical facts is now involved in "mass circulation" :) Even historians can hardly imagine this within the framework of other people's directions. :)

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      And human society in this respect is no different from nature except sophistication. "Crime" is a consequence of a lack of sophistication, nothing more.


                      Fundamentally different. At least by the fact that human society protects the weak, postulating violence against the strong. That natural communities are generally alien.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      You missed the example, mistaking it for distorting your thought. Above or below what is written, I divided the terms fascism and Nazism.


                      No, I just did not comment on your idea. The point is that no ideology can prevent the emergence of others. Ideas are generally immortal. And therefore did not begin to write anything in essence of the phrase.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      It's simpler than simple - if it will be explained to me how I will interfere with the implementation of the rights of another real person, within conventionally neutral boundaries, by exercising my right.


                      BUT! So you still need to explain. :) Even if you don't want to? Or only if you ask for it yourself? It’s just that the law doesn’t care about your awareness, you know.

                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      in itself, the separation of this term and the law comes from the distortion of laws by the state


                      Are you also an anarchist? :)
                  2. Knell wardenheart
                    Knell wardenheart April 27 2021 16: 58
                    -1
                    That is, you will be engaged in propaganda

                    Finding the NATURAL laws of effective and conflict-free relationships between people is not propaganda, just like building a social model and laws for it on the basis of these laws. The development of any qualitative processes began with this - collecting information, separating successful and unsuccessful actions, analyzing, isolating patterns and forming a logical picture of causes / effects. A community interacting according to the laws of a greater degree of perfection will have the advantage of a relatively less perfect one and, due to convection, will carry out expansion without propaganda.


                    this attempt will be greeted with hatred simply because your opponents are brought up to hate the word "propaganda" and are willing to spit on anyone who is branded with this word. So?

                    Hatred and witticism are instruments of pressure, acceleration of reaction and coercion - it is not entirely clear to me what interest a more perfect community will have from "forcing" the functionaries of a less perfect community to something. If you mean the reaction to malicious activity on the part of representatives of a less perfect community, then a natural reaction here will be quite natural, I apologize for the tautology.
                    Earlier, you emphasized that the "talking head" is not responsible for what it says - but if this activity is harmful, the picture changes, and a paradox arises - or we have the possibility of criminal activity with damage, but without responsibility for this, or the propagandist bears the same measure of responsibility for causing damage as anyone who causes damage.
              2. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart April 27 2021 14: 35
                0
                I again give you an example with the physics of a transistor. This is a very complicated process. It is practically impossible to explain it to an unprepared person.

                Even very complex things are often explained using simple life / material analogies. It is simply that the explainer often experiences an unhealthy disgust for "primitive" naturalism and approximate analogies. However, this creates an additional vector of comprehension, which increases the productivity of intellectual construction and adds motivation to research and understanding. The human mind is like water - as soon as it gropes for a crack, it is much more willing to try to penetrate where it moves.
                Then we again come to the dividing line between your position and mine - you believe that you SHOULD involve those who DO NOT NEED. Based on this or that conjuncture and some third-party factors. So, I think that a person has the right to figure out what he NEEDS and what DOES NOT. This is what is called the right of the individual. If an adherent of the Mormon church NEEDS to understand the structure of a computer, if HE WANTS it, then a priori he will be ready to open his brains for a new one. And if not, then you at least draw a comic for him, it will be empty.

                Yes, the fact is that propaganda is not a tool. This is a form of existence of ideology. How did Christianity begin? From the sermon

                The difference is that you come to the sermon, and you are free to listen to it or pass by. Be a Christian or be a Jew or be a Pastafarian or whatever. But when, let's say, Christianity breaks at your door and MAKES you to drag your skinny butt to baptize children or go to church every Sunday - this is already the worst consequence of propaganda. And this is just the same instrument of subordination.
                Because the idea in the complex begins to possess tools for FORCING you to certain actions, appealing to this or that. So you can be driven on a crusade, for example. Or make them pay tithing. Or make them go and kick the Huguenots. And many many others.
                My "contempt for propaganda" is justified by the fact that I live in the information era - I have the opportunity to dig into the area of ​​interest to me almost as deeply as I want and get enough factual information, on the basis of which I myself can form my OWN attitude to the issue, as well as an unambiguous understanding that it is IMPORTANT for me or NOT IMPORTANT.
                I do not need simple answers to questions that are unimportant to me from people whose intellectual and aesthetic level I despise (I'm talking about propagandists now, of course), but regular intersection with the consequences of propaganda of something - either Soviet, Russian, or American - I frankly terrify. Because this is the essence of low-intellectual fast food, but in no way an element of enlightenment or expanding the boundaries of the personality in any form.

                Let me summarize. Society is possible only around ideology

                Wrong. Society may well exist within the framework of philosophy - Buddhism as an "ideology" does not exist and is impossible, but as a philosophy it offers its adherents the freedom to search in a sufficiently soft framework if they WANT this search.
                In contrast to Buddhism, there is, for example, Judaism - a completely different trend, whose adherents also created a completely original civilization.
                You think that everyone needs to screw on a bunch of game so that he works like a cog in a well-oiled clock mechanism - but this is not at all the case. The first civilizations and states completely existed for themselves without ideology, the United States as a state for itself a solid piece of its history existed without ideology, content with an insignificant share of those rules (in terms of volume) that we now use as a kind of "integral attribute of order."

                That is, propaganda is a natural phenomenon in any society.

                Not at all. Propaganda is an inalienable instrument of violence and standardization imposed from above aimed at something. Freely disseminated ideas are fundamentally different from propaganda through approaches to dissemination, aggressiveness and principally no alternative.

                Being a propagandist is not ashamed or shameful, does not mean walking with your hands up to your elbows in blood and inheriting the horrors of bloody dungeons. It means promoting ideas. Your communities and those close to you.

                Do you think that being a "talking head" is not a shame and not a shame? How can you be responsible for processes in which you are not involved? For processes in which your decision does not bother anyone and your task is only to announce what others have indicated? It's unnatural, right. Even in family life, discord and misunderstanding arise between loved ones, how can you BELIEVE that the "talking head" is 100% in solidarity with the decisions made in such a huge system as the state? And if one day she does not agree - so what? Does this person have the RIGHT to say - huntsman, party, are you driving in the wrong direction?) No. It turns out that there is no right, there is no participation, there is only the compulsion to say what you said. Great choice !
                Do you know what is the sweetest? Such a person can always turn around and say "what am I? I just (an actor, an announcer, a performer - substitute what is needed), shed a tear, say that he was green, and that personally he did not burn anyone in the ovens and did not burn Isn't that cynicism? When you are a candy wrapper of the system, but bribes are smooth from you!
                No, no respect in principle.
                1. abc_alex
                  abc_alex April 27 2021 17: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  Then we again come to the dividing line between your position and mine - you believe that you SHOULD involve those who DO NOT NEED.

                  Well, you came up with it again for me, I didn’t say that. You again attribute to me the apologetics of violence. :) Although, in fact, you yourself mean this violence.

                  Tell me, how, how are you going to socialize individuals who "do not need"? You understand that if you do not convince those "who do not need", you will have to FORCE them. Otherwise, those who do not need will simply disagree with your laws. The choice is not great: either a perceived necessity, or an imposed one. You are either obeying the law by conviction, or you are being forced by the force of fear. :)

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  So, I think that a person has the right to figure out what he NEEDS and what DOES NOT. This is what is called the right of the individual.

                  The individual's right to what? There is the right to freedom of speech, conscience, assembly, election, vote. What right of the individual do you defend? The right to think? The right to choose? And what? Ideologies? Well, well, there is a society and the dominant ideology in it, within which the state has written a code of laws. And there is someone ITSELF who decided that NO, he does not need it. What to do with it? If not persuade?

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  If an adherent of the Mormon church NEEDS to understand the structure of a computer, if HE WANTS it, then a priori he will be ready to open his brains for a new one. And if not, then at least draw a comic for him, it will be empty.

                  This is yes. But what does propaganda have to do with it? Have you described the classic pedagogical problem. I told you right away that you are confusing the processes of transferring knowledge and transferring ideas. Knowledge transfer is learning. It can be part of propaganda: schooling, for example, can be part of the propaganda of a scientific materialistic worldview. It may not be. For example, vocational training for adults. The problem you described will always be relevant.
                  You still understand the terminology, otherwise you have the truth, everything is confused, you can't figure it out.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  Wrong. Society may well exist within the framework of philosophy - Buddhism as an "ideology" does not exist and is impossible, but as a philosophy it offers its adherents the freedom to search in a sufficiently soft framework if they WANT this search.

                  Hmm ... Well, what can I say ... If you continue to fill political and philosophical terms with your own content, you will soon cease to be understood at all. :)
                  Understanding. Philosophy is science. Branch of human knowledge. Like physics or chemistry. And like any science, philosophy is created artificially. Another thing is that philosophy is the science of cognition, and it lies at the root of all other sciences, developing the instruments of other sciences.
                  Ideology is a NATURAL system of views and ideas around which a society is formed. Do you understand? A stable community is formed only around ideology. Otherwise, it falls apart.
                  The process is as follows: a community, society is formed around some system of values, ideas and views (ideology). At a certain stage of its development, ideology can be transformed into religion. Or maybe not. In turn, at a certain moment of society, the social stratum of scientists is separated from society, who, within the framework of the existing ideology of society, create a science of cognition - philosophy. And then applied sciences are being created.
                  Do you understand how absurd you have written? And let's not get into Buddhism, like any other religion deeply. I disagree with you, but not in relation to Buddhism, but in relation to the fact that you have confused causes and effects.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  The difference is that you come to the sermon, and you are free to listen to it or pass by. Be a Christian or be a Jew or be a Pastafarian or whatever. But when, let's say, Christianity breaks at your door and MAKES you to drag your skinny butt to baptize children or go to church every Sunday - this is already the worst consequence of propaganda. And this is just the same instrument of subordination.

                  It was, there was a time, not just pounding at the door, it was breaking these doors. Even in lands far from. And it demanded an ultimatum. And even religious wars were fought over the preaching. And for the sermon, it used to be driven by force. There was a time when it was generally impossible to exist outside of Christian dogma. And the fact that Christianity has now weakened to the point of impotence does not make it something unique and out of the ordinary. Now this ideology simply has few followers, but there was a time and all of Europe was the ideological dictatorship of the papal throne.
                  And what you wrote "To be a Christian or to be a Jew or to be a Pastafarian or whatever ..." is a product of the ideology of bourgeois liberalism. Which, too, did not spread in Europe with buns.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  Not at all. Propaganda is an inalienable instrument of violence and standardization imposed from above aimed at something. Freely disseminated ideas are fundamentally different from propaganda through approaches to dissemination, aggressiveness and principally no alternative.


                  Well, you see, I told you about this. You have already laid down a solid system for yourself and if you are told that someone is engaged in propaganda, you will reflexively consider him "an integral instrument of violence and standardization imposed from above directed for something." Meanwhile, scientific knowledge was also promoted in due time. And universal literacy. And sanitary knowledge. And even the need for vaccinations. The latter is especially so. Organized, purposefully, by the forces of the state.

                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  Do you think that being a "talking head" is not a shame and not a shame? How can you be responsible for processes in which you do not participate? For processes in which your decision does not bother anyone and your task is only to announce what others have indicated


                  Exactly. You have already formed the image of a propagandist. Strongly negative. But what if a propagandist for liberal values ​​drowns? European. Is he a shameful talking head too? He does not form these values, he is not involved in them. :) Or are you just scoundrels who promote certain ideas on certain media resources? But then be consistent - declare "shameful talking heads" all who promote ideas in the formation of which he did not participate. For example, a lecturer promotes the theory of lithospheric plates to students. What a shameful talking head! :)
                  1. Knell wardenheart
                    Knell wardenheart April 27 2021 18: 50
                    -1
                    Tell me, how, how are you going to socialize individuals who "do not need"?

                    You are now voicing the main question of your approach "how to transform someone there?" - Why transform someone at all? As already mentioned, I am a supporter of teaching the basics of interaction between people from childhood in the form of a completely serious discipline, extremely naturalistic. This is not some kind of leadership training, but the development of a culture of interaction. If this approach is correctly implemented, there will be much less misunderstanding and conflicts among the members of such a community - and an excellent point of view will not be an obstacle to the implementation of collective activities, because the principles of the formation of such activities will become an element of culture similar to basic things - how to brush your teeth or not write past toilet bowl. Within the boundaries of an activity, screenings will be similar to safety screenings. Outside the boundaries of activity, the issues of material incentives have an exhaustive function in the issue of correct observance of the rules WHERE IT IS IMPORTANT. And this is important where critical dependence comes from it. So if a person likes "not to be like everyone else," he can be different and think not like everyone else, where this will not harm efficiency.
                    Since any community (healthy) has dynamics, the provision of a high degree of freedom for useful activities within a single community will contribute to the rapprochement of similar individuals, and the establishment of a common basic culture of interaction based on scientific and pedagogical knowledge will provide an appropriate level of understanding and reduction of inevitable tensions.

                    You understand that if you do not convince those "who do not need", you will have to FORCE them

                    Market relations have not been canceled. If a "wrong thinking" person is able to generate a useful product that is in demand, then let him generate and live from it. Market laws will put everything in its place.

                    Otherwise, those who do not need will simply disagree with your laws.

                    Those who disagree within an effectively organized activity, having the opportunity to live and think as they like and have a piece of bread, usually do not show destructive motives. If you mean illegal actions or opposition to order, then as a rule this comes from the inability of a person to realize himself -> which in turn stems from a low culture of building relationships.

                    You are either obeying the law by conviction, or you are being forced by the force of fear. :)

                    Here it is, the leftist logic of 0 and 1. Either-or. Leftists usually ignore the potential of the gray zone and, as a result, it ruins all their endeavors.
                    You are now arguing from the point of view of totalitarian regimes that firmly believe that a person can be forced to do / observe any game by the force of fear or brainwashing. In fact, people trample ant paths and gnaw many holes in such a "cheese", and the system oozes and falls over time. Because one cannot go against the laws of physics, the more the laws go against human nature, the more destructive the system experiences.

                    And there is someone ITSELF who decided that NO, he does not need it. What to do with it? If not persuade?

                    Give him the opportunity to do something useful that he can / wants to do and at the same time DO NOT TOUCH HIS BRAINS AND IDEALS.
                    It's soooo easy! The market will put everything in its place.

                    You have described a classic pedagogical problem. I told you right away that you are confusing the processes of transferring knowledge and transferring ideas.

                    An idea imposed from above is an alien element, knowledge is an element demanded by the thirst for this knowledge. Mormons, Buddhists, Christians preach in your city - each in their own territory. You know about them and if you are interested, go and participate. If you are tired - send them and go somewhere else. OR some of these confessions decided that you need to be involved by all means, just because there are a lot of adherents around you. This is a blind, bureaucratic approach in general, and it is of no use either to you or to real faith if it is interested in adherents close in spirit and not some dudes for show. Here, the IDEOLOGY of which you are talking stands on this shaky ground when most of its participants are just "dudes for show" who quite vaguely understand what is where and how, despite all the efforts of the bronze pipes and drums. And here is the question - if most of the society is INERT, why are you so afraid of lack of spirituality and it seems to you that everything will collapse without this "Rod"? But most of the society is inert - no matter how hard the CPSU tried in the USSR, the Communists were not even a third of the population, not to mention how many of these "communists" were people of ideals "at the peak of their numbers." That state was terrified of "saboteurs" and therefore hyperactively drove people at least in any way important under the ideological heel, instead of giving them the opportunity for everyone to do what they liked, harmless and useful.

                    Frankly speaking, it is unpleasant for me to discuss with you. You constantly use the leftist worldview soaked in dust, I seem to be talking with the chairman of the local cell of the Communist Party. You do not like my wording - what are you ready to bring your own, YOURS? Nothing. You pour out manuals and clichés. So this is all a vivid answer to the topic “why do we live in an imperfect world” - because any constructive activity or planning or “dialogue” with people like you always turned from “brainstorming” into rubbing pants a la the later of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Enjoy the sad picture of your perception of things, a world where people obey the laws because of "fear", where you need to brainwash and impose ideology. Maybe someday it will come to you that the system built on what you are talking about has already collapsed into dust once - and that this is a direct consequence of the ineffectiveness of this approach.
    2. kalibr
      kalibr April 26 2021 06: 17
      -2
      Knell Wardenheart (Knell) How well you wrote!
      abc_alex (Alexey) And you, Alexei, wrote badly ... "that the USSR is a keijibi and goulagz" Because if you put it in a barrel of honey, then all its value is nullified. So in the USSR all good things were nullified for all bad !.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex April 26 2021 13: 54
        +2
        abc_alex (Alexey) And you, Alexei, wrote badly ... "that the USSR is a keijibi and goulagz" Because if you put it in a barrel of honey, then all its value is nullified. So in the USSR, all the good things were reset to all the bad ones!. [/ Quote]
        Wouldn't it bother you to point out the barrels of "pure honey"?
        1. kalibr
          kalibr April 26 2021 15: 22
          -2
          Quote: abc_alex
          Wouldn't it bother you to point out the barrels of "pure honey"?

          Logically, there are none at all. But ... sometimes there is a lot of shit in honey, and sometimes there is little and it is not noticeable. We had a lot! However, what is there to write. After reading your commentary and this article, I wrote material about the communist agitators of the 80s and how they worked for the good of the USSR. Everything on documents from the archives. In a row, she is the fifth on moderation ... so count, when it comes out, first the first, then the second. Read everything yourself, see how it worked from the inside.
          1. abc_alex
            abc_alex April 27 2021 03: 20
            +1
            Quote: kalibr
            Logically, they do not exist at all. But ... sometimes there is a lot of shit in honey, and sometimes there is little and it is not noticeable. We had a lot! However, what is there to write.

            By the logic of things, fooling social processes to the level of "seranut in a barrel" is in itself shit in honey.
            And I remind you that our barrel is practically refined. We did not burn witches at the stake, did not destroy the indigenous population of the territories and did not drive them into reservations, did not invent the end. camps, did not burn people in ovens in an industrial way. And most importantly, we have never found something like an enthusiastic excuse. And where "not with us", the most monstrous atrocities have already been justified more than once.
            1. kalibr
              kalibr April 27 2021 08: 19
              -2
              Quote: abc_alex
              And I remind you that our barrel is practically refined. We did not burn witches at the stake, did not destroy the indigenous population of the territories and did not drive them into reservations, did not invent the end. camps, did not burn people in ovens in an industrial way. And most importantly, we have never found something like an enthusiastic excuse. And where "not with us", the most monstrous atrocities have already been justified more than once.

              You don't know history well. They burned witches, sorcerers, and Old Believers. The most famous execution is the burning of Archpriest Avvakum in Pustozersk. We had a concentration camp in Penza. Type in "Lenin and the concentration camps" - a lot of interesting things. And not only in Penza. ... Yes, we didn’t come up with them. But they used it very actively. They did not burn in the ovens, but people died from cannibalism, and in large numbers. Nazinskaya tragedy, if that ... The Vertuhais were given prizes for the murder during the escape. And they tried ... The indigenous population of the North and Siberia was drunk with terrible force. So the difference is not that big ... And if it was worse somewhere, then you don't have to justify your own shit with that.
              1. abc_alex
                abc_alex April 27 2021 11: 17
                +2
                Quote: kalibr
                Quote: abc_alex
                And I remind you that our barrel is practically refined. We did not burn witches at the stake, did not destroy the indigenous population of the territories and did not drive them into reservations, did not invent the end. camps, did not burn people in ovens in an industrial way. And most importantly, we have never found something like an enthusiastic excuse. And where "not with us", the most monstrous atrocities have already been justified more than once.

                You don't know history well. They burned witches, sorcerers, and Old Believers. The most famous execution is the burning of Archpriest Avvakum in Pustozersk. We had a concentration camp in Penza. Type in "Lenin and the concentration camps" - a lot of interesting things. And not only in Penza. ... Yes, we didn’t come up with them. But they used it very actively. They did not burn in the ovens, but people died from cannibalism, and in large numbers. Nazinskaya tragedy, if that ... The Vertuhais were given prizes for the murder during the escape. And they tried ... The indigenous population of the North and Siberia was drunk with terrible force. So the difference is not that big ... And if it was worse somewhere, then you don't have to justify your own shit with that.

                Everything, I understand, you live in a country of victorious totalitarianism and cannibalism, the whole history of which is blood and dirt. I hope you have the strength to get to the Castle on the Hill, where a representative of some gender will hand you a pass to a world without pain.
                1. kalibr
                  kalibr April 27 2021 11: 34
                  -1
                  And you live in a past full of illusions, the whole history of which is blood and dirt, and also total deception, a world of mediocrity and cunning ... deceivers. And it is clear that the state built on this collapsed. And I don’t need to get to the Castle. I already live in it. Everything is there, without "getting it", everything is possible "without cronyism", where you want you can go, order a room in a 4+ hotel in the middle of Paris ... This is not your equal for everyone ... for a scoop!
                  1. abc_alex
                    abc_alex April 27 2021 13: 13
                    +2
                    Quote: kalibr
                    And you live in a past full of illusions, the whole history of which is blood and dirt, and also total deception, a world of mediocrity and cunning ... deceivers. And it is clear that the state built on this collapsed. And I don’t need to get to the Castle. I already live in it. Everything is there, without "getting it", everything is possible "without cronyism", where you want you can go, order a room in a 4+ hotel in the middle of Paris ... This is not your equal for everyone ... for a scoop!

                    :) Still not going to fight with the commissars? Moreover, now it is no longer scary, they are all dead, and the monuments will not be returned. :)
                    Calm down, book yourself a room in Paris, eat a croissant or whatever you have enough money for, and just calm down. The terms "ideology" and "propaganda" were coined long before you were born, and long before the rise of the USSR. If you are an ignoramus, then you will remain an ignorance even in the center of Paris and no anti-communism will justify your ignorance.
                    1. kalibr
                      kalibr April 27 2021 14: 01
                      -1
                      It’s you ignoramus! And according to my textbooks students of PR, advertising and journalism study all over the country. And the commissars, unfortunately, are by no means dead. There are still quite a few of them. And we need to point them to their place in the dustbin of history so that they do not return. Fools greedy for promises of everything free are enough even now.
                      1. abc_alex
                        abc_alex April 27 2021 18: 48
                        +1
                        Quote: kalibr
                        It’s you ignoramus! And according to my textbooks students of PR, advertising and journalism study all over the country. And the commissars, unfortunately, are by no means dead. There are still quite a few of them. And we need to point them to their place in the dustbin of history so that they do not return. Fools greedy for promises of everything free are enough even now.


                        Well, if the modern level of journalism is your merit, then there is nothing to be proud of. I certainly would not write about it like this, with pathos.
                        And there are enough fools everywhere, you are right, and they are greedy for anything.
                      2. kalibr
                        kalibr April 27 2021 19: 41
                        0
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        Well, if the modern level of journalism is your merit, then there is nothing to be proud of. I would definitely not write about it like this

                        Why are you not satisfied with the modern level of journalism? You think of yourself as an intellectual who understands everything, right? Although he does not know that Archpriest Avvakum was burned ... Well, you should know that we work for 80% of the population, and the opinion of 20% does not even particularly interest us. And what we do sells well, and is bought, excellent, and people like it. We create the opinion that ... is required. I have a wonderful book "Technologies of Public Opinion Management" - there are a lot of examples. You will remember Pushkin: "... and she feeds on fables!" So nothing has changed! But even fables need to be able to write well.
  • Titsen
    Titsen April 25 2021 20: 50
    +2
    Quote: Popuas
    Hmm, OK


    The article is about nothing!
    1. KSVK
      KSVK April 25 2021 21: 16
      +1
      Quote: Titsen

      The article is about nothing!


      Absolutely. In addition, the author contradicts himself:

      Convinced a friend to go to the film, simply by telling the most successful moments in the film - a propagandist. I convinced my colleagues to celebrate the holiday in a restaurant, because there is good cuisine - a propagandist.

      Is not it:

      Consciousness manipulation is way to control object actionsto which it is directed.
      ?
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex April 26 2021 01: 26
        +1
        Quote: KSVK
        Is not it:

        Not quite.
        Belief is an appeal to reason. To the conscious.
        And manipulation of consciousness is an impact on an unconscious level.
        1. kalibr
          kalibr April 26 2021 06: 23
          -1
          Quote: abc_alex
          And manipulation of consciousness is an impact on an unconscious level.

          Not only! I have a book "Technologies of Public Opinion Management" (a textbook for universities, publishing house Infra-Engineering) there about it in detail and much more interesting than in ... this material.
          1. abc_alex
            abc_alex April 26 2021 14: 42
            0
            Quote: kalibr
            Quote: abc_alex
            And manipulation of consciousness is an impact on an unconscious level.

            Not only! I have a book "Technologies of Public Opinion Management" (a textbook for universities, publishing house Infra-Engineering) there about it in detail and much more interesting than in ... this material.

            I agree. The article is not very interesting. But you must admit that no one will ever allow themselves to be manipulated deliberately. :) Any technologies for managing public opinion work until the mechanism of these technologies is disclosed.
            1. kalibr
              kalibr April 26 2021 15: 16
              +1
              You are right, of course. But there is a saying: Ah, it is not difficult to deceive me, I myself am glad to be deceived. I did a lot of interesting experiments with the students in the city ... so I know what I'm talking about. And others too. I here once wrote about "Ivanov, who sent his wife to Bulgaria." There was an article about elections on how it works.
  • Per se.
    Per se. April 26 2021 09: 29
    0
    In general, propaganda itself is a tool!
    Propaganda, if we move on to comparisons and analogies, a product that is created with the MASTER tool. This is how we get the product, and this will be the influence of propaganda. We were outplayed by political swindlers, demagogues and scoundrels, the Soviet Union fell largely due to the fact that the West turned out to be stronger in propaganda, agitation and advertising.

    Lenin spoke about the most important of the arts, and here Hollywood won, including in the "conquest" of the moon.
    Although the truth was behind the Soviet regime, and common sense was behind socialism, but, as in Butusov's "Last Letter", about America, "We were taught for so long to love your forbidden fruits" ...

    Nevertheless, sooner or later everything secret becomes clear, at least now the masks have been thrown off, the sheep skins of "democracy" too. To see the true face of the victorious "democracy", it was necessary to compare and see the truth, including all those who adhered to the party and betrayed the idea of ​​renegades.
    The fact that we were deceived, so after "Once lied, who will believe you?" This is where false propaganda devours itself, not the truth.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr April 26 2021 15: 18
      0
      Quote: Per se.
      The West turned out to be stronger in propaganda, agitation and advertising.

      And also in economics and the ability to respond to the challenges of the time.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. April 27 2021 13: 26
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        And also in economics and the ability to respond to the challenges of the time.
        If the West had not replenished the base of its world economic pyramid at the expense of the republics of the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe, the leader of capitalism would have had a new great depression.

        Thank you for your attention, but in the superiority of the West, I am not your associate.
        1. kalibr
          kalibr April 27 2021 13: 56
          0
          Quote: Per se.
          If the West had not replenished the base of its world economic pyramid at the expense of the republics of the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe

          Smart people shouted at the stupid ones, no one told them to give in!
          1. Per se.
            Per se. April 27 2021 14: 12
            +2
            Maybe the vile ones deceived the honest ones? Although, if you remember about "not NATO expansion," really the same Gorbachev did not understand anything ... The problem is not only and not so much in political cheating, but in the very betrayal of our leadership, the same Mikhail Sergeevich. Indicative are also such "communists" as the conspirators from Belovezhskaya Pushcha, led by Yeltsin, who betrayed the party and disgraced Russia.

            Now, stick your finger, you won't miss, the renegades of the party in new positions, in business and at the trough. How were they communists? There will be a new wind, these weathercocks and capitalism will hand over their rotten ones.
            You are clearly not a stupid person, you must understand that civilization does not have a bright future under the Anglo-Saxons, COVID 19 flowers, berries are ahead. It is not for me and not for you to decide what will happen, but changes are inevitable, and what they will be, with essentially agonizing capitalism, ready for any crime, time will tell. Either the end of humanity, under a handful of sick on the head of ghouls, or it is necessary to build our earthly civilization regardless of their billions, and their moral pathologies.
            1. kalibr
              kalibr April 27 2021 14: 36
              0
              Quote: Per se.
              vile deceived honest

              Honesty in politics is synonymous with stupidity!
              1. Per se.
                Per se. April 28 2021 06: 50
                +1
                Quote: kalibr
                Honesty in politics is synonymous with stupidity!
                Yes, yes - "politics is a dirty business", but dirty politics is done by dirty politicians. With the same success, according to your logic, honesty will be the lot of fools in trade, you have to make "candy" out of any shit, buy cheaper, sell more expensive. This is the whole point of profit, to cheat suckers - "holy cause".
                You have traveled all over Europe since 2013, great. We must understand that if it arrived in one place, then it decreased in another, everyone cannot be at the top of the pyramid, there will always be a top and a base. Your beautiful Anglo-Saxons robbed, robbed half the world, at first England dragged everything to the metropolis, now their overseas miscarriage, the USA. Thanks to the likes of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, the Central Bank of Russia under the IMF and the Fed, and on TV, money is collected for children for operations as alms. The oligarchs, who have become intoxicated, live beautifully in Russia, no worse than your London dandies.

                We, you say, have no decent people, but there are solid gentlemen? Now in the United States, whites apologize to blacks, LGBT people are welcomed everywhere, and, already at the official level, at the US Embassy even their flag should be hung next to their mattress. So, soon they will apologize to homosexuals. These tolerant "values" are being imposed on the whole world, at the same time tightening the screws of the former social concessions that were forced to be made in the face of the fear of the victory of socialism.

                "Dress for the Weather"? Probably, according to this logic, under the Reds you will be communists, under the Whites you will be a monarchist, and under the Browns you will be a Nazi? It is convenient for someone in the world to be a semblance of helminths, parasites are always warm and at someone else's expense, but a normal person will not envy their well-fed life. To each his own, I just expressed my opinion, and thanks for the dialogue. Good luck.
            2. kalibr
              kalibr April 27 2021 14: 40
              -2
              Quote: Per se.
              under essentially agonizing capitalism,

              Have you ever been to the countries of "moribund capitalism"? And since 2013 I have traveled all over Europe. They live beautifully! Everything that they write to us is 80% or more of a lie, beneficial to those who, as before ... are stupid, stupid, and poorly educated and chosen the same way. That is, the flesh of the "people's" flesh.
            3. kalibr
              kalibr April 27 2021 14: 41
              -2
              Quote: Per se.
              There will be a new wind, these weathercocks and capitalism will hand over their rotten ones.

              And they will do the right thing. You need to dress for the weather! The main thing is to be alive.
            4. kalibr
              kalibr April 27 2021 14: 42
              0
              Quote: Per se.
              civilization does not have a bright future under the Anglo-Saxons,

              Do you know at least one Anglo-Saxon? All my acquaintances Anglo-Saxons are very worthy people, which cannot be said about every second acquaintance here. And it seems like they are not movers, right? Also ... candidates of sciences, doctors ... But ... many have no mind or imagination, they are stupid, envious, and moral qualities are below the plinth. "Intellectual elite" - ugh!
  • fa2998
    fa2998 April 27 2021 06: 07
    0
    Quote: Egoza
    Quote: motorized infantryman
    - Real propaganda should consist of 95% of the truth and 5% of suppression, there should be no lies.

    Have you met this?

    Yes, literally every day, including TV! Well, for example. In some society there is a social stratification into rich and poor. There are overweight officials, and their "friends" are breaking records for wealth. Propaganda, for the sake of the "elite" will recount all the incomes of the elite for the entire population strany.I will report in the news- "the salary of Russians is steadily growing-35,46,51 thousand per month. Hurray !! hi hi