Propaganda: The End of the Common World

Only with excellent propaganda did it succeed
Convince millions,
That the expansion of the armed forces is simply a work of peace...
The more propaganda there is in our country
The little everything else is.

Bertolt Brecht [1]

Nothing good is offered to average people by war. All they'll experience is pain, suffering and misery. They will lose loved ones, homes, and surely their lives will be completely degraded to an degree that is frequently hard to imagine in times of peace. That's why most of them think it's the worst that can happen. How, then, does it happen that at a time of confusion and uplifted tensions, people begin to support or at least lose their will and energy to defy it? How does it happen that, while no 1 sensible wants war, fresh ones proceed to erupt?

The answer to that question is both simple and uneasy. Simple, due to the fact that it is known that the people are led to war by propaganda, which governments and their institutions launch when, for their well-known reasons, they join or want to join the war. It's alternatively mysterious why it works all time with specified terrifying efficiency. Why this lesson no human group can do erstwhile and for all and get vaccinated with a war fever virus. Today, erstwhile there is simply a war going on across the east border, it is hard to avoid the impression that most of the Polish public would like to decision it to us. Observing this war-hardening in the statements of politicians, comments by journalists and experts, on social media profiles, and even on the walls of buildings and roadside billboards can sometimes give you dizziness. We are already inside, we are already going to the abyss convinced – as always – that the sun of triumph shines there.

In order to research the mysterious effectiveness of war propaganda, we request to look at its basic principles, analyse the detailed mechanisms by which it poisons the reasoning of individuals and groups. In this context, Anne Morelli’s book “Basic Principles of War Propaganda” (Princepes élémentaires de propaganda de guerre) published for the first time in 2001 will be a good basis for this exercise. The Belgian historian formulates 10 basic rhetorical tricks that are useful for the ruling to “sell” citizens a certain imagination of the world. utilizing simple historical examples, the author illustrates further techniques showing that war propaganda does not have national colours or cultural limitations – it occurs around everywhere in a akin form.

Before I proceed to the discussion of further principles described by Morelli, I would like to formulate my own meta-rule or a zero rule.

It's an unwritten expression that propaganda says before it tries to get us to do any peculiar thing. I don't think we have propaganda.

For apparent reasons, it is good to give an example of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Even before February 24, 2022, Polish media began to inform against the impending collapse of Russian propaganda, which was to inform the military invasion. specified signals themselves, of course, had a propaganda dimension and had to be read as a prediction of the launch of “our” war propaganda. For example, late held at the University of Adelaide research into the online activities of the bot army during the ongoing conflict, showed a decisive advantage of automated posts on the proukrain side. The belief in society that propaganda is always ‘foreign’, ‘miracle’ and that it belongs only to the enemy is the first task of propaganda. And the success of this step is the success of all others. The first regulation of war propaganda mentioned by Anne Morelli is:

We don't want a war.

All parties to modern conflicts come to them convincing them that they are doing this against their own will and under compulsion, from which they were incapable to free themselves by another means. Even Hitler and Ribbentrop declared in 1939 that they were forced into war by provocations of Poles [2]. As Morelli's book was created in direct succession NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999The historian besides states how the countries of the alliance vowed to do so under duress. More – they bomb the country in the name of peace. This pattern repeated in subsequent Western military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria. The same is actual in Ukraine, where all parties are in favour of peace, which they do not want to negociate for.

Second rule: Only the another side is liable for the war

That's the logical consequence of regulation one. Each camp presents its participation in the war as a consequence to the aggression of the opponent, as a essential defense. This even applies to a situation where we are faced with a “preventive war” or a blow that preempts a larger conflict or an enemy attack. In another words, it is justified to have your own actual aggression by more or little hypothetical another aggression. Moreover, this future possible attack must be portrayed as a threat so large that it obscures the work for the decision to attack. According to propaganda, we are always active in the fight against extremist evil.

In the Cold War era, the American public debate continually created a sense of danger of “settle” by the enemy, who had to be held back (the celebrated doctrine of containment) all the time, wherever his tracks were. Hence violent military interventions or coups in global countries The South was presented as de facto combating the increasing power of russian communism. As shortly as the USSR fell, its place immediately had to be filled with a fresh figure of permanent danger. global terrorism was a large candidate for the invisible enemy, and publications specified as Samuel Huntington's "Flashes of Civilization" prepared the ground for surviving the reality as a large conflict of unconciliable forces at stake in the future of the full world.

The consequence of this rule is the request to continually disrupt the proportion of events and to make any local conflict a global event. As Morelli recalls, the invasion of Iraq in Kuwait in 1990 was presented as "a challenge for the global community", something that should besides be attentive to countries that have no interests in this place.

However, the propaganda of war hates neutrality, which we find clearly present erstwhile the war in Ukraine functions as a conflict for Europe as a full and even the future of the world.

Even if in this case the destiny of the global order is indeed at stake – although not necessarily for reasons popularized by the native mainstream media – it is characteristic to constantly mention American and European politicians to the “world” which allegedly stood entirely on the side of Ukraine and condemned Russia's aggression. However, the fact is completely different, and this "world" actually includes 13% of the global population surviving in the US, Canada, Europe and respective allied countries. Everything else is neutral in this conflict or someway supports Russia. The answer to the question of why this would require a separate text.

It is besides worth noting that in this war everyone officially defends himself. Russia defends itself against the threat of NATO expansion; Europe defends itself against invasion of its territory by imperial Russia rebuilding the USSR; Ukraine defends its own independency and even existence, while the US defends the planet of values against authoritarianism. In each of these narratives you can find a pinch of propaganda discourse, although this does not mean that they are complementary to each other. However, careful analysis of developments over the past year – those rather authentic alternatively than those taking place in the propaganda “land of witchcraft” – can easy be seen the discrepancy between the authoritative discourse and the appropriate stakes and interests in this wartime game.

Rule three: The enemy has the face of the devil

Here we are already dealing with propaganda in a clean state, or with a language manipulating the emotions and imagination of a full-scale society. "It is essential to diabolize the leader of the enemy, to present him as a monster which must be immediately overthrown, the last of the dinosaurs, the madman, the barbarian, the hellish criminal, the butcher, the opponent of peace, the enemy of humanity, the monster...". Let us remember that the goal of war propaganda is to evoke and keep hatred for the another side, and the easiest way to do so by personification. Therefore, an enemy camp must be headed by individual who alone is liable for the horrors of war, and if only it had been removed, everything would have returned to normal. However, this second fact rapidly disappears from sight erstwhile it turns out that the leader of the opposing camp embodies in a pure form the attributes absolutely attributed to the full community.

World War I propaganda poster

During planet War I, the Entent countries portrayed German Kaiser as the incarnation of the devil so that this imagined figure justified hatred against all Germans. erstwhile “Hitlerosevic” was threatened during the war in Yugoslavia, it was to blame the conflict in the Balkans only for the Serbs. This is besides the case today: Putler – a madman who pursues an imaginary imagination of the Empire – is an excuse to yet despise all Russians. Their treatment in Western countries demonstrates how rapidly it is possible to teach Europeans the hard rules of national hatred and reasoning in terms of collective responsibility. In this case, the war in Ukraine should be charged with Russianism as such, all its past and culture. This would have been plausible if it had not been for the strategy of this communicative repeating step by step the regulation utilized in the past.

In this context, Hitler's long shadow cast upon propaganda all time a society needs to be justified in its accession to war. Hitler was 1 by 1 all leaders of countries that, to 1 or another, and in different dimensions, resisted the politics of the American empire. any even – like Muammar Gaddafi – returned to grace respective times to yet turn into dangerous monsters again. And what Hitler represents – we know. The eventual evil, which is not spoken to, which is not the way—or even the right way—to understand, which any subtler analysis is an insult to humanity. Hitler is drawn out to silence any voices that might argue propaganda. This besides applies to another historical parallels, whose burden is to perpetuate the pre-imposed script of knowing the present and its pre-described roles.

This rule of propaganda functions as a kind of negative cult of the individual acting besides purifyingly on “our” politicians. all monster is opposed to a savior whose qualities become as infantilely unambiguous as the enemy leader. If we look at the methods of portraying Putin and Zelenski in today's media messages, we can easy see a simple opposition, in concrete forms the conflict of Good with Evil from superhero films. This kind of opposition, cleansed of any elements of politics and history, and even washed out of cognition of the actuality and isolated from the critical analysis of their individual decisions, is the essence of propaganda. nevertheless long it may seem, remember how easy propaganda can reverse its message by 100 degrees.

Before Zelenski, as the fresh “leader of the free world” (let's say better: the vice leader replacing the local president of the United States) was featured on the cover of “Time” as a man of the year, he was besides included in Putin.

Rule four: We defend the right cause, not the peculiar interests

This is simply a very crucial component of propaganda machinery, due to the fact that it is liable for the uplifting of the war, which tells the public to permanently skip the discussion of its actual stakes. And this 1 could convince any and not others. As long as it is simply a general and best shared principle, you can believe that no 1 will ask if it is worth it. If you are already utilizing the language of interest in this context, it is always the interests of the public, the full nation, ba – the global community. You can never admit that this is simply a business de facto a very narrow group of people who enrich themselves with wars or their concrete results.

The “right cause” is simply a smokescreen in which all undesirable facts and embarrassing circumstances disappear. erstwhile it comes to defending global order from Saddam Hussein as a fresh Hitler, it is not worth discussing that Kuwait cannot represent democracy in any conscious mind. Since we are fighting a fresh Hitler in Serbia, we do not gotta wonder how many mujahideen are fighting in the Bosnian ranks, or why we have just considered the Kosovo Liberation Army as a terrorist organization. And erstwhile we effort to overthrow another Hitler in Syria, it is even good that “Al-Qaeda is on our side”, as the celebrated proclaims Jake Sullivan’s words from an email intercepted by Wikileaks to Hillary Clinton. Isn't it encouraging that in Ukraine present Sullivan is fighting another incarnation of a cruel monster?

We're just fighting by chance about values and rules in these places, where there are rich natural deposits or where the leaders decided not to comply with our economical recipes. Morelli gives here 1 of many examples of how selfless NATO bombs were dropped for 3 months 1999 in Yugoslavia: the destroyed Zastava car mill in Kragujevac took over Daewoo after a fewer months. Of course there are more specified “accidents”, not only in that conflict.

An interesting splash of this rule is utilized present very frequently the concept whataboutism. It means to escape an uncomfortable subject or question by changing the subject of the conversation or a counter-question. In the case of war propaganda, however, specified a procedure is necessary. erstwhile we hear that the U.S. defends an global law-based order in Ukraine and the rule of national sovereignty, the question of what this country was doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, and what it is inactive doing in Syria, Yemen or Somalia is not whataboutism. It's a self-disclosure of hypocrisy and a blow to the propaganda balloon. No wonder this is most common with a harsh reaction and various kinds of accusations. After all, propaganda is not about facilitating discussion.

Rule Five: Enemy knowingly uses cruel means; we only make unwanted mistakes

According to propaganda, there is no specified thing as the mistakes of the another side. It's always a conscious strategy. We make mistakes due to the fact that our strategy is morally justified and faithful to the restrictions imposed by global law. The improvement of this rule is of all kinds atrocity propaganda, which may sometimes go so far as to apply genuine cruelty under the false flag (false flags), i.e. it fakes crimes committed by the another organization to usage them to build support or justify the escalation of its own attacks. Propaganda is here to convince you that in the war terrible things only do them, not us. common accusations of cruelty are an inverted reflection of what is actually happening in war or common cruelty. They are a linguistic tool for displacing the reality of war from universal consciousness.

As Morelli points out, this kind of message has always existed in European wars. For example, the hands of Belgian children, who were supposedly cut off by German soldiers during planet War I, had an different career. The children’s subject is common here, due to the fact that the suffering of innocent victims always gives emergence to the most vivid emotions. A spectacular example of this kind of propaganda was the evidence of the Girl Nayirah al-Sabah before the American legislature in 1990, in which she argued that she witnessed Iraqi soldiers throwing newborns out of incubators in local hospitals. A minute later, however, it turned out that she was not the survivor of the exile massacre, but the daughter of the Kuwait Ambassador to the United States and that her totally fictional evidence was prepared on order of the government by Hill & Knowlton's drinking company.

If you believe in war propaganda, there is always a confrontation of honorary knights with barbarians on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the fact is much more frightening: in all conflict, most parties commit cruel and illegal acts.

This does not equal guilt or responsibility, but makes us abandon the infantile stories of the moral superiority of “our” over “them”. All accusations of genocide, cultural cleansing, mass crimes and rape must besides be treated with caution, due to the fact that in war conditions there is necessarily no way to analyse them independently. The communicative is full of examples of akin reports falsified or yet proven only after years.

We operate without censorship. We don't advertise, we don't charge for texts. We request your support. Throw yourself in the media.

Rule six: The enemy uses a prohibited weapon

It's actually an extension of the erstwhile regulation with all its implications. All parties to the conflict have an interest in charging the another organization with the usage of chemical weapons, civilian fire or another illegal global warfare. Given the conditions under which specified revelations appear, it must be acknowledged, as in the case of atrocity propaganda – that nothing should be accepted for religion (i.e. propaganda), but unfortunately nothing can be excluded.

There has not yet been a war in the planet that has not been crossed by the law of borders generally. Among another things, 1 must do everything possible to prevent or end wars with the fastest possible peace talks.

Rule seven: We endure tiny losses, the losses of our enemy are huge

At this point, war propaganda is simply a propaganda of success that can cover even the most miserable situation on the front. It's about raising morale and maintaining the feeling that it's worth fighting the war further, since triumph awaits us right around the corner. Who would reasonably send military aid to Ukraine if he were convinced that not only does she not win the war with Russia (as Western media repeats over and over again) but that a successful ending to it is not actually possible? Meanwhile, since another equipment is increasingly needed, something must be incorrect with the rhetoric of Ukrainian success. This is admitted almost openly by any of the leading propaganda Western media.

There is an apparent contradiction to this rule of mandatory optimism with respective another elements of war rhetoric, including the claim of an omnipresent and existential threat from the enemy. But the advantage of propaganda is not its logical coherence, but its social impact, its effectiveness in corroding thinking.

Rule Eight: Artists and intellectuals support our cause

The co-optation of opinion-forming environments is, in a sense, the most important, due to the fact that they are liable for the overall form of the public debate, setting its main coordinates. This environment – seemingly full of critical self-consciousness and rational approach to the planet – is entrusted with the task of actively silencing any voices of opposition. So, on the basis of propaganda, there are many works of art that straight relate to the emotions of society, explaining to him that war is essential and our case is right. Even the university can service under these circumstances, as Romain Rolland wrote, “ministery of domesticated intelligence”.

There are many ways artists and intellectuals can be useful to government propaganda, frequently without even realizing it. Finally, their specialty is to invent shocking formulas, to tell beautiful stories, to appeal to human feelings of empathy and fear, which are hard to master in the event of war turmoil. The creators then offer a safe haven, where the authoritative version of the events is supplemented by signs, images, memorable figures from which it is impossible to escape. It doesn't substance that all of this can be based on lies or far-flung selectivity, on the hierarchy of victims and double standards that actually service those in our society who represent power or those who can gain from war.

The image of this cooptation is, however, profoundly depressing due to the fact that it shows how weak the foundations are built an interior conviction of intelligence about its advanced standards and impure minds.

As Morelli Anatol France quoted, “the war is little hideous by the ruins it leaves behind than by ignorance and foolishness, which they proudly walk in its way.” In my opinion, war is equally terrible for both of these reasons.

At this point, it is worth recalling Pierre Conesa's book "Selling War" (Vendre la guerre), in which the author creates the concept of "military-intellectual complex" (complex militaro-intellectuel) [3] in the form of the word "military industrial complex", which Dwight D. Eisenhower mentioned for the first time in 1961. And just as the outgoing president of the United States warned against the disastrous influence of war-making organizations, so present it is crucial to reflect on the consequences of organized institutional-intellectual formation, which aims to “sell us war”. In Conesa’s opinion, war propaganda does not make any random public opinion, which just all time comes up with the same tricks. It is simply a complex strategy combining arms corporations with media, think tanks, NGOs or investigation institutions acting as an organized lobbying run for the interests of these companies. And they require fresh wars. So it turns out that propaganda is happening on an industrial scale today. It is simply a tape production of untruth in the interests of the fewer and to the misery of the general. Let us remember 1 thing: all works of art – literature, film, painting, theatre – showed war starting with the exposing of lies and force of their own camp. They were always primarily an act of demitology.

Rule nine: Our case is sacred

From a propaganda point of view, all war is actually a crusade. Morelli recalls the words of Saint Bernard, who preached that “the knights of Christ” taking the life of the Gentiles “do not commit genocide (homicide), but execution (malicide)’. The sanctification of our origin perpetuates the “manichian mythology” in which humanity divides into 2 completely asymmetric parts and only 1 has a appropriate share in humanity and its associated rituals. Only 1 deserves compassion, protection or solidarity. Only 1 truly suffers and fights in the name of any values.

Today in Western societies, a new, secularized war figure sacrum There's Democracy. Its values must be taken to everyone, and if they do not want them – usage force.

In the name of these values, people can even be killed with thousands, and their freedom of democracy can be severely restricted. It seemed that this lesson of liberal democracies had already been reworked on the occasion of the "war against terrorism", but again it turns out that it can be repeated indefinitely with the same anger. Due to the war in Ukraine and the decisions of Western governments, freedom of expression, freedom of manifestation, or even the right to reliable information are again drastically decreasing.

Holiness and democracy, by the way, are in gross contradiction with each other, due to the fact that the erstwhile means a lofty object of worship, which must not be touched or even rationally explored, and the second means that there is no holiness, especially where the power lies. There's only permanent deliberalization in which we choose what we want. Can anyone present accept with full work that he enjoys this scope of freedom as a citizen? War propaganda is not a plebiscite for war, but a rhetorical envelope of a decision that has already been made on behalf of all and without consultation.

Although this may sound paradoxical and incomprehensible, war propaganda is actually downplaying war. It exalts and even sacrates it, but thus besides removes from it the edifice of the eventual catastrophe, suffering, demolition of the world, the effects of which will last generations. It makes sense to her, and that makes her legitimize. She's a form of her veiled ad.

Rule 10: Those who question propaganda are traitors

I don't think you request to explain that to anyone. Although it can be pointed out that any discourse that presupposes its opponents as traitors is propaganda. In this way, it is very easy to identify individual who is influenced by akin manipulation. In following this lead, it must besides be said that this concerns the large majority of the public. Today, everyone, it does not full share the government's explanation of the war in Ukraine is either a Putinian agent, or a useful idiot Putin, or any another kind of unconscious lunatic. Anyway, he's discredited before he can truly say his part. At erstwhile he is given a place in a number of traitors and stigmatizes him, even if he says something that was virtually acceptable or even dominant. During the war, propaganda may change as rapidly as the situation on the front, and those who are incapable to grasp it take risks.

A very crucial dimension of this rule is the submission of strong force to all types of anti-war activists, pacifists, nuanced commentators or even dormitories.

Everyone must talk in the same speech in a compatible choir, due to the fact that that is what the sanctity of our origin requires. If we neglect to build this unification, the continuation of the war may seem pointless. And its maintenance is the main nonsubjective of propaganda.

In particular, war rhetoric shows contempt for those who betray even a shadow of neutrality or impartiality. Moreelli cites an interesting example of the study that Jiri Dienstbier prepared on the Kosovo War. He argued that "after cultural cleansings against Albanians in the spring accompanied by murders, torture, looting and arson, cultural cleansings against Serbos, Roma, Bosnia and another non-Albanian residents were committed in the fall." This study was rapidly – and very characteristically – responded by Albanian author Ismail Kadare, who accused the author of the study of equalizing victims and torturers. Dienstbier’s answer was besides characteristic and very useful in today’s context: “There are no ‘ Serbian and Albanian crimes. ’ Crimes are done by circumstantial criminals. Sometimes they're Serbs or Albanians or something else. I don't equalize torturers and victims. I equal Serbian and Albanian torturers with me and have the same concern for Albanian and Serbian victims.” This attitude seems perfectly right to me, although I realize that for all war propaganda it is absolutely scandalous. But if we consistently reject it, there is no more cruelty that we cannot justify, ignore or relax.

Of course, this does not mean how frequently they preach propaganda allegations that “the fact lies in the middle.”

No, the fact lies where it lies, and no camp has a monopoly on it.

In order to scope her, you frequently gotta go to more problem than dictated by simple feelings of hatred of the enemy, even if this 1 is always full sanctioned by circumstances. usually it is simply a small more complicated than the black-and-white parable of the fight of Good against Evil, and sometimes it may even lead to the conclusion that no 1 is right in conflict, and good guys They went somewhere for good and left us with the bastards alone.

At the end of respective own requests, to complete the catalogue drawn up by Morelli. Firstly, the propaganda of war is the language of the maximum increased binary opposition. It creates a planet that we and “they” cannot share in any way. At the same time, however, dividing the field of knowing of the planet thus introduces false unity into “our” ranks, abolishes class, social or political differences. Most frequently in favour of an imagined national community, which must think the same and the same. This abolishing the difference is deeper, however, and it paradoxically besides concerns relations towards the enemy. The more we disagree from him, the more, on a deeper level, we match him. erstwhile we fight terror, we apply it ourselves, and erstwhile we defend democracy against authoritarianism, we drastically restrict it.

War propaganda is simply a large projection by which we purify our conscience by seeing all of our shortcomings only in the opponent.

And therefore, all the more unaware, we can become like him. Anyone who accuses polemists of treason as agents of alien forces is talking unconsciously about himself. He stands in the place of a dictator willing to censor any act of diversion, any thought deviation from the authoritative line.

Secondly, the propaganda of war is entirely subordinate to the logic of blackmail. It is an extended and consistently sustained moral panic, in which controlled reactions and primitive reflexes replace the freedom of thought and autonomy of self-esteem. This blackmail is emotional and moral, forcing an accelerated, immediate judgement based on blind loyalty. So it produces a collective regression, in which everyone, without exception, must match each another under the threat of absolute decay. Or you could call it an artificially created sectarian.

Thirdly, the propaganda of war is ahistoric. It completely rewrites the past, changes its meanings and simplifies its course, but even more importantly it permanently removes the future from sight or replaces it with pure delusion. Therefore, it is easy to admit it – just ask how it presents the anticipation of co-existing with the enemy (most frequently a neighbour) after the end of the war or how it intends to end the war if it cannot be simply won. In today's situation, erstwhile the West is active in a conflict with 1 atomic power (Russia), and plans to face the another (China), this question is not just an empty rhetorical exercise.

Fourthly, the propaganda of war is performative. I mean, it's rhetoric that actively changes reality, it calls it to then submit to this description of all members of the community. For example, X committed a crime against humanity. Are you having second thoughts? It means you're a supporter of X, so you're a heartless war criminal agent. Thus propaganda cuts off the anticipation of returning to reality before its propaganda transformation. He exposes those who talk before the facts and forces them to obey.

Unfortunately, in the modern world, war propaganda is no longer just about war. stricto sense, but covers and processes almost all dimensions of public life. We are inactive surviving in a planet of organization wars, cultural wars, and informational wars, which, at the rhetoric level, govern the same rights as the actual war. In this way, we are accustomed to an exclusive, semi-automatic consequence to social phenomena and become increasingly inclined to accept war rhetoric.

So what do we do? How do you defend yourself against propaganda? Can you at least? I like the simple expression that Nick Cruse, a associate of the American Revolutionary Blackout collective late gave me: “I presume that everything they tell me is simply a lie until it proves otherwise.”

Source:

[1] Bertolt Brecht, Necessity of Propaganda, in: the same, Elegie bukowskie and another poems, trans. Ryszard Krynicki, Wydawnictwo a5, Kraków 2022, pp. 78-79.

[2] Anne Morelli, Principes élémentaires de propaganda de guerre, Éditions Aden, Bruxelles 2022.

[3] Pierre Conesa, Vendre la guerre. Le complexe militaro-intellectuel, Éditions de l’Aube, Paris 2022.

Welcome to internships, internships and volunteering!

Join us!