The Limitations of Propaganda

From Wikipedia:

“Originally this word derived from a new administrative body of the Catholic Church (congregation) created in 1622, called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith), or informally simply Propaganda.[2][4] Its activity was aimed at “propagating” the Catholic faith in non-Catholic countries”.

At that time, the word ‘propaganda’ did not have connotations of falsehood. It meant simply ‘spreading’. In the case of Christianity, it was simply ‘spreading’ the ‘Good News’. Christianity was spread originally by the Apostles, and especially St Paul, who was not an original Apostle. All of them used ‘propaganda’ in the sense of offering the poorest people a planned way out of despair. The plan was, essentially, that wealth in this world was not the primary means to contentment. You can be happy and content without wealth, provided that you ‘suffered the slings and arrow of outrageous fortune’ with equanimity, and that you were part of a group of friends who cared about and for each other. Was not the whole point of Christ’s teachings that the ‘powers-that-be’ can only hurt you if you subscribe to their values?

‘Subscribing to their values’ is very important. It is the crux.

For example, the esteemed Simon Cooke emitted this piece a few days ago:

http://theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/in-end-bans-usually-make-things-worse.html

The critical phrase for my purpose was this:

“With each increase in tobacco duty, we see an increase in criminal activity around tobacco. And this is where it ends up – with violence…”

I hope that you see my point. It is that the ‘activity surrounding tobacco’ is NOT criminal, unless you buy the propaganda. You see, not long ago, the taxing of tobacco products was justified on the grounds that tobacco was ‘a luxury’. But even that word hid a the real intent. The fact is that tobacco was only a ‘luxury’ because it was imported. There was a ‘balance of payments’ problem. Too much money was being exported for the purpose of buying useless goods like tobacco.

And so the powers-that-be, advised by the best publicists, decided to it would be useful to link tobacco to serious ill health, the better to tax it. Note that I am not saying that tobacco smoking is not linked to ill health. All I am saying is that the link provided the excuse. One might ask how taxing a product reduces its potency as a disease vector.

Supplying to a demand is not criminal in itself, any more than accepting the supply is criminal. We have seen this whole debate again and again regarding drugs like cocaine or cannabis. In many places, the law is nonsense – it is not a crime to buy the stuff, but it is a crime to sell the stuff. That simple truth is often disguised by the use of the word ‘possession’. But how does a person ‘possess’ cannabis unless he has bought it? The growing of cannabis plants is forbidden, so how can he not be a criminal? Either he bought it, which is NOT a crime, or he grew it, which IS a crime. If he bought it, the person who supplied the cannabis committed a crime.

There was an outcome (did we not use to call ‘the outcome’ the ‘result’?). We used to be quite happy and understand the meaning of the word ‘result’. We did not need the word ‘outcomes’. Note that that word is almost always used in the plural. But we were happy with the understanding that the word ‘result’ could be plural. EG, “The plane hit the building. As a result, many people were killed and the building set on fire, which caused many more deaths”.

There are so many criminals in California dealing in cannabis that the State could not afford to house them all in jails. There is only one answer, which is to de-criminalise dealing in cannabis.

Thus, the esteemed Simon Clarke is wrong. There is nothing wrong with dealing in tobacco. Nothing at all. There is no criminality. There is just bias and theft by the State.

Cameron introduced ‘Plain Packaging’, aka gruesome images of unrelated catastrophic illnesses, without any shred of conscience. He did it for effect. He might as well have ordered the House of Parliament to be painted black in solidarity with ‘people of colour’. That ‘shred of conscience’ is very important. Osborne did the same thing with his sugar tax (a levy is just the same). He just announced it and walked away. I do not really blame Cameron or Osborne. Both of them are throw-backs. How on Earth were they ever given the time of day? Neither of them had any qualifications at all.

But what is more important is how did those people got to blown up into being wonderful? Who said that they were wonderful? How did they get to be Prime Minister and Chancellor? Who fast-tracked Cameron?

On the TV programme, ‘Egg Heads”, there are about seven panellists. Their General Knowledge is wonderful. They are said to be very ‘brainy’. But I do not get a sense that they are wealthy. Why not? They have the most wonderful memories. Why did they not use that memory power to play the stock market and make themselves rich? You might say that they have done so, but, if that were true, why are they appearing on a common TV programme? Why do they not live in the Bahamas? Why are they wasting their time on a TV programme?

I have hopes for Theresa May. They are only hopes and not expectations.

We must realise that Propaganda can get to anyone, regardless of status. For all we know, our PM might be in love with the UN. If she is, then all is lost. Forget it and wait for the massive civil war. There are already signs, but not of a military nature. The fancy high-jinks of Tobacco Control have not gone unnoticed when the Ebola outbreak was at its worse. The trouble is that all the discussions are in secret.

If there is one thing that our Government MUST INSIST UPON it is that unelected apparatchiks must discuss things in public. Strange though it might seem, that also applies to the World Bank and such.

Secrecy is necessary to combat terrorism and real crime so that the criminals can be stopped from hurting the People. But there is no need for secrecy in the WHO or the UN. In fact, such secrecy is very dangerous. Only in such an atmosphere of secrecy can Propaganda thrive.

Brexit happened because Cameron and Osborne et al could not see that they were being used. At least I hope that they did not know. If they knew, then they are nothing but traitors. I do not like using that word, but there is no other. If they conspired to subjugate Great Britain, with its thousand year history of peace, more or less, along with the ‘Pax Britannica’, which existed in most of the world for a time, to a plastic semblance of a United States of Europe, then they were running dogs and sick piglets.

I doubt that Theresa May is any different, apart from the Bullington Club association. I don’t think that she was a member. But I hope. I hope. I hope that she stops the nonsense. For example, a few of us grow our own tobacco plants. It is a hobby. The effort involved does not justify the result in terms of produce. But it is a hobby, that is all. It seems that the Zealots want to criminalise the growing of tobacco plants, just as it is in Oz. But the ban on growing tobacco plants in Oz dates back to 1911. It was to protect the Oz tobacco plantations. There are now no tobacco plantations in Oz, nor is there a tobacco industry. Oz’s supplies of tobacco products come from Indonesia. Just think about that for a moment. Tobacco companies could cut off supplies of tobacco products to Oz tomorrow, with little ill effects to themselves. All they need to do is say that they will only supply the Oz government – take it or leave it.

I wish that they would. The shit would hit the fan big time. The State would have to pay the costs of distribution etc. What would be even lovelier would be if TCs only supplied cig packets without warnings.

What then would happen to Oz Propaganda?

===

What strikes me above anything is that there is a FEAR of Government, as if Government was a King. There lies the big fault of the EU, and, indeed, in the UK. There is a fear of Government. That did not use to be the case. There ought not to be a FEAR of Government, but Propaganda has created that fear. Ordinary people are being criminalised in their millions, as was the case with the smoking  ban. Publicans were forced to become ‘heavies’ who threw their best customers into the street. That is what happened.

It is the duty of the Government, post Brexit, to abrogate and dismiss every ‘law’ which emanated from the Communists and Fascists and Totalitarians in Brussels. The whole lot has to be rescinded.

But some other arrangement must take its place. In the 1940s, the multi-state map of Europe was nonsense. It had been so for centuries and had provoked many wars between the aristocrats. The ordinary people of those States would have felt nothing, but the aristocrats fell out and caused the deaths of millions. Thus, the assassination of the Archduke (!) of wherever ’caused’ WW1. It did not. The reality is that Germany wanted a slice of Africa. Had Germany won WW1, it would have gained all the overseas possessions of France and Britain.

Propaganda can be used to distract just as much as to promote. I don’t know if any such actually happened, but the Olympics would have been wonderful cover to bury bad news.

I can’t remember her name. Perhaps a commenter could remind me. She should be given a Ladyhood’ for services to the People. She spilt the beans. She was the person who thought that the twin towers catastrophe in the USA was a good time to bury ‘bad news’ at home.

That is Propaganda.

 

Advertisements

5 Responses to “The Limitations of Propaganda”

  1. Rose Says:

    Aide apologises for ‘attacks memo’
    10 October, 2001

    “Jo Moore apologised on Tuesday for sending a memo on the day of the US terror attacks saying it would be a good time to “bury” some controversial stories.”

    “Ms Moore’s message was timed at 1455 BST on 11 September, within an hour of the second plane flying into the World Trade Center, but before either tower collapsed.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1588323.stm

    But though the incident is memorable such behaviour wasn’t exactly unusual.

    How Labour used its election troops to fake popular support
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/22/uk.election2005

    • junican Says:

      It has been going on forever, Rose. It used to be called ‘packing’ when meetings were public and there was no TV or radio.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    Propaganda = propagating= screwing someone

    Propaganda = screwing people.

    Seems about right to me.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: