Propaganda: From the Class Room to Hollywood

Brent Jessop
Knowledge Driven Revolution
Monday, July 21, 2008

“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study… This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is, of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the Press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part.” – Bertrand Russell, 1952 (p40) [1]

This article will look at the use of education, the Press, radio and Hollywood as forms of propaganda as discussed in Bertrand Russell’s 1931 book The Scientific Outlook [2].

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872-1970) was a renowned British philosopher and mathematician who was an adamant internationalist and worked extensively on the education of young children. This included running an experimental school in the 1920’s with his second wife Dora Black. He was the founder of the Pugwash movement which used the spectre of Cold War nuclear annihilation to push for world government. Among many other prizes, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 and UNESCO’s (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) Kalinga prize for the popularization of science in 1957.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

 

Part 1 of this series examined science as power-thought and the use of scientific technique to increase the power of an elite scientific minority over the unscientific masses. Part 2 examined the composition of the society of experts who would use scientific technique to dominate the masses. At the forefront of this society of experts is the expert “manipulator”, whom Lenin is the archetype. This society would also aim to conceal its power and influence behind political veils like democracy. Part 3 explored the application of scientific technique to education with an emphasis on the distinction between education for the “governing class” and “working class”.

Mass Psychology

From The Scientific Outlook:

[Italicised text is original emphasis and bolded text is added by author.]

“There is, however, a large amount of genuine experimental science in social affairs. Perhaps the most important set of experiments in this realm is that which we owe to advertisers. This material, valuable as it is, has not been utilized by experimental psychologists, because it belongs to a region remote from the Universities, and they would feel themselves vulgarized by contact with anything so gross. But anybody who is in earnest in studying the psychology of belief cannot do better than consult the great advertising firms. No test of belief is so searching as the financial one. When a man is willing to back his belief by spending money in accordance with it, his belief must be regarded as genuine. Now this is precisely the test which the advertiser is perpetually applying. Various people’s soaps are recommended in various ways; some of these ways produce the desired result, others do not, or at any rate not to the same degree. Clearly the advertisement which causes a man’s soap to be bought is more effective in creating belief than the one which does not. I do not think any experienced advertiser would suggest that the merits of the respective soaps had any share whatever in bringing about the result. Very large sums of money are paid to the men who invent good advertisements, and rightly so, for the power to cause large numbers of people to believe what you assert is a very valuable power. Consider its importance, for example, to the founders of religions. In the past they often had to adopt the most painful forms of publicity. How much pleasanter their lives would have been if they could have gone to an agent who would have purchased the respect of their disciples in return for a percentage on the ecclesiastical revenues!

From the technique of advertising it seems to follow that in the great majority of mankind any proposition will win acceptance if it is reiterated in such a way as to remain in the memory. Most of the things that we believe we believe because we have heard them affirmed; we do not remember where or why they were affirmed, and we are therefore unable to be critical even when the affirmation was made by a man whose income would be increased by its acceptance and was not backed by any evidence whatever. Advertisements tend, therefore, as the technique becomes perfected, to be less and less argumentative, and more and more merely striking. So long as an impression is made, the desired result is achieved.

Considered scientifically, advertisements have another great merit, which is that their effects, so far as is known through the receipts of the advertisers, are mass effects, not effects upon individuals, so that the data acquired are data as to mass psychology. For the purposes of studying society rather than individuals, advertisements are therefore invaluable. Unfortunately their purpose is practical rather than scientific. For scientific purposes I suggest the following experiment. Let two soaps, A and B, be manufactured, of which A is excellent and B abominable; let A be advertised by stating its chemical composition and by testimonials from eminent chemists; let B be advertised by the bare statement that it is the best, accompanied by the portraits of famous Hollywood beauties. If man is a rational animal, more of A will be sold than of B. Does anyone, in fact, believe that this would be the result?

The advantages of advertisement have come to be realized pretty fully by politicians, but are only beginning to be realized by the Churches; when the Churches become more fully alive to its advantages as compared with the traditional religious technique (which dates from before the invention of printing), we may hope for a great revival of faith. On the whole, the Soviet Government and the Communist religion are those which hitherto have best understood the use of advertisement. They are, it is true, somewhat hampered by the fact that most Russians cannot read; this obstacle, however, they are doing their best to remove.” – 187

Education as Propaganda

“This consideration brings us naturally to the subject of education, which is the second great method of public propaganda. Education has two very different purposes; on the one hand it aims at developing the individual and giving him knowledge which will be useful to him; on the other hand it aims at producing citizens who will be convenient for the State or the Church which is educating them. Up to a point these two purposes coincide in practice: it is convenient to the State that citizens should be able to read, and that they should possess some technical skill in virtue of which they are able to do productive work; it is convenient that they should possess sufficient moral character to abstain from unsuccessful crime, and sufficient intelligence to be able to direct their own lives. But when we pass beyond these elementary requirements, the interests of the individual may often conflict with those of the State or the Church. This is especially the case in regard to credulity. To those who control publicity, credulity is an advantage, while to the individual a power of critical judgment is likely to be beneficial; consequently the State does not aim at producing a scientific habit of mind, except in a small minority of experts, who are well paid, and therefore, as a rule, supporters of the status quo. Among those who are not well paid credulity is more advantageous to the State; consequently children in school are taught what they are told and are punished if they express disbelief. In this way a conditioned reflex is established, leading to a belief in anything said authoritatively by elderly persons of importance. You and I, reader, owe out immunity from spoliation to this beneficent precaution on the part of our respective Governments.

One of the purposes of the State in education is certainly, on the whole, beneficent. The purpose in question is that of producing social coherence. In mediaeval Europe, as in modern China, the lack of social coherence proved disastrous. It is difficult for large masses of men to co-operate as much as is necessary for their own welfare. The tendency to anarchy and civil war is always one to be guarded against, except on those rare occasions when some great principle is at stake which is of sufficient importance to make civil war worth while. For this reason that part of education which aims at producing loyalty to the State is to be praised in so far as it is directed against internal anarchy. But in so far as it is directed to the perpetuation of international anarchy, it is bad. On the whole, at present in education, the form of loyalty to the State which is most emphasized is hostility to its enemies.” -190

Uniformity of Opinion – The Press

“Modern inventions and modern technique have had a powerful influence in promoting uniformity of opinion and making men less individual than they used to be. [...] But in the modern world there are three great sources of uniformity in addition to education: these are the Press, the cinema, and the radio.

The Press has become an agent of uniformity as a result of technical and financial causes: the larger the circulation of a newspaper, the higher the rate it can charge for its advertisements and the lower the cost of printing per copy. A foreign correspondent costs just as much whether his newspaper has a large or a small circulation; therefore his relative cost is diminished by every increase in circulation. A newspaper with a large circulation can hire the most expensive legal talent to defend it against libel suits, and can often conceal from all but serious students its misstatements of facts. For all these reasons, of which advertisements are the chief, big newspapers tend to please small sets of cranks or high-brows, and there are journals devoted to special interests, such as yachting or fly-fishing, but the immense majority of newspaper readers confine themselves either, as in England, to a small number of newspapers, or, as in America, to a small number of syndicated groups of newspapers. The difference between England and America in this respect is, of course, due to size. In England, if Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook desire anything to be known, it will be known; if they desire it to be unknown, it will be unknown except to a few pertinacious busybodies. Although there are rival groups in the newspaper world, there are, of course, many matters as to which the rival groups are agreed. In a suburban train in the morning, one man may be reading the Daily Mail and another the Daily Express, but if by some miracle they should fall into conversation they would not find much divergence in the opinions they had imbibed or in the facts of which they had been informed. Thus for reasons which are ultimately technical and scientific, the newspapers have become an influence tending to uniformity and increasing the rarity of unusual opinions.” – 191

Uniformity of Opinion – The Radio

“Another modern invention tending towards uniformity is the radio. This, of course, is more the case in England, where it is a Government monopoly, than in America, where it is free. During the General Strike in 1926 it afforded practically the only method of disseminating news. This method was utilized by the Government to state its own case and conceal that of the strikers. I was myself at the time in a remote village, almost the furthest from London, I believe, of any village in England. All the villagers, including myself, assembled in the Post Office every evening to hear the news. A pompous voice would announce: “It is the Home Secretary who has come to make a statement.” I regret to say that the villagers all laughed, but if they had been less remote they would probably have been more respectful. In America, where the Government has not interfered with broadcasting, one must expect, if the same policy continues, that there will be a gradual growth of big interests analogous to the big newspapers, and that these will cover as large a proportion of the ground as does the syndicated Press.” – 193

Uniformity of Opinion – The Cinema

“But perhaps the most important of all the modern agents of propaganda is the cinema. Where the cinema is concerned, the technical reasons for large-scale organizations leading to almost world-wide uniformity are over-whelming. The costs of a good production are colossal, but are no less if it is exhibited seldom than if it is exhibited often and everywhere. The Germans and the Russians have their own productions, and those of the Russians are, of course, an important part of the Soviet Government’s propaganda. In the rest of the civilized world the products of Hollywood preponderate. The great majority of young people in almost all civilized countries derive their ideas of love, of honour, of the way to make money, and of the importance of good clothes, from the evenings spent in seeing what Hollywood thinks good for them. I doubt whether all the schools and churches combined have as much influence as the cinema upon the opinions of the young in regard to such intimate matters as love and marriage and money-making. The producers of Hollywood are the high-priests of a new religion. Let us be thankful for the lofty purity of their sentiments. We learn from them that sin is always punished, and virtue is always rewarded. True, the reward is rather gross, and such as a more old-fashioned virtue might not wholly appreciate. But what of that? We know from the cinema that wealth comes to the virtuous, and from real life that old So-and-so has wealth. It follows that old So-and-so is virtuous, and that the people who say he exploits his employees are slanderers and trouble-makers. The cinema therefore plays a useful part in safeguarding the rich from the envy of the poor.

It is undoubtedly an important fact in the modern world that almost all the pleasures of the poor can only be provided by men possessed of vast capital or by Governments. The reasons for this, as we have seen, are technical, but the result is that any defects in the status quo become known only to those who are willing to spend their leisure time otherwise than in amusement; these are, of course, a small minority, and from a political point of view they are at most times negligible. There is, however, a certain instability about the whole system. In the event of unsuccessful war it might break down, and the population, which had grown accustomed to amusements, might be driven by boredom into serious thought. The Russians, when deprived of vodka by war-time prohibition, made the Russian Revolution. What would Western Europeans do if deprived of their nightly drug from Hollywood? The moral of this for Western European Governments is that they must keep on good terms with America. In the American imperialism of the future it may turn out that the producers of cinemas have been the pioneers.” – 194

Conclusion

The use of behaviourism, psycho-analysis and physiological manipulation as applied to education will be examined in part 5. Part 6 will examine the application of scientific technique to the reproduction of human beings including the separate breeding techniques to be applied to the “governing class” compared with the “working class”. Changes to Freedom and equality in the scientific society will be examined in part 7. Part 8 will examine changes to free trade and labour in the scientific society. Finally, Part 9 will describe two examples of artificially designed societies, including the creation of a new religion specifically for that new planned society.

[1] Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952). ISBN0-415-10906-X.

[2] Bertrand Russell, The Scientific Outlook (1931). First Edition.

• 
• Social bookmarks
• 
• Email this article
• 
• Print this page

Comment Terms Of Use

4 Responses to “Propaganda: From the Class Room to Hollywood”

1. Todd Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 7:15 pm

   To understand how what is laughingly called “education” has managed to turn most of the public into mindless, authority-worshipping sheep, one need only read:

   (a) “The Underground History of American Education” – by John Taylor Gatto

   – http://www.johntaylorgatto.com...../index.htm

   (b) “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” – by Charlotte Iserbyt

   – http://deliberatedumbingdown.com

   To understand how television has turned most of us into drooling, distraction-obsessed zombies, see:

   http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/c.....tupid.html
   http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/putnam.htm

2. vein Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 11:30 pm

   Snigger, snigger- did this site that keeps quoting Blair’s Guardian newspaper really post this article? I hope someone spots the irony.

   Meanwhile we do know that this Russell bloke was a leading Fabian, and is considered a primary influence on arch-zionist, Noam Chomsky? Somehow, I think that certain realities have just flown straight over someone’s head.

   Russell’s words could easily be analysed in a response running to many times the length of the original apologia for a jewish-soviet style global regime. Anyone attracted to the principles of prison planet should take some pride in being able to identify and refute the deeper meaning of Russell’s arguments.

   I am particularly taken by the vitriol this twisted idiot pours on ordinary people for being happy to seek a happy, contented ordinary life. It would be horrible if people were forced into this against their choice, but it is equally horrible to attack people in any way for making this choice.

   The only time ordinary people can be considered fools is when they give their support, passive or active, to powerful political monsters hellbent on inflicting misery on their own people, or people of other nations. Otherwise why shouldn’t a Human live as an animal lives, biological, and not intellectual or political.

   It is true that if each and every one made this choice, our civilisations could never had advanced, but then that would be a fair consequence of choice.

   On the other hand, when a small percentage of us make a choice to live to the maximum potential of our Human mental advantages, and create advances in civilisation, this does not put other Humans in our debt, even if they get to benefit from these advances themselves. To be respected for our efforts is all we have a right to hope for.

   This isn’t the thinking of Russell, or those that inherit his evil outlook, like Chomsky. Instead, these monsters seek to make value judgements based on the ‘usefulness’ of any given person. From this comes the idea of the ‘master race’, where all the monsters differ only by the way in such a ‘race’ is defined. Hitler is a monster to Chomsky, because the definition was the ‘germanic’ and not the ‘jewish’. To Russell, the definition would be those families that in a ‘fair’ society, end up the financial and intellectual winners after a certain number of generations (the Fabian method).

   You see, it doesn’t really matter. If you believe in a ‘master race’, no matter how you define the choosing, no matter how ‘fair’ you think you make the selection, you are evil in the most absolute meaning of the word.

   The ‘best’ of us are not better, but honoured to have been given the gift of having something useful to potentially help others in some way.

   QUOTE
   “It is undoubtedly an important fact in the modern world that almost all the pleasures of the poor can only be provided by men possessed of vast capital or by Governments.”

   Yeah, cos ordinary people never normally have an important thought pass through their ‘tiny working class brains’, eh, Russell, you scumbag. And you wonder why Chomsky idolises this guy? Orwell made the same idea a central plank of his 1984 novel, allowing the thoughts of the ordinary people to be neatly discounted.

   It is true that ordinary people are often less visibly political, and hence less important for certain government propaganda projects than the middle classes. However, this occurs because ordinary people are often busy with the very act of survival, and define their quality of life in terms of the direct immediate achievements of their family.

   Russell’s conceit that it is one drug or another artificially numbing the brains of the working classes is all the more laughable when we consider our age, where the USA middle classes stuff every possible powerful chemical into themselves, and their kids to prove their economic status.

   Russell most perfectly gives himself away with his comments about ‘anarchy’. Now, as I hope most here know, anarchy actually defines the state when each of us chooses to be responsible for ourselves, and rejects the need for external authority from arbitrary state or organised religious mechanisms. Anarchy most certainly does not mean chaos, but say the kind of existence seen parodied in ‘Survivor’ or ‘Big Brother’ (although I do appreciate that the american versions of these shows carefully avoid anarchy, and actually impose rulers and bosses on the teams- now isn’t that an interesting fact).

   If you share a house with another 5 reasonable people, anarchy rules. Think about this. When the six of you live together in perfect harmony, without a leader, the correct term for this is anarchy. Now do you see why people such as Russell and Chomsky work so hard to eliminate the true meaning of the word?

   Do you notice any warmth, affection, or humanity in Russell’s words? I most certainly do not. Are you foolish enough to think that this is reasonable, because Russell is trying to be ’scientific’? There is no automatic contradiction between ’science’ and the warmth of caring affection, when applying the so-called ’scientific method’ in an attempt to improve the life of an animal or human. When the warmth is not present, either the writer cares not for the species, or when the species is human, the writer is a sociopath, or something close.

   Russell’s NWO is a better farm, with better breeding methods, producing better livestock. Like one slave breeder attacking the methods of another, he cares not for the feelings and suffering of the slaves, but the efficiency of the process. The motivation for this can be nothing more than academic arrogance- although I will argue to my dying breath that monsters such as Russell and Chomsky are the mostly unwitting agents of much greater and cleverer evils . Remember that Hitler, Stalin and Mao had philosophers and social engineers like Russell coming out of their ears, and put them to good use- although always as servants, and never as masters.

   Most that plan the mechanisms to implement the NWO are no more important to the true masters than those that crafted the great medieval churches. No matter how self important, they are useful only as implementers. The elaborate constructions they manufacture will serve the desires of masters that hold a very different philosophy. In the history of mankind, it has always been thus.

   So read Russell and Chomsky all you like, and you won’t find the real answer to the question “Why?”. To seek that answer, you must find those that seek to wield the real power, and even then there is no reason to suppose they will be more honest than is required. You see, in a world increasing full of genocide weapons, a race to create situations where these weapons will be used in significant numbers already answers the question. You are just too afraid to listen to the answer!

3. Andy Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 11:52 pm

   If you really want to have a true understanding of education and proganda on the masses, I think one should also read a article called silent weapns for quiet wars. As one can see by scanning some of the comments on other articles here, there are many that still believe that most, if not all of these articles are by “conspiracy theory” nuts.

   If your willing to except the basic idea that advertising works, it is not such a far leap to assume that through education and the press, you could over the corse of 40 to 80 years produce a populace that would in fact believe anything you told them, except truly deplorable conditions, and even die when order. A vast majority miss the truly scary thing about 1984. It was the technology used to spy on its citizens. What was scary was the use of the media combined with educational practices that discouraged independant and anyalitical thouht. That is the true enemy of any controling system. Hence the reason why the catholic church as well as monarchies tried to outlaw the printing press, and why goverments around the world desperately want to regulate the internet for “your safety and your childrens safety”.

   Children today are encouraged not to read or anaylise anything. They are taught to memorize and repeat it back like robots. When you present to the average adult today the ideas that are not normally put forth in the news or televison, you are looked at as being crazy. The idea of conspiracy nuts is something that is generated by the media.

   I’ll give these examples:

   The murder of both JFK and Bobby Kenndy. Goverment files sealed till ALL parties are dead and thier children old. If the assinations occured the way the goverment put forth, why the secrecy? Why the need to seal files untill they become simply a footnote in history when released?

   9/11. Lets assume the goverments explanation is right and valid. Why the sealed files? Again, the 9/11 commisions dozens of blacked out pages. Given the way teriost networks presumably operate, wouldnt the information be rather old and outdated? Why did our president and vice president refuse to swear an oath, testify sepearetly, or allow any sort of transcripts to be taken?

   Hell, Ill even through in UFOs… IF its simple radar returns, or top secret goverment flight programs, again why the secrecy for years? With millions of people across the world obviously seeing something, doesnt it warrant some sort of investigation and serious public scrunity?

   Not to mention that thier are articles that state that media is used to mentally prepare us for certian occurences. Where was the first cell phone used? Star Trek. The common cell phone today looks like your average first generation Star Treck communicator. Technology that was literaly the realm of Science fiction, is now used on a daily basis. It begs the question does life inmitte art, or does at inmate life, takes on new meaning when certian questions are brought forth. Would yo be shocked by “aliens from outer space” if they appeared on the news? I woud say probally not, becasue the vast majority of us have seen some sort of movie or show dealing with exactly this idea.

   Again, its easy to dumb a populace down and get them to go along with anything. If the information avialible coupled with social stigma of being outcast if you think outside excepted paradigms, if taught at a young age, would be easy to not only start, but would in fact become self sustaining because of the stgmas and rewards involved with going along or refusing to go along.

   I always ask this question of people that thinks things are just fine. If your goverment has your best intrest at heart, how come you know so little of its plans (both long and short term) and how come it treats you like a child? If it has your best intrests at heart, how come so many things regarding simple, everyday things are kept secret?

4. mar Says:
   July 22nd, 2008 at 7:05 am

   You’ve never heard it before but you are now…if you think propagandists are not among Amerikan movie studios, then ask yourself this question…Why is it that all (99.8%) of Amerikan movies have Amerikan flags in them? And look closely at the placement of them…you’ll get the picture.

   This is what you find out when you have your eyes open as well as you mind…why did I learn this by myself…why hadn’t someone told me what I am telling you?