People "Believe" Propaganda Since it Allows Externalization of Responsibility for Actions

In the previous post on this topic, I said that the unspoken assumption underlying any belief in propaganda "working", namely- that human beings as a species are basically good, is wrong. Even a moderately objective look at history, or the world around you, easily demonstrates that most human beings lack a moral compass, are incapable of reason, are obsessed with their inevitable mortality and have a strong predilection for self-destruction. This assessment remains valid regardless of historical era, ethnicity, race, religion or any other criteria used by people to define their own identity. In other words, the majority are, and always have been, pathetic and delusional creatures who usually lack the courage to act on their impulses.

Propaganda simply provides an excuse or official sanction to act on their desires and impulses. But is there any real-life difference between how societies react to odious behavior with or without an "official" excuse or approval? Well.. let me illustrate with an example. A guy who enters a classroom and kills about twenty primary-school aged children in this country is seen as a horrible and despicable mass murderer- but if the same guy performed that particular act in some middle-eastern country, he is almost always portrayed as an upright soldier just doing his duty or perhaps suffering from "PTSD". Events such as the My Lai massacre or more recent ones in Afghanistan and Iraq are more common than most people want to believe.

What is the real difference between any top-level Nazi tried at Nuremberg show trials and people such as Curtis LeMay, Henry Kissinger, William Westmoreland, Bush 41, Bush43, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld- to name a few. In my opinion, the most importance difference between top Nazi era officials and their post-WW2 American equivalents is that the former wore far better looking uniforms. But why stop here? Ever wonder how the world would have reacted if Nazi Germany had won WW2? Here is a clue.. look at how the world has reacted to post-WW2 USA. My point is that we should not pretend that post-WW2 (or even pre-WW2) USA is somehow on a different "moral plane" than Nazi-era Germany, pre-1945 Japan, pre-WW2 UK and France or any other 19th century European colonial power.

Still not convinced? Ask ten random people in this country what they think of China. Chances are most of them will say something about totalitarianism, hyper-capitalism, air pollution, alleged oppression of minorities, internet censorship and other assorted bullshit which they desperately want to believe. Oddly enough, almost none of them will allow their minds to think about the history of their own country in an objective manner. Let us face it, this country was built by stealing land from its original inhabitants who were then conveniently genocided. Its initial wealth was largely built using race-based slavery and then exploiting poor immigrants from other countries. But it gets better.. its current global position in the 20th century was largely due it being not ravaged by WW1 and WW2. And despite claiming great military superiority, it has not won a single significant military conflict since WW2.

In contrast to that, China was able to reach its current position as the largest global economy (in real terms) of the early 21st century without stealing land from other people, without slavery and in spite of having to start from scratch in the aftermath of partial Japanese occupation (pre-1945) preceded by the century of humiliation from European colonial powers. Moreover, the bulk of that development occurred within the previous forty years. By any objective criteria, China and its people have achieved more in past four decades that what took over two centuries for USA- and have done so with far fewer negative externalities. They have also achieved that outcome with far less social and economic inequality when compared to USA for most of its history.

My point is that most people believe whatever they want to believe, and most are incapable of objective thinking and reason. Let me further explain that concept with three more (long-form) examples. They are as follows: 1] Rise and fall of Nazism and Hitler personality cult in 1933-1945 era Germany. 2] Rise and fall of American public support for the Vietnam War and 3] The rise and ongoing fall of neoliberal worldview in the 'west'. As some might remember, on an previous blog, I have written a bit on these topics such as how very high unemployment was linked to rise of Nazi party in post- 1929 Germany and the similarities between those who joined the Nazi party and contemporary careerists. I had also previously written about rise of neoliberalism in the West and will therefore start by focusing on infamous American misadventure in Vietnam, which ended in a humiliating defeat.

Let me begin this part by asking you a few simple questions. Why did barely 20% of Americans think that sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake as late as mid-1966? Why did approval for that war drop so quickly between 1967 and 1969? But perhaps, most curiously, why did almost 30% of Americans think that the Vietnam war was not a mistake as late as 1972-1973? The first one is probably the easiest to answer. Most people will support incredibly bad and dangerous ideas as long as they don't have skin in the game and think they can get away with it. As late as 1966, the number of young American men drafted in that war was barely 200,000 and most had not experienced any significant risk or injury during their tour of duty. Furthermore, their adversaries were Asian- a group seen as subhuman by most white Americans in 1960s and 1970s.

So what caused the shift in public attitudes? While the conventional narrative states that 'Tet Offensive' caused a lot of damage to the public image of American forces in Vietnam, it was (in retrospective) one of the many factors which caused that shift. A far bigger reason was the rapid increase in number of young men drafted for that war after 1966. Some of you might wonder as why the Korean war (1950-1953), whose final casualty figures were pretty close to the one on Vietnam, did not cause a similar shift in public attitudes. Well.. for two reasons. Firstly, it was just five years after WW2 and the casualty numbers looked rather small in comparison. Secondly, part of that war which involved very heavy fighting was much shorter (if much more intense) than in Vietnam. Short intense wars are far easier to justify than long drawn-out conflicts.

Which brings us to the most peculiar of the three questions. Why did up to a third of the American public believe that the Vietnam war was not a mistake, as late as 1973? Wasn't it pretty obvious that the war had been a costly failure by then? In my opinion, this comes down to their complete unwillingness and inability to think in anything approaching a rational manner. As I wrote in a previous series on an older blog, WW1 and WW2 got rid of a lot of reactionary men in Europe and Japan, but the late entry of USA in both wars as well as low casualties in the theaters they were deployed did not get rid of most idiots. In other words, USA had (and still has) far more reactionary idiots than Europe and many other developed countries.

Propaganda does not really change minds or worldviews. It merely provides "official" external validation and cover for bad, stupid, insane and disastrous ideas. This means that any ideology which assumes that most human beings are intrinsically good or thoughtful is fundamentally flawed. Similarly, arguing or debating racists, SJWs and other narcists in good faith is a total waste of time. Only death or the fear of certain death has, historically, demonstrated the ability to change terms of discourse about fundamental differences in opinion. Nazism lost popular appeal only after most of its supporters got killed in, or in the immediate aftermath of, WW2. The same is true for all those other odious pre-1945 ideas about racial superiority and colonialism in West.

In the next part, I will write about how the majority of people will often support other amazingly bad and disastrous ideas if they feel they can get away with doing so.

What do you think? Comments?