The following are my thoughts and hypothesis, that could probably go on forever...
It has become apparent that propaganda can be used for 'good' purposes or 'bad' purposes, but ultimately, it can be difficult to discern between either.
However, when it is also realized that FEAR is a device used to (push) motivate people, in a more forceful, immediate way, we can conclude that other, more peaceful, and more credible options, were passed in favor of it. Can one say that to be controlled and manipulated by FEAR is right...? Therefore, it can be said that FEAR used in propaganda can be morally wrong (this, however, is a moot point).
But then there is the argument that a person is only controlled or manipulated if he lets himself be controlled or manipulated. That is to say that a person who is controlled is choosing to be controlled. But how is it a person's choice if they are ignorant to their own decision? This leads to conclude that the only audience the 'choice' is apparent to is the manipulator or creator of that choice, or the people who are aware that the choice exists.
By meaning, a Truth is a Truth, regardless of it's arbitrary name. It is unnecessary and probably not possible to augment the reality of a Truth, therefore showing us that it is only necessary and feasible to augment the reality of a lie. Questions pertain as to why...? A simple assumption would lead one to conclude that if a lie is in need of augmentation then it must be more difficult to assimilate and believe, whereas the Truth must be more quick to be comprehended without ornamentation, because it obviously 'makes sense'. This leads to another question as to whether people have a 'sense' or 'universal (or biological) method' that basically leads them to the Truth.
Therefore, if using FEAR as a device in propaganda is morally wrong, then why are BOTH opposing sides using it...? It can only be concluded, since FEAR is used for a specific purpose, as opposed to other methods, to force an ignorant audience to choose to be manipulated, that BOTH sides are augmenting a lie (because the Truth can not be augmented, for if it is not the Truth wholly, it is a lie).
In a perfect scenario, "augmentation" or "ornamentation" will be obsolete in the dissemination of a Truth. A message with black Times New Roman or Arial Font on a white page is almost void of any ornamentation, leading us to conclude that the message is more important than the visual propaganda that goes with it. Furthermore, when a person reads this message through their own inner voice or lens, without having the audio / visual animation and stimulation that comes with much propaganda, they don't have the manipulation of the message being broadcast through a 3rd person narrator (although the text could be rhetorical / biased in it's own account).
In the future, unpopular manipulation from a third party will lead to the creation of a device that 'reads' a person's 'inner voice' (the one in the mind) and broadcasts the world news through that person's 'inner voice' (to avoid any manipulation). Make a note, this could become standard in disseminating ideas, the same ideas that are pushed through FEAR. Obviously, the results will be different.
It can not be said that FEARING something means that it is a lie. However, if a device of propaganda can be recognized in 'pushing' FEAR or evoking FEAR in order to manipulate an ignorant audience, this can lead to conclude that the message that is trying to be broadcast and communicated could not be as Truthful as it may seem. As an audience to the venue of broadcasting stimuli, permeated by propaganda, it is essential to know the purpose of the communicated idea. And without knowing why they react to FEAR, or any other device of propaganda, the audience may remain oblivious to their choice to be manipulated.
-XJ
No comments:
Post a Comment