Assange's incarceration without the evidence of any wrongdoing and either people doing nothing about it or being unable to achieve any palpable results, it was clearly an indication of game over for the ignorant, indifferent, or plain disempowered masses.
"Goebbels" ref is a direct quote. Talk to Craig Murray about that. His point is valid. Manipulation of circumstance to create a perception/presentation outcome is a form of propagandistic technique.
As for "society", why is that word inappropriate in your opinion?
The Nazis liften Germany out of a deep depression in three years and the average German reached never-before-seen living standards. There was no need for "manipulation." Goebbels, however, maintained that good propaganda is truthful... Something that cannot be said about the propagandists today...
Using "society" and "we" are part of the Rhetoric of Power, I explain it in detail at the beginning of the article that is in the link above, if you care to read it.
Again, you and I fully agree on Assange and on the "unvaccinated." The difference between our opinions looks mostly cosmetic. Sorry, I didn't mean to initiate contention. I usually try to find common grounds that can lead to a consensus.
Can you come up with an accurate refence to Goebbels' saying such a generalization? Yes, he did refer to the worldwide bankers (who happen to be mostly Jewish, although they sacrifice real Jews as collateral damage anytime) who are the same people that are running the show now, because they control the global money flow. There are a lot of misconceptions about "Jews" to this very day despite the fact that there is no such thing as "the Jews."
Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would serve as fine references for mass manipulation, but somehow, editorial practice prefers references to Nazi Germany and much of them are grossly inaccurate. In order to avoid demagoguery, I am finding it better to avoid the "Nazis" as points of reference, although the popularized myths about them can serve as vehicles for communication.
"Culture consists of activities such as the arts and philosophy, which are considered to be important for the development of civilization and of people's minds."
"A culture is a particular society or civilization, especially considered in relation to its beliefs, way of life, or art."
I believe that in terms of uncountable nouns, it is reasonable to use the term "society" to reference each British, Swedish, Ecuadorian and US populace, the majority of whom have tolerated, enabled and even legitimised (through lack of opposition, if nothing else) the treatment of Assange.
Whether it is a cultural issue is a whole other discussion. If democracy exists such that a societal mass can affect the actions of a government, in the case of Assange either sufficient critical mass has not been achieved and/or it does not have an effective mechanism via which to influence these states' illegitimate actions. Or for some reason, those societies have not sided with Assange, even though they should.
Propaganda is a key part of why Assange is treated like this.
The Collins definition for "society" itself is a bad joke, wouldn't you say? :)
When I talk about a culture, I mean a community whose members interact according to the standards of their culture.
The crazy monkeys writing dictionaries usually don't know what they are talking about. (I know; at one point, I was a contributor to Larousee :) ).
Countries contain various cultures; only in the UK, there are about five "castes," speaking English differently, because their culturally-specific implications are drastically different. Romas in Ireland are NOT be part of "society," but they definitely represent their own cultural standards. Cultures, as such, are never compatible, so "multiculturalism" is an abomination...
Democracy is a hoax, convincing people that they have a choice. They don't. There might be an underlying ideology based on a country (in the US, it's supposed to be "The American Dream"), but that sort of thing is few and far between. Decisions are usually made based on power:
Propaganda is theoretically necessary for the masses to accept the way Assange is treated, but it really isn't. Most people don't care, and even if they did, they couldn't do a darn thing. "Societies," in this context, as I previously projected, do not even exist. It's about power (that wants social stability in order to preserve its status) and nothing else.
Yes, I generally agree with the points you make. Democracy by the common definition does not exist but people don't want to face that truth because of the ramifications i.e. "you are a slave" with a lot less autonomy that you want to acknowledge. But when picking words that have an acceptable reference point to describe, conveniently, collective groups that crudely equate to a big part of a given nation state, "society" is one such word (nebulous though it may be).
One could argue that, wittingly or unwittingly, all information is propaganda and it is down to the individual consuming it to consume it appropriately, which is a highly subjective concept in itself. Because we have access to massive amounts of information, the search for truth is more difficult because one cannot really trust any information. Discernment and awareness of one's own perceptive vulnerabilities, prejudices etc all come into play.
A lot of valuable information.
Please, leave the myth of Goebbels out of it, along with the word, "society." These would strengthen your narrative.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/mass-formation-is-misrepresented
Assange's incarceration without the evidence of any wrongdoing and either people doing nothing about it or being unable to achieve any palpable results, it was clearly an indication of game over for the ignorant, indifferent, or plain disempowered masses.
"Goebbels" ref is a direct quote. Talk to Craig Murray about that. His point is valid. Manipulation of circumstance to create a perception/presentation outcome is a form of propagandistic technique.
As for "society", why is that word inappropriate in your opinion?
The Nazis liften Germany out of a deep depression in three years and the average German reached never-before-seen living standards. There was no need for "manipulation." Goebbels, however, maintained that good propaganda is truthful... Something that cannot be said about the propagandists today...
Using "society" and "we" are part of the Rhetoric of Power, I explain it in detail at the beginning of the article that is in the link above, if you care to read it.
And it's not "my opinion." It's a fact...
Goebbels. The guy who painted Jews as filthy rats etc.
As unvaccinated are unclean in these times as well, and Assange was deprived in order to look less appealing on extraction from the embassy.
I don't actually understand why you object to Murray's Goebbels reference. It's valid.
Again, you and I fully agree on Assange and on the "unvaccinated." The difference between our opinions looks mostly cosmetic. Sorry, I didn't mean to initiate contention. I usually try to find common grounds that can lead to a consensus.
Can you come up with an accurate refence to Goebbels' saying such a generalization? Yes, he did refer to the worldwide bankers (who happen to be mostly Jewish, although they sacrifice real Jews as collateral damage anytime) who are the same people that are running the show now, because they control the global money flow. There are a lot of misconceptions about "Jews" to this very day despite the fact that there is no such thing as "the Jews."
Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would serve as fine references for mass manipulation, but somehow, editorial practice prefers references to Nazi Germany and much of them are grossly inaccurate. In order to avoid demagoguery, I am finding it better to avoid the "Nazis" as points of reference, although the popularized myths about them can serve as vehicles for communication.
https://perspectives.ushmm.org/item/propaganda-poster-jews-are-lice-they-cause-typhus
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201811/propaganda-and-hoaxes-in-nazi-germany-80-years-later
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/der-ewige-jude
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Der+Ewige+Jude&t=brave&kp=-2&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos
None of your sources is reliable; they are propaganda pieces...
Thank you, anyway.
What word would you use in place of society, in the context of this article?
Culture or community standards.
But with reference to a dictionary definition, using Collins:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/society
"Society is people in general, thought of as a large organized group."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/culture
"Culture consists of activities such as the arts and philosophy, which are considered to be important for the development of civilization and of people's minds."
"A culture is a particular society or civilization, especially considered in relation to its beliefs, way of life, or art."
I believe that in terms of uncountable nouns, it is reasonable to use the term "society" to reference each British, Swedish, Ecuadorian and US populace, the majority of whom have tolerated, enabled and even legitimised (through lack of opposition, if nothing else) the treatment of Assange.
Whether it is a cultural issue is a whole other discussion. If democracy exists such that a societal mass can affect the actions of a government, in the case of Assange either sufficient critical mass has not been achieved and/or it does not have an effective mechanism via which to influence these states' illegitimate actions. Or for some reason, those societies have not sided with Assange, even though they should.
Propaganda is a key part of why Assange is treated like this.
The Collins definition for "society" itself is a bad joke, wouldn't you say? :)
When I talk about a culture, I mean a community whose members interact according to the standards of their culture.
The crazy monkeys writing dictionaries usually don't know what they are talking about. (I know; at one point, I was a contributor to Larousee :) ).
Countries contain various cultures; only in the UK, there are about five "castes," speaking English differently, because their culturally-specific implications are drastically different. Romas in Ireland are NOT be part of "society," but they definitely represent their own cultural standards. Cultures, as such, are never compatible, so "multiculturalism" is an abomination...
Democracy is a hoax, convincing people that they have a choice. They don't. There might be an underlying ideology based on a country (in the US, it's supposed to be "The American Dream"), but that sort of thing is few and far between. Decisions are usually made based on power:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-law-of-the-land
Propaganda is theoretically necessary for the masses to accept the way Assange is treated, but it really isn't. Most people don't care, and even if they did, they couldn't do a darn thing. "Societies," in this context, as I previously projected, do not even exist. It's about power (that wants social stability in order to preserve its status) and nothing else.
Yes, I generally agree with the points you make. Democracy by the common definition does not exist but people don't want to face that truth because of the ramifications i.e. "you are a slave" with a lot less autonomy that you want to acknowledge. But when picking words that have an acceptable reference point to describe, conveniently, collective groups that crudely equate to a big part of a given nation state, "society" is one such word (nebulous though it may be).
One could argue that, wittingly or unwittingly, all information is propaganda and it is down to the individual consuming it to consume it appropriately, which is a highly subjective concept in itself. Because we have access to massive amounts of information, the search for truth is more difficult because one cannot really trust any information. Discernment and awareness of one's own perceptive vulnerabilities, prejudices etc all come into play.