3 p. We say distorted rhetoric is able to convince people to adopt one belief.
It is kind of a chauvinism where we are saying people don’t have a mind of their own, (the Masses), and they need OUR protection and guidance. How are arguments crafted to control populations then?
[This could be phase-two of the post 12 wnt. How can you craft a convincing argument. I won’t link to it though; it is just back there a ways.]
Words grow to have either a positive or a negative connotation as the vernacular progresses through time. Vernacular means the usage or the dialect of a particular group or sub-group of people. Therefore, you have to choose your words carefully to properly drill in these polarities. Connotations move much faster that denotations, or the coining of new words. New words have no power, because nobody is used to them. But the old word is now colored with layers of innuendo. Those implications have already been worked out with prior usage.
For instance, "traditional" or " conservative" have their uses throughout history, and even now the vast majority of our relationships are run on our traditional values. They are the defenders of our nation’s customs. Conservatism grows out of human beings' quest to live happy and satisfying individual and collective lives. As do all ideologies or philosophies, conservatism provides ideals and a way of explaining and justifying the state of affairs. It's a guide to individual and collective conduct. They’re the time-tested patterns to live by.
But these two words have also taken on the connotation of old fashion, or out of date. What takes the place of these "ancients" are words like liberal, progressive, innovative, relevant, and modern. Whereas tradition is stodginess, rigidity, and resistance to change. “The past is precisely what needs to be overcome”!
A good way to promote anything is to create a dichotomy in the minds of those you are trying to convince, including yourself. It helps greatly to establish the perception that there are only two positions or stances, (not three or four, but just two), yours, and the obviously inferior alternative. In order to do that, you sort of have to roll over people whose posture is not already locked in. They want to see all the facts and judge for themselves. They want to delve into all the options, especially those that you have dismissed. On what basis did you throw them out?
Stay away from several viable options, or the adopting a little of what you say and some, (or a lot) of something else. That only muddies the water. If the other side is not only misguided, but maybe also immoral, you can create a melodrama of sorts. So you paint your side in all the good connotation words, and the other side with all the doubtful connotation words. In certain circumstances you can use magic words, like "Hitler", that will really get them.
Let’s look at a few conventional wisdoms that propaganda may lean on.
✓Everything is centered on the latest innovation, it could be called Chronocentrism, centering on “these times”. It obscures the continuity of the present with what has gone on before. Saying there is always ongoing progress and now is the best of all times. All the past is inferior, invented by our backward ancestors. Even technology insists to update your software. Keep up with what is in vogue, believe it, and buy it. Actually, Modernity has brought a whole lot of ruin on the world.
On the other side, Historocentric takes in the totality of the past, present and future. The past was not, in fact, backward. We are not living better, happier, more productive lives that our forbearers did. At least we should be open to it. Glib talkers and experts, sophisters and calculators, if we would only just do what they say. But their costs belong to someone else. And the results are a throw of the dice. Analyze how things are, “the way that they are”, that is the starting point.
✓The belief that technology is progress and will solve all problems. But what are the results? What are the side effects, are they more virulent than the original issue? Groups organized around grievances, maneuvering to get preferential treatment. Dislocation, anonymity, animosity and danger, mutual support replaced by isolation and impersonal government largess. Are we “progressing” right over the precipice, with high crime rates, falling education, declining work ethic, deteriorating families, disregard for civility, and personal upheaval and unhappiness, that spawns billions of dollars in therapy?
✓Wisdom is only relative to the ages and there can be no search for a consistent wisdom (no permanent truth?) It’s the basic tension between progress and permanence. Permanence is not only temporal, but qualitative. Those qualities that are naturally uplifting to human beings and to society. Those things that are most fulfilling.
✓Denying that a transcendent order exists beyond and above individual conscience. There is a justice beyond individual ethics and morality. For instance, the phrase in the Declaration if Independence of, “inalienable rights”. It overrides the laws of governments, but where does it come from? (Maybe there are no inalienable rights then?)
✓The drive for Equality has displaced distinction and accomplishment. Shouldn’t we be suspicious of those who presume they know enough to redesign others’ lives, or reshape society according to their goals?
✓Diversity is the new catch phrase. Of course, we praise diversity because that is what we have. What are we going to say, “all you foreigners, go home”? And it can be good, especially in times of prosperity. The value of cultural diversity must be measured against “cultural integrity”. There are core assumptions about the reality of individual and collective patterns of behavior. Culture is actually very fragile. Diversity was good, (except for the native Americans). For them diversity was a contamination. Hybrid culture is not necessarily a better culture. It is making due with what we have. Protecting your own culture is a worthy endeavor.
.