> I've always been a little confused about whether or not these authors asserting that propaganda "destroys truth" believe they personally know what is true and

> I've always been a little confused about whether or not these authors asserting that propaganda "destroys truth" believe they personally know what is true and what is false Not all propaganda. I mean, the White Rose called their own leaflets propaganda. Also, are you saying they can't possibly know? I know whether I am sitting on a chair or not right now. Is this being arrogant and closed-minded, or just me knowing what I know? Even though know the word "chair" is a simplification, and ultimately we "know" nothing that isn't based on axioms we came up with -- but to go down that rabbit hole every time for everything would indeed destroy the capacity to form convictions and to organize in groups. > Another useful tip about propaganda is "propaganda doesn't care how you feel, only how you act" That's true for the "oldschool" variants. To put a point on it, I'd say the modern variant very much cares about seeking out and destroying all kernels of people owning themselves rather than being leaves in the wind. The point is to break people down to be able to instill and enforce anything on a whim, not to instill a particular conviction that they then make their own, and which would become a problem once the agenda changes. The capacity to make anything their own, as well as anything that springs from within them, is "the enemy". > The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any. > There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous. -- both Hannah Arendt https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978/10/26/hannah-arendt-from-an-interview/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978/10/26/hannah-arendt-fr... > If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie — a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days — but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please. -- Hannah Arendt, https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978/10/26/hannah-arendt-from-an-interview/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978/10/26/hannah-arendt-fr... > My understanding of propaganda is not that it necessarily destroys truth Not necessarily, but this is the new dimension of some of it. I was actually looking for this quote of hers in English, but couldn't find it: > "So läuft der Unterschied zwischen traditionellen und modernen Lügen im Grunde auf den Unterschied zwischen Verbergen und Vernichten hinaus." which translates to > "Therefore the difference between traditional and modern lies basically boils down to the difference between concealment and destruction." -- Hannah Arendt But of course, it doesn't destroy the truth. It's a bit like saying poking out my eyes destroys all paintings in the world -- but on the other hand, it's obvious how I would mean that, right? If nobody has mental opposing thumbs anymore, they cannot grasp anything as truth anymore, and there might as well be no truth. Regarding your article, here is another really good one: https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/the-ubiquitous-matrix-of-lies/ https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/the-ubiquitous-matrix-o... > We live in a ubiquitous matrix of lies, a culture of mendacity so pervasive that it is nearly invisible. Because we are lied to all the time, in ways so routine they are beneath conscious notice, even the most direct lies are losing their power to shock us.