> So if we reach different conclusions than you, ... No, that's a fallacy you just put forward. Its flawed logic. > You might need to question your own positi

> So if we reach different conclusions than you, ... No, that's a fallacy you just put forward. Its flawed logic. > You might need to question your own position more... I question my position regularly, consistently, and with great vigor, and its stood the test of time with a rock solid foundation. Being very serious here, I have to ask, do you even know what propaganda is? or is it just some nebulous concept? Do you know how to concretely recognize it? Do you know what its used for, how and why it works, and the outcomes it causes? If you can't answer all of those questions in detail, and weren't taught it in school (almost all US public education students weren't), you were taught other things implicitly that you may not even realize or question, and that and its outcomes would fall under ideological indoctrination. It's not brainwashing like the movies, its far far worse and very subtle. Here's a project for you, read a book called Influence by Cialdini. It covers the most common psychological blindspots people have (as adults), there are more with children and everyone has them. Be aware that book covers some dark topics but it shows certain areas you need to pay attention to more than others, and you should build an unconscious associative response of critical thinking/alarm when you recognize any one of those being used. After you have a handle on that subject material, go back and review the material you were forced to cover as a child. Remember details of how it was taught, did they cover the material very quickly, or was it agonizingly slow with the time spent over-allocated for specific material. If you recall, boredom and sitting still as a child are some of the worst forms of suffering they experience today. Focus your efforts on material taught prior to the age of reason (Age 12). Corroborate what was taught in those books with other historic accounts written by historians, it is not enough to just look at the text itself, you also need to look at the implication the author is making, in whole and by part (they should be the same because children tend to read sentences one at a time). Assume what the author is saying is not true and go prove its true from sources used by historians. If you do this, you will find a consistent pattern that you never realized. What I describe, is far worse than not OK because that's a direct attack on thought at a time when you didn't have the development or faculties to discern otherwise, and it translates directly into communication and agency. The most common use of propaganda is in subversion. The overall goal being to either drain, limit, or remove resources necessary to think, react, or take action. This can be caused by eliciting certain psychological states/responses or through other means such as corruption of cultural/personal/religious/national identity, and/or to indoctrinate others to do the same, its immaterial if they know they are doing it or not. Its about outcomes, and if there is no significant amount of unity, there will be no organized response, and the outcome will be a stall out without responsive action, until the number of people pushing for something outweigh the people in opposition with others unreactive (i.e. a small minority chooses and incites). Its the same fundamental mechanic for the fall of Rome with relation to the Demagogues.