Main

• Propaganda either is or is the closest thing to magic that exists, without being recognized as magic.
• It is using loaded words and other symbols to subtly manipulate reality.
  • How are the words "loaded?" They are charged with emotional connotation and "cast" upon people, groups, nations, etc., like a spell.
    • "Spell" comes from Old English meaning "story, tale, discourse, or narrative"
    • It was believed that spoken words (especially in formulaic or ritual form) had power to influence reality.
    • Loaded words do in fact have power to influence reality through subtle, invisible means and exert control over or "enchant" the hearer.
  • This is not the same as merely communicating ideas with speech, even though all words/symbols are arbitrary by themselves and are assigned meaning. Labeling in general is exerting creative power to form discrete categories. However, in this context, loaded words convey vast and implicit meaning beyond their original intent, in order to manipulate emotion and opinion.
• Name-calling and other rallying verbal attacks are an instance of this. On the micro (interpersonal) level, that is probably the most common form of propaganda.

Expansion on labels

Loaded Labels and Stigma

Lets expand on that last one, because it has some notable features. Name-calling can be used to silence individuals that are presenting facts or exhibiting behaviors that are deemed unfavorable.

It is often the projection of a self-condemned internal reality on the part of the accuser.

Consider the following scenario: Person 1 states a FACT A about THING X. In this scenario, no opinion is expressed about the matter (i.e. no rallying against, or any history of negative sentiment). In other words, they are making an observation about reality or sharing information. Person 2 labels Person 1 as anti-X.

What took place is that Person 2 perceived FACT A as negative toward THING X, but also refused to self-label as anti-X. Therefore, the only alternative to accepting cognitive dissonance is to project anti-Xism onto Person 1 in an attempt to silence them, create an excuse for FACT A, or otherwise dismiss it, thus "proving" to themselves that they are not anti-X. This also has the added benefit of sanctimonious self-righteousness (in advocating for X).

This scenario also works in the reverse: FACT B promotes THING Y (which Person 2 has decided that they cannot be in favor of, etc.).

Notice how the first step was for Person 2 to perceive and believe themselves that if FACT A were true that it would indeed (according to their own estimation) be negative toward X. They will necessarily project that same negative emotion onto Person 1 but they will internally experience it as perception rather than projection. Regardless of how Person 2 behaves or the actual intent of Person 1, the truth is that the negative sentiment originated within the faculties of Person 2. The only way for that to not threaten Person 2's perception of X is to diminish, neglect, excuse, or verbally and cognitively dissociate from FACT A and/or Person 1 through labeling.

A couple examples

Apologetics:
Person 1: The Bible (thing) supports chattel slavery of foreigners (fact). Person 2 must first perceive that the statement as anti-Bible by acknowledging that accepting the plain reading of the text leads to anti-Bible sentiment. Therefore, they (more often) excuse the text or else use ad hominem attacks to silence Person 1 (disassociating from the fact). This exposes more about Person 2 than it does about Person 1. For all Person 2 knows, Person 1 may themselves be in favor of chattel slavery.

Conspiracy:
Person 1: The government (thing) has conducted experiments on unsuspecting citizens (fact). Person 2 perceives that if this fact were true, that it would lead to negative sentiment about (according to their own estimation). Person 2 believes that someone who thinks that the government would do such a thing rightly labeled a looney conspiracy theorist. Refusing to accept that they themselves could be categorized in this manner, they put the fact out of their mind entirely, excuse it, assume that it is false based on their a priori bias, or actively label Person 1 a "unpatriotic, looney conspiracy theorist" as a method of dissociation. For all Person 2 knows, Person 1 is merely sharing a piece of historical information that they find interesting without moral judgement. If they elect to label Person 1 as a conspiracy theorist spreading dangerous lies. This has revealed more about Person 2's perception of the fact than it does about Person 1.

An alternative approach

One alternative in these situations is for Person 2 to accept the fact while refraining from externalizing judgement about X. This is akin to actively excusing it, but perhaps acknowledges a lack of complete information. Maybe something that Person 2 perceives as negative has justifiable reasons that Person 1 is aware of. Maybe they don't see benefit to posturing themselves as judges of the situation, even though they do accept that the light cast by the fact is indeed negative. Maybe they have bigger fish to fry and leave condemnation to the one that will judge all things in the end. Maybe they've changed their mind about X, but want to leave that decision to Person 3, 4, and 5 based on the facts (like Person 1) and not participate in the divisive magic of propaganda and loaded language.

Acknowledgements:

• I am here using "magic" as loaded verbiage with a negative connotation.
• Sometimes exposing evil is good.
• Sometimes doing it in the most careful way possible allows evidence to speak for itself, individuals to expose themselves, or the truth to reveal itself to those who are paying attention without drawing unnecessary criticism from the hyper-sensitive (i.e. enchanted).