Saturday, August 30, 2008

Two-Party Rule: Only One Better than China?

Countries like North Korea, former USSR, China and Syria are single-party states. No one is allowed to venture from the established party line or the will of the state, which are really one and the same. No political dissent is tolerated. Countries like Jamaica and the United States are two-party states. Ostensibly, this system offers voters a "choice" between often diametrically opposed viewpoints. One often hears the two-party system touted as the best possible system out there, the veritable salvation of democracy, no less. Of course, only Republicans and Democrats say this—and why not? They are the biggest beneficiaries of the two-party status quo! These two acrimonious associations have their nests nicely feathered, thank you. Don't mess with what isn't broken, they say.
But it is broken. Indeed, the similarities between one-party and two-party rule are chilling. In the one-party state, if the people are hungry and restless, it's a simple matter to increase the bacon, toilet paper and gasoline rations. Let the poor buggers have heat for an extra hour each night. If an upstart political party starts to make trouble in Syria or China, it is a simple matter to send jackbooted thugs to bust up the party printing press and place party leaders under arrest under trumped up charges. Everything is better. Real reform. The state triumphs again!
I submit that two-party rule is only one better than one-party rule. Both systems operate in similar ways—with leaders of the "approved" party or parties promising (or threatening) whatever it takes to keep the people placated (or neutralized) and themselves in power. Admittedly, America's two-party system is much to be preferred over the iron fisted authoritarianism of China and North Korea—but it is not as much better. The two-party system purports to offer diverse "choices" to the people. But are the differences real or are they just political constructs floated to attract votes with no substance behind them? Are we just being placated? Just neutralized? In the current political climate of the U.S., I fear this is all too often the case.
In the U.S., the strong-arm tactics of China and North Korea would never be tolerated, so the Republicrats ensure their shared hold on power in other ways—by colluding to pass unconstitutional laws making it next to impossible for third parties to get on the ballot. They get their pointy heads together in legislatures all over the land and set arbitrary limits on who can participate in debates. Often, they will drag third parties into court to get them thrown off the ballot or otherwise waste precious resources. Someone will say this is very different from what China and Syria do. Perhaps so, but a suppressed party is no less suppressed just because it is accomplished without violence.
No matter how badly things go, a single-party system never actually has to reform. (There is no competition) Sadly, neither does a two-party system. (There is only one competitor) When one of the two parties is thrown from power, it need only wait long enough for the people to grow tired of the second party. Rather than offer the voters true reform, in the two-party paradigm, the opposition party simply focuses on tearing down the party in power by any means necessary, so that the voters will grow tired of it. The very ideas the voters had previously rejected are repackaged and touted as "change" and "solutions" to the damage done by the party in power. With no other option available, the voters reelect the very party they had voted out just a few years (or even months) earlier. There is no reform. No change. Nothing new. A vicious cycle is repeated one more time. The state triumphs yet again!
Even allowing that a two-party system is the best choice, as some do, who is to say that the two parties must always be the Republican and Democratic parties? Perhaps another two would serve our nation better. I think this is quite plausible, but we will never know until the two-party system hegemony is ended. The "co-totalitarianism" of the Republicrats must be broken, and the only way that will happen is for the American voter to say "enough!" and demand that more choices and more voices be given a place at the political table. The people must stop allowing the "approved" parties to bully third parties into extinction. My sincere hope is that the American people will wake up to the damage being done to our republic and its Constitution by the much-vaunted two-party system. If the 2008 Presidential race doesn't wake a few of them up, I don't know what will.
I would argue that one party system is even more honest and better for the people and state, then two party system (like in USA).
When there is only one party rule, there is no one to blame, except that one party. That is why USSR collapsed, because there were no one else to blame when communist party failed to deliver for the people. On the other hand USA two party political system doesn't have such problems. Democrats can always blame Republicans, and Republicans can always blame Democrats. This political strategy of shifting blame is serving well both parties for many years. For US to claim to be democratic country and have two party political system is just sounds absurd and factually untrue.
Look how many parties has UK, Italy, Germany, France etc, even Russia has more parties in they parliament (Duma), then USA.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008


Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument.
It has been argued that humans are, without exception, highly susceptible to self-deception, as everyone has emotional attachments to beliefs, which in some cases may be irrational. Some evolutionary biologists, such as Robert Trivers, have even suggested that, because deception is such an important part of human behaviour (and animal behaviour generally), an instinct for self-deception can give a person a selective advantage: if someone can believe their own "lie" (i.e., their presentation that is biased toward their own self-interest), the theory goes, they will consequently be better able to persuade others of its "truth'.
This notion is based on the following logic. In humans, awareness of the fact that one is acting deceptively often leads to tell-tale signs of deception. Therefore, if self-deception enables someone to believe their distortions, they will not present such signs of deception and will therefore appear to be telling the truth.

Propaganda in the United States

Propaganda in the United States comes from governments and private entities of various kinds. It is widespread and involves every form, type, model and techniques.
If you study propaganda fundamentally you will be able see how it is used in the USA on a mass scale in every form of media (TV, Radio, News papers, Books, etc).

News media
Numerous sources of news exist in the US, most of which are operated by private companies. Whether they propagandize, either on behalf of the government or private actors, remains hotly debated. The "big three" broadcast networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC, and cable news channel CNN, are frequently accused by those on the political right of biasing their coverage toward left-wing views, and, by those on the left, toward right-wing views. The newer Fox News Channel has been widely accused by the political left wing of biasing coverage toward the right and toward an American jingoist point of view.
In reality all channels of US media is using techniques of propaganda.
Political campaigning and lobbying
As in other countries with elected governments, parties and politically active individuals publicize their views and promote their candidates of choice. This propaganda goes through the usual advertising channels, such as television, radio, and the press, as well as non-advertising channels like bumper stickers. Candidates promote themselves to the public through speeches, political debates, and photo ops. In May 2005, US President George W. Bush openly referred to his efforts to gain public support for his plan to phase out Social Security in favor of private accounts as propaganda. "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda", he said.
Aside from election campaigns, people and organizations communicate their views on particular issues through lobbying organizations, which distribute propaganda to the public and to political representatives. These come in the form of advertisements, fax distributions, newsletters, and letter-writing campaigns, to name a few. Think tanks bring together like-minded experts and analysts to review current legislative and policy issues and present their conclusions to legislators, the public, and news media. Both lobbyists and think tanks receive their funding from businesses, private foundations, and individual donors. The influence of money in American politics is a frequent subject of controversy and reform efforts.
Government propaganda

The first large-scale use of propaganda by the US government came during World War I. To keep the prices of war supplies down, the government produced posters that encouraged people to reduce waste and grow their own vegetables in "victory gardens". The government used propaganda on a larger scale during the New Deal and World War II. Why We Fight is a famous series of US government propaganda films made to justify US involvement in World War II.
During the Cold War, the government produced vast amounts of propaganda against communism and the Soviet bloc. Much of this propaganda was directed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under J. Edgar Hoover, who himself wrote the anti-communist tract Masters of Deceit. The FBI's COINTELPRO arm solicited journalists to produce fake news items discrediting communists and affiliated groups, such as H. Bruce Franklin and the Venceremos Organization.
In early 2002, the U.S. Department of Defense launched an information operation. The goal of the operation is "to spread the administrations's talking points on Iraq by briefing ... retired commanders for network and cable television appearances," where they have been presented as independent analysts. On 22 May 2008, after this program was revealed in the New York Times, the House passed an amendment that would make permanent a domestic propaganda ban that until now has been enacted annually in the military authorization bill. See also: Pentagon military analyst program
Through several international broadcasting operations, the US disseminates American cultural information, official positions on international affairs, and daily summaries of international news. These operations fall under the International Broadcasting Bureau, the successor of the United States Information Agency, established in 1953. IBB's operations include Voice of America, Radio Liberty, and other programs. The Smith-Mundt Act prohibits the Voice of America from disseminating information to US citizens that was produced specifically for a foreign audience.
During the Cold War the US ran covert propaganda campaigns in countries that appeared likely to become Soviet satellites, such as Italy, Afghanistan, and Chile.
Recently The Pentagon announced the creation of a new unit aimed at spreading propaganda about supposed "inaccurate" stories being spread about the Iraq War. These "inaccuracies" have been blamed on the enemy trying to decrease support for the war. Donald Rumsfeld has been quoted as saying these stories are something that keeps him up at night.
"Psychological operations"
The US military defines psychological operations, or PSYOP, as:
planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence the emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

The Smith-Mundt Act, adopted in 1948, explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at the US public. Nevertheless, the current easy access to news and information from around the globe, makes it difficult to guarantee PSYOP programs do not reach the US public. Or, in the words of Army Col. James A. Treadwell, who commanded the U.S. military psyops unit in Iraq in 2003, in the Washington Post:
There's always going to be a certain amount of bleed-over with the global information environment.

Agence France Presse reported on U.S. propaganda campaigns that:
The Pentagon acknowledged in a newly declassified document that the US public is increasingly exposed to propaganda disseminated overseas in psychological operations.
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has approved that document, which is called "Information Operations Roadmap". The document acknowledges the Smith-Mundt Act, but fails to offer any way of limiting the effect PSYOP programs have on domestic audiences.
Several incidents in 2003 were documented by Sam Gardiner, a sixty-four-year-old retired Air Force colonel, which he saw as information-warfare campaigns that were intended for "foreign populations and the American public." Truth from These Podia, as the treatise was called, reported that the way the Iraq war was fought resembled a political campaign, stressing the message instead of the truth.

Techniques of propaganda

Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and posters. In the case of radio and television, propaganda can exist on news, current-affairs or talk-show segments, as advertising or public-service announce "spots" or as long-running advertorials. Propaganda campaigns often follow a strategic transmission pattern to indoctrinate the target group. This may begin with a simple transmission such as a leaflet dropped from a plane or an advertisement. Generally these messages will contain directions on how to obtain more information, via a web site, hot line, radio program, et cetera (as it is seen also for selling purposes among other goals). The strategy intends to initiate the individual from information recipient to information seeker through reinforcement, and then from information seeker to opinion leader through indoctrination.
Number of techniques which are based on social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.
Some time has been spent analyzing the means by which propaganda messages are transmitted. That work is important but it is clear that information dissemination strategies only become propaganda strategies when coupled with propagandistic messages. Identifying these messages is a necessary prerequisite to study the methods by which those messages are spread. Below are a number of techniques for generating propaganda:
* Ad hominem

A Latin phrase which has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments.

* Ad nauseam

This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator.

* Appeal to authority

Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action.

* Appeal to fear

Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population, for example, Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.

* Appeal to prejudice

Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition. For example, the phrase: "Any hard-working taxpayer would have to agree that those who do not work, and who do not support the community do not deserve the community's support through social assistance."

* Bandwagon

Bandwagon and "inevitable-victory" appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that "everyone else is taking."

* Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.
* Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.

* Black-and-White fallacy

Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice. (e.g., "You are either with us, or you are with the enemy")

* Beautiful people

The type of propaganda that deals with famous people or depicts attractive, happy people. This makes other people think that if they buy a product or follow a certain ideology, they too will be happy or successful. (This is more used in advertising for products, instead of political reasons)

* Big Lie

The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the "big lie" generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public's accurate perception of the underlying events. After World War I the German Stab in the back explanation of the cause of their defeat became a justification for Nazi re-militarization and revanchist aggression. After September 11, 2001 attacks on USA, government of USA used this technique to justify attack on Iraq and other actions that had nothing to do with response to September 11 attacks.

* Common man

The "'plain folks'" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the target audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person. For example, a propaganda leaflet may make an argument on a macroeconomic issue, such as unemployment insurance benefits, using everyday terms: "given that the country has little money during this recession, we should stop paying unemployment benefits to those who do not work, because that is like maxing out all your credit cards during a tight period, when you should be tightening your belt."

* Demonizing the enemy

Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman (e.g., the Vietnam War-era term "gooks" for National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam aka Vietcong, (or 'VC') soldiers), worthless, or immoral, through suggestion or false accusations. This technique is used in present times against Muslim population by USA and Western European countries.

* Direct order

This technique hopes to simplify the decision making process by using images and words to tell the audience exactly what actions to take, eliminating any other possible choices. Authority figures can be used to give the order, overlapping it with the Appeal to authority technique, but not necessarily. The Uncle Sam "I want you" image is an example of this technique.

* Euphoria

The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale. Euphoria can be created by declaring a holiday, making luxury items available, or mounting a military parade with marching bands and patriotic messages.

* Disinformation

The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organization, including outright forgery of photographs, motion pictures, broadcasts, and sound recordings as well as printed documents.

* Flag-waving

An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. The feeling of patriotism which this technique attempts to inspire may not necessarily diminish or entirely omit one's capability for rational examination of the matter in question.

* Glittering generalities

Glittering generalities are emotionally appealing words applied to a product or idea, but which present no concrete argument or analysis. A famous example is the campaign slogan "Ford has a better idea!"

* Half-truth

A half-truth is a deceptive statement which may come in several forms and includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade blame or misrepresent the truth.

* Intentional vagueness

Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to "figure out" the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgment of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and application may still be considered.

* Obtain disapproval or Reductio ad Hitlerum

This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may decide to change their original position. This is a form of Bad Logic, where a is said to equal X, and b is said to equal X, therefore, a = b.

* Oversimplification

Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.

* Quotes out of Context

Selective editing of quotes which can change meanings. Political documentaries designed to discredit an opponent or an opposing political viewpoint often make use of this technique.

* Name-calling

Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of facts. Name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against the an idea or belief on its own merits.[5]

* Rationalization

Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs.

* Red herring

Presenting data or issues that, while compelling, are irrelevant to the argument at hand, and then claiming that it validates the argument.

* Labeling

A Euphemism is used when the propagandist attempts to increase the perceived quality, credibility, or creedence of a particular ideal. A Dysphemism is used when the intent of the propagandist is to discredit, diminish the perceived quality, or hurt the perceived righteousness of the Mark. By creating a 'label' or 'category' or 'faction' of a population, it is much easier to make an example of these larger bodies, because they can uplift or defame the Mark without actually incuring legal-defamation. Example: "Liberal" is a dysphamsim intended to diminish the perceived credibility of a particular Mark. By taking a displeasing argument presented by a Mark, the propagandist can quote that person, and then attack 'liberals' in an attempt to both create a political battle-ax of unaccountable aggression and diminish the quality of the Mark. If the propagandist uses the label on too-many perceivably credible individuals, muddying up the word can be done by broadcasting bad-examples of 'liberals' into the media. Labeling can be thought of as a sub-set of Guilt by association, another Logical Fallacy.

* Repetition

This type of propaganda deals with a jingle or word that is repeated over and over again, thus getting it stuck in someones head, so they can buy the product. The "Repetition" method has been described previously.

* Scapegoating

Assigning blame to an individual or group, thus alleviating feelings of guilt from responsible parties and/or distracting attention from the need to fix the problem for which blame is being assigned.

* Slogans

A slogan is a brief, striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. Although slogans may be enlisted to support reasoned ideas, in practice they tend to act only as emotional appeals. Opponents of the US's invasion and occupation of Iraq use the slogan "blood for oil" to suggest that the invasion and its human losses was done to access Iraq's oil riches. On the other hand, "hawks" who argue that the US should continue to fight in Iraq use the slogan "cut and run" to suggest that it would be cowardly or weak to withdraw from Iraq. Similarly, the names of the military campaigns, such as "enduring freedom" or "just cause", may also be regarded to be slogans, devised to influence people.

* Stereotyping or Name Calling or Labeling

This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. For instance, reporting on a foreign country or social group may focus on the stereotypical traits that the reader expects, even though they are far from being representative of the whole country or group; such reporting often focuses on the anecdotal.

* Testimonial

Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority's opinions and beliefs as its own. See also, damaging quotation

* Transfer

Also known as Association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response, which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities. Often highly visual, this technique often utilizes symbols (for example, the Swastika used in Nazi Germany, originally a symbol for health and prosperity) superimposed over other visual images. An example of common use of this technique in America is for the President's image to be overlaid with a swastika by his opponents.

* Unstated assumption

This technique is used when the propaganda concept that the propagandist intends to transmit would seem less credible if explicitly stated. The concept is instead repeatedly assumed or implied.

* Virtue words

These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, "The Truth", etc. are virtue words. In countries such as the U.S. religiosity is seen as a virtue, making associations to this quality affectively beneficial. See ""Transfer"".

Fundamental principle of politics is Propaganda

Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
—Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion
The word originates from the Latin name Congregatio de Propaganda Fide ("Congregation for the Spreading of the Faith") of a congregation founded by Pope Gregory XV in 1622. This department of the pontifical administration was charged with the spread of Catholicism and with the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in mission territory.
The Latin adjective propaganda, which is a form of the gerundive of the verb propago (from pro- "forth" + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten"), means "that which is to be spread" and does not carry a connotation of information, misleading or otherwise. The modern sense dates from World War I, when the term evolved to be mainly associated with politics.
Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion
Richard Alan Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996
Propaganda, in a narrower use of the term, connotes deliberately false or misleading information that supports or furthers a political (but not only) cause or the interests of those with power. The propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or situation for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the interest group. Propaganda, in this sense, serves as a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view. What sets propaganda apart from other forms of advocacy is the willingness of the propagandist to change people's understanding through deception and confusion rather than persuasion and understanding. The leaders of an organization know the information to be one sided or untrue, but this may not be true for the rank and file members who help to disseminate the propaganda.
Propaganda is a powerful weapon in war; it is used to dehumanize and create hatred toward a supposed enemy, either internal or external, by creating a false image in the mind. This can be done by using derogatory or racist terms, avoiding some words or by making allegations of enemy atrocities. Most propaganda wars require the home population to feel the enemy has inflicted an injustice, which may be fictitious or may be based on facts. The home population must also decide that the cause of their nation is just.
Propaganda is also one of the methods used in psychological warfare, which may also involve false flag operations. The term propaganda may also refer to false information meant to reinforce the mindsets of people who already believe as the propagandist wishes. The assumption is that, if people believe something false, they will constantly be assailed by doubts. Since these doubts are unpleasant (see cognitive dissonance), people will be eager to have them extinguished, and are therefore receptive to the reassurances of those in power. For this reason propaganda is often addressed to people who are already sympathetic to the agenda. This process of reinforcement uses an individual's predisposition to self-select "agreeable" information sources as a mechanism for maintaining control.
Propaganda can be classified according to the source and nature of the message. White propaganda generally comes from an openly identified source, and is characterized by gentler methods of persuasion, such as standard public relations techniques and one-sided presentation of an argument. Black propaganda is identified as being from one source, but is in fact from another. This is most commonly to disguise the true origins of the propaganda, be it from an enemy country or from an organization with a negative public image. Grey propaganda is propaganda without any identifiable source or author. A major application of grey propaganda is making enemies believe falsehoods using straw arguments: As phase one, to make someone believe "A", one releases as grey propaganda "B", the opposite of "A". In phase two, "B" is discredited using some strawman. The enemy will then assume "A" to be true.

In scale, these different types of propaganda can also be defined by the potential of true and correct information to compete with the propaganda. For example, opposition to white propaganda is often readily found and may slightly discredit the propaganda source. Opposition to grey propaganda, when revealed (often by an inside source), may create some level of public outcry. Opposition to black propaganda is often unavailable and may be dangerous to reveal, because public cognizance of black propaganda tactics and sources would undermine or backfire the very campaign the black propagandist supported.
Propaganda may be administered in insidious ways. For instance, disparaging disinformation about the history of certain groups or foreign countries may be encouraged or tolerated in the educational system. Since few people actually double-check what they learn at school, such disinformation will be repeated by journalists as well as parents, thus reinforcing the idea that the disinformation item is really a "well-known fact", even though no one repeating the myth is able to point to an authoritative source. The disinformation is then recycled in the media and in the educational system, without the need for direct governmental intervention on the media. Such permeating propaganda may be used for political goals: by giving citizens a false impression of the quality or policies of their country, they may be incited to reject certain proposals or certain remarks or ignore the experience of others.