Nazi Germany built it's regime through direct control of the media and censorship of anyone or any idea that challenged their ideology.
I'm not sure propaganda that ignores the power of propaganda is a great idea.
I'm not sure propaganda that ignores the power of propaganda is a great idea.
Both our statements are true.
What is the ultimate point of burning books? Does it represent the manufacture of media or the control of it?
Compare: "This video on pulling weeds is useless, because after the tree has grown it has a mighty root-system."
So many records were destroyed, and until very recently, propaganda was still sacrosanct.
In Communist countries, Fascism had to be Capitalist reaction to working class solidarity. In Western Countries, there was more freedom, but there was a strong stigma against any analysis that violated Atlanticist principals. Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" raised too much controversy for claiming Eichmann was just a joiner, not hateful.
Until recently it wasn't just propaganda, but a basic human decency not to ask certain questions too loudly while the survivors of the Holocaust were still alive, and their persecutors lived unpunished.
For example, there's little willingness (in the West) to discuss the role Russian emigres played in supporting Fascism? They were obviously being opportunistic, as were Ukrainians and Finns.
I learned very recently that in late November 1918, weeks after World War I ended, the British told the Germans they could expand Eastward, rearming if necessary, to prevent the Bolsheviks from advancing.
The Germans had already disarmed, and no longer had functional militaries. But they were able to raise self-sustained militias that moved into parts of Poland and Lithuania.
Later on, Nazi propaganda played up this fact, while Allied propgandists chose to ignore it. It likely had a role in convincing Germans they had a "natural" claim to East Europe.
Looking at the news, the German army recently held marches in these places, as a sign of support for NATO against the Russians.
The economic crises of the 20s and 30s. This is very well documented.
> Perhaps... the things in the video?
Speeches on street corners? I find that notion absurd. I find the presentation incredibly ignorant and manipulative.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/google-admi...
I don’t know if anyone will accept those sources. They’re the first two I found when looking for it. It could be misleading. The daily wire is obviously incentivized to report bad things about the Biden admin. But, I remember reading similar reports from a variety of sources a few years back, and could probably track those down if it’s helpful.
I don't see any derision of the first amendment or of the public square (not sure which you were referring to as "it" in your last sentence). When we exercise our freedom of expression, we have zero guarantee that we will be listened to, believed, or respected.
The derision I see in this video is directed at visceral belief in whoever is shouting in the public square, especially when their message is so clearly divisive. The discussion between the Freemason and the naturalized citizen is itself a fine example of free expression in the public square.