Ukraina and what is propaganda?
In the past, when the cazzologists of the web spoke of "fake news", I always replied that there is indeed a method to distinguish news from propaganda, but my definition did nothing but demonstrate that there are TWO propagandas, and even those who put themselves it was propagandists who debunked "fake news".
Because the problem is this: a world where EVERYONE makes propaganda is exactly that world that does not allow anyone to explain what propaganda is.
So, the Ukrainian refugee issue provides us with a glaring example of this effect. Why are Ukrainians more welcome, I don't know, than those who fled the former Yugoslavia, who were just as white (and it is clear that Syrians are not that dark) or Caucasians?
Here, the problem lies precisely in the propaganda. Let's start with the definition:
propaganda is the use of freedom of speech against freedom of thought.
Since freedom of speech and freedom of thought are often considered the same thing, let us take the example of the Ukrainians.
"Five million Ukrainians fleeing the war are arriving in Europe."
This is a fact, that is the news (verifiable in many ways), and therefore it cannot be considered a fake news.
But also "four million Syrians fleeing the war are arriving in Europe" is equally verifiable.
So it's not a "fake news" problem, and we have to go back to my definition.
If I hear that all these refugees are arriving, what do I think?
Because freedom of speech is to say that refugees are coming, but I can think of it well (it is a duty to welcome them, they will finally be safe, the children will be able to recover, etc). Or I can think badly of it: “they will rape our women, they will steal our jobs, they will crush an already insufficient welfare, etc).
As long as I have only the real news, I am still FREE to think what I want. It's up to me to give an evaluation: is it good or bad?
Therefore, freedom of speech and thought are two completely separate and independent freedoms: you can say what you want, I can think what I want.
Now we come to propaganda: when I use free speech to trap thought. And then I write:
"Rape alarm, five million Ukrainians fleeing the war are arriving in Europe."
Those two words I added at the beginning completely change the message. You are no longer free to think what you want, because in any case the word rape leads your thinking in the direction of a negative judgment.
The professional debunkers will now tell me that it is enough to unmask the fake news of the rapes, but it is not fake news: I can guarantee you that Ivo Balboni, a pensioner from Cesena, is very alarmed by the rapes. I'm reporting real facts. You can ask Ivo Balboni if you don't believe it. So there is the rape alarm and there are the refugees.
(in any case it is known that the arrival of millions of refugees causes an initial flash of crime, so debunking will also be weak).
And here's the thing: by writing "Rape alarm" at the beginning of the sentence, I used my freedom of speech (or press) AGAINST your freedom of thought, because it is difficult to think of anything good than an "alarm. rapes ".
So, in summary:
- "Five million Ukrainians fleeing the war are arriving in Europe." It is NOT propaganda, for the simple reason that I have complete freedom to think what I want, and decide whether it is good or bad.
- "Rape alarm , five million Ukrainians fleeing the war are arriving in Europe." instead It's propaganda, because it makes it harder for my mind to think it's good.
The problem, however, is not that the second draft is false about the rape. (a couple of Ukrainian prisons have opened, and the prisoners have fled) The problem is that it PREVENTS from forming an opinion FREELY. I could also do it positively:
"Europe is learning from the mistakes of the past: five million Ukrainians fleeing the war are arriving in Europe." In this case, referring to the Dublin Treaty, the news is true. And since it is difficult to think that it is bad to have learned from the mistakes of the past, it is difficult for me to think that the arrival of refugees is bad. I have therefore lost my freedom of thought.
The decrease in freedom of thought is the ONLY criterion that distinguishes journalism from propaganda. So it makes sense to say that:
propaganda is the use of freedom of speech against freedom of thought.
Now the claim is evident. But if we proceed with this definition, we will quickly discover that the Western press uses at least as much propaganda as the Russian one, and we find ourselves in the embarrassing situation of thinking that <our favorite newspaper> is just as bad as <our hated newspaper>.
So we'll have to fucking raise objections for the express purpose of defending <our favorite newspaper>
For example, someone will tell me that if I talk about a murder I have deprived the reader of the possibility to think well. But that's not true: simple A kills B doesn't tell anyone what to think. "A defends himself and kills B" instead makes me think well of A, while "A is killed while attacking B" has a different effect.
But the problem is, I may be of the opinion I want for so many reasons. For example: can you explain to me why the Ukrainian armed forces also accept women, but only men are prohibited from leaving the country to enlist?
As you see, I can think what I really want of everything. But absolutely everything.
Once it is established that the criterion for distinguishing propaganda from information is freedom of thought , everyone will begin to think that yes, I am right and at most I am too strict on the application.
Until that, I'm not talking about Covid and vaccines. Because at a certain point someone “who believes in science” arrives and tells me
“But you CAN'T think what you want, because you are not competent. So propaganda is always information, even if it leaves you no choice but to think in a certain way ".
Absolutely not: in the period of Covid an enormous amount of propaganda was used regarding vaccines, and this is NOT good. Let me be clear, I did not say that the falsehood was said: I have already shown that the propaganda is not the truth or not of the news, but " if their writing leaves the reader free to decide what to think about them ".
The problem with "science" as it was used during the pandemic is precisely this, namely that it was used to prevent people from thinking ill of vaccines. Then it turns out that "Sputnik V" as a vaccine did not work, and it never worked: I would like to ask how they feel, in San Marino, to have paid for a shit.
But the point is not whether it was true or false: the point is that at some point someone came out explaining what to think about vaccines.
Let me be clear: they did not just say what should be done with vaccines. I mean, there are so many things that are mandatory but are useless: they are mandatory, so you have to do them, but no one expects you to think about them.
For example, I pay the German television license every month. It is mandatory and therefore I do it, but no one tries to convince me that it is also right, good and even beautiful to do it.
If now an article came out
“Hateful crime: people don't pay the mandatory television license fee”, not only are they telling me that paying the license fee is mandatory, but they want me to think it's also good.
And in general we could discuss whether paying the rent is good or not, but the point is that if we don't have different opinions we will never be able to discuss it.
I repeat: this definition of mine always works. The different treatment reserved to Ukrainian refugees and those of other origins makes it clear: the news of their arrival was characterized by a completely propaganda approach.
Of course, the news of a fire in the building where we live is something that we struggle to consider good, so it should be said that it is propaganta, and the funny thing is that it is: the fact of not being able to think well (or bad) of something is not necessarily something to be avoided.
A lot of news does not contain the faintest possibility of thinking good or bad about this: we must distinguish the two cases, that is, we must ask ourselves if there is something else besides the information.
It is obvious that "this building is on fire" is news that it is difficult to think well about: after all, besides the fact nothing has been added. If, on the other hand, I write "Migrants problem: this building is burning", I am adding something that did not serve to say that the building is burning, but to make me think badly of migrants.
So I would say to add a word to the definition:
propaganda is the deliberate use of freedom of speech against freedom of thought.
And here we should have crystallized it well.