Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3pt14159 | Hacker News Reader

White propaganda is fine and even necessary at times. There was plenty of it by western countries during WWII and the Cold War.

It's that this propaganda contained false information on both the source and the details that is problematic. Black propaganda is wrong. We don't need it to win, and when it is exposed it undermines our credibility, which undermines our white propaganda and efforts to contrast our values with the values of our adversaries.

I take a similar stand with politicians. I'd rather vote for an honest person that I disagree with on a majority of issues than a dishonest one that shares my political party. For especially honest politicians I go out of my way to vote for them. Trust in government is paramount. The rest breeds corruption and eventual democratic decline.

View on HN

"There was plenty of it by western countries during WWII and the Cold War."

There were also plenty of atrocities commited by western countries during WW2 and after. Napalm, atomic bombs on civilians, ...

And George Orwell based his 1984 of his experience working for the BBC in WW2, btw.

In other words, no, I don't see a valid need for propaganda in democratic societies.

And the role of the military should be to simply defend the societey, not influence them in a sneaky way.

Propaganda never stops when a war does. If you would like a great documentary on this, look for Century of the Self [1]. It explains how Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, taught governments and companies how to control people in peace time. Apologies in advance, it is a black-and-white film.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

Good recommendation.

I would add most of the stuff by Adam Curtis to this list. Been pretty eye opening for me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis

> White propaganda is fine and even necessary at times.

That’s a remarkably low friction coefficient for a figurative slope

We live in an information environment that is wide open. With the internet, any of our enemies can launch psyops campaigns against us at almost no cost. In such an environment, their campaigns must at least be countered, or else we would be steamrolled.

That's a frequently broadcast message lately isn't it. :)

And you think the local military is your friend who has your best interests at heart?

>>"We don't need it to win, and when it is exposed it undermines our credibility, which undermines our white propaganda and efforts to contrast our values with the values of our adversaries."

Fair enough. Now, the only problem left is to determine who is "we".

It's pretty well defined in various parts of the Canadian Armed Forces' regulations, and in this document in particular: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/service...

> At all times and in all places, DND employees and CF members shall fulfil their commitments in a manner that best serves Canada, its people, its parliamentary democracy, DND and the CF

So from the CAF's point of view, "we" is "Canada, its people, its parliamentary democracy, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces"

(sidenote: The Canadian military was recently renamed from "Canadian Forces" (CF) to "Canadian Armed Forces" (CAF), thus the differences in acronyms.)

I don't know. Don't take my comment too seriously, but if I was Canadian, I think these guys sending me fake administrative notes and filling the night with wolf sounds would qualify more like "them" than "we".

'White propaganda is fine and even necessary at times' reads just like 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'

Honest, successful. For a politician you can only pick one.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are examples of politicians that I mostly disagree with their views but I've never regarded them as personally dishonest.

What about the whole war on drugs that Regan started?

That's what I meant by "personally" honest - their governments they led had all kinds of problems but I don't think that was caused by fundamental dishonesty by those individuals.

I thought Nixon started the war on drugs?

Yep, seems like it was Nixon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

Reagan secretly sold illegal weapons to Iran to fund bloody coups and death squads in South America. I’d say secretly committing treason is a pretty big lie.

Check out 'Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine' as a counter-example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Speaks_Out_Again...

Also worth noting is the October Surprise, where Reagan foiled negotiations with Iran to bring US hostages back, in order to help his election chances.

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/1/ronald-reagan-october-surprise...

Maybe. But if dishonesty works, it's because the populace as a whole rewards it by (re)electing the liar. IOW a lot of people prefer to be lied to. Don't confuse the disease with the symptoms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com