Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

Of course you're going to get nationalism-tinged anti-fascist propaganda from the US Dept. of the Army in 1945.

There are large voting blocs who need to hear and comprehend the message of this film that happens to be propaganda, right now.

I guess the confusion is because in Western societies people are used to the doublespeak of only calling something propaganda when it is done by the "other side". The other side is "spreading the narrative" you are "reporting facts".

You use different words to describe the same thing. Like the good guys are "rebels" and the bad guys are "terrorists".

There is nothing wrong with propaganda. It can be used for good or bad. Just don't start falling for your own one.

Well, that too really. Just a different breed of shyster, but they'll come for your wallet as sure as they will your freedoms.

Propaganda is really interesting in the way it carries a narrative. It's like a good movie, gives you an idea about what you're going to watch, and then slowly flows to the places you expected it to go to, but it does it in unique and interesting way.

There is certainly something innate in the human mind that loves these predictive narratives.

Organisms on this planet require resource to survive, but resource is limited. The nature is fundamentally a zero-sum game so that's what everything tends to fall back to when hard time comes. This is so predictable, played again and again, like we're cogs in a machine. Well, maybe we really are.

Keep in mind it was the tech elite that helped elect Trump. Some of them are here and will see this. Lets see how long until this post is flagged...

Not only that but most people don't approve of his immigration policy.

https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker

He is going against the will of the people with unpopular policies

The problem isn't that immigration law is being enforced. The problem is the manner in which it is being enforced. Someone breaking the law is not a justification for whatever you want to be done to them. Someone breaking the law is not an excuse to violate other people's constitutional/natural rights by association. And the law not being enforced for a long time is not an excuse to eliminate what little accountability there was for people tasked with enforcing the laws. I hope some day you will realize these things.

We are advocating for the rule of law to be applied to everyone, not just people who "look foreign".

Anti-Nazi propaganda from WWII has been a staple of American and broader Anglosphere culture for the entirety of my life; and so has the counter-phenomenon of people deliberately using Nazi symbols to be shocking or provocative.

Anyway, at the time this film was produced by the US government, legal immigration from foreign countries to the US had been heavily curtailed for a generation by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924, and immigration would not be liberalized until another generation later in the 1960s.

The same as the video? Where is this happening and how is it so obvious?

I agree with OP, this video shows how easy it can be a sucker. There are two parts to it, one is being the sucker, the other is the specific content and time.

OP is pointing out that the sucker is in every echo chamber because these chambers get filtered to only allow extreme viewpoints thrive.

And what happens if you see this content constantly? Not only to adults but also to teenagers?

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.

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.

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?