I was surprised to see the word “propaganda” used in its modern negative sense in the year 1935, so decided to look it up in the OED.

The origins were not all all as I expected.

“Propaganda” is the Roman Catholic Church. And began its use in that sense at least as early as the year 1668.

So we talk about the “Roman Propaganda”, the “Congregation of the Propaganda”, the “Italian missionary of the Propganda”,
“was educated at the Propaganda at Rome”

“theological professor at the College of Propaganda” is a quote from 1911. The word “Propaganda” had not in any sense a negative meaning.

“he attended the College of the Propaganda in Rome” comes from as recently as 1998.

In a negative sense we have this from 1929 “The term propaganda has not the sinister meaning in Europe which it has acquired in America. In European business offices the word means advertising or boosting generally.”

So it seems that the negative sense was invented in the USA. I wonder who by? And for that matter, why, in order to pretend that advertising is not evil?

The OED’s first cite in the pejorative sense is from Thomas Carlisle, 1822.

mollwollfumble said:

I was surprised to see the word “propaganda” used in its modern negative sense in the year 1935, so decided to look it up in the OED.

The origins were not all all as I expected.

“Propaganda” is the Roman Catholic Church. And began its use in that sense at least as early as the year 1668.

So we talk about the “Roman Propaganda”, the “Congregation of the Propaganda”, the “Italian missionary of the Propganda”,
“was educated at the Propaganda at Rome”

“theological professor at the College of Propaganda” is a quote from 1911. The word “Propaganda” had not in any sense a negative meaning.

“he attended the College of the Propaganda in Rome” comes from as recently as 1998.

In a negative sense we have this from 1929 “The term propaganda has not the sinister meaning in Europe which it has acquired in America. In European business offices the word means advertising or boosting generally.”

So it seems that the negative sense was invented in the USA. I wonder who by? And for that matter, why, in order to pretend that advertising is not evil?

OK, I’m killing time waiting for a food delivery
so I might as well jump in (since no one else has):

I’ve long considered organized religion (particularly the Cat-Lick one)
to be consider Propaganda… whereas the above hints at TEACHINGS
I find it beyond laughable that all these falling on their face religious types
who swear-and-be-damned toward the “God Given” LAWS Of MOSES
never stopped long enough to piece together that granted although he was
Born A Jew, etched from the waters and RAISED By a member of the Egyptian
Royal Family … who Ruled by threats of everlasting torment in A Fabricated Afterlife
wouldn’t use the same time-tested methods to control an unruly mob as he lead them to
“A Promised Land”.

the authority to perform these tasks was controlled by the pharaoh , who claimed to be the gods’
representative and managed the temples where the rituals were carried out. …etc etc…

In an early thread the topic was broached concerning “The NOAH Myth” to which I linked
to the much more ancient re-Creation STORY called the Lay of Gilgamesh …which by no small
coincidence was introduced “as Gospel Truth” in the 1st Book of BS by HOLY Moses.

So… “PROPAGANDA”? sure sounds rite to me.

Call me a cynic …but I’ve long said there’s no difference whatsoever between
“In The Beginning…” and “Once, Upon A Time…”
…or the more modernized version of, “No Shit! There I Was!” O-8=

still waiting for my eats;

so I’ll add the yet more modern version, IMPROPER-Gada; “Trust Me! I WON The ELECTION!”

fixt link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_deities

fukt if i know why a link directly taken from a reference doesn’t wash elsewhere

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

might as well make it a 3 fer

I’m sure we’d all prefer not to see that face anymore.

roughbarked said:

I’m sure we’d all prefer not to see that face anymore.

let us pray

Ogmog said:

roughbarked said:

I’m sure we’d all prefer not to see that face anymore.

let us pray

You know how far that will get us don’t you.

roughbarked said:

Ogmog said:

roughbarked said:

I’m sure we’d all prefer not to see that face anymore.

let us pray

You know how far that will get us don’t you.

lol talk about a circular argument

Checking use of the word “propaganda” in Australian newspapers.
Peeling them off by decades.

1826 “protection and assistance of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide”
1831 “Grand European Council of Propaganda, at Paris”
1840 “This result is due to the Cardinal Perfect of the Propaganda”
1850 “With such men as Kossuth and Bern and with the Polish propaganda they represent”
1865 “The Church. THE PROPAGANDA—DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZES. On the 31st September this college distributed”
1879 “A Scientific Propaganda. We have received the programme of a singular propaganda”
1886 “LIBERAL PROPAGANDA. The prospectus of the Nation. Liberal Printing and Publishing Association”
1896 “A propaganda has been issued forbidding French Monastic Orders to found”
1902 “university students who are conducting an active revolutionary propaganda”
1914 to 1918 “pernicious propaganda … German propaganda … good propaganda”
1918 “systematized propaganda regarding the war aims of Australia, is a necessary one”
1918 “ANARCHIST PROPAGANDA. LONDON, Wednesday.—A United Service message from Petrograd states”
1924 “it is really liquor propaganda paid for at so much per inch”
1927 “the great raid on the headquarters of Russian trade in London has not yet been justified, it can merely be shown that the building was the centre of peaceful propaganda”
1933 “There will never be a time that we are free from propaganda or its influence”
1937 “Propaganda America, the home of many weird movements, now has an Institute for Propaganda Analysis”
1938 “the propaganda used by Germany and Italy against Britain, it certainly was not very effective.”
1939 “British propaganda, handled by the Ministry of Information”
1941 “Inspriation in our Factories provides proof of the value of propaganda in war Industries”
1945 “the grant of £5000 was political propaganda to win soldiers’ votes”
1949 with “the rise and fall of Hitler, we should by now be able to recognise propaganda when we see it”
1952 “Soviet spent 10 times as much money on propaganda as the United States”

(Of couse, this last quote is totally untrue, it’s pure United States military propaganda).

In the above quotes we can see the church-based use being less important after 1870 and dying out by 1900.
Thereafter it becomes primaily political. Both positive and negative.
And then military. Both positive and negative, positive if paid for by our government and negative if paid for by any other government.

mollwollfumble said:

Checking use of the word “propaganda” in Australian newspapers.
Peeling them off by decades.

1826 “protection and assistance of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide”
1831 “Grand European Council of Propaganda, at Paris”
1840 “This result is due to the Cardinal Perfect of the Propaganda”
1850 “With such men as Kossuth and Bern and with the Polish propaganda they represent”
1865 “The Church. THE PROPAGANDA—DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZES. On the 31st September this college distributed”
1879 “A Scientific Propaganda. We have received the programme of a singular propaganda”
1886 “LIBERAL PROPAGANDA. The prospectus of the Nation. Liberal Printing and Publishing Association”
1896 “A propaganda has been issued forbidding French Monastic Orders to found”
1902 “university students who are conducting an active revolutionary propaganda”
1914 to 1918 “pernicious propaganda … German propaganda … good propaganda”
1918 “systematized propaganda regarding the war aims of Australia, is a necessary one”
1918 “ANARCHIST PROPAGANDA. LONDON, Wednesday.—A United Service message from Petrograd states”
1924 “it is really liquor propaganda paid for at so much per inch”
1927 “the great raid on the headquarters of Russian trade in London has not yet been justified, it can merely be shown that the building was the centre of peaceful propaganda”
1933 “There will never be a time that we are free from propaganda or its influence”
1937 “Propaganda America, the home of many weird movements, now has an Institute for Propaganda Analysis”
1938 “the propaganda used by Germany and Italy against Britain, it certainly was not very effective.”
1939 “British propaganda, handled by the Ministry of Information”
1941 “Inspriation in our Factories provides proof of the value of propaganda in war Industries”
1945 “the grant of £5000 was political propaganda to win soldiers’ votes”
1949 with “the rise and fall of Hitler, we should by now be able to recognise propaganda when we see it”
1952 “Soviet spent 10 times as much money on propaganda as the United States”

(Of couse, this last quote is totally untrue, it’s pure United States military propaganda).

In the above quotes we can see the church-based use being less important after 1870 and dying out by 1900.
Thereafter it becomes primaily political. Both positive and negative.
And then military. Both positive and negative, positive if paid for by our government and negative if paid for by any other government.

Of couse, this last quote is totally untrue, it’s pure United States military propaganda).

How do you know that?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Checking use of the word “propaganda” in Australian newspapers.
Peeling them off by decades.

1826 “protection and assistance of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide”
1831 “Grand European Council of Propaganda, at Paris”
< snip >
1949 with “the rise and fall of Hitler, we should by now be able to recognise propaganda when we see it”
1952 “Soviet spent 10 times as much money on propaganda as the United States”

(Of course, this last quote is totally untrue, it’s pure United States military propaganda).

In the above quotes we can see the church-based use being less important after 1870 and dying out by 1900.
Thereafter it becomes primarily political. Both positive and negative.
And then military. Both positive and negative, positive if paid for by our government and negative if paid for by any other government.

Of course, this last quote is totally untrue, it’s pure United States military propaganda).

How do you know that?

because they’re so dedicated to the proposition
that all people, in every nation, has the right to
determine the way things are run by consensus
that they’re willing to kill anyone who disagrees.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-21/mark-mcgowan-wa-border-opening-backflip-poses-risk-analysis/100771704

whoops wrong thread

transition said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-21/mark-mcgowan-wa-border-opening-backflip-poses-risk-analysis/100771704

whoops wrong thread

i’d rate it an expert level wrong thread example

Ogmog said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Checking use of the word “propaganda” in Australian newspapers.
Peeling them off by decades.

1826 “protection and assistance of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide”
1831 “Grand European Council of Propaganda, at Paris”
< snip >
1949 with “the rise and fall of Hitler, we should by now be able to recognise propaganda when we see it”
1952 “Soviet spent 10 times as much money on propaganda as the United States”

(Of course, this last quote is totally untrue, it’s pure United States military propaganda).

In the above quotes we can see the church-based use being less important after 1870 and dying out by 1900.
Thereafter it becomes primarily political. Both positive and negative.
And then military. Both positive and negative, positive if paid for by our government and negative if paid for by any other government.

Of course, this last quote is totally untrue, it’s pure United States military propaganda).

How do you know that?

because they’re so dedicated to the proposition
that all people, in every nation, has the right to
determine the way things are run by consensus
that they’re willing to kill anyone who disagrees.

Who are?

And what does that have to do with the question, which was about a specific amount of money spent on propoganda?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ogmog said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Of course, this last quote is totally untrue, it’s pure United States military propaganda).

How do you know that?

because they’re so dedicated to the proposition
that all people, in every nation, has the right to
determine the way things are run by consensus
that they’re willing to kill anyone who disagrees.

Who are?

And what does that have to do with the question, which was about a specific amount of money spent on propoganda?

who they are: the US Military Complex
and the rich prix that finance them in order to attain/maintain power

Ogmog said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ogmog said:

because they’re so dedicated to the proposition
that all people, in every nation, has the right to
determine the way things are run by consensus
that they’re willing to kill anyone who disagrees.

Who are?

And what does that have to do with the question, which was about a specific amount of money spent on propoganda?

who they are: the US Military Complex
and the rich prix that finance them in order to attain/maintain power

Reptilians?

Ogmog said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ogmog said:

because they’re so dedicated to the proposition
that all people, in every nation, has the right to
determine the way things are run by consensus
that they’re willing to kill anyone who disagrees.

Who are?

And what does that have to do with the question, which was about a specific amount of money spent on propoganda?

who they are: the US Military Complex
and the rich prix that finance them in order to attain/maintain power

The worshipers of that ancient occult symbol – the pentagon.

I’m still waiting to see some evidence on the relative spending of USA and ussr in 1952 on propaganda.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m still waiting to see some evidence on the relative spending of USSA and ussr in 1952 on propaganda.

the more they spend the less they spend

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m still waiting to see some evidence on the relative spending of USSA and ussr in 1952 on propaganda.

the more they spend the less they spend

atom bombs are impressive, not a few were tested, lot of testing, lot of messages in all that, powerful messages

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m still waiting to see some evidence on the relative spending of USSA and ussr in 1952 on propaganda.

the more they spend the less they spend

Please show working.

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m still waiting to see some evidence on the relative spending of USSA and ussr in 1952 on propaganda.

the more they spend the less they spend

atom bombs are impressive, not a few were tested, lot of testing, lot of messages in all that, powerful messages

Certainly we might say that all government spending sends a message of some sort, but to extend that to say that all government spending is propaganda is totally changing the accepted meaning of the word.

Moll suggested that the claim that USSR spent 10x more on propaganda than USA in 1952 was total nonsense, and to substantiate that he or his helpers have to use the most restrictive meaning of the word, not a ridiculously general one.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

the more they spend the less they spend

atom bombs are impressive, not a few were tested, lot of testing, lot of messages in all that, powerful messages

Certainly we might say that all government spending sends a message of some sort, but to extend that to say that all government spending is propaganda is totally changing the accepted meaning of the word.

Moll suggested that the claim that USSR spent 10x more on propaganda than USA in 1952 was total nonsense, and to substantiate that he or his helpers have to use the most restrictive meaning of the word, not a ridiculously general one.

The Internet says that propaganda means:
“information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”

I’d say in the context of this discussion the information has to be false or deliberately misleading to count as propaganda, rather than just advertising, self promotion, or similar.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

atom bombs are impressive, not a few were tested, lot of testing, lot of messages in all that, powerful messages

Certainly we might say that all government spending sends a message of some sort, but to extend that to say that all government spending is propaganda is totally changing the accepted meaning of the word.

Moll suggested that the claim that USSR spent 10x more on propaganda than USA in 1952 was total nonsense, and to substantiate that he or his helpers have to use the most restrictive meaning of the word, not a ridiculously general one.

The Internet says that propaganda means:
“information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”

I’d say in the context of this discussion the information has to be false or deliberately misleading to count as propaganda, rather than just advertising, self promotion, or similar.

The Brits cleverly invented James Bond & made money out of the propaganda business.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

the more they spend the less they spend

atom bombs are impressive, not a few were tested, lot of testing, lot of messages in all that, powerful messages

Certainly we might say that all government spending sends a message of some sort, but to extend that to say that all government spending is propaganda is totally changing the accepted meaning of the word.

Moll suggested that the claim that USSR spent 10x more on propaganda than USA in 1952 was total nonsense, and to substantiate that he or his helpers have to use the most restrictive meaning of the word, not a ridiculously general one.

I certainly never indicated all government spending was propaganda

and maybe you stumbled upon something there, in accepted meaning of words

in unaccepted meaning, or unacceptable meaning, the more interesting dimension of the words you used

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

atom bombs are impressive, not a few were tested, lot of testing, lot of messages in all that, powerful messages

Certainly we might say that all government spending sends a message of some sort, but to extend that to say that all government spending is propaganda is totally changing the accepted meaning of the word.

Moll suggested that the claim that USSR spent 10x more on propaganda than USA in 1952 was total nonsense, and to substantiate that he or his helpers have to use the most restrictive meaning of the word, not a ridiculously general one.

The Internet says that propaganda means:
“information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”

I’d say in the context of this discussion the information has to be false or deliberately misleading to count as propaganda, rather than just advertising, self promotion, or similar.

Actually he said “this last quote is totally untrue, it’s pure United States military propaganda”, but let’s just focus on whether it was “totally untrue” for the time being.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Certainly we might say that all government spending sends a message of some sort, but to extend that to say that all government spending is propaganda is totally changing the accepted meaning of the word.

Moll suggested that the claim that USSR spent 10x more on propaganda than USA in 1952 was total nonsense, and to substantiate that he or his helpers have to use the most restrictive meaning of the word, not a ridiculously general one.

The Internet says that propaganda means:
“information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”

I’d say in the context of this discussion the information has to be false or deliberately misleading to count as propaganda, rather than just advertising, self promotion, or similar.

The Brits cleverly invented James Bond & made money out of the propaganda business.

So that’s negative spending on propaganda is it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

atom bombs are impressive, not a few were tested, lot of testing, lot of messages in all that, powerful messages

Certainly we might say that all government spending sends a message of some sort, but to extend that to say that all government spending is propaganda is totally changing the accepted meaning of the word.

Moll suggested that the claim that USSR spent 10x more on propaganda than USA in 1952 was total nonsense, and to substantiate that he or his helpers have to use the most restrictive meaning of the word, not a ridiculously general one.

The Internet says that propaganda means:
“information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”

I’d say in the context of this discussion the information has to be false or deliberately misleading to count as propaganda, rather than just advertising, self promotion, or similar.

I’m with you rev.
In the case of religious teachings, it is all false and misleading. Unless they tell you that if you want your prayers answered, you have to do that work yourself.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

atom bombs are impressive, not a few were tested, lot of testing, lot of messages in all that, powerful messages

Certainly we might say that all government spending sends a message of some sort, but to extend that to say that all government spending is propaganda is totally changing the accepted meaning of the word.

Moll suggested that the claim that USSR spent 10x more on propaganda than USA in 1952 was total nonsense, and to substantiate that he or his helpers have to use the most restrictive meaning of the word, not a ridiculously general one.

I certainly never indicated all government spending was propaganda

and maybe you stumbled upon something there, in accepted meaning of words

in unaccepted meaning, or unacceptable meaning, the more interesting dimension of the words you used

OK, glad to learn I misinterpreted you on that.

Exactly what did you mean then?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Internet says that propaganda means:
“information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”

I’d say in the context of this discussion the information has to be false or deliberately misleading to count as propaganda, rather than just advertising, self promotion, or similar.

The Brits cleverly invented James Bond & made money out of the propaganda business.

So that’s negative spending on propaganda is it?

I think so.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

The Brits cleverly invented James Bond & made money out of the propaganda business.

So that’s negative spending on propaganda is it?

I think so.

Clearly we don’t need to deduct this income from the USA spending though, as it originated in the UK.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So that’s negative spending on propaganda is it?

I think so.

Clearly we don’t need to deduct this income from the USA spending though, as it originated in the UK.

Your logic is, as always, impeccable.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

I think so.

Clearly we don’t need to deduct this income from the USA spending though, as it originated in the UK.

Your logic is, as always, impeccable.

He is Dodgson, the most reverend.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Certainly we might say that all government spending sends a message of some sort, but to extend that to say that all government spending is propaganda is totally changing the accepted meaning of the word.

Moll suggested that the claim that USSR spent 10x more on propaganda than USA in 1952 was total nonsense, and to substantiate that he or his helpers have to use the most restrictive meaning of the word, not a ridiculously general one.

I certainly never indicated all government spending was propaganda

and maybe you stumbled upon something there, in accepted meaning of words

in unaccepted meaning, or unacceptable meaning, the more interesting dimension of the words you used

OK, glad to learn I misinterpreted you on that.

Exactly what did you mean then?

bit early for thinking really, not want hurt my neuron too much, discourage it with disproportionate discomfort

was thinking about nuclear arms race, cold war

communicating with bombs, you know they show up on the seismograph

it means to have a really really good look at something.

Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:

it means to have a really really good look at something.

Heh.

It is what the goose does or is it what does the goose?

Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:

it means to have a really really good look at something.

you’re a real goose, Trev.

Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:

it means to have a really really good look at something.

Heh