The political campaign is the different way to say "propaganda"

https://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

The strange relationship between propaganda and politics is the thing, what has recently become to the public knowledge. The thing is sensitive because nobody wants to deal with propagandists, but the western way to make propaganda is more effective than the way, what it is done in somewhere east. The main difference between the historical and modern propagandists is that the modern version actually confess that thing.

Western propagandists always claim that they confess to making propaganda. Or delivering information, what might not be true, and the modern propagandist doesn’t actually claim to make propaganda. This person makes commercials what are the accepted version of propaganda. And this makes me make one question. What was the role of German propagandists after the Second World war? The idea to hide those men, from the Joseph Goebbels ministry of propaganda was not good, because those persons seem "clean" from the outsider.

They were not in any war photo standing at the front of the skulls or bodies of murdered prisoners. But in this case, the more interesting was the thing, what people couldn't see. Many of those persons were in the key role when the opinion at Germany transferred to support national socialists and persecution of political enemies and ethnic minorities like Jews. But the propaganda was the reason, why those persons were hired by CIA for making propaganda to the Warsaw pact and especially to East Germany, and those German men had no language problems with that thing.

The German version of propaganda has shown its effect and influence because it raised Nazis to the power. And that is the reason, why those persons might be very wanted for making the campaigns for the politicians. And there is one thing, what people normally don't mention. Those persons who made propaganda were not on the place, where Holocaust happened, and this makes difficult to testify against them. They were made the things, what allowed Germans persecute Jews. And that made them responsible for murders. But those men were ever seen in the death camps, and they used the material, what other persons produced. This meant, that there was no evidence against them.

When we are looking at the political campaigns, we can say that the name "campaign" is in political field the synonym for the word "propaganda". And in fact, political salesmen are always users of propaganda.  But the word propaganda has been replaced by saying "political campaign", what is the very good word. But the purpose of political campaigns always gives the candidate influence for the great audience. The great audience is the thing, what brings votes. And the votes are the most important thing when somebody wants to get to the place, where the rulers of the nation sit, and in those cases, the candidate would not always be informed about the methodology, what the campaign machine would use.

Who is the leader of the nation?

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Everybody wants to be the rulers of the nations. But that thing causes the problems with private life, and that's why the power is easier to use out of the public eye, and sometimes in the history have been happening that the real users of power have been hiding in somewhere at the palace. Cardinal Richelieu might be the most well-known user of the power, and that very notorious person hide in the back of the king Louis XIII of France and breathed things to the ears of the king. But sometimes people have thoughts that the orders for the actions, what Richelieu made, came from the King,

And sometimes those things came from the head of cardinal, who mentioned that his own political enemies were planned something against the king, and that caused that they executed by the royal order.  Louis XIII  like other kings in that time was not a Democrat, and he was one of the most notorious and powerful people in the history, and maybe his propagandists made the role of Richelieu bigger than it really was because of those persecutions against political enemies of the Louis XIV, the Solar king.

Richelieu mission in the government was to support the King and leader of France, and the benefit of the successor of the Luis XIII was that the internal political crimes like the persecution of Huguenots. the Protestants, who lived in France, was made by Richelieu, what kept the King's reputation pure in the eyes of the citizens. Sometimes the privileges, what Huguenots had got from the Louis X were claimed to give for make hate against those religious minorities.

Sometimes this kind of things are happening also in democratic states, and somebody claims, that some officer or some other official would act against democratically elected persons.  "There is no democracy" is the words, what some people use when they are talking about the political situation, and sometimes I think that those persons may be partially right. In the constitution laws the state guarantee, that every person, who wants can become the candidate in the elections, and this is the best thing in the world.

But there is one thing, what is not handled many times in the public discussions. That thing is, the person, who would be voted must be in the list, and there are good and bad things with that. The good thing is that every candidate is voluntary for that duty, where they would be elected. But the bad thing is that just being on the list is not enough for getting votes. And that's why those candidates need publicity. That is the thing, what costs in the campaigns.

Also, the programs, where the commercial would be broadcast must be, that the targeted audience would watch it, and the commercial must be interesting, or the candidate would leave without votes. Those campaigns are very expensive, and that's why candidate needs financial support from the businessmen. This is the thing, what those "real democracy" persons are judged. We know that nobody gives money for campaigns without terms, and that means that the candidate must promise something to those persons. And here it goes a little bit more interesting.

There are two kinds of permissions, the things, what candidate would give for the great audience, and the permissions, what is given in some back office, and what are not told to normal people. There are men behind those public users of power, and when some person goes to meet them for getting the support for the election campaign would that be a similar situation with the job interview. Those financial supporters must know "the man" because they would give that person the great power.

 Of course in the constitution guarantees that the voters would give the mandate to use power, but if the candidate would not get publicity will that person ever elected to the place, where power is used in the state. When those supporters come, they must have the power for the man, who would become the man with power. They don't give support if they are not sure about their man. And in the real world, the politicians are the frontmen for their lobbyists.

This is the problem with democracy. Those men who give support for politicians are very powerful, but there are many lobbies in the top of the politics. And the thing, what makes things more complicated is, that the candidate must promise something to the ordinary people. There are more cleaners and hamburger workers that the top economists and bank leaders. And this makes difficult to plan those campaigns.

If ordinary people would not get anything, would that person leave out from parliament or congress, but if there would things, like broken promises, would that cause the damage to the trust of all political movement, what single politician would represent. And this makes the politics very complicated thing. And the complicated structure of the political field makes it a very interesting field to investigate things, like conspiracies and another kind of stuff, what makes the World very interesting place to live.

Censorship and the rescue for the political career

Kimmo Huosionmaa

There are many politicians on the Earth, who don't ever make their own speeches. Why they should make them because there are many good writers on the Earth, who would make texts against little payment. And this is the thing, what makes life easy. But the problem with that kind of things is that those politicians don't want their voters to get that information.


They don't want to tell people, that their speeches and texts are made by somebody else. When we are thinking about the things, what many times rescue those politicians, we are facing the thing, that many times politicians say, that they are not experts in some things. And of course, media would support that kind of things, because many journalists or the owners of newspapers have political destination and connections to political movements.


And those persons offer many times their services to political candidates, who want to be parliamentarians. The thing, what those politicians would not remember is, that this makes them only the frontman of the movement. The situation is similar as with musicians, who buy  texts, what are made by another person. They cannot work independently and those persons have always addicted the support of those writers. If those writers would not make their job, the speeches would not be forming.


Of course, that thing addicts politicians, or musicians because that offers an easy way to make things.  But when we are facing the social media, that is very problematic for the politicians. In social media, the comments can be given immediately after some news, and if the politician cannot make texts independently, that would cause the very embarrassing situation, when the politician is giving the speech, and the update for social media comes in the front of the people during the speech. And this makes social media problematic. This situation is similar to the case when some ice-hockey player would update their social media from the ice during the game.


If we are writing something, we can make mistakes. But if we are not doing anything, we cannot make mistakes. This is true, but if somebody makes our texts and writes our speeches and we would portrait them as our own production, would that be a little embarrassing. If some person gives speeches and shares opinions, would people right to believe, that they are those persons own production. Sometimes in politics, the parties have asked people about their opinions about foreigners or some other things, and then the politicians have made their speeches to please the opinions of the biggest group of people, and that thing has guaranteed the votes for that politician.


Of course, politicians might say, that censorship or moderators have removed their texts from the social media. This is the very good point when the next elections are coming. In a long time, ago the newspapers and TV were very good friends for politicians. They would claim that the media did not publish their opinions and this was the very good argument also for many other persons who were working in the public workplaces.


The professors, who didn't make their jobs could claim, that they have sent their texts to newspapers and scientific magazines, but those media were not published in those texts, because the readers were not interested about them. Censorship is the thing, what allows hide behind the back of some faceless authorities, who would want to drive their own benefits on the Internet.