The psychodiversity of ear worms: more than just musical.
Terrorists, rebels, freedom fighters, and the insidious nature of western propaganda.
Have you ever found a song or melody that you just can’t get out of your head? Or, maybe, you’ve spontaneously sung a ditty from an advert (cringe, blush). I have. ‘Ooooh bodyform, bodyformed for …,’ jeez, where did that come from!? It’s commonly believed we have total control over what’s in our head, but we don’t. Every day, conscious effort is put into shepherding our beliefs, our concerns, and our behaviours. And not all of it is about getting you to part with your cash.
Despite the gargantuan sums spent on advertising, product placement, sponsorship, fact-checking, and the rest, most ‘westerners’ refuse to believe that they live in a world shaped by propaganda and censorship. It would smash the bubble they live in; thinking they’re free, informed, and valued on merit, roughly. Nobody thinks it all runs perfectly, but many think it’s a good system, just with a few rough edges. Discovering the lie is traumatic enough, but it’s also likely to lead to a collapse of identity for many people. Ego-based attachment to the narrative of life, income, job title, career progression, is the main reason people cannot pull their heads out of their arses the sand. The person they thought they were would cease to exist.
Technology now plays a key role in identity formation. It has enabled a level of personalized censorship that makes Orwellian sound like a term of endearment. It works in a similar way to personalized advertising. I’ll be writing more about this in the future, if I don’t disappear in the meantime. However, the fundamentals of propaganda remain the same: fact omission, linguistic tricks, contextual framing, and blatant lies. Oh, and repetition. I repeat, repetition. Repeat after me, ‘Repetition’. Actually, it’s not unlike the techniques used by thick-headed gossips, standing around on street corners, except they don’t even know themselves well enough to understand what they’re doing.
For the main part, your beliefs are less important than your behaviours. Believe that face masks don’t work and might cause respiratory disease, that’s fine. Just make sure you still wear one. Believe that the economic system is a rigged casino where the house always wins, just make sure you still play the game. Believe that the media is owned and curated by billionaires, checked and censored by government operatives, and has a hidden agenda. Just don’t try to talk to people about it, and god forbid you try to disrupt the machine. Like advertisements, repetition helps instil the behaviour, if not the belief. And it serves to make clear which thoughts are allowed and what is likely to be discussed by the clucking hens.
There are a couple of examples I can use to illustrate this insidious culture from the last couple of weeks. Most recently, the ‘rebel’ overthrow of Assad in Syria. Whatever you think about the situation, the way it’s framed in the media is quite clear. Rebels. Happy, delighted folks, raising their rifles and flags. Joyful parades. Exposure of nefarious torture chambers. You get the idea. Overall, a good thing happened. A nauseating repetition of the ‘liberation’ of Iraq, after western forces killed several hundred thousand civilians, including women and children. Lots and lots of children. Killed. Children killed. Imagine your local school being completely wiped out, every week, for a year. Then, you’re getting close to how many.
The thing with Syria is that the man leading the ‘rebels’ is a terrorist and an extremist. He hung about with Al-Qaeda. Remember them. Al-Qaeda – the list – the folks the USA groomed to help them fight Russia in Afghanistan in the 80s, until that plot took a wicked twist. Oh, and the ‘rebels’ in Syria are, or were until very recently, a proscribed terrorist group in the UK. So, it’s not too difficult to imagine the story being reported very differently. Perhaps, ‘Extremist Terrorists Conduct an Illegal Military Coup.’ Or, ‘Terrorists Control Nation with Arsenal of Biological and Chemical Weapons’. In fact, most headlines could simply change out ‘rebels’ for ‘terrorists’ and you would see the implied message change completely. But you won’t see those headlines, not yet anyway, they may come later, if the plot thickens. Meanwhile, the focus is on big bad Assad. He was bad, but only with the assistance of a huge number of Syrians. Islamic extremists who throw children to their deaths from the top of tall buildings and use beatings and mutilation to enforce dress codes are bad too. Hardly a victory for freedom.
The other example of propaganda I saw was a tale of two probable/possible carcinogens, Talc and non-ionizing, radio frequency radiation (Wi-Fi, mobiles, printers, doorbells, talking speakers, baby monitors, DECT phones and so on), classed as group 2A and 2B, respectively, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Each was covered by a short slot on regional news.
The talc story was portrayed as a tragic tale of people who had contracted cancer after using talc. A sympathetic tone was used. People had been terribly wronged. They were fighting for justice. And rightly so. It is important to note that, in addition to standard talc being classed as a probable carcinogen, there is also talc contaminated with asbestos, which is rated one group higher by the IARC. Regardless, non-contaminated talc, rated a 2A cancer risk, has been replaced with plant-based products by major producers, so they can minimize liability.
When it came to non-ionizing radio frequency radiation, classed as a 2B carcinogen (some evidence shows a possible causative link), the tale was very different. A pejorative and playful approach was used. A sham experiment, prepared for television. Ridiculous products were tested for efficacy in blocking the radiation and found useless. Teddy bears, tiny pendants, that sort of thing. They are mostly useless. No argument there. But from the demonstration that these trinkets had little or no effect, the conclusion was that non-ionizing radiation was harmless and nobody should worry about it. A manipulative and obscene ‘straw man’ argument.
It's well known that non-ionizing radiation has biological effects. Certain frequencies and exposures are even used as therapeutic interventions for some diseases. Many GPs will advise couples trying for pregnancy to avoid carrying mobiles close to their genitals. It lowers sperm count. Certain brain cancers have been proven to have increased incidence in heavy mobile users. Yet, in 2024, propaganda put out by industry in the 90s, based on incomplete and biased ‘science’ remains prevalent. It’s still being regurgitated on degree courses, and repeated in popular media.
These issues highlight the central role that propaganda plays in western culture and how it operates. Importantly, it also indicates that many people involved in disseminating it, don’t even know what they’re doing. Presenters on local news have no capacity for holding intelligent debate over non-ionizing radio frequency radiation. They believe they’re being reasonable because the things that might make them think twice have been omitted from their information stream, or ridiculed. And now, they’re joining a Mexican wave of ignorance, and doing the same.