Bush had a 90% approval rating following the attack on the twin towers. Americans were not surprised by the “war on terror”, they did not resist it, they were cheering for it.
It was only later once people realised there was no obtainable goal in sight, and no exit plan. That they started questioning it. But the was years later.
The attack left an emotional impact that could be manipulated to brainwash support. Today’s brainwashing techniques require a lot less, are more effective, and attack people’s egos directly through group psychology and cults-on-demands of the engagement algorithm.
Define brainwashing. Tell me why a farmer who lives 3,000 miles away from NYC should be emotionally affected by 9/11, but not by the countless other injustices in the world. How else do you define mass media if not “brainwashing”?
Making someone adopt radically different beliefs, often by force or severe systematic pressure.
Charles Manson would be the classic example of someone that brainwashed vulnerable people into doing things they under normal circumstances would never even consider.
I cannot tell you why your fictional farmer would or would not be emotionally affected by various tragedies… in my experience, people are different and have their own views. Some are deeply affected by attacks on their nation, some are not.
I don’t think mass media is brainwashing people, because I don’t think they’re making them adopt new beliefs. I think they’re re-affirming and confirming people’s already held preconceived notions and prejudice.
If you think it’s brainwashing that’s fine. But I would disagree.
How naive can you be? Like literally, after things like Cambridge Analytica, technobro billionaire oligarchs openly buying up social networks and openly admitting that without them, their candidates would have lost elections, like after a gazillion stories about troll factories, bots, users being sold on the market because of their relevance in the platform due to reputation gaming, literally f-ing Project 2025 and the rise of technocracy zealots in power, wealth, and influence, how utterly naive is it openly acceptable to consider someone as being while believing they are a participating in good faith?
I never said you can’t influence anyone through propaganda. But I do not believe Americans were “brainwashed” to do anything. I think they wanted to do it.
I don’t think they’re brainwashed, I think they’re genuinely that dumb and uneducated.
In any other civilised country, if the government started a war without congressional approval. They would riot in the streets of the capitol and stay there until they get what they want.
In any other civilised country, if the government started a war without congressional approval. They would riot in the streets of the capitol
No, they wouldn’t and they haven’t. In Europe, this is what’s fueling the rise of the far-right. The difference is largely that their forms of government are more resilient. You could not be any more mistaken. There are riots in Europe, just like there are in the US, but MAGA is perfectly able to organize riots and protests as well, and so are their fair-right counterparts in the EU, and theirs has much more money behind them and is much more cultified.
You are so mistaken you have to resort to false equivalence and ignore the explicit evidence given to you while you regurgitate a position whose only foundation is based on pure vibes and stereotypes - basically the same thing that fuels MAGA. You will only ever help extend the the distance towards any real solution because rather than address the psychology and the factors pushing for the division, you are yourself contributing to it.
That is a wonderful word-salad. Incoherent and meaningless.
If you think your article from “military.com” is explicit evidence, there’s nothing more to be said. That’s just sad.
I said if any other civilised country would riot, you claim they would not and have not, and when pressed on that claim, your response is not to back up your claim, but to accuse me of resorting to false equivalence. Sounds like something a certain orange man would do…
Going to war with forgein nations is what’s fueling the right in Europe? You need to put the booze down. First of all, even the far right in most of Europe is still more left leaning than the US left. To compare right wing policies in Europe and US is actually a false equivalence. They’re not even close to equal. Some views are shared yes. But that doesn’t not equate an entire political standing.
What is fueling the right in europe, is having to clean up the humanitarian crisis the US have been leaving behind in the middle East for over 20 years.
The US bomb their homes, demolish their schools, fuels their insurgency, which leads to even more civilian displacement. And where can they go? To the US? Fat chance. There’s no way to reach US shores and the US refuses to grant asylum to the millions of people they have displaced through their actions. The only realistic recourse they have is to smuggle themselves into Europe and hope for the best.
And now… the US is doing it AGAIN. Will they do anything to clean up the mess they’re leaving behind? No. Their politicians supporting the ongoing war is adamant that they have no responsibility as to what comes after. They just wanna go in, bomb the shit out of them, and leave. And what does the US people do? Nothing. Too worried about affording the food they need to survive. And god forbid they ever get sick or end up in a medical emergency.
So sincerely. Fuck off with your bullshit. Americans voted for that idiot twice. They saw first hand what happened the first time, and gladly went in for dessert.
This is as true in Russia as it is in the US. Propaganda doesn’t make people stupid. It’s made for stupid people. It’s hardly surprising that the divide between Democrats and republicans can be measured by their education. Or lack there of.
In fairness, Bush’s rating declined steadily after 9/11, and was in the mid 50s when he asked Congress for a formal declaration of war in Iraq.
And that makes sense - Americans rallied in the days following the attack. Bush played his role perfectly. He was very presidential after 9/11. He was serious. Somber. He mourned and offered consolation. He was dignified.
The Trump administration missed a crucial step in starting a war. He forgot that Americans hate wars of choice - and especially when the gas prices are affected.
Bush had a 90% approval rating following the attack on the twin towers. Americans were not surprised by the “war on terror”, they did not resist it, they were cheering for it.
It was only later once people realised there was no obtainable goal in sight, and no exit plan. That they started questioning it. But the was years later.
The attack left an emotional impact that could be manipulated to brainwash support. Today’s brainwashing techniques require a lot less, are more effective, and attack people’s egos directly through group psychology and cults-on-demands of the engagement algorithm.
There was no brainwashing… Americans were angry and wanted someone to pay. Who exactly didn’t matter. As long as someone paid.
As of now. There’s no brainwashing. People are not supporting Trump because they don’t know better. They’re doing because they agree with him.
“There was no brainwashing…”
Define brainwashing. Tell me why a farmer who lives 3,000 miles away from NYC should be emotionally affected by 9/11, but not by the countless other injustices in the world. How else do you define mass media if not “brainwashing”?
Making someone adopt radically different beliefs, often by force or severe systematic pressure.
Charles Manson would be the classic example of someone that brainwashed vulnerable people into doing things they under normal circumstances would never even consider.
I cannot tell you why your fictional farmer would or would not be emotionally affected by various tragedies… in my experience, people are different and have their own views. Some are deeply affected by attacks on their nation, some are not.
I don’t think mass media is brainwashing people, because I don’t think they’re making them adopt new beliefs. I think they’re re-affirming and confirming people’s already held preconceived notions and prejudice.
If you think it’s brainwashing that’s fine. But I would disagree.
And where did those beliefs originate?
Where does any belief originate?
If you’re trying to allude to those beliefs coming from brainwashing. Then we are all brainwashed by our parents.
But we generally call that “being raised”. And as you’re well aware, different people are raised differently.
Straight from the horse’s mouth: https://www.military.com/feature/2025/11/16/long-arc-of-influence-how-modern-governments-build-and-weaponize-propaganda.html
How naive can you be? Like literally, after things like Cambridge Analytica, technobro billionaire oligarchs openly buying up social networks and openly admitting that without them, their candidates would have lost elections, like after a gazillion stories about troll factories, bots, users being sold on the market because of their relevance in the platform due to reputation gaming, literally f-ing Project 2025 and the rise of technocracy zealots in power, wealth, and influence, how utterly naive is it openly acceptable to consider someone as being while believing they are a participating in good faith?
I never said you can’t influence anyone through propaganda. But I do not believe Americans were “brainwashed” to do anything. I think they wanted to do it.
I don’t think they’re brainwashed, I think they’re genuinely that dumb and uneducated.
In any other civilised country, if the government started a war without congressional approval. They would riot in the streets of the capitol and stay there until they get what they want.
“Dumb and uneducated” is the same thing as brain-washed.
It’s not accidental.
No, they wouldn’t and they haven’t. In Europe, this is what’s fueling the rise of the far-right. The difference is largely that their forms of government are more resilient. You could not be any more mistaken. There are riots in Europe, just like there are in the US, but MAGA is perfectly able to organize riots and protests as well, and so are their fair-right counterparts in the EU, and theirs has much more money behind them and is much more cultified.
Oh, which European country exactly launched a full scale war against another country without congressional approval?
I would love to know just how mistaken I am.
You are so mistaken you have to resort to false equivalence and ignore the explicit evidence given to you while you regurgitate a position whose only foundation is based on pure vibes and stereotypes - basically the same thing that fuels MAGA. You will only ever help extend the the distance towards any real solution because rather than address the psychology and the factors pushing for the division, you are yourself contributing to it.
That is a wonderful word-salad. Incoherent and meaningless.
If you think your article from “military.com” is explicit evidence, there’s nothing more to be said. That’s just sad.
I said if any other civilised country would riot, you claim they would not and have not, and when pressed on that claim, your response is not to back up your claim, but to accuse me of resorting to false equivalence. Sounds like something a certain orange man would do…
Going to war with forgein nations is what’s fueling the right in Europe? You need to put the booze down. First of all, even the far right in most of Europe is still more left leaning than the US left. To compare right wing policies in Europe and US is actually a false equivalence. They’re not even close to equal. Some views are shared yes. But that doesn’t not equate an entire political standing.
What is fueling the right in europe, is having to clean up the humanitarian crisis the US have been leaving behind in the middle East for over 20 years.
The US bomb their homes, demolish their schools, fuels their insurgency, which leads to even more civilian displacement. And where can they go? To the US? Fat chance. There’s no way to reach US shores and the US refuses to grant asylum to the millions of people they have displaced through their actions. The only realistic recourse they have is to smuggle themselves into Europe and hope for the best.
And now… the US is doing it AGAIN. Will they do anything to clean up the mess they’re leaving behind? No. Their politicians supporting the ongoing war is adamant that they have no responsibility as to what comes after. They just wanna go in, bomb the shit out of them, and leave. And what does the US people do? Nothing. Too worried about affording the food they need to survive. And god forbid they ever get sick or end up in a medical emergency.
So sincerely. Fuck off with your bullshit. Americans voted for that idiot twice. They saw first hand what happened the first time, and gladly went in for dessert.
This is as true in Russia as it is in the US. Propaganda doesn’t make people stupid. It’s made for stupid people. It’s hardly surprising that the divide between Democrats and republicans can be measured by their education. Or lack there of.
In fairness, Bush’s rating declined steadily after 9/11, and was in the mid 50s when he asked Congress for a formal declaration of war in Iraq.
And that makes sense - Americans rallied in the days following the attack. Bush played his role perfectly. He was very presidential after 9/11. He was serious. Somber. He mourned and offered consolation. He was dignified.
The Trump administration missed a crucial step in starting a war. He forgot that Americans hate wars of choice - and especially when the gas prices are affected.