Tyranny of the Majority

Original Post Date: 2001-09-01 Time: 12:13:49  Posted By: Jan

Jeff Rense did an excellent radio show called “Why Americans will believe
almost anything.” It was based on an Internet article by Dr Tim O’Shea. They
discussed how propaganda developed in America to sell any idea to the people.
The show is excellent and worth listening to and I put a link to it on my
radio show links.

I thought I would post an excerpt from the propaganda chapter of my book
which explains the tremendous dangers which propaganda holds, expecially in a
democratic society where the people are badly educated.

---

Propaganda is not just a tool of war. I have said that the liberators are
warriors but in fact the entire communist mentality is that of a warrior. The
communist is, in his mind, permanently at war. Even during peace, he is at
war. This means that he sees any anti-Communist as an enemy. He therefore
acts as if a state of war exists. He does not hesitate to lie in order to get
his way or to cause confusion among those trying to determine what his real
aims are. Communists have a concept of the “Total Onslaught.” But the Total
Onslaught is completely clandestine. It occurs at all levels of society. It
attacks art, culture, religion and above all patriotism. It seeks to inflame
race hatred if it can find any. Communists seek out society's weaknesses and
then attacks them clandestinely. The communist is governed by the principles
of the weak attacking the strong. He does not wish you to respond since your
response could destroy him. He therefore can engage in a fully blown assault
on your culture without firing a single bullet. He works, as always, on your
mind.

Propaganda holds a tremendous danger for society in that it can lead people
into being too conformist. The danger exists that with the modern tools of
mass communication, one can now create a highly conformist and virtually
unthinking society. This of course is exactly the type of thing which
communists would die for.

Professor T. Qualter of the University of Waterloo did a comprehensive study
of propaganda and psychological warfare. Propaganda exists in peacetime in
every country on earth, but nowhere more than in an open society. Qualter
noted that in a democratic society propaganda originates from political
parties and from all manner of organisations each intent on shaping public
opinion. But, in a dictatorship the propaganda issues forth only from the
government. He concluded that one of the reasons why propaganda is more
effective in a closed society is because there is a monopoly on ideas. Since
people only hear one message continuously they are thus more likely to accept
it simply because there are no competing messages. In Western countries there
is lots of propaganda and counter-propaganda. This gives people the chance to
decide. Therefore, people in an open society are not as easily swayed as a
whole to one side or the other. But, it is not all good news. An open society
is one where communists can operate more freely. They can set up front
organisations which appear to be genuine which can then disseminate their
concealed propaganda.

Most propaganda is directed against a mass audience but it can also be aimed
at very specific groups of people (e.g. economists or political
commentators). If one can fool a particular group of specialists it is then
entirely conceivable that they, due to the esteem in which they are held, can
then spread their errors more easily on to the unsuspecting public. Since it
is more difficult to fool a specialist in a given field, it therefore follows
that fooling him will actually result in an even more effective campaign in
fooling those to whom he disseminates his newly acquired and faulty
information.

Professor Qualter examined in great detail the danger that mass propaganda
holds for people in democratic societies. The danger is that people will be
forced into conformity of thought. In 1962, Qualter explained how
propagandists could use their power to exploit: “… the powerful human
instinct of gregariousness. The mental fixity and lack of intellectual
curiosity that were characteristic of the bulk of mankind were the outcome of
man's gregarious instincts. They made the work of the propagandist so much
easier by inducing in individuals an intolerance of all non-conformity. Most
men were as afraid of mental isolation, of being excluded from the sympathy
of other men, as they were of physical solitude.” Qualter warned of the
dangers of the “voice of the herd” and what it could lead to. He explained
that propagandists who were accepted by the people as being one of them could
then become very powerful. Indeed, he warned of “The Tyranny of the
Majority.” (R11) What could therefore happen, and indeed this has happened in
much of the world already, is that the majority are constantly shoving their
views upon the minority of free thinkers and are drowning them out. In this
way, through peer pressure, there is even more conformism than before.
Professor Qualter did not know it then, but today we would call this
“Political Correctness.” This leads one to wonder if in fact “Political
Correctness” is not a deliberate creation of communist propagandists?

Qualter explained that there was the danger that one could create a new type
of tyranny by controlling the public opinion of a mass of poorly educated
people. He pointed out that most people are not all that interested in
politics and that they relied on others for information and opinions. It
followed that the less educated people were, and the more immature they were,
the easier it would be to influence their opinions. (R11) The creators of
liberal democracy had a great deal of faith in the ability of men to reflect
and to think rationally about political issues for themselves. It had long
been recognised that there were dangers in having a democracy if the public
were badly educated. Nevertheless, everyone had faith that as mankind
progressed, the levels of education would improve and this would of course
strengthen the democracy. The first man to realise that mass communication
methods could destroy democracy was B. Jerrold. In 1883 he suggested that the
presence of propaganda required a re-think of democracy. Jerrold was
concerned by the “manufacture of public opinion.” He believed that this was
something that had lain dormant for a long period of time but which could
become a significant fact in the future. Jerrold expressed his concerns over
the power of the “public opinion manufacturer.” He saw the new techniques of
persuasion as being a threat to democracy.

Others such as de Tocqueville and J. S. Mill had warned of the “Tyranny of
the majority”. Towards the end of the 19th century it became apparent to some
that technology could become a grave threat to democracy. Qualter explained:
“… now it seemed that ways had been discovered for the few to impose their
mind on the majority and to use the weight of the majority against any
opposition. The tyranny of the few would be perpetuated, but would have all
the appearance of the will of the majority” (Author's emphasis). At the
beginning of the 20th century there were those who noticed the ever-widening
gap between the theory and practise of democracy. They became disillusioned
about its future and predicted that one-day liberal democracy would collapse.
(R12)

Graham Wallas was another who realised that the vote-catching techniques of
professional politicians could threaten the workings of a democracy.
Incidentally, both Jerrold and Wallas saw the expansion of suffrage also as a
threat to representative democracy. The reason for this was that as more
people were included into the democratic process, there would be a greater
need to induce conformity and consensus among them to prevent friction
between them. They believed that the government could only govern effectively
if there was broad support among the public. Since there were so many diverse
groups, Wallas believed that it would not be long before a professional
“controller of public opinion” was required. There were also various advances
in social psychology as well as mass communication, which convinced him that
the time had arrived when politics could be controlled through “cold blooded
manipulation.” (R13)

All the above analyses are extremely important to the African situation
because here we find the recipe for Democratic Tyranny. Firstly, Africa
suffers from a general backwardness and lack of education. Secondly, black
people in general, are even more gregarious and more group orientated than
whites. This is deeply rooted in African culture where peer pressure is
tremendously strong and where individualism is suppressed. These conditions
make Africa the ideal place to practise a new kind of tyranny where a clever
ruler or party controls the mass mind to keep themselves in power. Thus the
situation is created where clever propagandists, who are supporting the
governing party, can to a large degree nullify the benefits of democracy by
having a great influence on the mass mind.

In 1913, Walter Lippmann pointed out that advances in scientific analysis had
a profound effect on propaganda. He pointed out that persuasion had become a
“regular organ of popular government.” Lippman referred also to the “creation
of consent.” It was here that Lippmann introduced the word “stereotype” which
referred to the knowledge which people thought they had as compared to
genuine knowledge.

“Stereotypes” are nothing more than knowledge based on myths, dreams, etc.
Stereotypes are of tremendous importance in the art of propaganda. Propaganda
is at its most effective if the message to the masses is short, simple and
often repeated. It is here that stereotypes assist greatly in getting a
message across. (R14) One sees the continual use of stereotypes by the
communists. Incidentally, they are complete hypocrites. They state that
people must not succumb to the use of stereotypes when discussing black
people, however, they themselves use stereotypes more than anyone else. It is
they who espouse the mythology of the “capitalist robber”, and the “racist
white” while encouraging the view that the poor are innocent and never commit
any crimes. In their view, only capitalists are thieves and oppressors but
the poor are all saints.

xxxxx Sign Up