This was an ad on YouTube, and interrupted what I was watching. I’m still not sure if it’s a real film, but it’s definitely still propaganda.

I found it very unsettling to watch.

(I originally wrote this post as an answer to this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/propaganda/comments/1fei5eo/lets_discuss_cia_and_fbi_activity_on_wikipedia/, which asked the question whether CIA and FBI, large corporations etc were making and editing posts on sites like Wikipedia, like they were caught doing back in 2007,

What do I think? I think it's unrealistic to believe this isn't still happening. It's happening in big media, social media, and fact-checking organizations (the influence I mean). So why not Wikipedia? Whether it's CIA or any other entity doing their influence-work. This highly informative BBC-documentary sheds light on how propaganda has been and is being used by the institutions most of us trust: https://youtu.be/eJ3RzGoQC4s?si=iJ-f8R9CwDT8Xifv

• So basically media influence is widespread and affects various sources, including fact-checking organizations; therefore understanding media manipulation is crucial. And you may be surprised of the scale it is happening when you start looking.

I saw an interview with former Nato-leader Jens Stoltenberg on national television here i Norway a few days ago. He said Nato was willing to negotiate with Putin but that the Russians declined and simply went to war. However it was the Russians who had sent the first draft for an agreement)it may be blocked from other countries, but here is part of the interview (it's in Norwegian and I'll copy my own transcript below): https://tv.nrk.no/se?v=NNFA54000124&t=806s

Translation: "Nato is completely ready for dialogue, Nato has expressed that time and again, it is Russia that has walked away from the dialogue, we had a meeting with them in the weeks before the invasion, they had sent in some... they had sent us proposals, we were willing to negotiate about it, but they invaded. So it is clear that it is not so easy to have a dialogue with someone who would rather use military force than sit and try to find diplomatic solutions...[sic]”

Then we have this, where he says:

"President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021 and he actually sent a draft, a treaty that he wanted Nato to sign, to promise no more Nato enlargement. That was what what he sent us. And that was the precondition to not invade eh Ukraine. Off course we didn’t sign that. The opposite happened."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrCr0_E742k

This is a good example of the different narratives of the war, even within one institution. Hypocrisy and definitely propaganda. Some would even say it is an attempt to test the public for consent - a form of gaslighting.

• Main Point:
  • Multiple narratives exist, and ignoring one side solves nothing.

This lack of attention to Russia's concerns highlights a broader pattern of disregard for their security needs. Nato not only ignored the Russians need for security for decades (or at least didn't pay attention) as we can see in this speech from Jeffrey Sachs added today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOCBkN-UDd0, they also actively did not prevent the war (as we have seen, there are strong indications they could have). Btw adding an article from a few days after the initial feb 22-attack below, shedding light on the truths of the matter.

Most such thoughts are silenced in main stream media, and you can see the silencing almost in real time on social media. In 2007 Putin said in this famous speech: “Nato has put its frontline forces on our borders,”... Nato expansion.. “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”. Watch this part of his speech here: https://youtu.be/hQ58Yv6kP44?si=N5VbOknosCi0RnN6&t=1126

These words from Putin does not sound unreasonable. Although some argue Nato expansion is purely defensive, it's not hard to understand Putins view. Here the article mendioned about the subject, written only days after the invasion: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine ).

So obviously the Russians did make it clear that Nato expansion was seen as a provocation.

At the same time we have been told over and over about Putins "unprovoked" attack. It could be the word of the year (at least the Norwegian translation could: the word "uprovosert" has been repeated in most articles I have read about the war, and it provokes me each and every time. Just like it probably provokes the Russians and rest of the BRICS countries). Here is a screenshot of a search I did for the words unprovoked attack Russia. I suggest you do the same, and compare it to Putins words fifteen years before, and compare those two sides of the story with the fact that Nato has added plenty more countries afterwards.

https://preview.redd.it/4e3uf7251sxd1.png?width=1282&format=png&auto=webp&s=3a648c2463dedb606afc5a897f410a7229f47b50

So it is clear that the attack in February 2022 was not unprovoked. The fact that governments around the globe, with the help of media, calls it completely unprovoked, and broadcast that message again and again - and again - and again - and again: is clearly propaganda.

Also the gaslighting from the Nato General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg is symptomatic. In the role he plays he believes he has the permission to lie publicly, and he does it blatantly and convincingly. In general we justify lying and doing things that are borderline or completely immoral, through the roles we play in society. And most of the time we are lying to ourselves too, and/or justifying it to ourselves based on other lies. Most of us don't even know we're lying or deceiving, because we're so deep into the role. I actually think this is one of the major issues in the world, this is why I include it in this text.

Key Points:

• The "unprovoked attack" narrative is a form of propaganda, and lying about it to the public is public gaslighting.

Nato contributed to starting the war. Diplomats, presidents and political scientists have known that expanding Nato eastward was going to be seen as provocations and threats to the Russians, and as we have seen; Putin said it straight out in 2007 - and plenty other times. But we have been told, also repeatedly last few years especially, that the Russians concerns about the steady expansion on Nato weren't real. Or whatever other explanation we have been served in the media that ridiculed or belittled Russias views and needs for security .

I'm not saying there was anything moral about the attack btw, obviously Putin could (and should) have stopped the war before it began (by giving Nato more time to negotiate, assuming Stoltenberg told the truth about suddenly being willing to negotiate the weeks before the attack. But the fact remains that so could (and should) Nato.

It MAY be that the Russians weren't willing to negotiate, that it was really an ultimatum, but Stoltenberg calls it a draft, which implies it could be discussed. Plus; some of the claims Russia wanted, to remove Nato troops from existing Nato-nations, was likely there to be negotiated away. Any negotiator knows that you don't ask for exactly what you want (unless you know you're dealing with someone you trust has also your best interests in mind).

If we read declassified documentation and documentation leaked, we will see countless examples of highly questionable and some times grave government practice throughout history.

Still we think, most of us, that now it's different(!)

Why is that? Because we are (still) being subject to massive influence, we are more or less brainwashed into trusting the system (for good and for bad btw, some influence is good, and some of it is abhorrent!). Many more are less trusting to the system now, I believe, but still severely influenced - only from differing sources.

My hope is that more and more people will become aware of how we are influenced, so we can see through and pick apart at least sections of our reality tunnels. So we can see beyond our biases and understand eachother better. Why should we accept that we are lied to in the name of national interests from governments around the world? In eastern countries the propaganda isn't so sophisticated, so most people are well aware of it. Here in the west, not so much. We may acknowledge that "the other side" is brainwashed, but we're not so aware of the stories we ourselves believe to be true (and especially how they got there).

Please: before answering consider if you're trolling or not. If you want to answer with "Putinist", Russia-lover or anything like that, you show not only that you haven't read the post properly, you show that you are either part of a system that needs to change (PR/propaganda), or so indoctrinated that you basically live in a fantasy-world based on lies and do the work that propaganda is made to do: spread the narrative.

If most people knew the deception we're subject to, and could recognize it, we wouldn't be so suggestible as most of us are. Frankly I believe we're all brainwashed in some form, but the worst form is from the institutions most of us trust - and many of us would be willing to die for (which is definitely a part of the brainwashing btw).

I'm fully aware of the arguments we've been presented the last few years. Especially that it isn't provoking to expand a peace-alliance like Nato. But to the Russians, Afghans and Chinese for instance, Nato may not seem that peaceful. My point with this post isn't a discussion about the war itself or concerns about the war, it's about the propaganda and the growing use of it all over the place. I absolutely hate war and believe the barbaric apes we some times behave like should man up and behave like humans - the way only humans can. Because we're not only animals, we are also capable of being decent to eachother. This involves being actually truthful and trying to work for actual truth being spread in society. Even if we're paid to tell lies.

What I'd like to see is a discussion or ideas for how we can all get better at spotting and uncovering propaganda and manipulation with our own eyes. Because I think the proof is in the pudding as the brits say, so we have to see it with our own eyes (not necessarily trust some fact checker, who often base their own facts on other fact-checkers or some other news-agency they trust). Especially we shouldn't naively believe something we simply read or see in the news. I feel that this post is an example of things that can be done, sharing inconsistencies etc. What we can do is teach eachother the techniques that can be used for influence, and spread the proofs of propaganda, share fact-checking techniques, how to identify logical fallacies, verification-strategies etc.

Unless we would rather live on a globe full of wars, we better start looking inwards and try to see how we can contribute to change, and maybe even see how we contributed to the problems in the world.

Here is that BBC-documentary on propaganda again, it's a great intro to the subject (at the very least save it to watch later:) https://youtu.be/eJ3RzGoQC4s?si=iJ-f8R9CwDT8Xifv

TDLR is yes it's still happening, and it's much worse, and there is proof, and (long term) solutions that include both you and me. PS: I may make this into a post on its own (which I just did).

Could be this ad be considered anti-propaganda considering that Abilify was constantly advertised on television by pharmaceutical companies for many years? Simple question: What kind of propaganda would this ad be considered?