Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves. Eric Hoffer
What is propaganda?
Propaganda! The very word conjures up images of sinister people involved in nefarious activities meant to delude the innocent. But this has not always been the case. Propaganda has, through much of history, been view as information, though frequently of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Propaganda has always involved exaggeration and omission in order to achieve a specific goal. It was intended to shape beliefs and attitudes without actually lying to the listeners. At its core, there was a basis of truth.
We generally think of propaganda as the domain of governments. But, in its broadest definition, advertising might be considered as propaganda. It’s intended to create the impression that specific products contribute real advantage to your life. Drinking a specific beer will make you have a better time. Driving a certain car will show that you are more environmentally concerned. Wearing specific clothes will make you more popular.
It wasn’t until the 20th century that the incorporation of falsehoods, deception, and other activities intended to create a totally false impression and to promulgate untruths became the mainstay of propaganda.
Phillip Taylor in his book “Munitions of the Mind” presents an excellent history of propaganda from its origins in the early years of civilization through its rapid evolution in the 20th century, to its infiltration of all aspects of society in the 21st century.
Propaganda began as early as ancient Mesopotamia when the boastings of kings were inscribed on stone monuments. It continued, principally as a way of monarchs justifying their rule up through the 19th century.
The earliest use of the term propaganda was in the early 17th century when the Catholic Church, wishing to spread Catholic doctrine, support the faithful and counter the protestant reformation, established the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide).
World War I saw the beginnings of the disconnection of propaganda and truth. Both sides in that war created knowingly false narratives to bolster civilian morale and increase the fighting spirit of their soldiers. World War II took this process to a whole new level as false propaganda was used to justify mass murder and enslavement of an entire continent. In the 21st century propaganda techniques have been raised to a new level of technical sophistication. Social media, artificial intelligence and modern psychological techniques can create images, sounds and documents completely unrelated to reality but almost impossible for the average person to recognize as false.
Elements of propaganda.
One of the classic elements of propaganda is repetition, the more a statement is repeated the more likely people are to believe it. There is a concept called “illusory truth effect” where the more you hear a statement, the more it feels true.
In past centuries, reference was made to respected people in authority to give credence to statements. Over the years, this has evolved into celebrity endorsements and continues to expand with the recent emergence of instant celebrities in the form of social media influencers.
Emotional appeals have always been a significant part of propaganda, emotions being more easily manipulated than facts. The audience is encouraged to react rather than think.
Simplification is also a central tenant of propaganda; complex ideas are reduced to simple slogans that can be repeated over and over again. Slogans that are catchy and clever will encourage people to repeat them without considering their true meaning.
The repeated use of slogans contributes to the bandwagon effect, a critical propaganda technique for creating the impression of widespread acceptance. The more a person believes everyone else supports the program, the more likely they will be to support it without detailed personal analysis.
Evolving propaganda.
In the early years of the 20th century, propaganda began to take a more malicious path. It began to lose a grounding in truth, except where necessary to sell the lie. As propaganda evolved through the first few decades of the 20th century it became a specialized and highly effective weapon of statecraft.
It’s important to recognize that the ultimate goal of propaganda is not merely manipulating opinions and beliefs. It is a tool for obtaining and using political power.
The following quote, which I will leave unattributed, underlies the objective of propaganda from the mid-20th century on.
“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. The great mass of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. If you tell a lie that is big enough and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
Propaganda in Action
A propaganda program that is designed to achieve political goals has several key elements.
The Target
The first step is to decide on the target population. These are the people you wish to cultivate as supporters and whom you wish to manipulate into specific actions. It’s important to understand what they consider to be their critical concerns. Whether you share those concerns or not isn’t important if you are able to convince the target population that you care about them and that you will meet their needs. Once you have analyzed the concerns of your target population you can develop your message to best appeal to and manage their opinions.
The Leader
The second element is to create a cult of personality around the leader. Generally, the leader will be a charismatic and effective speaker. On other occasions, he simply may be someone they would “like to have a beer with”. If a bond can be created it doesn’t matter how. The leader doesn’t have to have a true concern for the target group as long as they believe he does. Once the leader and the target group have bonded, he will have an easier time manipulating them. The stronger they are connected to him personally, the less scrutiny they will give to his ideas.
The Others
The next element is to identify the “other” group that will be the focus of attacks. The first step is to create fear of this group. Once your target population has developed a significant fear of whatever this group may be accused of, be it crime, immorality, or “unAmericanism”, a program is put in place to demonize them. The purpose of the early program is to generate a high level of unreasoning fear of this group within the target population. Fear is difficult to control, so once this stage has been reached, the fear must be converted to hate through repeated attacks blaming the “others” for every grievance the target group has experienced. Hate is easier to focus and to direct. People can be more easily rallied to action, even violence, in response to hate.
Action
Once hate of the “other” group has been raised to a significant level, your target population can be moved to action. Be that unquestioning acceptance of ideas, voting for whatever candidates you identify, or even resorting to violence to suppress the “others”.
This is the stage where real political power begins to flow from your propaganda program. Your supporters have given up all efforts at critical thinking and blindly accept whatever orders you give in the misguided thought that you are concerned about them and their needs and are doing what is best for them and the country. They have become the weapon for implementing your agenda.
Conclusion
For those of you with an appreciation of history, this should resonate not only with the 20th century but with current events. If you would like to know the source of the quote I gave at the beginning of this section, contact me.
Having seen the effects of modern propaganda on our society, I am left in great despair. In a future post I’m going to be discussing how social media has significantly increased the rate of spread and the effectiveness of propaganda and other disinformation programs.
Military Purges and Democratic Stability: Why History Still Matters
By John Turley
On November 19, 2025
In Commentary, Politics
When political power is on the line, history shows that the military often becomes the make-or-break institution. Authoritarian leaders—from Hitler to Erdogan—have long understood that a professional military answers to the state, not to any one person. That independence can be inconvenient for leaders who want fewer limits to their power. So, the classic move is simple: replace seasoned, independent officers with people whose primary loyalty is personal rather than constitutional.
This isn’t speculation; it’s a familiar historical pattern.
How Authoritarians Reshape Militaries
Professional militaries promote based on experience, training, and merit. They’re built to resist illegal orders and to stay out of domestic politics. For an authoritarian-leaning leader, military professionalism is a potential obstacle. Purges serve a purpose: clear out officers who take institutional norms seriously, and elevate those who won’t push back.
Two cases illustrate how this works.
Hitler and the German Army
After consolidating political power, Hitler moved aggressively to dominate the military. In 1934, the army was pressured to swear a personal oath of loyalty to him—not to the state or constitution.
By 1938 he removed two top commanders, Werner von Blomberg and Werner von Fritsch, through trumped-up scandals after they questioned his rush toward war. Dozens of senior generals were pushed out soon after.
The goal was not efficiency—it was control.
Turkey After the 2016 Coup Attempt
Following the failed coup, President Erdogan launched the largest purge in modern Turkish history. Tens of thousands across the military, police, and judiciary were arrested or fired, including nearly half of Turkey’s generals.
Later reporting showed that many dismissed officers had no link to the coup at all; they were targeted for being politically unreliable or pro-Western.
These cases differ in scale and context, but the pattern is strikingly similar: the professional military is reshaped to serve the leader.
What Healthy Civil–Military Relations Look Like
In stable democracies, civilian leaders set policy, but the military retains professional autonomy. Officers swear loyalty to the constitution. Promotions are merit-based. And there’s a bright line between national service and political allegiance.
One important safeguard: every member of the U.S. military is obligated to refuse unlawful orders and swears an oath to do so. It’s not optional—it’s core to American military ethics.
Research consistently shows that professional, apolitical militaries strengthen democracies, while politically entangled militaries make coups and repression more likely.
The Current U.S. Debate
Since early 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s removal or sidelining of more than two dozen generals and admirals has raised alarms within the military and among lawmakers. It includes the unprecedented firing of a sitting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and significant cuts to senior officer billets.
Hegseth has framed these moves as reforms—streamlining, eliminating “woke politicization,” and aligning leadership with the administration’s national-security priorities.
Many inside the services describe the environment as unpredictable and politically charged. Officers report confusion about why certain leaders are removed and others promoted, and some say the secretary’s rhetoric has alienated the very institution he’s trying to lead. Public reporting describes an “atmosphere of uncertainty and fear” inside the officer corps.
Similarities and Differences to Classic Purges
Where patterns overlap
Where the U.S. still differs
Why This Matters
Institutional Readiness
Purges can weaken the military by removing seasoned leaders and creating gaps in institutional memory.
Professionalism
If officers think advancement depends on political alignment instead of performance, the talent pipeline changes. Some of the best people simply leave.
Civil–Military Trust
The relationship between elected leaders and the military rests on mutual respect. Reports of intimidation or political litmus tests damage that trust.
Democratic Stability
Democracies depend on militaries that stay out of politics. History shows that once political loyalty becomes the main metric for advancement, the slope toward politicization—and eventually erosion of democratic norms—gets much steeper.
The Real Question
It’s not whether current events equal Turkey in 2016 or Germany in 1938. They don’t.
The real question is much simpler:
Will we maintain a military that is professional, apolitical, and loyal to the Constitution—or move toward a military where career survival depends on political loyalty?
That direction matters far more than any single personnel decision.
Bottom Line
History shows that authoritarianism doesn’t arrive all at once; it arrives incrementally. One of the clearest patterns is reshaping the military to reward personal loyalty over constitutional loyalty.
The United States still has strong guardrails: congressional oversight, rule of law, open media, and a military culture steeped in constitutional commitment. But those guardrails only work if they’re maintained—by political leaders, by officers, and by citizens paying attention. Many are concerned that the deployment of military forces in American cities and their use to destroy purported drug traffickers is a way to acclimate senior officers to following questionable orders.
Watching these trends isn’t alarmist. It’s simply responsible. It’s our duty as citizens