Zen blog post in Russian
https://dzen.ru/a/adQZHd7G7TAESx5z

The ability to recognize manipulation is your defense against any propaganda.

Basic psychological mechanisms.
Propaganda exploits the vulnerabilities built into the psyche:

Cognitive biases:

- Confirmation — we are looking for information that confirms what we already believe.

- Anchoring — the first information on the topic is perceived as "basic".

- Tunnel vision — details that contradict the picture are ignored.

- The false dilemma is "you're either with us or against us."

Emotional triggers:

- Fear is the strongest motivator.

- Anger — mobilizes to action.

- The sense of justice is easily exploited.

- Group identity — "we" versus "they".

Basic propaganda techniques.
1. Depersonalization of the enemy (dehumanization).

The whole group is presented as inhumans. For example, with animals: "rats", "cockroaches", "cattle". Disease-causing metaphors: "virus", "infection", "pus". Mechanical images: "dolls", "puppets", "robots".

If the object is not a person, moral norms do not apply to it.

2. False dilemma (exclusion of the middle).

The wording has only two options, the third is not given. "You are either with us or with the terrorists" "Either our victory or the apocalypse" "Whoever is not with us is against us"

This formulation forbids thinking about complexity, forces you to choose.

3. Appeal to authority. The authority confirms: "Scientists have proved," "The General said," "Experts are unanimous." The authority is under attack: "These scientists have sold out", "They are not real experts"/

4. Substitution of concepts. The same word is used for different things. The term "Denazification" is actually "Destruction of an independent State". The term "Liberation" is actually "Occupation". The "special operation" is actually a "War". The term "counterterrorism" is actually "The suppression of any resistance."

5. Selection of facts. Only convenient facts are presented, the rest is hidden. A) The truth, but not the whole truth; B) The context is missed; C) Statistics are taken out of context; D) Sources are selectively quoted.

6. Repetition as a method. Exactly according to Goebbels' Formula: if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. A) Triad: thesis — antithesis — synthesis. B) Deliberate exaggeration as preparation for a "retreat." C) Creating information noise.

7. The accusation that you're actually doing it yourself. Attributing one's own actions to the opponent. "They are the ones attacking, not us." "They are the barbarians, not us." "They are the ones violating human rights." It works on: removing cognitive dissonance from the audience.

8. Creating an enemy image. The external enemy (we are rallying). The inner enemy (clearing the ranks). The threat must be both strong and weak. The enemy is powerful - we need to unite. The enemy is weak - victory is near.

9. Deliberate simplification. Complex processes are reduced to primitive schemes. "If there is evil, there are victims, destroy evil." Any complexity is declared an "excuse for evil." The political situation boils down to a binary one

10. Fake nobility. The opponent is accused of a lack of morality, while hiding behind morality. "You think about politics, and we think about people." "If you doubt, then you are for evil."

How to recognize propaganda.
According to the emotional load. Fear, anger, and hatred are used.

By binary. There are only two options.

By generalization. It says "everything", "always", "never".

According to the source. Is it possible to verify the information?

According to the context. Is this the full picture?

By goal. Does the author want to convince or inform?

How to recognize propaganda in modern Russia.
Propaganda is based on several basic stories that are repeated with variations.: 1) "Russia has been surrounded" (NATO/the West is advancing - we are defending ourselves). 2) "Historical injustice" (the USSR was destroyed - Russia was humiliated - it must be restored). 3) "The Ukrainian question" (Ukraine is an artificial state / "fraternal people"). 4) The "Fifth Column" (Internal enemies (liberals, NGOs, "foreign agents"). 5) "Information war" (The West is lying - we are telling the truth).

Double standards. One's actions are explained by circumstances, while others' actions are explained by essence. 1) We "had to" - They "always wanted to". 2) We are a "protective measure" - They are "aggression". 3) We are a "rescue operation" - They are an "invasion". 4) We are "fighting terrorism" - They are a "punitive operation".

That is, if the explanation for the same action is diametrically opposed, depending on who committed it, this is a double standard.

The verification of truth is through oneself, not through external sources. Tautological logic. "It's true because we're telling the truth." "The source is reliable because he can be trusted." "The West is lying because it has always lied."

The "It's worse for us, so we're right" method. All suffering is equal to the truth. Success does not prove a point, failure does not disprove it. "They're sanctioning us, so we're doing something right." "They don't understand us, so we're united against us, so we're dangerous to them."

The conspiracy framework. There is a conspiracy behind every event. Any inconvenient phenomenon is explained by malicious intent, not by chance, error, or objective reasons. The protest phenomena are explained by Western money and puppeteers (for example, "custom article" =)). The dissenters are explained as traitors and sold out. The criticism is explained by the information war. The defeat is explained by internal sabotage.

A difficult situation boils down to a simple emotional formula. Emotional triangulation. Instead of analysis, there are appeals to feelings: shame, pride, fear, anger. The complexity of the conflict is simply "we were offended." The multilateral story is simply "Russia has always saved." Geopolitics is just "greatness" and "humiliation."

Pseudo-historical arguments. Historical analogies as proof. Simplified history, ignoring context and legal documents. "The Russians are not giving up" / "We stood up in 1941" "Crimea is ours because it has always been ours" (ignoring specific treaties). "The Baltic States are historical Russia."

The rhetoric of "specialness". Russia is unique - the standard rules do not apply to it. Rejection of generally accepted evaluation criteria. If the standards change depending on the object, this is manipulation. "A special way." "Not the West and not the East." "Eurasian civilization". "Special values."

Marker phrases (red flags) that determine propaganda in practice. The phrase "In fact" means that redefinition of something is about to begin. The phrase "Actually" is followed by a statement that contradicts the facts. The marker phrase is "Historical truth," followed by a pseudo-historical justification. The "Who's to blame" marker means searching for the enemy instead of analyzing it. The marker "Objective reality" — the subjective is passed off as objective.

According to the marker structure. 1) There are no links to the original source, which means the information is not verifiable. It must be verified by several independent sources, comparing versions. 2) There is only one channel (source), which means there is no verification. We check through the international media. This gives us an alternative framework. 3) The argument "Everyone knows that ..." is stated - in fact, this is a false consensus (personal opinion is equated to the generally accepted one). It is checked by searching for the original source, which gives us a cut-off retelling of the claimed argument. 4) It says "There is no alternative" - in fact, there is no critical analysis. It is verified by reading the originals (documents, speech, law), which gives us context, not excerpts. 6) The phrase "Everything will change soon" is a comforting narrative with no reason. Verification through fact-checking services, validation of facts.

Historical examples: propaganda and resistance to totalitarianism. (Addition)
The Third Reich, 1933-1945. Goebbels developed a system that is now called the "transformation of values":

- A person identified as an "enemy" was deprived of subjectivity — he became "lousy", "dirty", "subhuman".

- After that, any violence was perceived as a "hygienic measure."

- Repeat the lie until it is completely absorbed.

This same logic is, in fact, present in any propaganda that dehumanizes an entire group.

USSR, 1930s-1950s.

- "Enemy of the people" is a formulation that relieves the burden of proof.

- Belonging to a "class" or "nation" was enough.

- The philosophical principle: if a person is declared an enemy, it means that he is an enemy.

Forms of resistance: legitimacy and consequences.

The German resistance.

- "White Rose" — the students who distributed the flyers. Without violence. They died.

- Stauffenberg — the assassination attempt on Hitler. Violence against a specific regime. They died.

- Both forms are recognized as resistance. None of them were directed against civilians.

The French Resistance.

- Sabotage against the occupiers' infrastructure.

- Intelligence for the allies.

- Help the fugitives.

The weapons were directed against military targets, not against the French collaborators as a class.

Soviet dissidents.

- Sakharov, Sinyavsky, Daniel, Ginzburg.

- Without violence.

- The price is camps, psychiatric clinics, isolation.

There are three key types of resistance in history:

1) Political (using the example of Academician Sakharov). The goal is to change the system. The means are texts and ideas. Such resistance was recognized as legitimate (using Sakharov's example, posthumously).

2) Guerrilla (French Resistance). The goal is to destroy the occupiers. The means are sabotage against the military. Historically recognized as legitimate.

3) Terror against civilians. The goal is intimidation. The means are violence against the population. Condemned by history.

As history shows, resistance without violence has often proved more effective in the long run (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, dissidents). Violence against military targets is one thing, violence against civilians is quite another, and history distinguishes and remembers them. Terror against one's own population (Collaborators in France, informers in the USSR) was not justified even by those who generally fought "for the right cause"! Mass repression always begins with dehumanization — and is always condemned, but only in hindsight...

Remember, anyone can call their opponents "evil" and declare any violence legitimate. It works both ways — and that's why it's dangerous.

Modern totalitarianism in Russia
https://www.publish0x.com/professional-videoproduction/modern-totalitarianism-in-russia-xjyqojm

I write and shoot. Join me

Author's video content
https://www.youtube.com/c/ViolettaWennman

Political trash
https://www.youtube.com/@Ship-Shard

I invite you to the telegram channel
https://t.me/shipshard

Highly Social on Zen
https://dzen.ru/shipshard

To buy caramels to ruin your teeth
https://dzen.ru/shipshard?donate=true

My hobbies are history, philosophy, psychology, music, economics, politics, and sociology. I write about this and much more. Professional model. She has performed at international music festivals (vocals, dancing, imitation of vocalists). I am studying at the Academy of Arts - the Film and Art Industry, I am a producer and the owner of a video studio.

I am glad to see all of you in my blogs.

Please support us, like-minded people, join the telegram channel https://t.me/shipshard