posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:55 PM
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
I believe all2human is incorrect.
This is not propaganda at all.
The definition of propaganda is:
1 chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view :
he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda.
• the dissemination of such information as a political strategy : the party's leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would
be necessary .
2 ( Propaganda) a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV.
So if we assume that the all2human is referring to this article from the British newspaper The Guardian as "biased or misleading in nature", I would
have to assume that someone in the British power structure must be profiting from such information. Who do you think would profit from such
information in the British government? No one I would think.
Otherwise, calling it propaganda makes no sense. None whatsoever.