Edward Bernays, Freud’s nephew, was, in my view, more influential to the past century than the Papacy itself. So I felt I stroke gold when I dug out not one, but two very rare interviews of his. To round it up, I added a short but very relevant example of his writings. Essential knowledge.

Edward Bernays on Letterman (1985)
Edward Bernays in a rare interview (1986)

Propaganda (1928)

by Edward Bernays

Contents
I. ORGANIZING CHAOS
II. THE NEW PROPAGANDA
III. THE NEW PROPAGANDISTS
IV. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
V. BUSINESS AND THE PUBLIC
VI. PROPAGANDA AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
VII. WOMEN’S ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
VIII. PROPAGANDA FOR EDUCATION
IX. PROPAGANDA IN SOCIAL SERVICE
X. ART AND SCIENCE
XI. THE MECHANICS OF PROPAGANDA

CHAPTER I
ORGANIZING CHAOS

      The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
      We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
      Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.
      They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.
      It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four.
      In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time.
      In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market. In practice, if every one went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed. To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea.
      It might be better to have, instead of propaganda and special pleading, committees of wise men who would choose our rulers, dictate our conduct, private and public, and decide upon the best types of clothes for us to wear and the best kinds of food for us to eat. But we have chosen the opposite method, that of open competition. We must find a way to make free competition function with reasonable smoothness. To achieve this society has consented to permit free competition to be organized by leadership and propaganda.
      Some of the phenomena of this process are criticized—the manipulation of news, the inflation of personality, and the general ballyhoo by which politicians and commercial products and social ideas are brought to the consciousness of the masses. The instruments by which public opinion is organized and focused may be misused. But such organization and focusing are necessary to orderly life.
      As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increas ingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented.
      With the printing press and the newspaper, the railroad, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly and even instantaneously over the whole of America.
      H. G. Wells senses the vast potentialities of these inventions when he writes in the New York Times:

“Modern means of communication—the power afforded by print, telephone, wireless and so forth, of rapidly putting through directive strategic or technical conceptions to a great number of cooperating centers, of getting quick replies and effective discussion—have opened up a new world of political processes. Ideas and phrases can now be given an effectiveness greater than the effectiveness of any personality and stronger than any sectional interest. The common design can be documented and sustained against perversion and betrayal. It can be elaborated and developed steadily and widely without personal, local and sectional misunderstanding.”

      What Mr. Wells says of political processes is equally true of commercial and social processes and all manifestations of mass activity. The groupings and affiliations of society to-day are no longer subject to “local and sectional” limitations. When the Constitution was adopted, the unit of organization was the village community, which produced the greater part of its own necessary commodities and generated its group ideas and opinions by personal contact and discussion directly among its citizens. But to-day, because ideas can be instantaneously transmitted to any distance and to any number of people, this geographical integration has been supplemented by many other kinds of grouping, so that persons having the same ideas and interests may be associated and regimented for common action even though they live thousands of miles apart.
      It is extremely difficult to realize how many and diverse are these cleavages in our society. They may be social, political, economic, racial, religious or ethical, with hundreds of subdivisions of each. In the World Almanac, for example, the following groups are listed under the A’s:
The League to Abolish Capital Punishment; Association to Abolish War; American Institute of Accountants; Actors’ Equity Association; Actuarial Association of America; International Advertising Association; National Aeronautic Association; Albany Institute of History and Art; Amen Corner; American Academy in Rome; American Antiquarian Society; League for American Citizenship; American Federation of Labor; Amorc (Rosicrucian Order); Andiron Club; American-Irish Historical Association; Anti-Cigarette League; Anti-Profanity League; Archeological Association of America; National Archery Association; Arion Singing Society; American Astronomical Association; Ayrshire Breeders’ Association; Aztec Club of 1847. There are many more under the “A” section of this very limited list.
      The American Newspaper Annual and Directory for 1928 lists 22,128 periodical publications in America. I have selected at random the N’s published in Chicago. They are:
Narod (Bohemian daily newspaper); Narod-Polski (Polish monthly); N.A.R.D. (pharmaceutical); National Corporation Reporter; National Culinary Progress (for hotel chefs); National Dog Journal; National Drug Clerk; National Engineer; National Grocer; National Hotel Reporter; National Income Tax Magazine; National Jeweler; National Journal of Chiropractic; National Live Stock Producer; National Miller; National Nut News; National Poultry, Butter and Egg Bulletin; National Provisioner (for meat packers); National Real Estate Journal; National Retail Clothier; National Retail Lumber Dealer; National Safety News; National Spiritualist; National Underwriter; The Nation’s Health; Naujienos (Lithuanian daily newspaper); New Comer (Republican weekly for Italians); Daily News; The New World (Catholic weekly); North American Banker; North American Veterinarian.
      The circulation of some of these publications is astonishing. The National Live Stock Producer has a sworn circulation of 155,978; The National Engineer, of 20,328; The New World, an estimated circulation of 67,000. The greater number of the periodicals listed—chosen at random from among 22,128—have a circulation in excess of 10,000.
      The diversity of these publications is evident at a glance. Yet they can only faintly suggest the multitude of cleavages which exist in our society, and along which flow information and opinion carrying authority to the individual groups.
      Here are the conventions scheduled for Cleveland, Ohio, recorded in a single recent issue of “World Convention Dates”—a fraction of the 5,500 conventions and rallies scheduled.
      The Employing Photo-Engravers’ Association of America; The Outdoor Writers’ Association; the Knights of St. John; the Walther League; The National Knitted Outerwear Association; The Knights of St. Joseph; The Royal Order of Sphinx; The Mortgage Bankers’ Association; The International Association of Public Employment Officials; The Kiwanis Clubs of Ohio; The American Photo-Engravers’ Association; The Cleveland Auto Manufacturers Show; The American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers.
      Other conventions to be held in 1928 were those of:
The Association of Limb Manufacturers’ Associations; The National Circus Fans’ Association of America; The American Naturopathic Association; The American Trap Shooting Association; The Texas Folklore Association; The Hotel Greeters; The Fox Breeders’ Association; The Insecticide and Disinfectant Association; The National Association of Egg Case and Egg Case Filler Manufacturers; The American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages; and The National Pickle Packers’ Association, not to mention the Terrapin Derby—most of them with banquets and orations attached.
      If all these thousands of formal organizations and institutions could be listed (and no complete list has ever been made), they would still represent but a part of those existing less formally but leading vigorous lives. Ideas are sifted and opinions stereotyped in the neighborhood bridge club. Leaders assert their authority through community drives and amateur theatricals. Thousands of women may unconsciously belong to a sorority which follows the fashions set by a single society leader.
      “Life” satirically expresses this idea in the reply which it represents an American as giving to the Britisher who praises this country for having no upper and lower classes or castes:
      “Yeah, all we have is the Four Hundred, the White-Collar Men, Bootleggers, Wall Street Barons, Criminals, the D.A.R., the K.K.K., the Colonial Dames, the Masons, Kiwanis and Rotarians, the K. of C, the Elks, the Censors, the Cognoscenti, the Morons, Heroes like Lindy, the W.C.T.U., Politicians, Menckenites, the Booboisie, Immigrants, Broadcasters, and—the Rich and Poor.”
      Yet it must be remembered that these thousands of groups interlace. John Jones, besides being a Rotarian, is member of a church, of a fraternal order, of a political party, of a charitable organization, of a professional association, of a local chamber of commerce, of a league for or against prohibition or of a society for or against lowering the tariff, and of a golf club. The opinions which he receives as a Rotarian, he will tend to disseminate in the other groups in which he may have influence.
      This invisible, intertwining structure of groupings and associations is the mechanism by which democracy has organized its group mind and simplified its mass thinking. To deplore the existence of such a mechanism is to ask for a society such as never was and never will be. To admit that it easts, but expect that it shall not be used, is unreasonable.
      Emil Ludwig represents Napoleon as “ever on the watch for indications of public opinion; always listening to the voice of the people, a voice which defies calculation. ‘Do you know,’ he said in those days, ‘what amazes me more than all else? The impotence of force to organize anything.'”
      It is the purpose of this book to explain the structure of the mechanism which controls the public mind, and to tell how it is manipulated by the special pleader who seeks to create public acceptance for a particular idea or commodity. It will attempt at the same time to find the due place in the modern democratic scheme for this new propaganda and to suggest its gradually evolving code of ethics and practice.

CHAPTER II
THE NEW PROPAGANDA

      IN the days when kings were kings, Louis XIV made his modest remark, “L’Etat c’est moi.” He was nearly right.
      But times have changed. The steam engine, the multiple press, and the public school, that trio of the industrial revolution, have taken the power away from kings and given it to the people. The people actually gained power which the king lost For economic power tends to draw after it political power; and the history of the industrial revolution shows how that power passed from the king and the aristocracy to the bourgeoisie. Universal suffrage and universal schooling reinforced this tendency, and at last even the bourgeoisie stood in fear of the common people. For the masses promised to become king.
      To-day, however, a reaction has set in. The minority has discovered a powerful help in influencing majorities. It has been found possible so to mold the mind of the masses that they will throw their newly gained strength in the desired direction. In the present structure of society, this practice is inevitable. Whatever of social importance is done to-day, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture, charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of propaganda. Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government
      Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man’s rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints. It may seem an exaggeration to say that the American public gets most of its ideas in this wholesale fashion. The mechanism by which ideas are disseminated on a large scale is propaganda, in the broad sense of an organized effort to spread a particular belief or doctrine.
      I am aware that the word “propaganda” carries to many minds an unpleasant connotation. Yet whether, in any instance, propaganda is good or bad depends upon the merit of the cause urged, and the correctness of the information published.
      In itself, the word “propaganda” has certain technical meanings which, like most things in this world, are “neither good nor bad but custom makes them so.” I find the word defined in Funk and Wagnalls’ Dictionary in four ways:

  1. “A society of cardinals, the overseers of foreign missions; also the College of the Propaganda at Rome founded by Pope Urban VIII in 1627 for the education of missionary priests; Sacred College de Propaganda Fide.
  2. “Hence, any institution or scheme for propagating a doctrine or system.
  3. “Effort directed systematically toward the gaining of public support for an opinion or a course of action.
  4. “The principles advanced by a propaganda.”

      The Scientific American, in a recent issue, pleads for the restoration to respectable usage of that “fine old word ‘propaganda.'”
      “There is no word in the English language,” it says, “whose meaning has been so sadly distorted as the word ‘propaganda.’ The change took place mainly during the late war when the term took on a decidedly sinister complexion.
      “If you turn to the Standard Dictionary, you will find that the word was applied to a congregation or society of cardinals for the care and oversight of foreign missions which was instituted at Rome in the year 1627. It was applied also to the College of the Propaganda at Rome that was founded by Pope Urban VIII, for the education of the missionary priests. Hence, in later years the word came to be applied to any institution or scheme for propagating a doctrine or system.
      “Judged by this definition, we can see that in its true sense propaganda is a perfectly legitimate form of human activity. Any society, whether it be social, religious or political, which is possessed of certain beliefs, and sets out to make them known, either by the spoken or written words, is practicing propaganda.
      “Truth is mighty and must prevail, and if any body of men believe that they have discovered a valuable truth, it is not merely their privilege but their duty to disseminate that truth. If they realize, as they quickly must, that this spreading of the truth can be done upon a large scale and effectively only by organized effort, they will make use of the press and the platform as the best means to give it wide circulation. Propaganda becomes vicious and reprehensive only when its authors consciously and deliberately disseminate what they know to be lies, or when they aim at effects which they know to be prejudicial to the common good.
      ” ‘Propaganda’ in its proper meaning is a perfectly wholesome word, of honest parentage, and with an honorable history. The fact that it should to-day be carrying a sinister meaning merely shows how much of the child remains in the average adult. A group of citizens writes and talks in favor of a certain course of action in some debatable question, believing that it is promoting the best interest of the community. Propaganda? Not a bit of it. Just a plain forceful statement of truth. But let another group of citizens express opposing views, and they are promptly labeled with the sinister name of propaganda. . . .
      ” ‘What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,’ says a wise old proverb. Let us make haste to put this fine old word back where it belongs, and restore its dignified significance for the use of our children and our children’s children.”
      The extent to which propaganda shapes the progress of affairs about us may surprise even well informed persons. Nevertheless, it is only necessary to look under the surface of the newspaper for a hint as to propaganda’s authority over public opinion. Page one of the New York Times on the day these paragraphs are written contains eight important news stories. Four of them, or one-half, are propaganda. The casual reader accepts them as accounts of spontaneous happenings. But are they? Here are the headlines which announce them: “TWELVE NATIONS WARN CHINA REAL REFORM MUST COME BEFORE THEY GIVE RELIEF,” “PRITCHETT REPORTS ZIONISM WILL FAIL,” “REALTY MEN DEMAND A TRANSIT INQUIRY,” and “OUR LIVING STANDARD HIGHEST IN HISTORY, SAYS HOOVER REPORT.”
      Take them in order: the article on China explains the joint report of the Commission on Extraterritoriality in China, presenting an exposition of the Powers’ stand in the Chinese muddle. What it says is less important than what it is. It was “made public by the State Department to-day” with the purpose of presenting to the American public a picture of the State Department’s position. Its source gives it authority, and the American public tends to accept and support the State Department view.
      The report of Dr. Pritchett, a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, is an attempt to find the facts about this Jewish colony in the midst of a restless Arab world. When Dr. Pritchett’s survey convinced him that in the long run Zionism would “bring more bitterness and more unhappiness both for the Jew and for the Arab,” this point of view was broadcast with all the authority of the Carnegie Foundation, so that the public would hear and believe. The statement by the president of the Real Estate Board of New York, and Secretary Hoover’s report, are similar attempts to influence the public toward an opinion.
      These examples are not given to create the impression that there is anything sinister about propaganda. They are set down rather to illustrate how conscious direction is given to events, and how the men behind these events influence public opinion. As such they are examples of modern propaganda. At this point we may attempt to define propaganda.
      Modern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea or group.
      This practice of creating circumstances and of creating pictures in the minds of millions of persons is very common. Virtually no important undertaking is now carried on without it, whether that enterprise be building a cathedral, endowing a university, marketing a moving picture, floating a large bond issue, or electing a president. Sometimes the effect on the public is created by a professional propagandist, sometimes by an amateur deputed for the job. The important thing is that it is universal and continuous; and in its sum total it is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers.
      So vast are the numbers of minds which can be regimented, and so tenacious are they when regimented, that a group at times offers an irresistible pressure before which legislators, editors, and teachers are helpless. The group will cling to its stereotype, as Walter Lippmann calls it, making of those supposedly powerful beings, the leaders of public opinion, mere bits of driftwood in the surf. When an Imperial Wizard, sensing what is perhaps hunger for an ideal, offers a picture of a nation all Nordic and nationalistic, the common man of the older American stock, feeling himself elbowed out of his rightful position and prosperity by the newer immigrant stocks, grasps the picture which fits in so neatly with his prejudices, and makes it his own. He buys the sheet and pillow-case costume, and bands with his fellows by the thousand into a huge group powerful enough to swing state elections and to throw a ponderous monkey wrench into a national convention.
      In our present social organization approval of the public is essential to any large undertaking. Hence a laudable movement may be lost unless it impresses itself on the public mind. Charity, as well as business, and politics and literature, for that matter, have had to adopt propaganda, for the public must be regimented into giving money just as it must be regimented into tuberculosis prophylaxis. The Near East Relief, the Association for the Improvement of the Condition of the Poor of New York, and all the rest, have to work on public opinion just as though they had tubes of tooth paste to sell. We are proud of our diminishing infant death rate—and that too is the work of propaganda.
      Propaganda does exist on all sides of us, and it does change our mental pictures of the world. Even if this be unduly pessimistic—and that remains to be proved—the opinion reflects a tendency that is undoubtedly real. In fact, its use is growing as its efficiency in gaining public support is recognized. This then, evidently indicates the fact that any one with sufficient influence can lead sections of the public at least for a time and for a given purpose. Formerly the rulers were the leaders. They laid out the course of history, by the simple process of doing what they wanted. And if nowadays the successors of the rulers, those whose position or ability gives them power, can no longer do what they want without the approval of the masses, they find in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful in gaining that approval. Therefore, propaganda is here to stay.
      It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. The American government and numerous patriotic agencies developed a technique which, to most persons accustomed to bidding for public acceptance, was new. They not only appealed to the individual by means of every approach—visual, graphic, and auditory—to support the national endeavor, but they also secured the cooperation of the key men in every group —persons whose mere word carried authority to hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers. They thus automatically gained the support of fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social and local groups whose members took their opinions from their accustomed leaders and spokesmen, or from the periodical publications which they were accustomed to read and believe. At the same time, the manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the mental cliches and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror and the tyranny of the enemy. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace.
      As a matter of fact, the practice of propaganda since the war has assumed very different forms from those prevalent twenty years ago. This new technique may fairly be called the new propaganda.
      It takes account not merely of the individual, nor even of the mass mind alone, but also and especially of the anatomy of society, with its interlocking group formations and loyalties. It sees the individual not only as a cell in the social organism but as a cell organized into the social unit. Touch a nerve at a sensitive spot and you get an automatic response from certain specific members of the organism.
      Business offers graphic examples of the effect that may be produced upon the public by interested groups, such as textile manufacturers losing their markets. This problem arose, not long ago, when the velvet manufacturers were facing ruin because their product had long been out of fashion. Analysis showed that it was impossible to revive a velvet fashion within America. Anatomical hunt for the vital spot! Paris! Obviously! But yes and no. Paris is the home of fashion. Lyons is the home of silk. The attack had to be made at the source. It was determined to substitute purpose for chance and to utilize the regular sources for fashion distribution and to influence the public from these sources. A velvet fashion service, openly supported by the manufacturers, was organized. Its first function was to establish contact with the Lyons manufactories and the Paris couturiers to discover what they were doing, to encourage them to act on behalf of velvet, and to help in the proper exploitation of their wares. An intelligent Parisian was enlisted in the work. He visited Lanvin and Worth, Agnes and Patou, and others and induced them to use velvet in their gowns and hats. It was he who arranged for the distinguished Countess This or Duchess That to wear the hat or the gown. And as for the presentation of the idea to the public, the American buyer or the American woman of fashion was simply shown the velvet creations in the atelier of the dressmaker or the milliner. She bought the velvet because she liked it and because it was in fashion.
      The editors of the American magazines and fashion reporters of the American newspapers, likewise subjected to the actual (although created) circumstance, reflected it in their news, which, in turn, subjected the buyer and the consumer here to the same influences. The result was that what was at first a trickle of velvet became a flood. A demand was slowly, but deliberately, created in Paris and America. A big department store, aiming to be a style leader, advertised velvet gowns and hats on the authority of the French couturiers, and quoted original cables received from them. The echo of the new style note was heard from hundreds of department stores throughout the country which wanted to be style leaders too. Bulletins followed despatches. The mail followed the cables. And the American woman traveler appeared before the ship news photographers in velvet gown and hat.
      The created circumstances had their effect. “Fickle fashion has veered to velvet,” was one newspaper comment. And the industry in the United States again kept thousands busy.
      The new propaganda, having regard to the constitution of society as a whole, not infrequently serves to focus and realize the desires of the masses. A desire for a specific reform, however widespread, cannot be translated into action until it is made articulate, and until it has exerted sufficient pressure upon the proper law-making bodies. Millions of housewives may feel that manufactured foods deleterious to health should be prohibited. But there is little chance that their individual desires will be translated into effective legal form unless their halfexpressed demand can be organized, made vocal, and concentrated upon the state legislature or upon the Federal Congress in some mode which will produce the results they desire. Whether they realize it or not, they call upon propaganda to organize and effectuate their demand.
      But clearly it is the intelligent minorities which need to make use of propaganda continuously and systematically. In the active proselytizing minorities in whom selfish interests and public interests coincide lie the progress and development of America. Only through the active energy of the intelligent few can the public at large become aware of and act upon new ideas.
      Small groups of persons can, and do, make the rest of us think what they please about a given subject. But there are usually proponents and opponents of every propaganda, both of whom are equally eager to convince the majority.

CHAPTER III
THE NEW PROPAGANDISTS

      WHO are the men who, without our realizing it, give us our ideas, tell us whom to admire and whom to despise, what to believe about the ownership of public utilities, about the tariff, about the price of rubber, about the Dawes Plan, about immigration; who tell us how our houses should be designed, what furniture we should put into them, what menus we should serve on our table, what kind of shirts we must wear, what sports we should indulge in, what plays we should see, what charities we should support, what pictures we should admire, what slang we should affect, what jokes we should laugh at?
      If we set out to make a list of the men and women who, because of their position in public life, might fairly be called the molders of public opinion, we could quickly arrive at an extended list of persons mentioned in “Who’s Who.” It would obviously include, the President of the United States and the members of his Cabinet; the Senators and Representatives in Congress; the Governors of our fortyeight states; the presidents of the chambers of commerce in our hundred largest cities, the chairmen of the boards of directors of our hundred or more largest industrial corporations, the president of many of the labor unions affiliated in the American Federation of Labor, the national president of each of the national professional and fraternal organizations, the president of each of the racial or language societies in the country, the hundred leading newspaper and magazine editors, the fifty most popular authors, the presidents of the fifty leading charitable organizations, the twenty leading theatrical or cinema producers, the hundred recognized leaders of fashion, the most popular and influential clergymen in the hundred leading cities, the presidents of our colleges and universities and the foremost members of their faculties, the most powerful financiers in Wall Street, the most noted amateurs of sport, and so on. Such a list would comprise several thousand persons. But it is well known that many of these leaders are themselves led, sometimes by persons whose names are known to few. Many a congressman, in framing his platform, follows the suggestions of a district boss whom few persons outside the political machine have ever heard of. Eloquent divines may have great influence in their communities, but often take their doctrines from a higher ecclesiastical authority. The presidents of chambers of commerce mold the thought of local business men concerning public issues, but the opinions which they promulgate are usually derived from some national authority. A presidential candidate may be “drafted” in response to “overwhelming popular demand,” but it is well known that his name may be decided upon by half a dozen men sitting around a table in a hotel room.
      In some instances the power of invisible wirepullers is flagrant. The power of the invisible cabinet which deliberated at the poker table in a certain little green house in Washington has become a national legend. There was a period in which the major policies of the national government were dictated by a single man, Mark Hanna. A Simmons may, for a few years, succeed in marshaling millions of men on a platform of intolerance and violence.
      Such persons typify in the public mind the type of ruler associated with the phrase invisible government. But we do not often stop to think that there are dictators in other fields whose influence is just as decisive as that of the politicians I have mentioned. An Irene Castle can establish the fashion of short hair which dominates nine-tenths of the women who make any pretense to being fashionable. Paris fashion leaders set the mode of the short skirt, for wearing which, twenty years ago, any woman would simply have been arrested and thrown into jail by the New York police, and the entire women’s clothing industry, capitalized at hundreds of millions of dollars, must be reorganized to conform to their dictum.
      There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.
      Nor, what is still more important, the extent to which our thoughts and habits are modified by authorities.
      In some departments of our daily life, in which we imagine ourselves free agents, we are ruled by dictators exercising great power. A man buying a suit of clothes imagines that he is choosing, according to his taste and his personality, the kind of garment which he prefers. In reality, he may be obeying the orders of an anonymous gentleman tailor in London. This personage is the silent partner in a modest tailoring establishment, which is patronized by gentlemen of fashion and princes of the blood. He suggests to British noblemen and others a blue cloth instead of gray, two buttons instead of three, or sleeves a quarter of an inch narrower than last season. The distinguished customer approves of the idea.
      But how does this fact affect John Smith of Topeka?
      The gentleman tailor is under contract with a certain large American firm, which manufactures men’s suits, to send them instantly the designs of the suits chosen by the leaders of London fashion. Upon receiving the designs, with specifications as to color, weight and texture, the firm immediately places an order with the cloth makers for several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of cloth. The suits made up according to the specifications are then advertised as the latest fashion. The fashionable men in New York, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia wear them. And the Topeka man, recognizing this leadership, does the same.
      Women are just as subject to the commands of invisible government as are men. A silk manufacturer, seeking a new market for its product, suggested to a large manufacturer of shoes that women’s shoes should be covered with silk to match their dresses. The idea was adopted and systematically propagandized. A popular actress was persuaded to wear the shoes. The fashion spread. The shoe firm was ready with the supply to meet the created demand. And the silk company was ready with the silk for more shoes.
      The man who injected this idea into the shoe industry was ruling women in one department of their social lives. Different men rule us in the various departments of our lives. There may be one power behind the throne in politics, another in the manipulation of the Federal discount rate, and still another in the dictation of next season’s dances. If there were a national invisible cabinet ruling our destinies (a thing which is not impossible to conceive of) it would work through certain group leaders on Tuesday for one purpose, and through an entirely different set on Wednesday for another. The idea of invisible government is relative. There may be a handful of men who control the educational methods of the great majority of our schools. Yet from another standpoint, every parent is a group leader with authority over his or her children.
      The invisible government tends to be concentrated in the hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses. To advertise on a scale which will reach fifty million persons is expensive. To reach and persuade the group leaders who dictate the public’s thoughts and actions is likewise expensive.
      For this reason there is an increasing tendency to concentrate the functions of propaganda in the hands of the propaganda specialist. This specialist is more and more assuming a distinct place and function in our national life.
      New activities call for new nomenclature. The propagandist who specializes in interpreting enterprises and ideas to the public, and in interpreting the public to promulgators of new enterprises and ideas, has come to be known by the name of “public relations counsel.”
      The new profession of public relations has grown up because of the increasing complexity of modern life and the consequent necessity for making the actions of one part of the public understandable to other sectors of the public. It is due, too, to the increasing dependence of organized power of all sorts upon public opinion. Governments, whether they are monarchical, constitutional, democratic or communist, depend upon acquiescent public opinion for the success of their efforts and, in fact, government is only government by virtue of public acquiescence. Industries, public utilities, educational movements, indeed all groups representing any concept or product, whether they are majority or minority ideas, succeed only because of approving public opinion. Public opinion is the unacknowledged partner in all broad efforts.
      The public relations counsel, then, is the agent who, working with modern media of communication and the group formations of society, brings an idea to the consciousness of the public. But he is a great deal more than that. He is concerned with courses of action, doctrines, systems and opinions, and the securing of public support for them. He is also concerned with tangible things such as manufactured and raw products. He is concerned with public utilities, with large trade groups and associations representing entire industries.
      He functions primarily as an adviser to his client, very much as a lawyer does. A lawyer concentrates on the legal aspects of his client’s business. A counsel on public relations concentrates on the public contacts of his client’s business. Every phase of his client’s ideas, products or activities which may affect the public or in which the public may have an interest is part of his function.
      For instance, in the specific problems of the manufacturer he examines the product, the markets, the way in which the public reacts to the product, the attitude of the employees to the public and towards the product, and the cooperation of the distribution agencies.
      The counsel on public relations, after he has examined all these and other factors, endeavors to shape the actions of his client so that they will gain the interest, the approval and the acceptance of the public.
      The means by which the public is apprised of the actions of his client are as varied as the means of communication themselves, such as conversation, letters, the stage, the motion picture, the radio, the lecture platform, the magazine, the daily newspaper. The counsel on public relations is not an advertising man but he advocates advertising where that is indicated. Very often he is called in by an advertising agency to supplement its work on behalf of a client. His work and that of the advertising agency do not conflict with or duplicate each other.
      His first efforts are, naturally, devoted to analyzing his client’s problems and making sure that what he has to offer the public is something which the public accepts or can be brought to accept. It is futile to attempt to sell an idea or to prepare the ground for a product that is basically unsound.
      For example, an orphan asylum is worried by a falling off in contributions and a puzzling attitude of indifference or hostility on the part of the public. The counsel on public relations may discover upon analysis that the public, alive to modern sociological trends, subconsciously criticizes the institution because it is not organized on the new “cottage plan.” He will advise modification of the client in this respect. Or a railroad may be urged to put on a fast train for the sake of the prestige which it will lend to the road’s name, and hence to its stocks and bonds.
      If the corset makers, for instance, wished to bring their product into fashion again, he would unquestionably advise that the plan was impossible, since women have definitely emancipated themselves from the old-style corset. Yet his fashion advisers might report that women might be persuaded to adopt a certain type of girdle which eliminated the unhealthful features of the corset.
      His next effort is to analyze his public. He studies the groups which must be reached, and the leaders through whom he may approach these groups. Social groups, economic groups, geographical groups, age groups, doctrinal groups, language groups, cultural groups, all these represent the divisions through which, on behalf of his client, he may talk to the public.
      Only after this double analysis has been made and the results collated, has the time come for the next step, the formulation of policies governing the general practice, procedure and habits of the client in all those aspects in which he comes in contact with the public. And only when these policies have been agreed upon is it time for the fourth step.
      The first recognition of the distinct functions of the public relations counsel arose, perhaps, in the early years of the present century as a result of the insurance scandals coincident with the muck-raking of corporate finance in the popular magazines. The interests thus attacked suddenly realized that they were completely out of touch with the public they were professing to serve, and required expert advice to show them how they could understand the public and interpret themselves to it.
      The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, prompted by the most fundamental self-interest, initiated a conscious, directed effort to change the attitude of the public toward insurance companies in general, and toward itself in particular, to its profit and the public’s benefit.
      It tried to make a majority movement of itself by getting the public to buy its policies. It reached the public at every point of its corporate and separate existences. To communities it gave health surveys and expert counsel. To individuals it gave health creeds and advice. Even the building in which the corporation was located was made a picturesque landmark to see and remember, in other words to carry on the associative process. And so this company came to have a broad general acceptance. The number and amount of its policies grew constantly, as its broad contacts with society increased.
      Within a decade, many large corporations were employing public relations counsel under one title or another, for they had come to recognize that they depended upon public good will for their continued prosperity. It was no longer true that it was “none of the public’s business” how the affairs of a corporation were managed. They were obliged to convince the public that they were conforming to its demands as to honesty and fairness. Thus a corporation might discover that its labor policy was causing public resentment, and might introduce a more enlightened policy solely for the sake of general good will. Or a department store, hunting for the cause of diminishing sales, might discover that its clerks had a reputation for bad manners, and initiate formal instruction in courtesy and tact.
      The public relations expert may be known as public relations director or counsel. Often he is called secretary or vice-president or director. Sometimes he is known as cabinet officer or commissioner. By whatever title he may be called, his function is well defined and his advice has definite bearing on the conduct of the group or individual with whom he is working.
      Many persons still believe that the public relations counsel is a propagandist and nothing else. But, on the contrary, the stage at which many suppose he starts his activities may actually be the stage at which he ends them. After the public and the client are thoroughly analyzed and policies have been formulated, his work may be finished. In other cases the work of the public relations counsel must be continuous to be effective. For in many instances only by a careful system of constant, thorough and frank information will the public understand and appreciate the value of what a merchant, educator or statesman is doing. The counsel on public relations must maintain constant vigilance, because inadequate information, or false information from unknown sources, may have results of enormous importance. A single false rumor at a critical moment may drive down the price of a corporation’s stock, causing a loss of millions to stockholders. An air of secrecy or mystery about a corporation’s financial dealings may breed a general suspicion capable of acting as an invisible drag on the company’s whole dealings with the public. The counsel on public relations must be in a position to deal effectively with rumors and suspicions, attempting to stop them at their source, counteracting them promptly with correct or more complete information through channels which will be most effective, or best of all establishing such relations of confidence in the concern’s integrity that rumors and suspicions will have no opportunity to take root.
      His function may include the discovery of new markets, the existence of which had been unsuspected.
      If we accept public relations as a profession, we must also expect it to have both ideals and ethics. The ideal of the profession is a pragmatic one. It is to make the producer, whether that producer be a legislature making laws or a manufacturer making a commercial product, understand what the public wants and to make the public understand the objectives of the producer. In relation to industry, the ideal of the profession is to eliminate the waste and the friction that result when industry does things or makes things which its public does not want, or when the public does not understand what is being offered it. For example, the telephone companies maintain extensive public relations departments to explain what they are doing, so that energy may not be burned up in the friction of misunderstanding. A detailed description, for example, of the immense and scientific care which the company takes to choose clearly understandable and distinguishable exchange names, helps the public to appreciate the effort that is being made to give good service, and stimulates it to cooperate by enunciating clearly. It aims to bring about an understanding between educators and educated, between government and people, between charitable institutions and contributors, between nation and nation.
     The profession of public relations counsel is developing for itself an ethical code which compares favorably with that governing the legal and medical professions. In part, this code is forced upon the public relations counsel by the very conditions of his work. While recognizing, just as the lawyer does, that every one has the right to present his case in its best light, he nevertheless refuses a client whom he believes to be dishonest, a product which he believes to be fraudulent, or a cause which he believes to be antisocial. One reason for this is that, even though a special pleader, he is not dissociated from the client in the public’s mind. Another reason is that while he is pleading before the court—the court of public opinion—he is at the same time trying to affect that court’s judgments and actions. In law, the judge and jury hold the deciding balance of power. In public opinion, the public relations counsel is judge and jury, because through his pleading of a case the public may accede to his opinion and judgment.
     He does not accept a client whose interests conflict with those of another client. He does not accept a client whose case he believes to be hopeless or whose product he believes to be unmarketable.
      He should be candid in his dealings. It must be repeated that his business is not to fool or hoodwink the public. If he were to get such a reputation, his usefulness in his profession would be at an end. When he is sending out propaganda material, it is clearly labeled as to source. The editor knows from whom it comes and what its purpose is, and accepts or rejects it on its merits as news.

CHAPTER IV
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PUBLIC RELATIONS

      The systematic study of mass psychology revealed to students the potentialities of invisible government of society by manipulation of the motives which actuate man in the group. Trotter and Le Bon, who approached the subject in a scientific manner, and Graham Wallas, Walter Lippmann and others who continued with searching studies of the group mind, established that the group has mental characteristics distinct from those of the individual, and is motivated by impulses and emotions which cannot be explained on the basis of what we know of individual psychology. So the question naturally arose: If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?
      The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits. Mass psychology is as yet far from being an exact science and the mysteries of human motivation are by no means all revealed. But at least theory and practice have combined with sufficient success to permit us to know that in certain cases we can effect some change in public opinion with a fair degree of accuracy by operating a certain mechanism, just as the motorist can regulate the speed of his car by manipulating the flow of gasoline. Propaganda is not a science in the laboratory sense, but it is no longer entirely the empirical affair that it was before the advent of the study of mass psychology. It is now scientific in the sense that it seeks to base its operations upon definite knowledge drawn from direct observation of the group mind, and upon the application of principles which have been demonstrated to be consistent and relatively constant
      The modern propagandist studies systematically and objectively the material with which he is working in the spirit of the laboratory. If the matter in hand is a nation-wide sales campaign, he studies the field by means of a clipping service, or of a corps of scouts, or by personal study at a crucial spot He determines, for example, which features of a product are losing their public appeal, and in what new direction the public taste is veering. He will not fail to investigate to what extent it is the wife who has the final word in the choice of her husband’s car, or of his suits and shirts.
      Scientific accuracy of results is not to be expected, because many of the elements of the situation must always be beyond his control. He may know with a fair degree of certainty that under favorable circumstances an international flight will produce a spirit of good will, making possible even the consummation of political programs. But he cannot be sure that some unexpected event will not overshadow this flight in the public interest, or that some other aviator may not do something more spectacular the day before. Even in his restricted field of public psychology there must always be a wide margin of error. Propaganda, like economics and sociology, can never be an exact science for the reason that its subject-matter, like theirs, deals with human beings.
      If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway. But men do not need to be actually gathered together in a public meeting or in a street riot, to be subject to the influences of mass psychology. Because man is by nature gregarious he feels himself to be member of a herd, even when he is alone in his room with the curtains drawn. His mind retains the patterns which have been stamped on it by the group influences. A man sits in his office deciding what stocks to buy. He imagines, no doubt, that he is planning his purchases according to his own judgment. In actual fact his judgment is a melange of impressions stamped on his mind by outside influences which unconsciously control his thought. He buys a certain railroad stock because it was in the headlines yesterday and hence is the one which comes most prominently to his mind; because he has a pleasant recollection of a good dinner on one of its fast trains; because it has a liberal labor policy, a reputation for honesty; because he has been told that J. P. Morgan owns some of its shares.
      Trotter and Le Bon concluded that the group mind does not think in the strict sense of the word. In place of thoughts it has impulses, habits and emotions. In making up its mind its first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader. This is one of the most firmly established principles of mass psychology. It operates in establishing the rising or diminishing prestige of a summer resort, in causing a run on a bank, or a panic on the stock exchange, in creating a best seller, or a box-office success.
      But when the example of the leader is not at hand and the herd must think for itself, it does so by means of cliches, pat words or images which stand for a whole group of ideas or experiences. Not many years ago, it was only necessary to tag a political candidate with the word interests to stampede millions of people into voting against him, because anything associated with “the interests” seemed necessarily corrupt. Recently the word Bolshevik has performed a similar service for persons who wished to frighten the public away from a line of action.
      By playing upon an old cliche, or manipulating a new one, the propagandist can sometimes swing a whole mass of group emotions. In Great Britain, during the war, the evacuation hospitals came in for a considerable amount of criticism because of the summary way in which they handled their wounded. It was assumed by the public that a hospital gives prolonged and conscientious attention to its patients. When the name was changed to evacuation posts the critical reaction vanished. No one expected more than an adequate emergency treatment from an institution so named. The cliche hospital was indelibly associated in the public mind with a certain picture. To persuade the public to discriminate between one type of hospital and another, to dissociate the cliche from the picture it evoked, would have been an impossible task. Instead, a new cliche automatically conditioned the public emotion toward these hospitals.
      Men are rarely aware of the real reasons which motivate their actions. A man may believe that he buys a motor car because, after careful study of the technical features of all makes on the market, he has concluded that this is the best. He is almost certainly fooling himself. He bought it, perhaps, because a friend whose financial acumen he respects bought one last week; or because his neighbors believed he was not able to afford a car of that class; or because its colors are those of his college fraternity.
      It is chiefly the psychologists of the school of Freud who have pointed out that many of man’s thoughts and actions are compensatory substitutes for desires which he has been obliged to suppress. A thing may be desired not for its intrinsic worth or usefulness, but because he has unconsciously come to see in it a symbol of something else, the desire for which he is ashamed to admit to himself. A man buying a car may think he wants it for purposes of locomotion, whereas the fact may be that he would really prefer not to be burdened with it, and would rather walk for the sake of his health. He may really want it because it is a symbol of social position, an evidence of his success in business, or a means of pleasing his wife.
      This general principle, that men are very largely actuated bv motives which they conceal from themselves, is as true of mass as of individual psychology. It is evident that the successful propagandist must understand the true motives and not be content to accept the reasons which men give for what they do.
      It is not sufficient to understand only the mechanical structure of society, the groupings and cleavages and loyalties. An engineer may know all about the cylinders and pistons of a locomotive, but unless he knows how steam behaves under pressure he cannot make his engine run. Human desires are the steam which makes the social machine work. Only by understanding them can the propagandist control that vast, loose-jointed mechanism which is modern society.
      The old propagandist based his work on the mechanistic reaction psychology then in vogue in our colleges. This assumed that the human mind was merely an individual machine, a system of nerves and nerve centers, reacting with mechanical regularity to stimuli, like a helpless, will-less automaton. It was the special pleader’s function to provide the stimulus which would cause the desired reaction in the individual purchaser.
      It was one of the doctrines of the reaction psychology that a certain stimulus often repeated would create a habit, or that the mere reiteration of an idea would create a conviction. Suppose the old type of salesmanship, acting for a meat packer, was seeking to increase the sale of bacon. It would reiterate innumerable times in full-page advertisements: “Eat more bacon. Eat bacon because it is cheap, because it is good, because it gives you reserve energy.”
      The newer salesmanship, understanding the group structure of society and the principles of mass psychology, would first ask: “Who is it that influences the eating habits of the public?” The answer, obviously, is: “The physicians.” The new salesman will then suggest to physicians to say publicly that it is wholesome to eat bacon. He knows as a mathematical certainty, that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors, because he understands the psychological relation of dependence of men upon their physicians.
      The old-fashioned propagandist, using almost exclusively the appeal of the printed word, tried to persuade the individual reader to buy a definite article, immediately. This approach is exemplified in a type of advertisement which used to be considered ideal from the point of view of directness and effectiveness:

“YOU (perhaps with a finger pointing at the reader) buy O’Leary’s rubber heels—NOW.”

      The advertiser sought by means of reiteration and emphasis directed upon the individual, to break down or penetrate sales resistance. Although the appeal was aimed at fifty million persons, it was aimed at each as an individual.
      The new salesmanship has found it possible, by dealing with men in the mass through their group formations, to set up psychological and emotional currents which will work for him. Instead of assaulting sales resistance by direct attack, he is interested in removing sales resistance. He creates circumstances which will swing emotional currents so as to make for purchaser demand.
      If, for instance, I want to sell pianos, it is not sufficient to blanket the country with a direct appeal, such as:

“YOU buy a Mozart piano now. It is cheap. The best artists use it. It will last for years.”

      The claims may all be true, but they are in direct conflict with the claims of other piano manufacturers, and in indirect competition with the claims of a radio or a motor car, each competing for the consumer’s dollar.
      What are the true reasons why the purchaser is planning to spend his money on a new car instead of on a new piano? Because he has decided that he wants the commodity called locomotion more than he wants the commodity called music? Not altogether. He buys a car, because it is at the moment the group custom to buy cars.
      The modern propagandist therefore sets to work to create circumstances which will modify that custom. He appeals perhaps to the home instinct which is fundamental. He will endeavor to develop public acceptance of the idea of a music room in the home. This he may do, for example, by organizing an exhibition of period music rooms designed by well known decorators who themselves exert an influence on the buying groups. He enhances the effectiveness and prestige of these rooms by putting in them rare and valuable tapestries. Then, in order to create dramatic interest in the exhibit, he stages an event or ceremony. To this ceremony key people, persons known to influence the buying habits of the public, such as a famous violinist, a popular artist, and a society leader, are invited. These key persons affect other groups, lifting the idea of the music room to a place in the public consciousness which it did not have before. The juxtaposition of these leaders, and the idea which they are dramatizing, are then projected to the wider public through various publicity channels. Meanwhile, influential architects have been persuaded to make the music room an integral architectural part of their plans with perhaps a specially charming niche in one corner for the piano. Less influential architects will as a matter of course imitate what is done by the men whom they consider masters of their profession. They in turn will implant the idea of the music room in the mind of the general public.
      The music room will be accepted because it has been made the thing. And the man or woman who has a music room, or has arranged a corner of the parlor as a musical corner, will naturally think of buying a piano. It will come to him as his own idea.
      Under the old salesmanship the manufacturer said to the prospective purchaser, “Please buy a piano.” The new salesmanship has reversed the process and caused the prospective purchaser to say to the manufacturer, “Please sell me a piano.”
      The value of the associative processes in propaganda is shown in connection with a large real estate development. To emphasize that Jackson Heights was socially desirable every attempt was made to produce this associative process. A benefit performance of the Jitney Players was staged for the benefit of earthquake victims of Japan, under the auspices of Mrs. Astor and others. The social advantages of the place were projected—a golf course was laid out and a clubhouse planned. When the post office was opened, the public relations counsel attempted to use it as a focus for national interest and discovered that its opening fell coincident with a date important in the annals of the American Postal Service. This was then made the basis of the opening.
      When an attempt was made to show the public the beauty of the apartments, a competition was held among interior decorators for the best furnished apartment in Jackson Heights. An important committee of judges decided. This competition drew the approval of well known authorities, as well as the interest of millions, who were made cognizant of it through newspaper and magazine and other publicity, with the effect of building up definitely the prestige of the development.
      One of the most effective methods is the utilization of the group formation of modern society in order to spread ideas. An example of this is the nationwide competitions for sculpture in Ivory soap, open to school children in certain age groups as well as professional sculptors. A sculptor of national reputation found Ivory soap an excellent medium for sculpture.
      The Procter and Gamble Company offered a series of prizes for the best sculpture in white soap. The contest was held under the auspices of the Art Center in New York City, an organization of high standing in the art world.
      School superintendents and teachers throughout the country were glad to encourage the movement as an educational aid for schools. Practice among school children as part of their art courses was stimulated. Contests were held between schools, between school districts and between cities.
      Ivory soap was adaptable for sculpturing in the homes because mothers saved the shavings and the imperfect efforts for laundry purposes. The work itself was clean.
      The best pieces are selected from the local competitions for entry in the national contest. This is held annually at an important art gallery in New York, whose prestige with that of the distinguished judges, establishes the contest as a serious art event.
      In the first of these national competitions about 500 pieces of sculpture were entered. In the third, 2,500. And in the fourth, more than 4,000. If the carefully selected pieces were so numerous, it is evident that a vast number were sculptured during the year, and that a much greater number must have been made for practice purposes. The good will was greatly enhanced by the fact that this soap had become not merely the concern of the housewife but also a matter of personal and intimate interest to her children.
      A number of familiar psychological motives were set in motion in the carrying out of this campaign. The esthetic, the competitive, the gregarious (much of the sculpturing was done in school groups), the snobbish (the impulse to follow the example of a recognized leader), the exhibitionist, and—last but by no means least—the maternal.
      All these motives and group habits were put in concerted motion by the simple machinery of group leadership and authority. As if actuated by the pressure of a button, people began working for the client for the sake of the gratification obtained in the sculpture work itself.
      This point is most important in successful propaganda work. The leaders who lend their authority to any propaganda campaign will do so only if it can be made to touch their own interests. There must be a disinterested aspect of the propagandist’s activities. In other words, it is one of the functions of the public relations counsel to discover at what points his client’s interests coincide with those of other individuals or groups.
      In the case of the soap sculpture competition, the distinguished artists and educators who sponsored the idea were glad to lend their services and their names because the competitions really promoted an interest which they had at heart—the cultivation of the esthetic impulse among the younger generation.
      Such coincidence and overlapping of interests is as infinite as the interlacing of group formations themselves. For example, a railway wishes to develop its business. The counsel on public relations makes a survey to discover at what points its interests coincide with those of its prospective customers. The company then establishes relations with chambers of commerce along its right of way and assists them in developing their communities. It helps them to secure new plants and industries for the town. It facilitates business through the dissemination of technical information. It is not merely a case of bestowing favors in the hope of receiving favors; these activities of the railroad, besides creating good will, actually promote growth on its right of way. The interests of the railroad and the communities through which it passes mutually interact and feed one another.
      In the same way, a bank institutes an investment service for the benefit of its customers in order that the latter may have more money to deposit with the bank. Or a jewelry concern develops an insurance department to insure the jewels it sells, in order to make the purchaser feel greater security in buying jewels. Or a baking company establishes an information service suggesting recipes for bread to encourage new uses for bread in the home. The ideas of the new propaganda are predicated on sound psychology based on enlightened selfinterest.

      I have tried, in these chapters, to explain the place of propaganda in modern American life and something of the methods by which it operates—to tell the why, the what, the who and the how of the invisible government which dictates our thoughts, directs our feelings and controls our actions. In the following chapters I shall try to show how propaganda functions in specific departments of group activity, to suggest some of the further ways in which it may operate.

CHAPTER V
BUSINESS AND THE PUBLIC

      THE relationship between business and the public has become closer in the past few decades. Business to-day is taking the public into partnership. A number of causes, some economic, others due to the growing public understanding of business and the public interest in business, have produced this situation. Business realizes that its relationship to the public is not confined to the manufacture and sale of a given product, but includes at the same time the selling of itself and of all those things for which it stands in the public mind.
      Twenty or twenty-five years ago, business sought to run its own affairs regardless of the public. The reaction was the muck-raking period, in which a multitude of sins were, justly and unjustly, laid to the charge of the interests. In the face of an aroused public conscience the large corporations were obliged to renounce their contention that their affairs were nobody’s business. If to-day big business were to seek to throttle the public, a new reaction similar to that of twenty years ago would take place and the public would rise and try to throttle big business with restrictive laws. Business is conscious of the public’s conscience. This consciousness has led to a healthy cooperation.
      Another cause for the increasing relationship is undoubtedly to be found in the various phenomena growing out of mass production. Mass production is only profitable if its rhythm can be maintained— that is, if it can continue to sell its product in steady or increasing quantity. The result is that while, under the handicraft or small-unit system of production that was typical a century ago, demand created the supply, to-day supply must actively seek to create its corresponding demand. A single factory, potentially capable of supplying a whole continent with its particular product, cannot afford to wait until the public asks for its product; it must maintain constant touch, through advertising and propaganda, with the vast public in order to assure itself the continuous demand which alone will make its costly plant profitable. This entails a vastly more complex system of distribution than formerly. To make customers is the new problem. One must understand not only his own business—the manufacture of a particular product—but also the structure, the personality, the prejudices, of a potentially universal public.
      Still another reason is to be found in the improvements in the technique of advertising—as regards both the size of the public which can be reached by the printed word, and the methods of appeal. The growth of newspapers and magazines having a circulation of millions of copies, and the art of the modern advertising expert in making the printed message attractive and persuasive, have placed the business man in a personal relation with a vast and diversified public.
      Another modern phenomenon, which’ influences the general policy of big business, is the new competition between certain firms and the remainder of the industry, to which they belong. Another kind of competition is between whole industries, in their struggle for a share of the consumer’s dollar. When, for example, a soap manufacturer claims that his product will preserve youth, he is obviously attempting to change the public’s mode of thinking about soap in general—a thing of grave importance to the whole industry. Or when the metal furniture industry seeks to convince the public that it is more desirable to spend its money for metal furniture than for wood furniture, it is clearly seeking to alter the taste and standards of a whole generation. In either case, business is seeking to inject itself into the lives and customs of millions of persons.
      Even in a basic sense, business is becoming dependent on public opinion. With the increasing volume and wider diffusion of wealth in America, thousands of persons now invest in industrial stocks. New stock or bond flotations, upon which an expanding business must depend for its success, can be effected only if the concern has understood how to gain the confidence and good will of the general public. Business must express itself and its entire corporate existence so that the public will understand and accept it. It must dramatize its personality and interpret its objectives in every particular in which it comes into contact with the community (or the nation) of which it is a part.
      An oil corporation which truly understands its many-sided relation to the public, will offer that public not only good oil but a sound labor policy. A bank will seek to show not only that its management is sound and conservative, but also that its officers are honorable both in their public and in their private life. A store specializing in fashionable men’s clothing will express in its architecture the authenticity of the goods it offers. A bakery will seek to impress the public with the hygienic care observed in its manufacturing process, not only by wrapping its loaves in dust-proof paper and throwing its factory open to public inspection, but also by the cleanliness and attractiveness of its delivery wagons. A construction firm will take care that the public knows not only that its buildings are durable and safe, but also that its employees, when injured at work, are compensated. At whatever point a business enterprise impinges on the public consciousness, it must seek to give its public relations the particular character which will conform to the objectives which it is pursuing.
      Just as the production manager must be familiar with every element and detail concerning the materials with which he is working, so the man in charge of a firm’s public relations must be familiar with the structure, the prejudices, and the whims of the general public, and must handle his problems with the utmost care. The public has its own standards and demands and habits. You may modify them, but you dare not run counter to them. You cannot persuade a whole generation of women to wear long skirts, but you may, by working through leaders of fashion, persuade them to wear evening dresses which are long in back. The public is not an amorphous mass which can be molded at will, or dictated to. Both business and the public have their own personalities which must somehow be brought into friendly agreement. Conflict and suspicion are injurious to both. Modern business must study on what terms the partnership can be made amicable and mutually beneficial. It must explain itself, its aims, its objectives, to the public in terms which the public can understand and is willing to accept.
      Business does not willingly accept dictation from the public. It should not expect that it can dictate to the public. While the public should appreciate the great economic benefits which business offers, thanks to mass production and scientific marketing, business should also appreciate that the public is becoming increasingly discriminative in its standards and should seek to understand its demands and meet them. The relationship between business and the public can be healthy only if it is the relationship of give and take.
      It is this condition and necessity which has created the need for a specialized field of public relations. Business now calls in the public relations counsel to advise it, to interpret its purpose to the public, and to suggest those modifications which may make it conform to the public demand.
      The modifications then recommended to make the business conform to its objectives and to the public demand, may concern the broadest matters of policy or the apparently most trivial details of execution. It might in one case be necessary to transform entirely the lines of goods sold to conform to changing public demands. In another case the trouble may be found to lie in such small matters as the dress of the clerks. A jewelry store may complain that its patronage is shrinking upwards because of its reputation for carrying high-priced goods; in this case the public relations counsel might suggest the featuring of medium-priced goods, even at a loss, not because the firm desires a large medium-price trade as such, but because out of a hundred medium-price customers acquired to-day a certain percentage will be well-todo ten years from now. A department store which is seeking to gather in the high-class trade may be urged to employ college graduates as clerks or to engage well known modern artists to design show-windows or special exhibits. A bank may be urged to open a Fifth Avenue branch, not because the actual business done on Fifth Avenue warrants the expense, but because a beautiful Fifth Avenue office correctly expresses the kind of appeal which it wishes to make to future depositors; and, viewed in this way, it may be as important that the doorman be polite, or that the floors be kept clean, as that the branch manager be an able financier. Yet the beneficial effect of this branch may be canceled, if the wife of the president is involved in a scandal.
      Big business studies every move which may express its true personality. It seeks to tell the public, in all appropriate ways,—by the direct advertising message and by the subtlest esthetic suggestion—the quality of the goods or services which it has to offer. A store which seeks a large sales volume in cheap goods will preach prices day in and day out, concentrating its whole appeal on the ways in which it can save money for its clients. But a store seeking a high margin of profit on individual sales would try to associate itself with the distinguished and the elegant, whether by an exhibition of old masters or through the social activities of the owner’s wife.
      The public relations activities of a business cannot be a protective coloring to hide its real aims. It is bad business as well as bad morals to feature exclusively a few high-class articles, when the main stock is of medium grade or cheap, for the general impression given is a false one. A sound public relations policy will not attempt to stampede the public with exaggerated claims and false pretenses, but to interpret the individual business vividly and truly through every avenue that leads to public opinion. The New York Central Railroad has for decades sought to appeal to the public not only on the basis of the speed and safety of its trains, but also on the basis of their elegance and comfort. It is appropriate that the corporation should have been personified to the general public in the person of so suave and ingratiating a gentleman as Chauncey M. Depew—an ideal window dressing for such an enterprise.
      While the concrete recommendations of the public relations counsel may vary infinitely according to individual circumstances, his general plan of work may be reduced to two types, which I might term continuous interpretation and dramatization by highspotting. The two may be alternative or may be pursued concurrently.
      Continuous interpretation is achieved by trying to control every approach to the public mind in such a manner that the public receives the desired impression, often without being conscious of it. High-spotting, on the other hand, vividly seizes the attention of the public and fixes it upon some detail or aspect which is typical of the entire enterprise. When a real estate corporation which is erecting a tall office building makes it ten feet taller than the highest sky-scraper in existence, that is dramatization.
      Which method is indicated, or whether both be indicated concurrently, can be determined only after a full study of objectives and specific possibilities.
      Another interesting case of focusing public attention on the virtues of a product was shown in the case of gelatine. Its advantages in increasing the digestibility and nutritional value of milk were proven in the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research. The suggestion was made and carried out that to further this knowledge, gelatine be used by certain hospitals and school systems, to be tested out there. The favorable results of such tests were then projected to other leaders in the field with the result that they followed that group leadership and utilized gelatine for the scientific purposes which had been proven to be sound at the research institution. The idea carried momentum.
      The tendency of big business is to get bigger. Through mergers and monopolies it is constantly increasing the number of persons with whom it is in direct contact. All this has intensified and multiplied the public relationships of business.
      The responsibilities are of many kinds. There is a responsibility to the stockholders—numbering perhaps five persons or five hundred thousand—who have entrusted their money to the concern and have the right to know how the money is being used. A concern which is fully aware of its responsibility toward its stockholders, will furnish them with frequent letters urging them to use the product in which their money is invested, and use their influence to promote its sale. It has a responsibility toward the dealer which it may express by inviting him, at its expense, to visit the home factory. It has a responsibility toward the industry as a whole which should restrain it from making exaggerated and unfair selling claims. It has a responsibility toward the retailer, and will see to it that its salesmen express the quality of the product which they have to sell. There is a responsibility toward the consumer, who is impressed by a clean and well managed factory, open to his inspection. And the general public, apart from its function as potential consumer, is influenced in its attitude toward the concern by what it knows of that concern’s financial dealings, its labor policy, even by the livableness of the houses in which its employees dwell. There is no detail too trivial to influence the public in a favorable or unfavorable sense. The personality of the president may be a matter of importance, for he perhaps dramatizes the whole concern to the public mind. It may be very important to what charities he contributes, in what civic societies he holds office. If he is a leader in his industry, the public may demand that he be a leader in his community. The business man has become a responsible member of the social group. It is not a question of ballyhoo, of creating a picturesque fiction for public consumption. It is merely a question of finding the appropriate modes of expressing the personality that is to be dramatized. Some business men can be their own best public relations counsel. But in the majority of cases knowledge of the public mind and of the ways in which it will react to an appeal, is a specialized function which must be undertaken by the professional expert.
      Big business, I believe, is realizing this more and more. It is increasingly availing itself of the services of the specialist in public relations (whatever may be the title accorded him). And it is my conviction that as big business becomes bigger the need for expert manipulation of its innumerable contacts with the public will become greater.
      One reason why the public relations of a business are frequently placed in the hands of an outside expert, instead of being confided to an officer of the company, is the fact that the correct approach to a problem may be indirect. For example, when the luggage industry attempted to solve some of its problems by a public relations policy, it was realized that the attitude of railroads, of steamship companies, and of foreign government-owned railroads was an important factor in the handling of luggage.
      If a railroad and a baggage man, for their own interest, can be educated to handle baggage with more facility and promptness, with less damage to the baggage, and less inconvenience to the passenger; if the steamship company lets down, in its own interests, its restrictions on luggage; if the foreign government eases up on its baggage costs and transportation in order to further tourist travel; then the luggage manufacturers will profit.
      The problem then, to increase the sale of their luggage, was to have these and other forces come over to their point of view. Hence the public relations campaign was directed not to the public, who were the ultimate consumers, but to these other elements.
      Also, if the luggage manufacturer can educate the general public on what to wear on trips and when to wear it, he may be increasing the sale of men’s and women’s clothing, but he will, at the same time, be increasing the sale of his luggage.
      Propaganda, since it goes to basic causes, can very often be most effective through the manner of its introduction. A campaign against unhealthy cosmetics might be waged by fighting for a return to the wash-cloth and soap—a fight that very logically might be taken up by health officials all over the country, who would urge the return to the salutary and helpful wash-cloth and soap, instead of cosmetics.
      The development of public opinion for a cause or line of socially constructive action may very often be the result of a desire on the part of the propagandist to meet successfully his own problem which the socially constructive cause would further. And by doing so he is actually fulfilling a social purpose in the broadest sense.
      The soundness of a public relations policy was likewise shown in the case of a shoe manufacturer who made service shoes for patrolmen, firemen, letter carriers, and men in similar occupations. He realized that if he could make acceptable the idea that men in such work ought to be well-shod, he would sell more shoes and at the same time further the efficiency of the men.
      He organized, as part of his business, a foot protection bureau. This bureau disseminated scientifically accurate information on the proper care of the feet, principles which the manufacturer had incorporated in the construction of the shoes. The result was that civic bodies, police chiefs, fire chiefs, and others interested in the welfare and comfort of their men, furthered the ideas his product stood for and the product itself, with the consequent effect that more of his shoes were sold more easily.
      The application of this principle of a common denominator of interest between the object that is sold and the public good will can be carried to infinite degrees.
      “It matters not how much capital you may have, how fair the rates may be, how favorable the conditions of service, if you haven’t behind you a sympathetic public opinion, you are bound to fail.” This is the opinion of Samuel Insull, one the foremost traction magnates of the country. And the late Judge Gary, of the United States Steel Corporation, expressed the same idea when he said: “Once you have the good will of the general public, you can go ahead in the work of constructive expansion. Too often many try to discount this vague and intangible element. That way lies destruction.”
      Public opinion is no longer inclined to be unfavorable to the large business merger. It resents the censorship of business by the Federal Trade Commission. It has broken down the anti-trust laws where it thinks they hinder economic development. It backs great trusts and mergers which it excoriated a decade ago. The government now permits large aggregations of producing and distributing units, as evidenced by mergers among railroads and other public utilities, because representative government reflects public opinion. Public opinion itself fosters the growth of mammoth industrial enterprises. In the opinion of millions of small investors, mergers and trusts are friendly giants and not ogres, because of the economies, mainly due to quantity production, which they have effected, and can pass on to the consumer.
      This result has been, to a great extent, obtained by a deliberate use of propaganda in its broadest sense. It was obtained not only by modifying the opinion of the public, as the governments modified and marshaled the opinion of their publics during the war, but often by modifying the business concern itself. A cement company may work with road commissions gratuitously to maintain testing laboratories in order to insure the best-quality roads to the public. A gas company maintains a free school of cookery.
      But it would be rash and unreasonable to take it for granted that because public opinion has come over to the side of big business, it will always remain there. Only recently, Prof. W. Z. Ripley of Harvard University, one of the foremost national authorities on business organization and practice, exposed certain aspects of big business which tended to undermine public confidence in large corporations. He pointed out that the stockholders’ supposed voting power is often illusory; that annual financial statements are sometimes so brief and summary that to the man in the street they are downright misleading; that the extension of the system of non-voting shares often places the effective control of corporations and their finances in the hands of a small clique of stockholders; and that some corporations refuse to give out sufficient information to permit the public to know the true condition of the concern.
      Furthermore, no matter how favorably disposed the public may be toward big business in general, the utilities are always fair game for public discontent and need to maintain good will with the greatest care and watchfulness. These and other corporations of a semi-public character will always have to face a demand for government or municipal ownership if such attacks as those of Professor Ripley are continued and are, in the public’s opinion, justified, unless conditions are changed and care is taken to maintain the contact with the public at all points of their corporate existence.
      The public relations counsel should anticipate such trends of public opinion and advise on how to avert them, either by convincing the public that its fears or prejudices are unjustified, or in certain cases by modifying the action of the client to the extent necessary to remove the cause of complaint. In such a case public opinion might be surveyed and the points of irreducible opposition discovered. The aspects of the situation which are susceptible of logical explanation; to what extent the criticism or prejudice is a habitual emotional reaction and what factors are dominated by accepted cliches, might be disclosed. In each instance he would advise some action or modification of policy calculated to make the readjustment.
      While government ownership is in most instances only varyingly a remote possibility, public ownership of big business through the increasing popular investment in stocks and bonds, is becoming more and more a fact. The importance of public relations from this standpoint is to be judged by the fact that practically all prosperous corporations expect at some time to enlarge operations, and will need to float new stock or bond issues. The success of such issues depends upon the general record of the concern in the business world, and also upon the good will which it has been able to create in the general public. When the Victor Talking Machine Company was recently offered to the public, millions of dollars’ worth of stock were sold overnight. On the other hand, there are certain companies which, although they are financially sound and commercially prosperous, would be unable to float a large stock issue, because public opinion is not conscious of them, or has some unanalyzed prejudice against them.
      To such an extent is the successful floating of stocks and bonds dependent upon the public favor that the success of a new merger may stand or fall upon the public acceptance which is created for it. A merger may bring into existence huge new resources, and these resources, perhaps amounting to millions of dollars in a single operation, can often fairly be said to have been created by the expert manipulation of public opinion. It must be repeated that I am not speaking of artificial value given to a stock by dishonest propaganda or stock manipulation, but of the real economic values which are created when genuine public acceptance is gained for an industrial enterprise and becomes a real partner in it.
      The growth of big business is so rapid that in some lines ownership is more international than national. It is necessary to reach ever larger groups of people if modern industry and commerce are to be financed. Americans have purchased billions of dollars of foreign industrial securities since the war, and Europeans own, it is estimated, between one and two billion dollars’ worth of ours. In each case public acceptance must be obtained for the issue and the enterprise behind it.
      Public loans, state or municipal, to foreign countries depend upon the good will which those countries have been able to create for themselves here. An attempted issue by an east European country is now faring badly largely because of unfavorable public reaction to the behavior of members of its ruling family. But other countries have no difficulty in placing any issue because the public is already convinced of the prosperity of these nations and the stability of their governments.
      The new technique of public relations counsel is serving a very useful purpose in business by acting as a complement to legitimate advertisers and advertising in helping to break down unfair competitive exaggerated and overemphatic advertising by reaching the public with the truth through other channels than advertising. Where two competitors in a field are fighting each other with this type of advertising, they are undermining that particular industry to a point where the public may lose confidence in the whole industry. The only way to combat such unethical methods, is for ethical members of the industry to use the weapon of propaganda in order to bring out the basic truths of the situation.
      Take the case of tooth paste, for instance. Here is a highly competitive field in which the preponderance of public acceptance of one product over another can very legitimately rest in inherent values. However, what has happened in this field?
      One or two of the large manufacturers have asserted advantages for their tooth pastes which no single tooth paste discovered up to the present time can possibly have. The competing manufacturer is put in the position either of overemphasizing an already exaggerated emphasis or of letting the overemphasis of his competitor take away his markets. He turns to the weapon of propaganda which can effectively, through various channels of approach to the public—the dental clinics, the schools, the women’s clubs, the medical colleges, the dental press and even the daily press—bring to the public the truth of what a tooth paste can do. This will, of course, have its effect in making the honestly advertised tooth paste get to its real public.
      Propaganda is potent in meeting unethical or unfair advertising. Effective advertising has become more costly than ever before. Years ago, when the country was smaller and there was no tremendous advertising machinery, it was comparatively easy to get country-wide recognition for a product. A corps of traveling salesmen might persuade the retailers, with a few cigars and a repertory of funny stories, to display and recommend their article on a nationwide scale. To-day, a small industry is swamped unless it can find appropriate and relatively inexpensive means of making known the special virtues of its product, while larger industries have sought to overcome the difficulty by cooperative advertising, in which associations of industries compete with other associations.
      Mass advertising has produced new kinds of competition. Competition between rival products in the same line is, of course, as old as economic life itself. In recent years much has been said of the new competition, we have discussed it in a previous chapter, between one group of products and another. Stone competes against wood for building; linoleum against carpets; oranges against apples; tin against asbestos for roofing.
      This type of competition has been humorously illustrated by Mr. O. H. Cheney, Vice-President of the American Exchange and Irving Trust Company of New York, in a speech before the Chicago Business Secretaries Forum.
      “Do you represent the millinery trades?” said Mr. Cheney. “The man at your side may serve the fur industry, and by promoting the style of big fur collars on women’s coats he is ruining the hat business by forcing women to wear small and inexpensive hats. You may be interested in the ankles of the fair sex—I mean, you may represent the silk hosiery industry. You have two brave rivals who are ready to fight to the death—to spend millions in the fight —for the glory of those ankles—the leather industry, which has suffered from the low-shoe vogue, and the fabrics manufacturers, who yearn for the good old days when skirts were skirts.
      “If you represent the plumbing and heating business, you are the mortal enemy of the textile industry, because warmer homes mean lighter clothes. If you represent the printers, how can you shake hands with the radio equipment man? . . .
      “These are really only obvious forms of what I have called the new competition. The old competition was that between the members of each trade organization. One phase of the new competition is that between the trade associations themselves—between you gentlemen who represent those industries. Inter-commodity competition is the new competition between products used alternatively for the same purpose. Inter-industrial competition is the new competition between apparently unrelated industries which affect each other or between such industries as compete for the consumer’s dollar—and that means practically all industries. . . .
      “Inter-commodity competition is, of course, the most spectacular of all. It is the one which seems most of all to have caught the business imagination of the country. More and more business men are beginning to appreciate what inter-commodity competition means to them. More and more they are calling upon their trade associations to help them— because inter-commodity competition cannot be fought single-handed.
      “Take the great war on the dining-room table, for instance. Three times a day practically every diningroom table in the country is the scene of a fierce battle in the new competition. Shall we have prunes for breakfast? No, cry the embattled orange-growers and the massed legions of pineapple canners. Shall we eat sauerkraut? Why not eat green olives? is the answer of the Spaniards. Eat macaroni as a change from potatoes, says one advertiser—and will the potato growers take this challenge lying down?
      “The doctors and dietitians tell us that a normal hard-working man needs only about two or three thousand calories of food a day. A banker, I suppose, needs a little less. But what am I to do? The fruit growers, the wheat raisers, the meat packers, the milk producers, the fishermen—all want me to eat more of their products—and are spending millions of dollars a year to convince me. Am I to eat to the point of exhaustion, or am I to obey the doctor and let the farmer and the food packer and the retailer go broke! Am I to balance my diet in proportion to the advertising appropriations of the various producers? Or am I to balance my diet scientifically and let those who overproduce go bankrupt? The new competition is probably keenest in the food industries because there we have a very real limitation on what we can consume—in spite of higher incomes and higher living standards, we cannot eat more than we can eat.”
      I believe that competition in the future will not be only an advertising competition between individual products or between big associations, but that it will in addition be a competition of propaganda. The business man and advertising man is realizing that he must not discard entirely the methods of Barnum in reaching the public. An example in the annals of George Harrison Phelps, of the successful utilization of this type of appeal was the nation-wide hook-up which announced the launching of the Dodge Victory Six car.
      Millions of people, it is estimated, listened in to this program broadcast over 47 stations. The expense was more than $60,000. The arrangements involved an additional telephonic hook-up of 20,000 miles of wire, and included transmission from Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, and New York. Al Jolson did his bit from New Orleans, Will Rogers from Beverly Hills, Fred and Dorothy Stone from Chicago, and Paul Whiteman from New York, at an aggregate artists’ fee of $25,000. And there was included a four-minute address by the president of Dodge Brothers announcing the new car, which gave him access in four minutes to an estimated audience of thirty million Americans, the largest number, unquestionably, ever to concentrate their attention on a given commercial product at a given moment. It was a sugar-coated sales message.
      Modern sales technicians will object: “What you say of this method of appeal is true. But it increases the cost of getting the manufacturer’s message across. The modern tendency has been to reduce this cost (for example, the elimination of premiums) and concentrate on getting full efficiency from the advertising expenditure. If you hire a Galli-Curci to sing for bacon you increase the cost of the bacon by the amount of her very large fee. Her voice adds nothing to the product but it adds to its cost.”
      Undoubtedly. But all modes of sales appeal require the spending of money to make the appeal attractive. The advertiser in print adds to the cost of his message by the use of pictures or by the cost of getting distinguished endorsements.
      There is another kind of difficulty, created in the process of big business getting bigger, which calls for new modes of establishing contact with the public. Quantity production offers a standardized product the cost of which tends to diminish with the quantity sold. If low price is the only basis of competition with rival products, similarly produced, there ensues a cut-throat competition which can end only by taking all the profit and incentive out of the industry.
      The logical way out of this dilemma is for the manufacturer to develop some sales appeal other than mere cheapness, to give the product, in the public mind, some other attraction, some idea that will modify the product slightly, some element of originality that will distinguish it from products in the same line. Thus, a manufacturer of typewriters paints his machines in cheerful hues. These special types of appeal can be popularized by the manipulation of the principles familiar to the propagandist— the principles of gregariousness, obedience to authority, emulation, and the like. A minor element can be made to assume economic importance by being established in the public mind as a matter of style. Mass production can be split up. Big business will still leave room for small business. Next to a huge department store there may be located a tiny specialty shop which makes a very good living.
      The problem of bringing large hats back into fashion was undertaken by a propagandist. The millinery industry two years ago was menaced by the prevalence of the simple felt hat which was crowding out the manufacture of all other kinds of hats and hat ornaments. It was found that hats could roughly be classified in six types. It was found too that four groups might help to change hat fashions: the society leader, the style expert, the fashion editor and writer, the artist who might give artistic approval to the styles, and beautiful mannequins. The problem, then, was to bring these groups together before an audience of hat buyers.
      A committee of prominent artists was organized to choose the most beautiful girls in New York to wear, in a series of tableaux, the most beautiful hats in the style classifications, at a fashion fete at a leading hotel.
      A committee was formed of distinguished American women who, on the basis of their interest in the development of an American industry, were willing to add the authority of their names to the idea. A style committee was formed of editors of fashion magazines and other prominent fashion authorities who were willing to support the idea. The girls in their lovely hats and costumes paraded on the running-board before an audience of the entire trade.
      The news of the event affected the buying habits not only of the onlookers, but also of the women throughout the country. The story of the event was flashed to the consumer by her newspaper as well as by the advertisements of her favorite store. Broadsides went to the millinery buyer from the manufacturer. One manufacturer stated that whereas before the show he had not sold any large trimmed hats, after it he had sold thousands.
      Often the public relations counsel is called in to handle an emergency situation. A false rumor, for instance, may occasion an enormous loss in prestige and money if not handled promptly and effectively. An incident such as the one described in the New York American of Friday, May 21, 1926, shows what the lack of proper technical handling of public relations might result in.$1,000,000 LOST BY FALSE RUMOR ON
HUDSON STOCK
      Hudson Motor Company stock fluctuated widely around noon yesterday and losses estimated at $500,000 to $1,000,000 were suffered as a result of the widespread flotation of false news regarding dividend action.
      The directors met in Detroit at 12:30, New York time, to act on a dividend. Almost immediately a false report that only the regular dividend had been declared was circulated.
      At 12:46 the Dow, Jones & Co. ticker service received the report from the Stock Exchange firm and its publication resulted in further drop in the stock.
      Shortly after 1 o’clock the ticker services received official news that the dividend had been increased and a 20 per cent stock distribution authorized. They rushed the correct news out on their tickers and Hudson stock immediately jumped more than 6 points.      A clipping from the Journal of Commerce of April 4, 1925, is reproduced here as an interesting example of a method to counteract a false rumor:BEECH-NUT HEAD HOME TOWN GUEST
Bartlett Arkell Signally Honored by
Communities of Mohawk Valley
{Special to The Journal of Commerce)

      CANAJOHARIE, N. Y., April 3.—To-day was ‘Beech-Nut Day’ in this town; in fact, for the whole Mohawk Valley. Business men and practically the whole community of this region joined in a personal testimonial to Bartlett Arkell of New York City, president of the Beech-Nut Packing Company of this city, in honor of his firm refusal to consider selling his company to other financial interests to move elsewhere.
      When Mr. Arkell publicly denied recent rumors that he was to sell his company to the Postum Cereal Company for $17,000,000, which would have resulted in taking the industry from its birthplace, he did so in terms conspicuously loyal to his boyhood home, which he has built up into a prosperous industrial community through thirty years’ management of his Beech-Nut Company.
      He absolutely controls the business and flatly, stated that he would never sell it during his lifetime ‘to any one at any price,’ since it would be disloyal to his friends and fellow workers. And the whole Mohawk Valley spontaneously decided that such spirit deserved public recognition. Hence, to-day’s festivities.
      More than 3,000 people participated, headed by a committee comprising W. J. Roser, chairman; B. F. Spraker, H. V. Bush, B. F. Diefendorf and J. H. Cook. They were backed by the Canajoharie and the Mohawk Valley Chambers of Business Men’s Associations.      Of course, every one realized after this that there was no truth in the rumor that the Beech-Nut Company was in the market. A denial would not have carried as much conviction.
      Amusement, too, is a business—one of the largest in America. It was the amusement business—first the circus and the medicine show, then the theater— which taught the rudiments of advertising to industry and commerce. The latter adopted the ballyhoo of the show business. But under the stress of practical experience it adapted and refined these crude advertising methods to the precise ends it sought to obtain. The theater has, in its turn, learned from business, and has refined its publicity methods to the point where the old stentorian methods are in the discard.
      The modern publicity director of a theater syndicate or a motion picture trust is a business man, responsible for the security of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of invested capital. He cannot afford to be a stunt artist or a free-lance adventurer in publicity. He must know his public accurately and modify its thoughts and actions by means of the methods which the amusement world has learned from its old pupil, big business. As public knowledge increases and public taste improves, business must be ready to meet them halfway.
      Modern business must have its finger continuously on the public pulse. It must understand the changes in the public mind and be prepared to interpret itself fairly and eloquently to changing opinion.

CHAPTER VI
PROPAGANDA AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

      THE great political problem in our modern democracy is how to induce our leaders to lead. The dogma that the voice of the people is the voice of God tends to make elected persons the will-less servants of their constituents. This is undoubtedly part cause of the political sterility of which certain American critics constantly complain.
      No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.
      Fortunately, the sincere and gifted politician is able, by the instrument of propaganda, to mold and form the will of the people.
      Disraeli cynically expressed the dilemma, when he said: “I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?” He might have added: “I must lead the people. Am I not their servant?”
      Unfortunately, the methods of our contemporary politicians, in dealing with the public, are as archaic and ineffective as the advertising methods of business in 1900 would be to-day. While politics was the first important department of American life to use propaganda on a large scale, it has been the slowest in modifying its propaganda methods to meet the changed conditions of the public mind. American business first learned from politics the methods of appealing to the broad public. But it continually improved those methods in the course of its competitive struggle, while politics clung to the old formulas.
      The political apathy of the average voter, of which we hear so much, is undoubtedly due to the fact that the politician does not know how to meet the conditions of the public mind. He cannot dramatize himself and his platform in terms which have real meaning to the public. Acting on the fallacy that the leader must slavishly follow, he deprives his campaign of all dramatic interest. An automaton cannot arouse the public interest. A leader, a fighter, a dictator, can. But, given our present political conditions under which every office seeker must cater to the vote of the masses, the only means by which the born leader can lead is the expert use of propaganda.
      Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of making the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life.
      The successful business man to-day apes the politician. He has adopted the glitter and the ballyhoo of the campaign. He has set up all the side shows. He has annual dinners that are a compendium of speeches, flags, bombast, stateliness, pseudo-democracy slightly tinged with paternalism. On occasion he doles out honors to employees, much as the republic of classic times rewarded its worthy citizens.
      But these are merely the side shows, the drums, of big business, by which it builds up an image of public service, and of honorary service. This is but one of the methods by which business stimulates loyal enthusiasms on the part of directors, the workers, the stockholders and the consumer public. It is one of the methods by which big business performs its function of making and selling products to the public. The real work and campaign of business consists of intensive study of the public, the manufacture of products based on this study, and exhaustive use of every means of reaching the public.
      Political campaigns to-day are all side shows, all honors, all bombast, glitter, and speeches. These are for the most part unrelated to the main business of studying the public scientifically, of supplying the public with party, candidate, platform, and performance, and selling the public these ideas and products.
      Politics was the first big business in America. Therefore there is a good deal of irony in the fact that business has learned everything that politics has had to teach, but that politics has failed to learn very much from business methods of mass distribution of ideas and products.
      Emily Newell Blair has recounted in the Independent a typical instance of the waste of effort and money in a political campaign, a week’s speaking tour in which she herself took part. She estimates that on a five-day trip covering nearly a thousand miles she and the United States Senator with whom she was making political speeches addressed no more than 1,105 persons whose votes might conceivably have been changed as a result of their efforts. The cost of this appeal to these voters she estimates (calculating the value of the time spent on a very moderate basis) as $15.27 for each vote which might have been changed as a result of the campaign.
      This, she says, was a “drive for votes, just as an Ivory Soap advertising campaign is a drive for sales.” But, she asks, “what would a company executive say to a sales manager who sent a high-priced speaker to describe his product to less than 1,200 people at a cost of $15.27 for each possible buyer?” She finds it “amazing that the very men who make their millions out of cleverly devised drives for soap and bonds and cars will turn around and give large contributions to be expended for vote-getting in an utterly inefficient and antiquated fashion.”
      It is, indeed, incomprehensible that politicians do not make use of the elaborate business methods that industry has built up. Because a politician knows political strategy, can develop campaign issues, can devise strong planks for platforms and envisage broad policies, it does not follow that he can be given the responsibility of selling ideas to a public as large as that of the United States.
      The politician understands the public. He knows what the public wants and what the public will accept. But the politician is not necessarily a general sales manager, a public relations counsel, or a man who knows how to secure mass distribution of ideas.
      Obviously, an occasional political leader may be capable of combining every feature of leadership, just as in business there are certain brilliant industrial leaders who are financiers, factory directors, engineers, sales managers and public relations counsel all rolled into one.
      Big business is conducted on the principle that it must prepare its policies carefully, and that in selling an idea to the large buying public of America, it must proceed according to broad plans. The political strategist must do likewise. The entire campaign should be worked out according to broad basic plans. Platforms, planks, pledges, budgets, activities, personalities, must be as carefully studied, apportioned and used as they are when big business desires to get what it wants from the public.
      The first step in a political campaign is to determine on the objectives, and to express them exceedingly well in the current form—that is, as a platform. In devising the platform the leader should be sure that it is an honest platform. Campaign pledges and promises should not be lightly considered by the public, and they ought to carry something of the guarantee principle and money-back policy that an honorable business institution carries with the sale of its goods. The public has lost faith in campaign promotion work. It does not say that politicians are dishonorable, but it does say that campaign pledges are written on the sand. Here then is one fact of public opinion of which the party that wishes to be successful might well take cognizance.
      To aid in the preparation of the platform there should be made as nearly scientific an analysis as possible of the public and of the needs of the public. A survey of public desires and demands would come to the aid of the political strategist whose business it is to make a proposed plan of the activities of the parties and its elected officials during the coming terms of office.
      A big business that wants to sell a product to the public surveys and analyzes its market before it takes a single step either to make or to sell the product. If one section of the community is absolutely sold to the idea of this product, no money is wasted in reselling it to it. If, on the other hand, another section of the public is irrevocably committed to another product, no money is wasted on a lost cause. Very often the analysis is the cause of basic changes and improvements in the product itself, as well as an index of how it is to be presented. So carefully is this analysis of markets and sales made that when a company makes out its sales budget for the year, it subdivides the circulations of the various magazines and newspapers it uses in advertising and calculates with a fair degree of accuracy how many times a section of that population is subjected to the appeal of the company. It knows approximately to what extent a national campaign duplicates and repeats the emphasis of a local campaign of selling.
      As in the business field, the expenses of the political campaign should be budgeted. A large business to-day knows exactly how much money it is going to spend on propaganda during the next year or years. It knows that a certain percentage of its gross receipts will be given over to advertising—newspaper, magazine, outdoor and poster; a certain percentage to circularization and sales promotion—such as house organs and dealer aids; and a certain percentage must go to the supervising salesmen who travel around the country to infuse extra stimulus in the local sales campaign.
      A political campaign should be similarly budgeted. The first question which should be decided is the amount of money that should be raised for the campaign. This decision can be reached by a careful analysis of campaign costs. There is enough precedent in business procedure to enable experts to work this out accurately. Then the second question of importance is the manner in which money should be raised.
      It is obvious that politics would gain much in prestige if the money-raising campaign were conducted candidly and publicly, like the campaigns for the war funds. Charity drives might be made excellent models for political funds drives. The elimination of the little black bag element in politics would raise the entire prestige of politics in America, and the public interest would be infinitely greater if the actual participation occurred earlier and more constructively in the campaign.
      Again, as in the business field, there should be a clear decision as to how the money is to be spent. This should be done according to the most careful and exact budgeting, wherein every step in the campaign is given its proportionate importance, and the funds allotted accordingly. Advertising in newspapers and periodicals, posters and street banners, the exploitation of personalities in motion pictures, in speeches and lectures and meetings, spectacular events and all forms of propaganda should be considered proportionately according to the budget, and should always be coordinated with the whole plan. Certain expenditures may be warranted if they represent a small proportion of the budget and may be totally unwarranted if they make up a large proportion of the budget.
      In the same way the emotions by which the public is appealed to may be made part of the broad plan of the campaign. Unrelated emotions become maudlin and sentimental too easily, are often costly, and too often waste effort because the idea is not part of the conscious and coherent whole.
      Big business has realized that it must use as many of the basic emotions as possible. The politician, however, has used the emotions aroused by words almost exclusively.
      To appeal to the emotions of the public in a political campaign is sound—in fact it is an indispensable part of the campaign. But the emotional content must—       (a) coincide in every way with the broad basic plans of the campaign and all its minor details;
      (b) be adapted to the many groups of the public at which it is to be aimed; and
      (c) conform to the media of the distribution of ideas.       The emotions of oratory have been worn down through long years of overuse. Parades, mass meetings, and the like are successful when the public has a frenzied emotional interest in the event. The candidate who takes babies on his lap, and has his photograph taken, is doing a wise thing emotionally, if this act epitomizes a definite plank in his platform. Kissing babies, if it is worth anything, must be used as a symbol for a baby policy and it must be synchronized with a plank in the platform. But the haphazard staging of emotional events without regard to their value as part of the whole campaign, is a waste of effort, just as it would be a waste of effort for the manufacturer of hockey skates to advertise a picture of a church surrounded by spring foliage. It is true that the church appeals to our religious impulses and that everybody loves the spring, but these impulses do not help to sell the idea that hockey skates are amusing, helpful, or increase the general enjoyment of life for the buyer.
      Present-day politics places emphasis on personality. An entire party, a platform, an international policy is sold to the public, or is not sold, on the basis of the intangible element of personality. A charming candidate is the alchemist’s secret that can transmute a prosaic platform into the gold of votes. Helpful as is a candidate who for some reason has caught the imagination of the country, the party and its aims are certainly more important than the personality of the candidate. Not personality, but the ability of the candidate to carry out the party’s program adequately, and the program itself should be emphasized in a sound campaign plan. Even Henry Ford, the most picturesque personality in business in America to-day, has become known through his product, and not his product through him.
      It is essential for the campaign manager to educate the emotions in terms of groups. The public is not made up merely of Democrats and Republicans. People to-day are largely uninterested in politics and their interest in the issues of the campaign must be secured by coordinating it with their personal interests. The public is made up of interlocking groups —economic, social, religious, educational, cultural, racial, collegiate, local, sports, and hundreds of others.
      When President Coolidge invited actors for breakfast, he did so because he realized not only that actors were a group, but that audiences, the large group of people who like amusements, who like people who amuse them, and who like people who can be amused, ought to be aligned with him.
      The Shepard-Towner Maternity Bill was passed because the people who fought to secure its passage realized that mothers made up a group, that educators made up a group, that physicians made up a group, that all these groups in turn influence other groups, and that taken all together these groups were sufficiently strong and numerous to impress Congress with the fact that the people at large wanted this bill to be made part of the national law.
      The political campaign having defined its broad objects and its basic plans, having defined the group appeal which it must use, must carefully allocate to each of the media at hand the work which it can do with maximum efficiency.
      The media through which a political campaign may be brought home to the public are numerous and fairly well defined. Events and activities must be created in order to put ideas into circulation, in these channels, which are as varied as the means of human communication. Every object which presents pictures or words that the public can see, everything that presents intelligible sounds, can be utilized in one way or another.
      At present, the political campaigner uses for the greatest part the radio, the press, the banquet hall, the mass meeting, the lecture platform, and the stump generally as a means for furthering his ideas. But this is only a small part of what may be done. Actually there are infinitely more varied events that can be created to dramatize the campaign, and to make people talk of it. Exhibitions, contests, institutes of politics, the cooperation of educational institutions, the dramatic cooperation of groups which hitherto have not been drawn into active politics, and many others may be made the vehicle for the presentation of ideas to the public.
      But whatever is done must be synchronized accurately with all other forms of appeal to the public. News reaches the public through the printed word— books, magazines, letters, posters, circulars and banners, newspapers; through pictures—photographs and motion pictures; through the ear—lectures, speeches, band music, radio, campaign songs. All these must be employed by the political party if it is to succeed. One method of appeal is merely one method of appeal and in this age wherein a thousand movements and ideas are competing for public attention, one dare not put all one’s eggs into one basket.
      It is understood that the methods of propaganda can be effective only with the voter who makes up his own mind on the basis of his group prejudices and desires. Where specific allegiances and loyalties exist, as in the case of boss leadership, these loyalties will operate to nullify the free will of the voter. In this close relation between the boss and his constituents lies, of course, the strength of his position in politics.
      It is not necessary for the politician to be the slave of the public’s group prejudices, if he can learn how to mold the mind of the voters in conformity with his own ideas of public welfare and public service. The important thing for the statesman of our age is not so much to know how to please the public, but to know how to sway the public. In theory, this education might be done by means of learned pamphlets explaining the intricacies of public questions. In actual fact, it can be done only by meeting the conditions of the public mind, by creating circumstances which set up trains of thought, by dramatizing personalities, by establishing contact with the group leaders who control the opinions of their publics.
      But campaigning is only an incident in political life. The process of government is continuous. And the expert use of propaganda is more useful and fundamental, although less striking, as an aid to democratic administration, than as an aid to vote getting.
      Good government can be sold to a community just as any other commodity can be sold. I often wonder whether the politicians of the future, who are responsible for maintaining the prestige and effectiveness of their party, will not endeavor to train politicians who are at the same time propagandists. I talked recently with George Olvany. He said that a certain number of Princeton men were joining Tammany Hall. If I were in his place I should have taken some of my brightest young men and set them to work for Broadway theatrical productions or apprenticed them as assistants to professional propagandists before recruiting them to the service of the party.
      One reason, perhaps, why the politician to-day is slow to take up methods which are a commonplace in business life is that he has such ready entry to the media of communication on which his power depends.
      The newspaper man looks to him for news. And by his power of giving or withholding information the politician can often effectively censor political news. But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain politicians for news, the newspaper reporters are obliged to work in harmony with their news sources.
      The political leader must be a creator of circumstances, not only a creature of mechanical processes of stereotyping and rubber stamping.
      Let us suppose that he is campaigning on a lowtariff platform. He may use the modern mechanism of the radio to spread his views, but he will almost certainly use the psychological method of approach which was old in Andrew Jackson’s day, and which business has largely discarded. He will say over the radio: “Vote for me and low tariff, because the high tariff increases the cost of the things you buy.” He may, it is true, have the great advantage of being able to speak by radio directly to fifty million listeners. But he is making an old-fashioned approach. He is arguing with them. He is assaulting, single-handed, the resistance of inertia.
      If he were a propagandist, on the other hand, although he would still use the radio, he would use it as one instrument of a well-planned strategy. Since he is campaigning on the issue of a low tariff, he not merely would tell people that the high tariff increases the cost of the things they buy, but would create circumstances which would make his contention dramatic and self-evident. He would perhaps stage a low-tariff exhibition simultaneously in twenty cities, with exhibits illustrating the additional cost due to the tariff in force. He would see that these exhibitions were ceremoniously inaugurated by prominent men and women who were interested in a low tariff apart from any interest in his personal political fortunes. He would have groups, whose interests were especially affected by the high cost of living, institute an agitation for lower schedules. He would dramatize the issue, perhaps by having prominent men boycott woolen clothes, and go to important functions in cotton suits, until the wool schedule was reduced. He might get the opinion of social workers as to whether the high cost of wool endangers the health of the poor in winter.
      In whatever ways he dramatized the issue, the attention of the public would be attracted to the question before he addressed them personally. Then, when he spoke to his millions of listeners on the radio, he would not be seeking to force an argument down the throats of a public thinking of other things and annoyed by another demand on its attention; on the contrary, he would be answering the spontaneous questions and expressing the emotional demands of a public already keyed to a certain pitch of interest in the subject.
      The importance of taking the entire world public into consideration before planning an important event is shown by the wise action of Thomas Masaryk, then Provisional President, now President of the Republic of Czecho-Slovakia.
      Czecho-Slovakia officially became a free state on Monday, October 28, 1918, instead of Sunday, October 27, 1918, because Professor Masaryk realized that the people of the world would receive more information and would be more receptive to, the announcement of the republic’s freedom on a Monday morning than on a Sunday, because the press would have more space to devote to it on Monday morning.
      Discussing the matter with me before he made the announcement, Professor Masaryk said, “I would be making history for the cables if I changed the date of Czecho-Slovakia’s birth as a free nation.” Cables make history and so the date was changed.
      This incident illustrates the importance of technique in the new propaganda.
      It will be objected, of course, that propaganda will tend to defeat itself as its mechanism becomes obvious to the public. My opinion is that it will not. The only propaganda which will ever tend to weaken itself as the world becomes more sophisticated and intelligent, is propaganda that is untrue or unsocial.
      Again, the objection is raised that propaganda is utilized to manufacture our leading political personalities. It is asked whether, in fact, the leader makes propaganda, or whether propaganda makes the leader. There is a widespread impression that a good press agent can puff up a nobody into a great man.
      The answer is the same as that made to the old query as to whether the newspaper makes public opinion or whether public opinion makes the newspaper. There has to be fertile ground for the leader and the idea to fall on. But the leader also has to have some vital seed to sow. To use another figure, a mutual need has to exist before either can become positively effective. Propaganda is of no use to the politician unless he has something to say which the public, consciously or unconsciously, wants to hear.
      But even supposing that a certain propaganda is untrue or dishonest, we cannot on that account reject the methods of propaganda as such. For propaganda in some form will always be used where leaders need to appeal to their constituencies.
      The criticism is often made that propaganda tends to make the President of the United States so important that he becomes not the President but the embodiment of the idea of hero worship, not to say deity worship. I quite agree that this is so, but how are you going to stop a condition which very accurately reflects the desires of a certain part of the public? The American people rightly senses the enormous importance of the executive’s office. If the public tends to make of the President a heroic symbol of that power, that is not the fault of propaganda but lies in the very nature of the office and its relation to the people.
      This condition, despite its somewhat irrational puffing up of the man to fit the office, is perhaps still more sound than a condition in which the man utilizes no propaganda, or a propaganda not adapted to its proper end. Note the example of the Prince of Wales. This young man reaped bales of clippings and little additional glory from his American visit, merely because he was poorly advised. To the American public he became a well dressed, charming, sportloving, dancing, perhaps frivolous youth. Nothing was done to add dignity and prestige to this impression until towards the end of his stay he made a trip in the subway of New York. This sole venture into democracy and the serious business of living as evidenced in the daily habits of workers, aroused new interest in the Prince. Had he been properly advised he would have augmented this somewhat by such serious studies of American life as were made by another prince, Gustave of Sweden. As a result of the lack of well directed propaganda, the Prince of Wales became in the eyes of the American people, not the thing which he constitutionally is, a symbol of the unity of the British Empire, but part and parcel of sporting Long Island and dancing beauties of the ballroom. Great Britain lost an invaluable opportunity to increase the good will and understanding between the two countries when it failed to understand the importance of correct public relations counsel for His Royal Highness.
      The public actions of America’s chief executive are, if one chooses to put it that way, stage-managed. But they are chosen to represent and dramatize the man in his function as representative of the people. A political practice which has its roots in the tendency of the popular leader to follow oftener than he leads is the technique of the trial balloon which he uses in order to maintain, as he believes, his contact with the public. The politician, of course, has his ear to the ground. It might be called the clinical ear. It touches the ground and hears the disturbances of the political universe.
      But he often does not know what the disturbances mean, whether they are superficial, or fundamental. So he sends up his balloon. He may send out an anonymous interview through the press. He then waits for reverberations to come from the public—a public which expresses itself in mass meetings, or resolutions, or telegrams, or even such obvious manifestations as editorials in the partisan or nonpartisan press. On the basis of these repercussions he then publicly adopts his original tentative policy, or rejects it, or modifies it to conform to the sum of public opinion which has reached him. This method is modeled on the peace feelers which were used during the war to sound out the disposition of the enemy to make peace or to test any one of a dozen other popular tendencies. It is the method commonly used by a politician before committing himself to legislation of any kind, and by a government before committing itself on foreign or domestic policies.
      It is a method which has little justification. If a politician is a real leader he will be able, by the skillful use of propaganda, to lead the people, instead of following the people by means of the clumsy instrument of trial and error.
      The propagandist’s approach is the exact opposite of that of the politician just described. The whole basis of successful propaganda is to have an objective and then to endeavor to arrive at it through an exact knowledge of the public and modifying circumstances to manipulate and sway that public.
      “The function of a statesman,” says George Bernard Shaw, “is to express the will of the people in the way of a scientist.”
      The political leader of to-day should be a leader as finely versed in the technique of propaganda as in political economy and civics. If he remains merely the reflection of the average intelligence of his community, he might as well go out of politics. If one is dealing with a democracy in which the herd and the group follow those whom they recognize as leaders, why should not the young men training for leadership be trained in its technique as well as in its idealism?
      “When the interval between the intellectual classes and the practical classes is too great,” says the historian Buckle, “the former will possess no influence, the latter will reap no benefits.”
      Propaganda bridges this interval in our modern complex civilization.
      Only through the wise use of propaganda will our government, considered as the continuous administrative organ of the people, be able to maintain that intimate relationship with the public which is necessary in a democracy.
      As David Lawrence pointed out in a recent speech, there is need for an intelligent interpretative bureau for our government in Washington. There is, it is true, a Division of Current Information in the Department of State, which at first was headed by a trained newspaper man. But later this position began to be filled by men from the diplomatic service, men who had very little knowledge of the public. While some of these diplomats have done very well, Mr. Lawrence asserted that in the long run the country would be benefited if the functions of this office were in the hands of a different type of person.
      There should, I believe, be an Assistant Secretary of State who is familiar with the problem of dispensing information to the press—some one upon whom the Secretary of State can call for consultation and who has sufficient authority to persuade the Secretary of State to make public that which, for insufficient reason, is suppressed.
      The function of the propagandist is much broader in scope than that of a mere dispenser of information to the press. The United States Government should create a Secretary of Public Relations as member of the President’s Cabinet. The function of this official should be correctly to interpret America’s aims and ideals throughout the world, and to keep the citizens of this country in touch with governmental activities and the reasons which prompt them. He would, in short, interpret the people to the government and the government to the people.
      Such an official would be neither a propagandist nor a press agent, in the ordinary understanding of those terms. He would be, rather, a trained technician who would be helpful in analyzing public thought and public trends, in order to keep the government informed about the public, and the people informed about the government. America’s relations with South America and with Europe would be greatly improved under such circumstances. Ours must be a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses.
      Is this government by propaganda? Call it, if you prefer, government by education. But education, in the academic sense of the word, is not sufficient. It must be enlightened expert propaganda through the creation of circumstances, through the high-spotting of significant events, and the dramatization of important issues. The statesman of the future will thus be enabled to focus the public mind on crucial points of policy, and regiment a vast, heterogeneous mass of voters to clear understanding and intelligent action.

CHAPTER VII
WOMEN’S ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA

      WOMEN in contemporary America have achieved a legal equality with men. This does not mean that their activities are identical with those of men. Women in the mass still have special interests and activities in addition to their economic pursuits and vocational interests.
      Women’s most obvious influence is exerted when they are organized and armed with the weapon of propaganda. So organized and armed they have made their influence felt on city councils, state legislatures, and national congresses, upon executives, upon political campaigns and upon public opinion generally, both local and national.
      In politics, the American women to-day occupy a much more important position, from the standpoint of their influence, in their organized groups than from the standpoint of the leadership they have acquired in actual political positions or in actual office holding. The professional woman politician has had, up to the present, not much influence, nor do women generally regard her as being the most important element in question. Ma Ferguson, after all, was simply a woman in the home, a catspaw for a deposed husband; Nellie Ross, the former Governor of Wyoming, is from all accounts hardly a leader of statesmanship or public opinion.
      If the suffrage campaign did nothing more, it showed the possibilities of propaganda to achieve certain ends. This propaganda to-day is being utilized by women to achieve their programs in Washington and in the states. In Washington they are organized as the Legislative Committee of Fourteen Women’s Organizations, including the League of Women Voters, the Young Women’s Christian Association, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Federation of Women’s Clubs, etc. These organizations map out a legislative program and then use the modern technique of propaganda to make this legislative program actually pass into the law of the land. Their accomplishments in the field are various. They can justifiably take the credit for much welfare legislation. The eight-hour day for women is theirs. Undoubtedly prohibition and its enforcement are theirs, if they can be considered an accomplishment. So is the Shepard-Towner Bill which stipulates support by the central government of maternity welfare in the state governments. This bill would not have passed had it not been for the political prescience and sagacity of women like Mrs. Vanderlip and Mrs. Mitchell.
      The Federal measures endorsed at the first convention of the National League of Women Voters typify social welfare activities of women’s organizations. These covered such broad interests as child welfare, education, the home and high prices, women in gainful occupations, public health and morals, independent citizenship for married women, and others.
      To propagandize these principles, the National League of Women Voters has published all types of literature, such as bulletins, calendars, election information, has held a correspondence course on government and conducted demonstration classes and citizenship schools.
      Possibly the effectiveness of women’s organizations in American politics to-day is due to two things: first, the training of a professional class of executive secretaries or legislative secretaries during the suffrage campaigns, where every device known to the propagandist had to be used to regiment a recalcitrant majority; secondly, the routing over into peacetime activities of the many prominent women who were in the suffrage campaigns and who also devoted themselves to the important drives and mass influence movements during the war. Such women as Mrs. Frank Vanderlip, Alice Ames Winter, Mrs. Henry Moskowitz, Mrs. Florence Kelley, Mrs. John Blair, Mrs. O. H. P. Belmont, Doris Stevens, Alice Paul come to mind.
      If I have seemed to concentrate on the accomplishments of women in politics, it is because they afford a particularly striking example of intelligent use of the new propaganda to secure attention and acceptance of minority ideas. It is perhaps curiously appropriate that the latest recruits to the political arena should recognize and make use of the newest weapons of persuasion to offset any lack of experience with what is somewhat euphemistically termed practical politics. As an example of this new technique: Some years ago, the Consumers’ Committee of Women, fighting the “American valuation” tariff, rented an empty store on Fifty-seventh Street in New York and set up an exhibit of merchandise tagging each item with the current price and the price it would cost if the tariff went through. Hundreds of visitors to this shop rallied to the cause of the committee.
      But there are also non-political fields in which women can make and have made their influence felt for social ends, and in which they have utilized the principle of group leadership in attaining the desired objectives.
      In the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, there are 13,000 clubs. Broadly classified, they include civic and city clubs, mothers’ and homemakers’ clubs, cultural clubs devoted to art, music or literature, business and professional women’s clubs, and general women’s clubs, which may embrace either civic or community phases, or combine some of the other activities listed.
      The woman’s club is generally effective on behalf of health education; in furthering appreciation of the fine arts; in sponsoring legislation that affects the welfare of women and children; in playground development and park improvement; in raising standards of social or political morality; in homemaking. and home economics, education and the like. In these fields, the woman’s club concerns itself with efforts that are not ordinarily covered by existing agencies, and often both initiates and helps to further movements for the good of the community.
      A club interested principally in homemaking and the practical arts can sponsor a cooking school for young brides and others. An example of the keen interest of women in this field of education is the cooking school recently conducted by the New York Herald Tribune, which held its classes in Carnegie Hall, seating almost 3,000 persons. For the several days of the cooking school, the hall was filled to capacity, rivaling the drawing power of a McCormack or a Paderewski, and refuting most dramatically the idea that women in large cities are not interested in housewifery.
      A movement for the serving of milk in public schools, or the establishment of a baby health station at the department of health will be an effort close to the heart of a club devoted to the interest of mothers and child welfare.
      A music club can broaden its sphere and be of service to the community by cooperating with the local radio station in arranging better musical programs. Fighting bad music can be as militant a campaign and marshal as varied resources as any political battle.
      An art club can be active in securing loan exhibitions for its city. It can also arrange travelling exhibits of the art work of its members or show the art work of schools or universities.
      A literary club may step out of its charmed circle of lectures and literary lions and take a definite part in the educational life of the community. It can sponsor, for instance, a competition in the public schools for the best essay on the history of the city, or on the life of its most famous son.
      Over and above the particular object for which the woman’s club may have been constituted, it commonly stands ready to initiate or help any movement which has for its object a distinct public good in the community. More important, it constitutes an organized channel through which women can make themselves felt as a definite part of public opinion.
      Just as women supplement men in private life, so they will supplement men in public life by concentrating their organized efforts on those objects which men are likely to ignore. There is a tremendous field for women as active protagonists of new ideas and new methods of political and social housekeeping. When organized and conscious of their power to influence their surroundings, women can use their newly acquired freedom in a great many ways to mold the world into a better place to live in.

CHAPTER VIII
PROPAGANDA FOR EDUCATION

      EDUCATION is not securing its proper share of public interest. The public school system, materially and financially, is being adequately supported. There is marked eagerness for a college education, and a vague aspiration for culture, expressed in innumerable courses and lectures. The public is not cognizant of the real value of education, and does not realize that education as a social force is not receiving the kind of attention it has the right to expect in a democracy.
      It is felt, for example, that education is entitled to more space in the newspapers; that well informed discussion of education hardly exists; that unless such an issue as the Gary School system is created, or outside of an occasional discussion, such as that aroused over Harvard’s decision to establish a school of business, education does not attract the active interest of the public.
      There are a number of reasons for this condition. First of all, there is the fact that the educator has been trained to stimulate to thought the individual students in his classroom, but has not been trained as an educator at large of the public.
      In a democracy an educator should, in addition to his academic duties, bear a definite and wholesome relation to the general public. This public does not come within the immediate scope of his academic duties. But in a sense he depends upon it for his living, for the moral support, and the general cultural tone upon which his work must be based. In the field of education, we find what we have found in politics and other fields—that the evolution of the practitioner of the profession has not kept pace with the social evolution around him, and is out of gear with the instruments for the dissemination of ideas which modern society has developed. If this be true, then the training of the educators in this respect should begin in the normal schools, with the addition to their curricula of whatever is necessary to broaden their viewpoint. The public cannot understand unless the teacher understands the relationship between the general public and the academic idea.
      The normal school should provide for the training of the educator to make him realize that his is a twofold job: education as a teacher and education as a propagandist.
      A second reason for the present remoteness of education from the thoughts and interests of the public is to be found in the mental attitude of the pedagogue —whether primary school teacher or college professor—toward the world outside the school. This is a difficult psychological problem. The teacher finds himself in a world in which the emphasis is put on those objective goals and those objective attainments which are prized by our American society. He himself is but moderately or poorly paid. Judging himself by the standards in common acceptance, he cannot but feel a sense of inferiority because he finds himself continually being compared, in the minds of his own pupils, with the successful business man and the successful leader in the outside world. Thus the educator becomes repressed and suppressed in our civilization. As things stand, this condition cannot be changed from the outside unless the general public alters its standards of achievement, which it is not likely to do soon.
      Yet it can be changed by the teaching profession itself, if it becomes conscious not only of its individualistic relation to the pupil, but also of its social relation to the general public. The teaching profession, as such, has the right to carry on a very definite propaganda with a view to enlightening the public and asserting its intimate relation to the society which it serves. In addition to conducting a propaganda on behalf of its individual members, education must also raise the general appreciation of the teaching profession. Unless the profession can raise itself by its own bootstraps, it will fast lose the power of recruiting outstanding talent for itself.
      Propaganda cannot change all that is at present unsatisfactory in the educational situation. There are factors, such as low pay and the lack of adequate provision for superannuated teachers, which definitely affect the status of the profession. It is possible, by means of an intelligent appeal predicated upon the actual present composition of the public mind, to modify the general attitude toward the teaching profession. Such a changed attitude will begin by expressing itself in an insistence on the idea of more adequate salaries for the profession.
      There are various ways in which academic organizations in America handle their financial problems. One type of college or university depends, for its monetary support, upon grants from the state legislatures. Another depends upon private endowment. There are other types of educational institutions, such as the sectarian, but the two chief types include by far the greater number of our institutions of higher learning.
      The state university is supported by grants from the people of the state, voted by the state legislature. In theory, the degree of support which the university receives is dependent upon the degree of acceptance accorded it by the voters. The state university prospers according to the extent to which it can sell itself to the people of the state.
      The state university is therefore in an unfortunate position unless its president happens to be a man of outstanding merit as a propagandist and a dramatizer of educational issues. Yet if this is the case—if the university shapes its whole policy toward gaining the support of the state legislature—its educational function may suffer. It may be tempted to base its whole appeal to the public on its public service, real or supposed, and permit the education of its individual students to take care of itself. It may attempt to educate the people of the state at the expense of its own pupils. This may generate a number of evils, to the extent of making the university a political instrument, a mere tool of the political group in power. If the president dominates both the public and the professional politician, this may lead to a situation in which the personality of the president outweighs the true function of the institution.
      The endowed college or university has a problem quite as perplexing. The endowed college is dependent upon the support, usually, of key men in industry whose social and economic objectives are concrete and limited, and therefore often at variance with the pursuit of abstract knowledge. The successful business man criticizes the great universities for being too academic, but seldom for being too practical. One might imagine that the key men who support our universities would like them to specialize in schools of applied science, of practical salesmanship or of industrial efficiency. And it may well be, in many instances, that the demands which the potential endowers of our universities make upon these institutions are flatly in contradiction to the interests of scholarship and general culture.
      We have, therefore, the anomalous situation of the college seeking to carry on a propaganda in favor of scholarship among people who are quite out of sympathy with the aims to which they are asked to subscribe their money. Men who, by the commonly accepted standards, are failures or very moderate successes in our American world (the pedagogues) seek to convince the outstanding successes (the business men) that they should give their money to ideals which they do not pursue. Men who, through a sense of inferiority, despise money, seek to win the good will of men who love money.
      It seems possible that the future status of the endowed college will depend upon a balancing of these forces, both the academic and the endowed elements obtaining in effect due consideration.
      The college must win public support. If the potential donor is apathetic, enthusiastic public approval must be obtained to convince him. If he seeks unduly to influence the educational policy of the institution, public opinion must support the college in the continuance of its proper functions. If either factor dominates unduly, we are likely to find a demagoguery or a snobbishness aiming to please one group or the other.
      There is still another potential solution of the problem. It is possible that through an educational propaganda aiming to develop greater social consciousness on the part of the people of the country, there may be awakened in the minds of men of affairs, as a class, social consciousness which will produce more minds of the type of Julius Rosenwald, V. Everitt Macy, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the late Willard Straight.
      Many colleges have already developed intelligent propaganda in order to bring them into active and continuous relation with the general public. A definite technique has been developed in their relation to the community in the form of college news bureaus. These bureaus have formed an intercollegiate association whose members meet once a year to discuss their problems. These problems include the education of the alumnus and his effect upon the general public and upon specific groups, the education of the future student to the choice of the particular college, the maintenance of an esprit de corps so that the athletic prowess of the college will not be placed first, the development of some familiarity with the research work done in the college in order to attract the attention of those who may be able to lend aid, the development of an understanding of the aims and the work of the institution in order to attract special endowments for specified purposes.
      Some seventy-five of these bureaus are now affiliated with the American Association of College News Bureaus, including those of Yale, Wellesley, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Western Reserve, Tufts and California. A bi-monthly news letter is published, bringing to members the news of their profession. The Association endeavors to uphold the ethical standards of the profession and aims to work in harmony with the press.
      The National Education Association and other societies are carrying on a definite propaganda to promote the larger purposes of educational endeavor. One of the aims of such propaganda is of course improvement in the prestige and material position of the teachers themselves. An occasional McAndrew case calls the attention of the public to the fact that in some schools the teacher is far from enjoying full academic freedom, while in certain communities the choice of teachers is based upon political or sectarian considerations rather than upon real ability. If such issues were made, by means of propaganda, to become a matter of public concern on a truly national scale, there would doubtless be a general tendency to improvement.
      The concrete problems of colleges are more varied and puzzling than one might suppose. The pharmaceutical college of a university is concerned because the drug store is no longer merely a drug store, but primarily a soda fountain, a lunch counter, a bookshop, a retailer of all sorts of general merchandise from society stationery to spare radio parts. The college realizes the economic utility of the lunch counter feature to the practicing druggist, yet it feels that the ancient and honorable art of compounding specifics is being degraded.
      Cornell University discovers that endowments are rare. Why? Because the people think that the University is a state institution and therefore publicly supported.
      Many of our leading universities rightly feel that the results of their scholarly researches should not only be presented to libraries and learned publications, but should also, where practicable and useful, be given to the public in the dramatic form which the public can understand. Harvard is but one example.
      “Not long ago,” says Charles A. Merrill in Personality, “a certain Harvard professor vaulted into the newspaper headlines. There were several days when one could hardly pick up a paper in any of the larger cities without finding his name bracketed with his achievement.
      “The professor, who was back from a trip to Yucatan in the interests of science, had solved the mystery of the Venus calendar of the ancient Mayas. He had discovered the key to the puzzle of how the Mayas kept tab on the flight of time. Checking the Mayan record of celestial events against the known astronomical facts, he had found a perfect correlation between the time count of these Central American Indians and the true positions of the planet Venus in the sixth century B.C. A civilization which flour129 Propaganda ished in the Western Hemisphere twenty-five centuries ago was demonstrated to have attained heights hitherto unappreciated by the modern world.
      “How the professor’s discovery happened to be chronicled in the popular press is, also, in retrospect, a matter of interest. … If left to his own devices, he might never have appeared in print, except perhaps in some technical publication, and his remarks there would have been no more intelligible to the average man or woman than if they had been inscribed in Mayan hieroglyphics.
      “Popularization of this message from antiquity was due to the initiative of a young man named James W. D. Seymour. . . .
      “It may surprise and shock some people,” Mr. Merrill adds, “to be told that the oldest and most dignified seats of learning in America now hire press agents, just as railroad companies, fraternal organizations, moving picture producers and political parties retain them. It is nevertheless a fact. . . .
      “. . . there is hardly a college or university in the country which does not, with the approval of the governing body and the faculty, maintain a publicity office, with a director and a staff of assistants, for the purpose of establishing friendly relations with the newspapers, and through the newspapers, with the public. . . .
      “This enterprise breaks sharply with tradition. In the older seats of learning it is a recent innovation. It violates the fundamental article in the creed of the old academic societies. Cloistered seclusion used to be considered the first essential of scholarship. The college was anxious to preserve its aloofness from the world. …
      “The colleges used to resent outside interest in their affairs. They might, somewhat reluctantly and contemptuously, admit reporters to their Commencement Day exercises, but no further would they go. . . .
      “To-day, if a newspaper reporter wants to interview a Harvard professor, he has merely to telephone the Secretary for Information to the University. Officially, Harvard still shies away from the title ‘Director of Publicity.’ Informally, however, the secretary with the long title is the publicity man. He is an important official to-day at Harvard.”
      It may be a new idea that the president of a university will concern himself with the kind of mental picture his institution produces on the public mind. Yet it is part of the president’s work to see that his university takes its proper place in the community and therefore also in the community mind, and produces the results desired, both in a cultural and in a financial sense.
      If his institution does not produce the mental picture which it should, one of two things may be wrong: Either the media of communication with the public may be wrong or unbalanced; or his institution may be at fault. The public is getting an oblique impression of the university, in which case the impression should be modified; or it may be that the public is getting a correct impression, in which case, very possibly, the work of the university itself should be modified. For both possibilities lie within the province of the public relations counsel.
      Columbia University recently instituted a Casa Italiana, which was solemnly inaugurated in the presence of representatives of the Italian government, to emphasize its high standing in Latin studies and the Romance languages. Years ago Harvard founded the Germanic Museum, which was ceremoniously opened by Prince Henry of Prussia.
      Many colleges maintain extension courses which bring their work to the knowledge of a broad public. It is of course proper that such courses should be made known to the general public. But, to take another example, if they have been badly planned, from the point of view of public relations, if they are unduly scholastic and detached, their effect may be the opposite of favorable. In such a case, it is not the work of the public relations counsel to urge that the courses be made better known, but to urge that they first be modified to conform to the impression which the college wishes to create, where that is compatible with the university’s scholastic ideals.
      Again, it may be the general opinion that the work of a certain institution is 80 per cent postgraduate research, an opinion which may tend to alienate public interest. This opinion may be true or it may be false. If it is false, it should be corrected by high-spotting undergraduate activities.
      If, on the other hand, it is true that 80 per cent of the work is postgraduate research, the most should be made of that fact. It should be the concern of the president to make known the discoveries which are of possible public interest. A university expedition into Biblical lands may be uninteresting as a purely scholastic undertaking, but if it contributes light on some Biblical assertion it will immediately arouse the interest of large masses of the population. The zoological department may be hunting for some strange bacillus which has no known relation to any human disease, but the fact that it is chasing bacilli is in itself capable of dramatic presentation to the public.
      Many universities now gladly lend members of their faculties to assist in investigations of public interest. Thus Cornell lent Professor Wilcox to aid the government in the preparation of the national census. Professor Irving Fisher of Yale has been called in to advise on currency matters.
      In the ethical sense, propaganda bears the same relation to education as to business or politics. It may be abused. It may be used to overadvertise an institution and to create in the public mind artificial values. There can be no absolute guarantee against its misuse.

CHAPTER IX
PROPAGANDA IN SOCIAL SERVICE

      THE public relations counsel is necessary to social work. And since social service, by its very nature, can continue only by means of the voluntary support of the wealthy, it is obliged to use propaganda continually. The leaders in social service were among the first consciously to utilize propaganda in its modern sense.
      The great enemy of any attempt to change men’s habits is inertia. Civilization is limited by inertia.
      Our attitude toward social relations, toward economics, toward national and international politics, continues past attitudes and strengthens them under the force of tradition. Comstock drops his mantle of proselytizing morality on the willing shoulders of a Sumner; Penrose drops his mantle on Butler; Carnegie his on Schwab, and so ad infinitum. Opposing this traditional acceptance of existing ideas is an active public opinion that has been directed consciously into movements against inertia. Public opinion was made or changed formerly by tribal chiefs, by kings, by religious leaders. To-day the privilege of attempting to sway public opinion is every one’s. It is one of the manifestations of democracy that any one may try to convince others and to assume leadership on behalf of his own thesis.
      New ideas, new precedents, are continually striving for a place in the scheme of things.
      The social settlement, the organized campaigns against tuberculosis and cancer, the various research activities aiming directly at the elimination of social diseases and maladjustments—a multitude of altruistic activities which could be catalogued only in a book of many pages—have need of knowledge of the public mind and mass psychology if they are to achieve their aims. The literature on social service publicity is so extensive, and the underlying principles so fundamental, that only one example is necessary here to illustrate the technique of social service propaganda.
      A social service organization undertook to fight lynching, Jim Crowism and the civil discriminations against the Negro below the Mason and Dixon line.
      The National Association for the Advancement of the Colored People had the fight in hand. As a matter of technique they decided to dramatize the year’s campaign in an annual convention which would concentrate attention on the problem.
      Should it be held in the North, South, West or East? Since the purpose was to affect the entire country, the association was advised to hold it in the South. For, said the propagandist, a point of view on a southern question, emanating from a southern center, would have greater authority than the same point of view issuing from any other locality, particularly when that point of view was at odds with the traditional southern point of view. Atlanta was chosen.
      The third step was to surround the conference with people who were stereotypes for ideas that carried weight all over the country. The support of leaders of diversified groups was sought. Telegrams and letters were dispatched to leaders of religious, political, social and educational groups, asking for their point of view on the purpose of the conference. But in addition to these group leaders of national standing it was particularly important from the technical standpoint to secure the opinions of group leaders of the South, even from Atlanta itself, to emphasize the purposes of the conference to the entire public. There was one group in Atlanta which could be approached. A group of ministers had been bold enough to come out for a greater interracial amity. This group was approached and agreed to cooperate in the conference.
      The event ran off as scheduled. The program itself followed the general scheme. Negroes and white men from the South, on the same platform, expressed the same point of view.
      A dramatic element was spot-lighted here and there. A national leader from Massachusetts agreed in principle and in practice with a Baptist preacher from the South.
      If the radio had been in effect, the whole country might have heard and been moved by the speeches and the principles expressed.
      But the public read the words and the ideas in the press of the country. For the event had been created of such important component parts as to awaken interest throughout the country and to gain support for its ideas even in the South.
      The editorials in the southern press, reflecting the public opinion of their communities, showed that the subject had become one of interest to the editors because of the participation by southern leaders.
      The event naturally gave the Association itself substantial weapons with which to appeal to an increasingly wider circle. Further publicity was attained by mailing reports, letters, and other propaganda to selected groups of the public.
      As for the practical results, the immediate one was a change in the minds of many southern editors who realized that the question at issue was not only an emotional one, but also a discussable one; and this point of view was immediately reflected to their readers. Further results are hard to measure with a slide-rule. The conference had its definite effect in building up the racial consciousness and solidarity of the Negroes. The decline in lynching is very probably a result of this and other efforts of the Association.
      Many churches have made paid advertising and organized propaganda part of their regular activities. They have developed church advertising committees, which make use of the newspaper and the billboard, as well as of the pamphlet. Many denominations maintain their own periodicals. The Methodist Board of Publication and Information systematically gives announcements and releases to the press and the magazines.
      But in a broader sense the very activities of social service are propaganda activities. A campaign for the preservation of the teeth seeks to alter people’s habits in the direction of more frequent brushing of teeth. A campaign for better parks seeks to alter people’s opinion in regard to the desirability of taxing themselves for the purchase of park facilities. A campaign against tuberculosis is an attempt to convince everybody that tuberculosis can be cured, that persons with certain symptoms should immediately go to the doctor, and the like. A campaign to lower the infant mortality rate is an effort to alter the habits of mothers in regard to feeding, bathing and caring for their babies. Social service, in fact, is identical with propaganda in many cases.
      Even those aspects of social service which are governmental and administrative, rather than charitable and spontaneous, depend on wise propaganda for their effectiveness. Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, in his book, “The Evolution of Modern Penology in Pennsylvania,” states that improvements in penological administration in that state are hampered by political influences. The legislature must be persuaded to permit the utilization of the best methods of scientific penology, and for this there is necessary the development of an enlightened public opinion. “Until such a situation has been brought about,” Mr. Barnes states, “progress in penology is doomed to be sporadic, local, and generally ineffective. The solution of prison problems, then, seems to be fundamentally a problem of conscientious and scientific publicity.”
      Social progress is simply the progressive education and enlightenment of the public mind in regard to its immediate and distant social problems.

CHAPTER X
ART AND SCIENCE

      IN the education of the American public toward greater art appreciation, propaganda plays an important part. When art galleries seek to launch the canvases of an artist they should create public acceptance for his works. To increase public appreciation a deliberate propagandizing effort must be made.
      In art as in politics the minority rules, but it can rule only by going out to meet the public on its own ground, by understanding the anatomy of public opinion and utilizing it.
      In applied and commercial art, propaganda makes greater opportunities for the artist than ever before. This arises from the fact that mass production reaches an impasse when it competes on a price basis only. It must, therefore, in a large number of fields create a field of competition based on esthetic values. Business of many types capitalizes the esthetic sense to increase markets and profits. Which is only another way of saying that the artist has the opportunity of collaborating with industry in such a way as to improve the public taste, injecting beautiful instead of ugly motifs into the articles of common use, and, furthermore, securing recognition and money for himself.
      Propaganda can play a part in pointing out what is and what is not beautiful, and business can definitely help in this way to raise the level of American culture. In this process propaganda will naturally make use of the authority of group leaders whose taste and opinion are recognized.
      The public must be interested by means of associational values and dramatic incidents. New inspiration, which to the artist may be a very technical and abstract kind of beauty, must be made vital to the public by association with values which it recognizes and responds to.
      For instance, in the manufacture of American silk, markets are developed by going to Paris for inspiration. Paris can give American silk a stamp of authority which will aid it to achieve definite position in the United States.
      The following clipping from the New York Times of February 16, 1925, tells the story from an actual incident of this sort:

“Copyright, 1925, by THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY—Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
“PARIS, Feb. 15.—For the first time in history, American art materials are to be exhibited in the Decorative Arts Section of the Louvre Museum.
      “The exposition opening on May 26th with the Minister of Fine Arts, Paul Leon, acting as patron, will include silks from Cheney Brothers, South Manchester and New York, the designs of which were based on the inspiration of Edgar Brandt, famous French iron worker, the modern Bellini, who makes wonderful art works from iron.
      “M. Brandt designed and made the monumental iron doors of the Verdun war memorial. He has been asked to assist and participate in this exposition, which will show France the accomplishments of American industrial art.
      “Thirty designs inspired by Edgar Brandt’s work are embodied in 2,500 yards of printed silks, tinsels and cut velvets in a hundred colors. . . .
      “These ‘prints ferronnieres’ are the first textiles to show the influence of the modern master, M. Brandt. The silken fabrics possess a striking composition, showing characteristic Brandt motifs which were embodied in the tracery of large designs by the Cheney artists who succeeded in translating the iron into silk, a task which might appear almost impossible. The strength and brilliancy of the original design is enhanced by the beauty and warmth of color.”

      The result of this ceremony was that prominent department stores in New York, Chicago and other cities asked to have this exhibition. They tried to mold the public taste in conformity with the idea which had the approval of Paris. The silks of Cheney Brothers—a commercial product produced in quantity—gained a place in public esteem by being associated with the work of a recognized artist and with a great art museum.
      The same can be said of almost any commercial product susceptible of beautiful design. There are few products in daily use, whether furniture, clothes, lamps, posters, commercial labels, book jackets, pocketbooks or bathtubs which are not subject to the laws of good taste.
      In America, whole departments of production are being changed through propaganda to fill an economic as well as an esthetic need. Manufacture is being modified to conform to the economic need to satisfy the public demand for more beauty. A piano manufacturer recently engaged artists to design modernist pianos. This was not done because there existed a widespread demand for modernist pianos. Indeed, the manufacturer probably expected to sell few. But in order to draw attention to pianos one must have something more than a piano. People at tea parties will not talk about pianos; but they may talk about the new modernist piano.
      When Secretary Hoover, three years ago, was asked to appoint a commission to the Paris Exposition of Decorative Arts, he did so. As Associate Commissioner I assisted in the organizing of the group of important business leaders in the industrial art field who went to Paris as delegates to visit and report on the Exposition. The propaganda carried on for the aims and purposes of the Commission undoubtedly had a widespread effect on the attitude of Americans towards art in industry; it was only a few years later that the modern art movement penetrated all fields of industry.
      Department stores took it up. R. H. Macy & Company held an Art-in-Trades Exposition, in which the Metropolitan Museum of Art collaborated as adviser. Lord & Taylor sponsored a Modern Arts Exposition, with foreign exhibitors. These stores, coming closely in touch with the life of the people, performed a propagandizing function in bringing to the people the best in art as it related to these industries. The Museum at the same time was alive to the importance of making contact with the public mind, by utilizing the department store to increase art appreciation.
      Of all art institutions the museum suffers most from the lack of effective propaganda. Most present-day museums have the reputation of being morgues or sanctuaries, whereas they should be leaders and teachers in the esthetic life of the community. They have little vital relation to life.
      The treasures of beauty in a museum need to be interpreted to the public, and this requires a propagandist. The housewife in a Bronx apartment doubtless feels little interest in an ancient Greek vase in the Metropolitan Museum. Yet an artist working with a pottery firm may adapt the design of this vase to a set of china and this china, priced low through quantity production, may find its way to that Bronx apartment, developing unconsciously, through its fine line and color, an appreciation of beauty.
      Some American museums feel this responsibility. The Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York rightly prides itself on its million and a quarter of visitors in the year 1926; on its efforts to dramatize and make visual the civilizations which its various departments reveal; on its special lectures, its story hours, its loan collections of prints and photographs and lantern slides, its facilities offered to commercial firms in the field of applied art, on the outside lecturers who are invited to lecture in its auditorium and on the lectures given by its staff to outside organizations} and on the free chamber concerts given in the museum under the direction of David Mannes, which tend to dramatize the museum as a home of beauty. Yet that is not the whole of the problem.
      It is not merely a question of making people come to the museum. It is also a question of making the museum, and the beauty which it houses, go to the people.
      The museum’s accomplishments should not be evaluated merely in terms of the number of visitors. Its function is not merely to receive visitors, but to project iself and what it stands for in the community which it serves.
      The museum can stand in its community for a definite esthetic standard which can, by the help of intelligent propaganda, permeate the daily lives of all its neighbors. Why should not a museum establish a museum council of art, to establish standards in home decoration, in architecture, and in commercial production? or a research board for applied arts? Why should not the museum, instead of merely preserving the art treasures which it possesses, quicken their meaning in terms which the general public understands?
      A recent annual report of an art museum in one of the large cities of the United States, says:

      “An underlying characteristic of an Art Museum like ours must be its attitude of conservatism, for after all its first duty is to treasure the great achievements of men in the arts and sciences.”

      Is that true? Is not another important duty to interpret the models of beauty which it possesses?
      If the duty of the museum is to be active it must study how best to make its message intelligible to the community which it serves. It must boldly assume esthetic leadership.
      As in art, so in science, both pure and applied. Pure science was once guarded and fostered by learned societies and scientific associations. Now pure science finds support and encouragement also in industry. Many of the laboratories in which abstract research is being pursued are now connected with some large corporation, which is quite willing to devote hundreds of thousands of dollars to scientific study, for the sake of one golden invention or discovery which may emerge from it.
      Big business of course gains heavily when the invention emerges. But at that very moment it assumes the responsibility of placing the new invention at the service of the public. It assumes also the responsibility of interpreting its meaning to the public.
      The industrial interests can furnish to the schools, the colleges and the postgraduate university courses the exact truth concerning the scientific progress of our age. They not only can do so; they are under obligation to do so. Propaganda as an instrument of commercial competition has opened opportunities to the inventor and given great stimulus to the research scientist. In the last five or ten years, the successes of some of the larger corporations have been so outstanding that the whole field of science has received a tremendous impetus. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company, the Western Electric Company, the General Electric Company, the Westinghouse Electric Company and others have realized the importance of scientific research. They have also understood that their ideas must be made intelligible to the public to be fully successful. Television, broadcasting, loud speakers are utilized as propaganda aids.
      Propaganda assists in marketing new inventions. Propaganda, by repeatedly interpreting new scientific ideas and inventions to the public, has made the public more receptive. Propaganda is accustoming the public to change and progress.

CHAPTER XI
THE MECHANICS OF PROPAGANDA

      THE media by which special pleaders transmit their messages to the public through propaganda include all the means by which people to-day transmit their ideas to one another. There is no means of human communication which may not also be a means of deliberate propaganda, because propaganda is simply the establishing of reciprocal understanding between an individual and a group.
      The important point to the propagandist is that the relative value of the various instruments of propaganda, and their relation to the masses, are constantly changing. If he is to get full reach for his message he must take advantage of these shifts of value the instant they occur. Fifty years ago, the public meeting was a propaganda instrument par excellence. To-day it is difficult to get more than a handful of people to attend a public meeting unless extraordinary attractions are part of the program. The automobile takes them away from home, the radio keeps them in the home, the successive daily editions of the newspaper bring information to them in office or subway, and also they are sick of the ballyhoo of the rally.
      Instead there are numerous other media of communication, some new, others old but so transformed that they have become virtually new. The newspaper, of course, remains always a primary medium for the transmission of opinions and ideas—in other words, for propaganda.
      It was not many years ago that newspaper editors resented what they called “the use of the news columns for propaganda purposes.” Some editors would even kill a good story if they imagined its publication might benefit any one. This point of view is now largely abandoned. To-day the leading editorial offices take the view that the real criterion governing the publication or non-publication of matter which comes to the desk is its news value. The newspaper cannot assume, nor is it its function to assume, the responsibility of guaranteeing that what it publishes will not work out to somebody’s interest. There is hardly a single item in any daily paper, the publication of which does not, or might not, profit or injure somebody. That is the nature of news. What the newspaper does strive for is that the news which it publishes shall be accurate, and (since it must select from the mass of news material available) that it shall be of interest and importance to large groups of its readers.
      In its editorial columns the newspaper is a personality, commenting upon things and events from its individual point of view. But in its news columns the typical modern American newspaper attempts to reproduce, with due regard to news interest, the outstanding events and opinions of the day.
      It does not ask whether a given item is propaganda or not. What is important is that it be news. And in the selection of news the editor is usually entirely independent. In the New York Times—to take an outstanding example—news is printed because of its news value and for no other reason. The Times editors determine with complete independence what is and what is not news. They brook no censorship. They are not influenced by any external pressure nor swayed by any values of expediency or opportunism. The conscientious editor on every newspaper realizes that his obligation to the public is news. The fact of its accomplishment makes it news.
      If the public relations counsel can breathe the breath of life into an idea and make it take its place among other ideas and events, it will receive the public attention it merits. There can be no question of his “contaminating news at its source.” He creates some of the day’s events, which must compete in the editorial office with other events. Often the events which he creates may be specially acceptable to a newspaper’s public and he may create them with that public in mind.
      If important things of life to-day consist of transatlantic radiophone talks arranged by commercial telephone companies; if they consist of inventions that will be commercially advantageous to the men who market them; if they consist of Henry Fords with epoch-making cars—then all this is news. The so-called flow of propaganda into the newspaper offices of the country may, simply at the editor’s discretion, find its way to the waste basket.
      The source of the news offered to the editor should always be clearly stated and the facts accurately presented.
      The situation of the magazines at the present moment, from the propagandist’s point of view, is different from that of the daily newspapers. The average magazine assumes no obligation, as the newspaper does, to reflect the current news. It selects its material deliberately, in accordance with a continuous policy. It is not, like the newspaper, an organ of public opinion, but tends rather to become a propagandist organ, propagandizing for a particular idea, whether it be good housekeeping, or smart apparel, or beauty in home decoration, or debunking public opinion, or general enlightenment or liberalism or amusement. One magazine may aim to sell health; another, English gardens; another, fashionable men’s wear; another, Nietzschean philosophy.
      In all departments in which the various magazines specialize, the public relations counsel may play an important part. For he may, because of his client’s interest, assist them to create the events which further their propaganda. A bank, in order to emphasize the importance of its women’s department, may arrange to supply a leading women’s magazine with a series of articles and advice on investments written by the woman expert in charge of this department. The women’s magazine in turn will utilize this new feature as a means of building additional prestige and circulation.
      The lecture, once a powerful means of influencing public opinion, has changed its value. The lecture itself may be only a symbol, a ceremony; its importance, for propaganda purposes, lies in the fact that it was delivered. Professor So-and-So, expounding an epoch-making invention, may speak to five hundred persons, or only fifty. His lecture, if it is important, will be broadcast; reports of it will appear in the newspapers; discussion will be stimulated. The real value of the lecture, from the propaganda point of view, is in its repercussion to the general public.
      The radio is at present one of the most important tools of the propagandist. Its future development is uncertain.
      It may compete with the newspaper as an advertising medium. Its ability to reach millions of persons simultaneously naturally appeals to the advertiser. And since the average advertiser has a limited appropriation for advertising, money spent on the radio will tend to be withdrawn from the newspaper.
      To what extent is the publisher alive to this new phenomenon? It is bound to come close to American journalism and publishing. Newspapers have recognized the advertising potentialities of the companies that manufacture radio apparatus, and of radio stores, large and small; and newspapers have accorded to the radio in their news and feature columns an importance relative to the increasing attention given by the public to radio. At the same time, certain newspapers have bought radio stations and linked them up with their news and entertainment distribution facilities, supplying these two features over the air to the public.
      It is possible that newspaper chains will sell schedules of advertising space on the air and on paper. Newspaper chains will possibly contract with advertisers for circulation on paper and over the air. There are, at present, publishers who sell space in the air and in their columns, but they regard the two as separate ventures.
      Large groups, political, racial, sectarian, economic or professional, are tending to control stations to propagandize their points of view. Or is it conceivable that America may adopt the English licensing system under which the listener, instead of the advertiser, pays?
      Whether the present system is changed, the advertiser—and propagandist—must necessarily adapt himself to it. Whether, in the future, air space will be sold openly as such, or whether the message will reach the public in the form of straight entertainment and news, or as special programs for particular groups, the propagandist must be prepared to meet the conditions and utilize them.
      The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world to-day. It is a great distributor for ideas and opinions.
      The motion picture can standardize the ideas and habits of a nation. Because pictures are made to meet market demands, they reflect, emphasize and even exaggerate broad popular tendencies, rather than stimulate new ideas and opinions. The motion picture avails itself only of ideas and facts which are in vogue. As the newspaper seeks to purvey news, it seeks to purvey entertainment.
      Another instrument of propaganda is the personality. Has the device of the exploited personality been pushed too far? President Coolidge photographed on his vacation in full Indian regalia in company with full-blooded chiefs, was the climax of a greatly over-reported vacation. Obviously a public personality can be made absurd by misuse of the very mechanism which helped create it.
      Yet the vivid dramatization of personality will always remain one of the functions of the public relations counsel. The public instinctively demands a personality to typify a conspicuous corporation or enterprise.
      There is a story that a great financier discharged a partner because he had divorced his wife.
      “But what,” asked the partner, “have my private affairs to do with the banking business?”
      “If you are not capable of managing your own wife,” was the reply, “the people will certainly believe that you are not capable of managing their money.”
      The propagandist must treat personality as he would treat any other objective fact within his province.
      A personality may create circumstances, as Lindbergh created good will between the United States and Mexico. Events may create a personality, as the Cuban War created the political figure of Roosevelt. It is often difficult to say which creates the other. Once a public figure has decided what ends he wishes to achieve, he must regard himself objectively and present an outward picture of himself which is consistent with his real character and his aims.
      There are a multitude of other avenues of approach to the public mind, some old, some new as television. No attempt will be made to discuss each one separately. The school may disseminate information concerning scientific facts. The fact that a commercial concern may eventually profit from a widespread understanding of its activities because of this does not condemn the dissemination of such information, provided that the subject merits study on the part of the students. If a baking corporation contributes pictures and charts to a school, to show how bread is made, these propaganda activities, if they are accurate and candid, are in no way reprehensible, provided the school authorities accept or reject such offers carefully on their educational merits.
      It may be that a new product will be announced to the public by means of a motion picture of a parade taking place a thousand miles away. Or the manufacturer of a new jitney airplane may personally appear and speak in a million homes through radio and television. The man who would most effectively transmit his message to the public must be alert to make use of all the means of propaganda.
      Undoubtedly the public is becoming aware of the methods which are being used to mold its opinions and habits. If the public is better informed about the processes of its own life, it will be so much the more receptive to reasonable appeals to its own interests. No matter how sophisticated, how cynical the public may become about publicity methods, it must respond to the basic appeals, because it will always need food, crave amusement, long for beauty, respond to leadership.
      If the public becomes more intelligent in its commercial demands, commercial firms will meet the new standards. If it becomes weary of the old methods used to persuade it to accept a given idea or commodity, its leaders will present their appeals more intelligently.
      Propaganda will never die out. Intelligent men must realize that propaganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends and help to bring order out of chaos.


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

Need an experienced Romanian journalist to guide you through the local specifics of the Biden – Romania connection? It’s your lucky day: suffice to say that, as a mainstream news journalist, I shook hands with all Romanian presidents since the 1989 coup against Ceausescu.

LATER UPDATES AT THE END OF THIS EXPOSE

LOCAL CONTEXT EXPLAINED LIKE NO OFFICIAL MEDIA WOULD DARE

Ukraine are two separate nodes in geopolitics. Ukraine is a historical Motherland for the Khazarian Jewish mafia, while Romania is both a treasure island for its resources and a historical confluence point for many cultures, tribes and interests. They have a lot to share, and usually anyone who dominates the market in one tries to expand next to the other, NATO and Obama paved the way too. But Romania is perceived as “a Latin island in a Slavic sea”.
The neighboring Russia formed when the Russ tribes took control over the Moscow area from the Khazars, not long after many of them converted to Judaism, but most Khazars never left that land and the two populations learned to co-exist.

Joe Biden has been very active in Romania since the Obama presidency.

Biden takes some time off in Bucharest

“Romania was by then a familiar place to the Biden family. A close friend and former staffer of Joe Biden, Mark Gitenstein, held the position of U.S. ambassador to Romania from August 2009 to December 2012. In March 2012, Hunter’s brother, Beau, was asked to do the ribbon-cutting at the new U.S. embassy in Bucharest.” –

NBC


According to Joe’s official statement from his 2014 visit in Romania, 2009 is also the year when he first made contact with the future chief of the local Anti-Corruption National Department (locally known as DNA), Laura Kovesi, back then just an ambitious prosecutor, now EU’s Prosecutor in Chief.

Laura, thank you for the introduction, but more importantly, thank you for your continuing involvement.  As I — the first time our paths crossed was five years ago, as you said, and look at you now, pursuing an advanced degree, an advocate for international education.  And you are a reflection of the progress your country has made and continues to make.

Joe Biden, May 2014
“Dear Laura…”


While leading DNA, with full support from US administration, Kovesi finished a process that started earlier: she decimated not only the local mafia, but basically any local capital that was strong enough to oppose foreign influence.
One of Kovesi’s strongest opponents was a shadowy coalition of local tycoons known as The Monaco Group, after their preferred meeting place. The group was, and still is, headed by business mogul Puiu Popoviciu. This guy is the son-in-law of one of the darkest figures in Romania’s communist history, Ion “Teleaga” Dinca, former Minister of Internal Affairs and Vice-Prime-Minister under Ceausescu. Thus, he was deeply in involved with the former oligarchy and the secret services structures tied to it.

Coincidence or not, 2009 is also the year Popoviciu was hit with the only successful attempt by Romanian government to arrest him, a corruption file that will send ripple effects across the whole world.

After the 1989’s anti-communist “revolution”, in fact just a standard “orange revolution” (read “coup”), Romania has been ran and developed mainly with the capital and the data accumulated by the secret services operatives, who went on forming the Deep State of the new free Romania. Whatever external force wanted to do business in Romania had to negotiate with them. That’s not the case anymore, they’ve been slowly decimated by the Washington – Tel Aviv axis, which fully controls the state now, even the local mafia who only maintains local influence in the territory, but without access to the central commands, they can’t do much.
Former prime-minister and socialist party leader Victor Ponta recalls in an interview that Kovesi had a direct phone link to Gitenstein, summoning the US administration’s help whenever she needed, as if the US Embassy was Aladin’s Lamp. And she used it to book the former socialist prime-minister Dragnea. Ponta said on video that Kovesi almost cancelled his official trip to US because he was supporting Dragnea. He eventually got to Washington, met Biden who told him “An independent Justice in Romania is very important for American companies”. Funnily, Popoviciu represents in Romania a host of top US companies, as shown further below. And Dragnea is now “prisoner to a circle of interests that roots in Israel, London and Washington”, according to his fromer colleague Ponta.

Vice President Biden visited Romania in 2014 and delivered a forceful speech against graft. “Corruption is a cancer, a cancer that eats away at a citizen’s faith in democracy,” he said. “Corruption is just another form of tyranny.”

NY Times

2016: hunter enters the picture at the wrong time in the wrong place

2016 found Popoviciu desperately trying to escape a 9-year jail sentence for corruption, after the 2009 prosecution file we mentioned earlier came to fruition, the tycoon being convicted for scheming a public university and obtaining a bunch of valuable land for peanuts. Popoviciu launched an appeal. He assembled a high profile legal team to fight the conviction, which included former FBI director Louis Freeh, according to a release from Freeh’s firm.
“We viewed Freeh as a guy who was wholly incompetent but who held on to power by making himself useful to the press and Republicans on the Hill,” says one Clinton White House aide. “He was a political opportunist who played Clinton, and he’s managed to escape the judgment of history for his mismanagement of the FBI.”

“In the final year of the Obama administration, an American lawyer traveled to Romania to meet with a businessman accused of orchestrating a corrupt land deal.
The businessman was Gabriel “Puiu” Popoviciu, a wealthy Romanian real estate tycoon. The lawyer brought in to advise him was Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Hunter Biden’s work for Popoviciu in 2016 went unreported at the time, but Joe Biden’s involvement in Romania was very much public. The vice president was among the leading voices pushing the government to crack down on corruption.”
NBC, Oct 2019

At the time he was brought in, Hunter Biden was performing work for the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP where he was “of counsel.”
He was no registered lobbyst, he had no reputation as a lawyer, but a massive one as crackhead. He had no skills or talents that could benefit Popoviciu, besides his family name. This was later confirmed by his former business partner Michael Bobulinski, who joined him in his Romanian trips and revealed that Hunter had zero expertise to recommend him for being in Romania.

Mr Popoviciu’s hiring of well-connected Americans seemed to be an effort to leverage “the importance to the Romanian government of the US-Romanian bilateral” relationship “to influence and possibly overcome his political challenges in Romania,” said Heather Conley, who was a deputy assistant secretary of state in the bureau of European and Eurasian affairs from 2001 to 2005.

Ms Conley, who is director of the Europe program at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, warned that going to work in “environments where corruption is very prevalent, such as Romania, should be a blinking yellow light of caution reputationally for US firms and individuals.”

There’s a lot more to come out . . . Wait until we get to Romania

Obviously a biased report, but you still can retain a lot of confirmed facts

Here are a bunch of verified and accurate details NY Times revealed precisely one year ago, which both Biden and Trump are trying to sweep under the rugs:
<<In 2015, before his first trip to Romania, Hunter Biden met with the Romanian ambassador to the United States in the country’s embassy in Washington, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Biden stressed that he was undertaking the trip as a private citizen, and did not expressly mention Mr. Popoviciu, or his case, one of the people said.

At one point, Hunter Biden approached Mark Gitenstein, a former American ambassador to Romania during President Barack Obama’s first term, to discuss the possibility of referring the Popoviciu case to Mr. Freeh, according to someone familiar with the conversation.

Mr. Gitenstein, who had served as a Senate aide for the senior Mr. Biden and now sits on the board of the Biden Foundation, defended the work of the prosecutors who targeted Mr. Popoviciu.

“Both the vice president and I had total confidence in the anti-corruption prosecutors in Romania, and did everything in our power to support them, both during our time in office and after,” Mr. Gitenstein said.

Mr. Mesires acknowledged that Hunter Biden referred Mr. Popoviciu to both Boies Schiller Flexner, the law firm where Hunter Biden worked at the time, and Mr. Freeh’s firm, Freeh Group International Solutions.

Mr. Popoviciu hired both firms, according to four people familiar with the arrangements. Mr. Popoviciu could not be reached for comment.

Boies Schiller Flexner declined to comment.

Mr. Freeh’s firm started work for the Romanian businessman in July 2016, shortly after Mr. Popoviciu was initially convicted by a Romanian court.

Mr. Freeh conducted a review of the case with a team of retired prosecutors and F.B.I. agents. The team concluded there were “numerous factual and legal deficiencies in the case,” according to a statement summarizing the findings issued in 2017, after the Romanian high court upheld Mr. Popoviciu’s conviction and handed down a seven-year prison sentence. Mr. Freeh called for Romanian authorities to review the case, and reach “another result.”

That has not happened. Mr. Popoviciu was arrested in London shortly after the high court’s decision. He posted bail and is fighting extradition to Romania.

While Mr. Biden ended his work on the case at some point after recruiting Mr. Freeh, Mr. Freeh continued working for Mr. Popoviciu.

Last year, Mr. Freeh retained Mr. Giuliani, a longtime associate whose 2008 presidential campaign  Mr. Freeh supported, to help with his efforts in Romania.

In August 2018, while serving as Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer during the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s election interference, Mr. Giuliani wrote a letter to Romania’s president criticizing the country’s anti-corruption prosecutors and urging amnesty to those who had been convicted in the crackdown.

That could have included Mr. Popoviciu, though Mr. Giuliani did not explicitly mention him in the letter. Mr. Giuliani said the Freeh Group was paying his fee, but did not identify the Freeh Group client on whose behalf he wrote the letter. However, he told Politico at the time that it “was based on a report I reviewed” by Mr. Freeh.

In the letter, Mr. Giuliani expressed concern about the “continuing damage to the rule of law being done under the guise of effective law enforcement” in Romania.

Less than two months earlier, the American embassy in Bucharest, along with the embassies of 11 other countries, had issued a statement reaching the opposite conclusion. It highlighted Romania’s “considerable progress” in combating corruption and in building an effective rule of law.

The statement, which came at a time when contentious alterations to the criminal code were moving through the Romanian parliament, also called on all parties involved to “avoid changes that would weaken the rule of law or Romania’s ability to fight crime or corruption.” >>

US Secretary of State assistant praises Romania’s fight against corruption

Successor to Joe Biden, The US Secretary of State’s assistant for Europe and Eurasia, Wess Mitchell, praised Romanian government’s fight against corruption same week Biden attacked it for threatening Kovesi’s position. Mitchell basically told Romania to keep it up.

Mitchell was in a two-day visit to Romania and met president Klaus Iohannis. His visit came as the president was pressured into dismissing the chief prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) Laura Codruta Kovesi.

19 June 2018, Romania Insider:

“The progress Romania registered in combating corruption is impressive. We applaud it and urge you to continue, because this way you can eliminate the vulnerabilities that hostile powers can use to undermine the state from within,” Mitchell said in a speech at the Bucharest University’s Law Faculty.
He added that the anticorruption institutions are proof that Romanians are brave in defending the liberties they fought for in 1989.

The US official also referred to Romania’s offshore legislation, which should be passed by the Parliament in the next period, saying that this should encourage investments in the Black Sea. He added that, by becoming a gas exporter, Romania can support Europe’s energy security on the long term.

US group ExxonMobil is involved together with local group OMV Petrom in the biggest offshore gas project in the Romanian Black Sea. They are also the most hated company by the Rockefellers.

US Ambassador: We have full confidence in Romania’s Anticorruption Directorate

a recap and some facts WESTERN MEDIA DIDN’T (WANT TO) PICK UP ON

So in 2009, Romania was aligned with many structures, from NATO to EU, complied with its allies and seemed like a well trained horse to jockey for the Tel Aviv – Washington axis.
In fact, the local mafia was playing along but still held a lot of power, many connections in the East and Middle East, and a veto on anything. That was a liability for the new rulers.
Obama assigned the area between Central Europe to Caucasus to Biden, who sent his pal Gitenstein to manage Romania, and together they started this offensive against local capitals and mafia, just to pave the way for their own.
Together they groomed the future Chief Prosecutor Laura Kovesi, now a Trojan horse in the EU.
And in the process they met a hard-to-crack nut: The Monaco Group /Puiu Popoviciu. A member of the group, Elan Schwartzenberg, admitted in a 2018 interview on the local B1 TV that Kovesi, in alliance with the new president Iohannis, was by far overpowering them.
But they still had enough leverage to negotiate.


Popoviciu was not only backed by the former communist oligarchy, he IS also representing a host of US and International companies in Romania: Howard Johnson, Grand Plaza, Ramada Plaza și Ramada Parc, IKEA, Pizza Hut, KFC…

Popoviciu had the money to buy access to anyone and eventually his freedom. Which he did. He was released on bail, official sources told local tv station Stirileprotv.ro. The businessman has paid GBP 200,000, and has to wear an electronic bracelet.
He is now wondering around London with a tracking bracelet on his leg, but less restrictions than the average Romanian under lockdown. Down from nine years of jail in Romania, the initial sentence proposed by Kovesi’s team.

Both Biden and Giuliani are boasting about their anti-corruption fight on TV while feeding on money from people like Popoviciu.

WHAT NO OTHER MEDIA WILL TELL YOU: shady deals with the us embassy for protection?

On 23rd of August 2006, one of Popoviciu’s companies, Baneasa Investment, rented 40,000 square meters of land to the US Embassy in Bucharest, then ran by Nicholas Taubman. The embassy sealed the deal for 99 years at the price of $8million. It may seem a lot, but the annual price per square meter was just around $2, while the market price in that area was around $150.
The Romanian journalists who broke the story comment (video below, Romanian only for now): “At the time when this deal was closed, Popoviciu’s corruption case was clearly going against him already, and it’s more than likely this was his way to ensure some political protection from US. He has US citizenship and a long standing friendhsip with the embassy”.
At the end of the video, a liberal senator asks on Romania’s prime news channel Antena3: “The suspicions against Popoviciu where so well known and so grounded it’s imaginable how the US Embassy could cut such a striking deal with him”.
Here comes the best part:
This plot the US Embassy in Bucharest sat on is part of the land involved in Popoviciu’s corruption file. A few ears after the 2006 deal, Beau Biden goes to inaugurate the new Embassy there. Then Hunter Biden goes to defend Popoviciu against Laura Kovesi for stealing that land, basically. All while Joe Biden was grooming Popoviciu’s prosecutor and playing the anti-corruption guardian of the Universe on TV.
To add insult to injury, in 2018, Romanian courts orders that the land returns to state property.
The Bucharest Court of Appeal has ruled that 224 hectares of land in Bucharest’s Baneasa area, where some of Bucharest’s biggest retail projects and the U.S. Embassy are located, must return to the state. The decision is not final and can be challenged, according to Digi24.ro.

Romania Insider reports, in December 2018: “The land targeted by this sentence currently belongs to Romanian investor Gabriel Popoviciu, who was convicted to seven years in jail, in August 2017, for having illegally obtained it from the Bucharest Agronomy University in the early 2000s. The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled at that time that Popoviciu must return the land to the state.

According to the anticorruption prosecutors, the Agronomy University gave the land to Baneasa Investments, a company jointly owned by Gabriel Popoviciu and the University, at a value of USD 1 per sqm while the real value was some EUR 150 per sqm.

Baneasa Investments used the land to develop one of the biggest real estate projects in Bucharest, including office buildings that host the headquarters of several multinationals, the Baneasa mall and the first IKEA store in Romania. The U.S. Embassy also built its new headquarters on a land plot provided by Popoviciu.

Gabriel Popoviciu, who fled to England just before the court ruled in his case, has managed to dodge incarceration and hired international law firms and consultants, including a former FBI director, to lobby for him and denounce alleged abuses by Romanian anticorruption authorities. A letter sent by former New York mayor and Donald Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani to Romanian president Klaus Iohannis earlier this year, proved to be a result of this lobby.

Two firms registered in Cyprus and believed to be controlled by Popoviciu also filed a complaint against the Romanian state at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington. They accused Romania of breaching the bilateral treaty for protecting investments signed with Cyprus and asked for compensations of “at least USD 200 million”, according to media reports.”


Former prime-minister of Romania Victor Ponta recalls in his afore-mentioned interview:
“In May 2014, Joe Biden came to Romania and gave a speech in which he said, among other things:
‘When politicians can be bought, when the courts can be manipulated, when the press becomes an instrument of propaganda, there you will find a society that can be manipulated from the outside, that loses control over its own destiny. Not only his political security, but also his physical security is compromised. We have seen in Ukraine how 15 years of corruption have undermined their system of military institutions and the country’s ability to defend itself. ‘

While Biden was saying all this, the American flag placed in honor of the high guest fell to the ground.”
The story is confirmed by TV reports we have from that time.



Fast forward to June 2020: László Kövér, the leader of the Hungarian Parliament, accused Laura Kovesi, now chief prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, of being a foreign agent.

During the debate on the EU’s economic recovery package, László Kövér accused Laura Codruţa Kovesi of being a foreign agent and said that Ceausescu would be proud of her. Kover accuses Kovesi of gaining notoriety by launching dozens of investigations into political opponents, including Hungarian mayors.

Fidesz leader adds that hundreds of thousands of phone calls have been intercepted as a result of a collaboration between DNA and Secret Services

“They were completely unjustly accused, taken from their families at dawn in the car of a command unit. During this time, hundreds of thousands of phone calls were intercepted as a result of a collaboration between DNA and Security. Well, if Comrade Ceausescu were alive, he would be satisfied if he saw what she’s am doing in Romania “, said László Kövér, the leader of the Hungarian Parliament.

“How could Romania, as a state, remain functional as a result of such unforgivable activities, which clearly had external motivations, this is a matter that I leave to the judgment of the Romanian electorate. But is he really expected to join this European Prosecutor’s Office because he would be guided by a policy of impartiality, the rule of law and clean hands? ”, said Kover, according to 444.hu.

Commenting on Kover’s statement, Romanian analyst, former politician and definite Deep State operative, Cosmin Gusa says in a Facebook post:
“Kover, publicly and OFFICIALLY revealing Laura Codruta Kovesi as “the agent of SOROS-type foreign powers”, gives us confirmation that at international diplomatic level Romania is perceived as a state led not by Romanians, but by others , a poor COLONY OF AN EXTERNAL CONJURATION difficult to identify precisely, and our leaders some useless puppets who do not exercise their constitutional role.
We had the clearest recent evidence even by addressing the Coronavirus crisis, when our authorities directed their actions exactly in the spirit generated in the US by the phalanx “DEEP STATE – SOROS”, respectively in a spirit contrary to that desired by Donald Trump , the president of our so-called “strategic ally”. Which tells us clearly that our American partner was never the American state, but the “PREDATORY GROUP” in the DEEP STATE there, who through political puppets like Joe Biden and senior officers of their intelligence structures, took advantage and looted almost everything they grabbed from Ukraine, Romania and other weak states in Europe.
The great shame felt by every Romanian who still possesses the feeling of NATIONAL PRIDE is one aspect, but what’s worse is to imagine how bad we will perform the near future, seeing that Romania is now perceived as being unmanaged, ready “TO BE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE GREAT AND INTERESTED PLANETS OF THE PLANET”…

Political partisanship makes Gusa separate Trump from international schemers, but it’s just a false impression, as Giuliani’s gig in Romania stands to prove, as well as Trump a.

October 2020: average Romanians enjoy less liberties than Puiu Popoviciu. Joe Biden advocates for masks, vaccines and quarantines. Kovesi is a great European prosecutor. Anti-corruption triumphs, people die of heart diseases at home, as hospitals are busy with propaganda. And when they get to the hospital, they die of Covid. #Justice.

Romanian TV News coverage of the Romanian connection based on our investigation, October 23 2020

UPDATE

As promised, we follow up with important updates you don’t get many places, if any.
Below we have e-mail evidence that The Bidens were developing more big businesses in Romania in 2017, at the same time as Joe was sweating hard fighting local corruption.

UPDATE 2, 01 Feb. 2021

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

This life-changing information has been sitting on UK Government’s website for over 15 months now. People find out about it from us, while their officials keep yapping 24/7 about an infection we can’t test for and a virus that’s never been properly isolated and purified in a lab as per Koch’s Postulate.
Of course, this plan is not limited to UK, it’s global.
Looks like democracy is as real as Rona, your informed consent matters and governments care.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is not a buzzword, it’s official policy in every state controlled by the World Bank /IMF / Rothschild dynasty. It’s been so for long now. And The Great Reset gives you the map for it, in that Technocrat language that is translated to functional-illiterate sheeple as whatever they need to hear to stay obedient, while the sheeple-herders get actual live-stock management advice.

Policy paper

Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Published 11 June 2019

Presented to Parliament
by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
by Command of Her Majesty

Excerpts selected by Silview.media, read the whole thing please!

Foreword

The world is changing faster than ever. New technology is creating new industries, changing existing ones and transforming the way things are made. We need a more agile approach to regulation, that supports innovation while protecting citizens and the environment.

We are a nation of innovators. Throughout our history we have seized the opportunities to create a better future for ourselves. In the First Industrial Revolution, British engineer Thomas Savery’s pump paved the way for industrial use of steam power. In the second, British scientist Michael Faraday’s electromagnetic rotary devices formed the basis for practical electricity use. In the third, British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web.

Technological breakthroughs in areas from artificial intelligence to biotechnologies are now heralding a Fourth Industrial Revolution, with the power to reshape almost every sector in every country. Our Industrial Strategy positions the UK to make the most of this global transformation.

Our regulatory system is second to none, as recognised by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Regulatory Policy Outlook in 2018. It protects citizens and enables business to thrive. Together with our global research prowess, world-class universities and open, competitive markets, it attracts firms to innovate and invest in the UK. As the Fourth Industrial Revolution changes the way we live and work, it is vital that our regulatory system keeps pace.

This white paper sets out our plan to maintain our world-leading regulatory system in this period of rapid technological change. We will support and stimulate new products, services and business models, with greater space for experimentation. We will uphold safeguards for people and the environment and engage the public in how innovation is regulated. And we will maintain the stable, proportionate regulatory approach the UK is rightly known for.

Our openness to technology and innovation continues as we leave the European Union.

This white paper is our plan to secure our success.

Rt Hon Greg Clark MP
Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Championing innovation

We need to take action to maintain our world-beating regulatory system and realise the potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is of a scale, speed and complexity that is unprecedented. It is characterised by a fusion of technologies – such as artificial intelligence, gene editing and advanced robotics – that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological worlds. It will disrupt nearly every industry in every country, creating new opportunities and challenges for people, places and businesses to which we must respond.

Our modern Industrial Strategy seeks to put the UK at the crest of this global wave of technological innovation, bringing the benefits to business and consumers alike. Our foundations are strong. The UK ranks in the top 5 in the Global Innovation Index1. We are a global leader in science and research and home to 4 of the top 10 universities in the world2. We have a thriving start-up environment and are home to many of the world’s most R&D-intensive businesses. We develop and attract some of the most talented people in the world.

We want to build on our strengths in developing and deploying ideas to become the world’s most innovative economy. We want to raise our total investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027, the biggest increase on record. We have set 4 Grand Challenges for the UK government and wider economy to seize the opportunities presented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Strategy Grand Challenges

  1. We will put the UK at the forefront of the artificial intelligence and data revolution.
  2. We will maximise the advantages for UK industry of the shift to clean growth.
  3. We will become a world leader in shaping the future of mobility.
  4. We will harness the power of innovation to help meet the needs of an ageing society.

Our regulatory system is a national asset. We are ranked 9th among 190 economies for the ease of doing business in the UK3, with the quality of our regulatory practices given the highest overall country score by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)4. We protect the natural environment and ensure the safety and employment rights of citizens. We also provide the certainty needed for businesses to thrive.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution presents challenges for regulatory systems across the globe, as they struggle to keep pace with rapid, complex technological innovation. In our Industrial Strategy, we committed to develop an agile regulatory approach that supports innovation and protects citizens and the environment. We need to act now to maintain our world-beating regulatory system in this period of transformational change.

regulations

We need to reshape our regulatory approach so that it supports and stimulates innovation that benefits citizens and the economy. At present, only 29% of businesses believe that the government’s approach to regulation facilitates innovative products and services being efficiently brought to market 9. The need for reform is urgent: 92% of businesses from a range of sectors think they will feel a negative impact if regulators don’t evolve to keep pace with disruptive change in the next 2 to 3 years10.

Other countries are rapidly reforming their regulatory environments to support future innovation, with Nesta describing these anticipatory approaches as ‘an increasingly important source of competitive advantage in the global economy’11. By taking an anticipatory approach we can give people faster access to innovations that can transform their lives and attract the ideas, talent and investment to the UK that will drive our future prosperity.

We are turning things round. The Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory sandbox has kick-started a wave of regulator-led initiatives to support new products and services to come to market and been widely emulated across the globe. Our Regulators’ Pioneer Fund is accelerating the change, with £10 million invested in 15 projects to support technologies from autonomous shipping to virtual lawyers. We have established a partnership with the World Economic Forum to shape the global governance of technological innovation.

But we can go further. The Business Secretary has established a Ministerial Working Group on Future Regulation to drive reform across government to put us at the forefront of the industries of the future. The Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology has provided recommendations on how to enhance the regulatory oversight of technological innovation. We have identified 6 challenges we need to address:

  • we need to be on the front foot in reforming regulation in response to technological innovation
  • we need to ensure that our regulatory system is sufficiently flexible and outcomes-focused to enable innovation to thrive
  • we need to enable greater experimentation, testing and trialling of innovations under regulatory supervision
  • we need to support innovators to navigate the regulatory landscape and comply with regulation
  • we need to build dialogue with society and industry on how technological innovation should be regulated
  • we need to work with partners across the globe to reduce regulatory barriers to trade in innovative products and services

This white paper sets out our plan to tackle these 6 challenges and seize the opportunity presented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. We want to lead the world in innovation-friendly regulation that supports the emergence of new products, services and business models for the benefit of all. The white paper will be matched later this year with papers describing how we will modernise consumer and competition regulation in response to the transformation in our economy.

Supporting the emergence of smart systems

Our energy system is changing rapidly. There is more low carbon generation, such as power from solar and wind, which produces different amounts of electricity depending on the weather. It is increasingly decentralised, with generation and batteries located in or near people’s homes and businesses.   New technologies such as electricity storage, smart heating controls and electric vehicles are emerging which can be used to help balance the electricity system. However, our regulatory system was not developed with these new technologies in mind. 

As laid out in the Smart Systems and Flexibility Plan, developed jointly with the energy regulator Ofgem, we are working to develop a best in class regulatory framework that supports these innovations. We are working with industry to reform markets, legislation, licences, codes and standards.

The drive towards a smart and flexible energy system is an important tenet of the government’s Clean Growth and Industrial Strategies. The changes promise to provide significant public benefits, from lower energy bills to cleaner air and lower carbon emissions. By 2050, a smarter and more flexible system could save the UK £17-40 billion.

Accelerating the introduction of self-driving vehicles

The Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CCAV) is overseeing a groundbreaking programme to prepare the UK’s regulatory framework for self-driving vehicles ahead of their introduction on UK roads. It has developed an open regulatory approach that safeguards citizens and supports the development of the technology as it evolves.

This includes the recently updated world-leading Code of Practice for testing automated vehicles. Testing any level of automated vehicles on public roads is possible, provided they comply with the law, including having a driver, in or out of the vehicle, a roadworthy vehicle, and appropriate insurance. The recent update to the Code announced that the government would introduce an application process for more advanced trials. This will facilitate the development of the technology, without the need for repeated changes to regulation.

CCAV is leading the charge in considering the wider implications of the introduction of self-driving vehicles. It has introduced legislation to insure the use of self-driving vehicles through the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, so that victims of collisions get quick and easy access to compensation. It has asked the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to undertake a joint regulatory review to identify further legal obstacles to the widespread introduction of self-driving vehicles. This project is consulting widely and will provide a final report in 2021.

CCAV is also working with the British Standards Institution to deliver a programme of standards to help accelerate development and deployment of self-driving vehicles. The programme seeks to address public safety and reliability concerns and supports the UK’s reputation as a centre of excellence for vehicle testing, design and manufacturing.

CCAV’s programme has helped to put the UK at the forefront of this emerging industry and, with the Department for Transport, given the UK lasting influence in international debates on the regulation of automated vehicles.

Our plan

We will create an outcome-focused, flexible regulatory system that enables innovation to thrive while protecting citizens and the environment. We will match this with clarity for business through better use of regulatory guidance, codes of practice and industry standards.

We will pilot an innovation test so that the impact of legislation on innovation is considered as we:

  • develop and assess policy options
  • consult and engage on policy proposals
  • design, introduce and implement legislation
  • monitor, evaluate and review legislation

We will encourage policymakers to consider the governance of innovation in a holistic way, noting the role that alternatives to regulation can play in providing government, citizens and businesses with assurance. We will encourage policymakers to reflect on when the right time is to introduce regulation21 .

Our approach will encourage policymakers to focus on real-world outcomes, with legislation that provides flexibility for experimentation and adaptation. Prescriptive regulatory requirements would only be set out in legislation where necessary to provide important protections. Where possible, alternative approaches such as statutory guidance will set out requirements so that as technology changes the system can respond in a timely and flexible manner.

We will develop tools for policymakers to support them to consider these issues; we will also develop improved analytical methods to capture the impact of regulation on innovation. During the pilot, we will invite the Regulatory Policy Committee to scrutinise the application of the innovation test, to ensure that innovators have confidence in how government is developing significant new regulatory legislation.

Making the UK the safest place in the world to be online

The internet is a powerful force for good. Combined with new technologies such as artificial intelligence, it is changing society perhaps more than any previous technological revolution – growing the economy, making us more productive, and raising living standards.

Alongside these new opportunities come new challenges and risks. The internet can be used to spread terrorist material; it can be a tool for abuse and bullying; and it can be used to undermine civil discourse, objective news and intellectual property. As set out in our Digital Charter, we are committed to making the UK both the safest place to be online and the best place to start and grow a digital business.

In April, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office published a white paper to tackle a range of both legal and illegal harms, from cyberbullying to online child sexual exploitation. In keeping with our ambition to lead the world in innovation-friendly regulation that encourages the tech sector and provides stability for businesses, the white paper sets out an outcomes-focused legislative approach that will support future technological change.

Read more

Realising the power of financial technologies

From AI to blockchain, data-driven financial technologies (FinTech) are changing the way that we bank, invest, insure and even pay for things. The UK’s FinTech sector is booming, underpinned by our world-leading financial services sector and thriving tech scene.

In 2016, the Financial Conduct Authority seized the initiative to support this emerging industry by establishing the world’s first ‘regulatory sandbox’: a safe space where firms can work with the regulator to trial innovative products, services and business models with consumers without having to meet all the usual requirements for compliance. Since its establishment, the sandbox has received more than 3 times as many applications than places available. Access to the sandbox has helped reduce the time and cost of getting innovative ideas to market (in the first year, 90% of firms progressed towards wider market launch) and improve access to finance (40% received investment during or following their sandbox tests).

FinTech firm Asset Hedge introduced a web-based platform offering forex options to assist small businesses and individuals to protect against losses incurred because of currency fluctuations. They successfully completed the sandbox programme to become a fully regulated company. Assure Hedge founder and chief executive Barry McCarthy said:

“We have effectively been given the same regulation that large banks have, so it really allows us to compete with the big players.”

It’s not just business that benefits. Consumers benefit from new products which have better safeguards built in up front, while the regulator benefits from greater insight into technological innovation. The model has been emulated by more than 20 countries across the globe and translated to sectors from health to transport.

From smart shipping to AI-powered legal services

The Regulators’ Pioneer Fund is backing the Future of Mobility and AI and Data Grand Challenges through ground breaking projects to enable technologies from smart shipping to AI-powered legal services.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has already taken steps to facilitate innovation in the legal industry, inviting firms to develop new business models in a controlled way. The Regulators’ Pioneer Fund investment will enable the Solicitors Regulation Authority to work with the innovation foundation Nesta to accelerate ethical AI-powered innovations, with a focus on legal services for small businesses and consumers where AI and automation can have transformative impact.

Paul Philip, Chief Executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, said:

“Smart use of technology could help tackle the problem that far too many people struggle to access expert legal advice. It will help us further build on our work to encourage new ways of delivering legal services, benefiting both the public and small business.”

In the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund investment will create the Maritime Autonomy Regulation Lab (MAR Lab) to bring together industry specialists, academics and government to pioneer new regulatory approaches and make data available to the emerging smart shipping industry.

The project will inform UK legislation for a domestic framework for autonomous vessels to attract international business and support and promote testing in the UK’s territorial waters. It will also support government efforts to establish a new proactive and adaptive international regulatory framework for autonomous vessels at the International Maritime Organisation.

Read: THE ROADMAP FOR THE 2025-2028 PANDEMIC ALREADY PUBLISHED BY EVENT 201 ORGANISERS

Supporting the revolution in life sciences

New discoveries and the application of new technologies mean we can diagnose illnesses earlier and more accurately, create new treatments and ensure existing ones are more effective.

The UK is extraordinarily well placed to play a leading role in this revolution in the life sciences, with strengths in innovation, research, healthcare and business. To support these innovations to come to market, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) Innovation Office provides a single point of access to regulatory advice on the development of innovative medicines, medical devices or manufacturing processes. The service has grown in popularity since its inception in 2013, receiving 190 enquiries in 2018.

The service helps to make regulatory information clear and accessible to those who are working on innovative research, supporting a key goal in the second Life Sciences Sector Deal to ensure the UK remains one of the best places in the world to develop life sciences projects, to protect health and improve lives.

The service has helped secure significant investments into the UK life sciences industry. John Parker, Director at AstraZeneca said:

“We genuinely believe that having easy access to MHRA in this manner provides a real competitive advantage to UK based companies”

In the Life Sciences Sector Deal, the MHRA committed to engage with industry to understand how it can further develop its offer by the end of 2019.

Our plan

Entrepreneurs and innovative firms should be able to find their way through the UK’s regulatory landscape with ease and receive timely, joined-up feedback on novel propositions.

We will consult on a digital Regulation Navigator for businesses to help them find their way through the regulatory landscape and engage with the right regulators at the right time on their proposals. We will ensure that this is integrated with action to enhance the government’s digital offer to business in areas such as tax, grants, trade and investment, and build awareness of the available offer.

Initiatives such as the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory sandbox have helped reduce the time and cost of bringing new products and services to market and enabled businesses to win contracts and secure access to finance. We are funding greater investment in specialist regulatory advice services for innovators through our Regulators’ Pioneer Fund, to ensure that innovators who are developing novel proposals with potential for wider economic, societal or environmental benefit are supported to do so.

Leading the public dialogue on mitochondrial replacement treatment

Mitochondria are present in almost all human cells and generate the majority of their energy supply. Unhealthy mitochondria can cause genetic disorders known as mitochondrial disease, which can have devastating effects on the families that carry them. For many patients with mitochondrial diseases, preventing the transmission of the disease to their children is a key concern.

In 2012, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority undertook a sustained engagement programme to determine public acceptability of the use of mitochondrial replacement treatment, characterised in the media as ‘3 parent babies’. The programme included a breadth of engagement tools, including workshops, a public survey, open meetings and focus groups. It invited trusted scientific figures to take part in the debate.

The regulator found that despite certain ethical concerns there was general support for permitting mitochondria replacement in the UK, so long as it is safe enough to offer in a treatment setting and is done so within a regulatory framework. Following legislation, in 2017 the UK became the first country in the world to license mitochondrial donation techniques to allow women who carry the risk of serious mitochondrial disease to avoid passing it onto their children.

Our plan

We want innovators and the public to have confidence in the UK’s regulatory regime. We will build dialogue with society and industry on how technological innovation should be regulated.

We will ask the Regulatory Horizons Council to identify priorities for greater public engagement on regulation of innovation. For example, where technologies pose complex ethical or moral considerations greater public engagement may be appropriate to shape government thinking on appropriate regulatory frameworks. Government departments and regulators will continue to lead public engagement on their policies, working with expert bodies such as the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation.

As part of its role, the Better Regulation Executive will provide support, advice and share best practice with policymakers and regulators on public engagement techniques to support appropriate regulation of technological innovation, working with partners such as Sciencewise. The Better Regulation Executive will build capability in novel and creative public engagement techniques that go beyond public consultation in this important area.

Engaging the public on regulation of drones

Drone technology is advancing rapidly with the potential to perform critical services in everyday life – from transporting urgent medical supplies to bridge inspection and repair. UK cities and regions need to consider what they want the future of drone applications to look like. PwC estimates that by 2030 drone use could increase UK GDP by £42 billion.

With support from the government’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, the innovation foundation Nesta funded public use analysis of drones in 5 cities for activities from inspecting burning buildings to traffic incident response. It worked with the government and the Civil Aviation Authority and convened local stakeholders to assess demand and identified the technical, economic and regulatory success factors for safe drone deployment at scale in cities.

The programme has concluded that there is demand for drones, which can fulfil socially beneficial goals. However, there are regulatory challenges that need to be solved – from how to deploy drones over long distances to what is publicly acceptable in terms of noise, privacy, safety and other issues. These issues are being considered as part of the Department for Transport’s Aviation Strategy 2050 green paper, looking at how a flexible regulatory framework can be established to support transport innovation under the Future of Mobility Grand Challenge and beyond.

.

Illustration of a city of the future. (Credit: Innovate UK).
Credit: Innovate UK

Setting global standards on smart cities

Many cities face challenges in ensuring sustainable growth, with issues ranging from provision of water and energy to management of healthcare and transport. A range of innovation is emerging to create the smart cities of the future.

The British Standards Institution has developed a ground-breaking series of standards on smart cities, in collaboration with the Future Cities Catapult. International recognition of the smart cities standards programme contributes to the UK’s reputation in advanced urban services and helps shape the global market in line with established UK good practice.

Downloaded in over 60 countries, UK smart city standards are being adopted as international standards. In China, the world’s largest smart cities market, the British Standards Institution has set up a cooperation agreement on smart cities with the Standards Administration of China to develop a common approach to smart cities between UK and Chinese cities and companies.

Conclusion

This white paper is our long-term strategy for maintaining our world-leading regulatory environment as we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The Ministerial Working Group on Future Regulation will drive its delivery, supported by the Better Regulation Executive.

The white paper is a plan for the whole of government, shaping how we will regulate in areas from healthcare to transport. We want to give businesses confidence to innovate and invest in the UK and give citizens confidence in our protections.

In addressing these issues we respect the devolution settlements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will work with our partners in the devolved administrations and local authorities to share our innovation-enabling approach and ensure that every part of the UK benefits from the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Summary of commitments

Facing the future

  • We will establish a Regulatory Horizons Council to identify the implications of technological innovation and advise the government on regulatory reform needed to support its rapid and safe introduction.
  • The Council will prepare a regular report on innovation across the economy, with recommendations on priorities for regulatory reform to put the UK at the forefront of the industries of the future.
  • The Ministerial Working Group on Future Regulation, chaired by the Business Secretary, will oversee the government response to the Council’s recommendations.

Focusing on outcomes

  • We will pilot an innovation test so that the impact of legislation on innovation is considered during the development of policy, introduction and implementation of legislation and its evaluation and review.
  • During the pilot, we will invite the Regulatory Policy Committee to scrutinise the application of the innovation test, to ensure that innovators have confidence in how government is developing new legislation.
  • We will promote new ways to trigger when post-implementation reviews of legislation are undertaken to ensure that legislation does not inadvertently ‘lock in’ outdated technologies or approaches.
  • We will develop tools for regulators to support them to review their guidance, codes of practice and other regulatory mechanisms to ensure that they provide flexibility for those businesses that want to innovate, while ensuring a clear route to compliance.
  • We will support business, policymakers and regulators to make effective use of standards where appropriate as a complement to legislation.
  • We will invite the Office for Product Safety and Standards, British Standards Institution, National Physical Laboratory and UK Accreditation Service to set out their vision for how the development and review of standards should evolve as we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Supporting experimentation

  • We will examine the case for expanding the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund in future to help regulators to keep pace with technological innovation and enable the emergence of new products, services and business models.
  • We will examine the case for extending the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund to local authorities in future, in order to help them support greater testing and trialling of innovations in their area.
  • We have established a Regulators’ Innovation Network to help foster a culture of experimentation across regulators and share best practice.
  • We will ask regulators to go further to evaluate the impact of their initiatives on innovation and consider whether to commence statutory reporting requirements for regulators on the impact of the economic growth duty.
  • We will survey innovators and regulators to identify data that could be shared to enable disruptors to enter markets and deliver better outcomes for all.

Improving access

  • We will consult on a digital Regulation Navigator for businesses to help them find their way through the regulatory landscape and engage with the right regulators at the right time on their proposals.
  • We have financed greater investment in specialist regulatory advice services for innovators through the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund.
  • We will scope and consult on measures to enhance co-ordination between regulators to ensure that innovations are guided smoothly through the system.
  • We will consider whether the Regulation Navigator should include functions for businesses to raise where rules or processes are inappropriately constraining innovation, so that regulators can review, clarify and potentially amend their approach.
  • We will invite regulators to develop metrics on the service that they provide to innovators.
  • We will ensure that data from specialist advice services is fed into the Regulatory Horizons Council, so that it can advise on where regulatory change or additional investment may be needed to enable innovation to thrive.

Building dialogue

  • We will ask the Regulatory Horizons Council to identify priorities for greater public engagement on regulation of innovation.
  • We will provide support, advice and share best practice with policymakers and regulators on public engagement techniques to support appropriate regulation of technological innovation.
  • We will encourage regulators to build public dialogue into experimentation initiatives (such as those financed through the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund), so that public views are considered as new products, services and business models are trialled.

Leading the world

  • We have established a partnership with the World Economic Forum Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco to develop regulatory approaches for new technologies.
  • We are working with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to explore the regulatory challenges of the emerging digital economy.
  • We will improve awareness of the effects of regulation on trade among government departments and regulators so that the impacts of regulatory divergence are systematically considered.
  • We will seek to include ambitious chapters on good regulatory practices and regulatory co-operation in future free trade agreements that the UK negotiates following our exit from the European Union.
  • We will continue working alongside other nations in the international and regional standards organisations, to help secure globally accepted standards for innovators to collaborate effectively in international markets.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

One of the most maleficent characters in Trump’s menagerie is this psychopath he named as leader of Operation Warp Speed, Moncef Slaoui, former GSK and Moderna boss having a bigger body count than the Spanish Flu. Actually Kushner picked him in Trumps name, but anyway, after we wrote extensive viral exposes on his past, a team of “specialists” brushed up his online presence and then he laid low for a while. But his silence is over and his newest interviews confirm everything we’ve wrote about him and Covid-19.

For the best understanding of this article, you have to read it as a follow up to four previous pieces that are anyway essential readings:

TRUMP’S NEW MOROCCAN “VACCINE CZAR”: WORKED FOR BILL GATES, GOOGLE, GSK. WORKED IN CHINA. TRANSHUMANIST. LOCKDOWN FANATIC

CORRUPTION UNLTD: GSK AND “TRUMP’S VACCINE CZAR”. SEX TAPES, DEAD BABIES, BRIBES AND PROSTITUTES

EXCLUSIVE: GATES, FAUCI AND SLAOUI HAVE LONG BEEN COOKING AND SELLING SCANDALOUS VACCINES TOGETHER. IT’S A CARTEL

IT’S NOT 5G AND COVID-19, IT’S DATA AND VACCINATIONS. US AND CHINA HAVE LONG USED WHO AS PLATFORM TO COLLABORATE ON THIS

“If you take the first Operation Warp Speed vaccine  you will get an unexpected surprise: micromanaged tracking by Big Tech for up to two years, who will know more about you than you know about yourself. There is no guarantee that tracking will stop after two years.” writes Technocracy News

” It should become apparent that the military/industrial complex that is running Warp Speed is functionally merged with Big Tech like Google and Oracle. And then, there is the federal government itself that is driving the entire vaccination program”, adds TN and they’re not wrong.

Moncef Slaoui, the official head of Operation Warp Speed, told the Wall Street Journal last week that all Warp Speed vaccine recipients in the US will be monitored by “incredibly precise . . . tracking systems” for up to two years and that tech giants Google and Oracle would be involved.

Another high from Slaoui’s career that looks more like a bloodbath.

Last week, a rare media interview given by the Trump administration’s “Vaccine Czar” offered a brief glimpse into the inner workings of the extremely secretive Operation Warp Speed (OWS), the Trump administration’s “public-private partnership” for delivering a Covid-19 vaccine to 300 million Americans by next January. What was revealed should deeply unsettle all Americans.

During an interview with the Wall Street Journal published last Friday, the “captain” of Operation Warp Speed, career Big Pharma executive Moncef Slaoui, confirmed that the millions of Americans who are set to receive the project’s Covid-19 vaccine will be monitored via “incredibly precise . . . tracking systems” that will “ensure that patients each get two doses of the same vaccine and to monitor them for adverse health effects.” Slaoui also noted that tech giants Google and Oracle have been contracted as part of this “tracking system” but did not specify their exact roles beyond helping to “collect and track vaccine data.”

The day before the Wall Street Journal interview was published, the New York Times published a separate interview with Slaoui where he referred to this “tracking system” as a “very active pharmacovigilance surveillance system.” During a previous interview with the journal Science in early September, Slaoui had referred to this system only as “a very active pharmacovigilance system” that would “make sure that when the vaccines are introduced that we’ll absolutely continue to assess their safety.” Slaoui has only recently tacked on the words “tracking” and “surveillance” to his description of this system during his relatively rare media interviews.

While Slaoui himself was short on specifics regarding this “pharmacovigilance surveillance system,” the few official documents from Operation Warp Speed that have been publicly released offer some details about what this system may look like and how long it is expected to “track” the vital signs and whereabouts of Americans who receive a Warp Speed vaccine.

This is basically what we meant by “It’s about data and vaccines” in our headline above. And 5G will follow Covid around because all this data needs carried by a medium and many antennas. Which, while doing their work, can also produce Covid-like symptoms, as a bonus benefit for the Covidiocracy orchestrators.

Stuff that no one mentions in Slaoui’s romanced biographies

The Last American Vagabond takes it from here into finer details in one of his latest posts, demonstrating we’re guinea pigs and this is how they will study us:

The Pharmacovigilantes

Two official OWS documents released in mid-September state that vaccine recipients—expected to include a majority of the US population—would be monitored for twenty-four months after the first dose of a Covid-19 vaccine is administered and that this would be done by a “pharmacovigilance system.”

In the OWS document entitled “From the Factory to the Frontlines,” the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) stated that, because Warp Speed vaccine candidates use new unlicensed vaccine production methods that “have limited previous data on safety in humans . . . the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance and Phase 4 (post-licensure) clinical trials.”

It continues:

The key objective of pharmacovigilance is to determine each vaccine’s performance in real-life scenarios, to study efficacy, and to discover any infrequent and rare side effects not identified in clinical trials. OWS will also use pharmacovigilance analytics, which serves as one of the instruments for the continuous monitoring of pharmacovigilance data. Robust analytical tools will be used to leverage large amounts of data and the benefits of using such data across the value chain, including regulatory obligations.

In addition, Moncef Slaoui and OWS’s vaccine coordinator, Matt Hepburn, formerly a program manager at the Pentagon’s controversial Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), had previously published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine that stated that “because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.”

The use of pharmacovigilance on those who receive the vaccine is also mentioned in the official Warp Speed “infographic,” which states that monitoring will be done in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) and will involve “24 month post-trial monitoring for adverse effects.”

In a separate part of that same document, OWS describes one of its “four key tenets” as “traceability,” which has three goals: to “confirm which of the approved vaccines were administered regardless of location (private/public)”; to send a “reminder to return for second dose”; and to “administer the correct second dose.”

Regarding a Covid-19 vaccine requiring more than one dose, a CDC document associated with Operation Warp Speed states:

For most Covid-19 vaccine products, two doses of vaccine, separated by 21 or 28 days, will be needed. Because different Covid-19 vaccine products will not be interchangeable, a vaccine recipient’s second dose must be from the same manufacturer as their first dose. Second-dose reminders for vaccine recipients will be critical to ensure compliance with vaccine dosing intervals and achieve optimal vaccine effectiveness.

The CDC document also references a document published in August by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, associated with the Event 201 and Dark Winter simulations, as informing its Covid-19 vaccination strategy. The Johns Hopkins paper, which counts Dark Winter co-organizer Thomas Inglesby as one of its authors, argues that existing “passive reporting” systems managed by the CDC and FDA should be retooled to create “an active safety surveillance system directed by the CDC that monitors all [Covid-19] vaccine recipients—perhaps by short message service or other electronic mechanisms.”

Despite the claims in these documents that the “pharmacovigilance surveillance system” would intimately involve the FDA, top FDA officials stated in September that they were barred from attending OWS meetings and told reporters they could not explain the operation’s organization or when or with what frequency its leadership meets. The FDA officials did state, however, that they “are still allowed to interact with companies developing products for OWS,” STAT news reported.

In addition, the FDA has apparently “set up a firewall between the vast majority of staff and the initiative [Operation Warp Speed]” that appears to drastically limit the number of FDA officials with any knowledge of or involvement in Warp Speed. The FDA’s director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Janet Woodcock, is the only FDA official listed as having any direct involvement in OWS and appears to be personally managing this “firewall” at the FDA. Woodcock describes herself as a long-time advocate for the use of “big data” in the evaluation of drug and vaccine safety and has been intimately involved in FDA precursors to the coming Warp Speed “pharmacovigilance surveillance system” known as Sentinel and PRISM, both of which are discussed later in this report.

Woodcock is currently on a temporary leave of absence from her role as the director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which allows her to focus her complete attention on overseeing aspects of Operation Warp Speed on behalf of the FDA’s Office of the Commissioner. Her temporary replacement at the FDA, Patrizia Cavazzoni, is “very aligned with Janet and where the agency is going,” according to media reports. Cavazzoni is a former executive at Pfizer, one of the companies producing a vaccine for OWS. That vaccine is set to begin testing in children as young as 12 years old.

The extreme secrecy of Operation Warp Speed has affected not only the FDA but also the CDC, as a CDC expert panel normally involved in developing the government’s vaccine distribution strategies was “stonewalled” by Matt Hepburn, OWS’s vaccine coordinator, who bluntly refused to answer several of the panel’s “pointed questions” about the highly secretive operation.

More Secret Contracts

While Moncef Slaoui and Warp Speed documents provide few details regarding what this “tracking system” would entail, Slaoui did note in his recent interview with the Wall Street Journal that tech giants Google and Oracle had been contracted to “collect and track vaccine data” as part of this system. Neither Google nor Oracle, however, has announced receipt of a contract related to Operation Warp Speed, and the DOD and HHS, similarly, have yet to announce the awarding of any Warp Speed contract to either Google or Oracle. In addition, searches on the US government’s Federal Register and on the official website for federally awarded contracts came up empty for any contract awarded to Google or Oracle that would apply to any such “pharmacovigilance” system or any other aspect of Operation Warp Speed.

Given my previous reporting on the use of a nongovernment intermediary for awarding OWS contracts to vaccine companies, it seems likely that Warp Speed contracts awarded to Google and Oracle were made using a similar mechanism. In an October 6, 2020, report for The Last American Vagabond, I noted that $6 billion in Warp Speed contracts awarded to vaccine companies were made through Advanced Technology International (ATI), a government contractor that works mainly with the military and surveillance technology companies and whose parent company has strong ties to the CIA and the 2001 Dark Winter simulation. HHS, which is supposedly overseeing Operation Warp Speed, claimed to have “no record” of at least one of those contracts. Only one Warp Speed vaccine contract, which did not involve ATI and was awarded directly by HHS’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, was recently obtained by KEI Online. Major parts of the contract, however, including the section on intellectual property rights, were redacted in their entirety.

If the Warp Speed contracts that have been awarded to Google and Oracle are anything like the Warp Speed contracts awarded to most of its participating vaccine companies, then those contracts grant those companies diminished federal oversight and exemptions from federal laws and regulations designed to protect taxpayer interests in the pursuit of the work stipulated in the contract. It also makes them essentially immune to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Yet, in contrast to the unacknowledged Google and Oracle contracts, vaccine companies have publicly disclosed that they received OWS contracts, just not the terms or details of those contracts. This suggests that the Google and Oracle contracts are even more secretive.

A major conflict of interest worth noting is Google’s ownership of YouTube, which recently banned on its massive multimedia platform all “misinformation” related to concerns about a future Covid-19 vaccine. With Google now formally part of Operation Warp Speed, it seems likely that any concerns about OWS’s extreme secrecy and the conflicts of interest of many of its members (particularly Moncef Slaoui and Matt Hepburn) as well as any concerns about Warp Speed vaccine safety, allocation and/or distribution may be labeled “Covid-19 vaccine misinformation” and removed from YouTube.

From the NSA to the FDA: The New PRISM

Though the nature of this coming surveillance system for Covid-19 vaccine recipients has yet to be fully detailed by Warp Speed or the tech companies the operation has contracted, OWS documents and existing infrastructure at the FDA offer a clue as to what this system could entail.

For instance, the Warp Speed document “From the Factory to the Frontlines” notes that the pharmacovigilance system will be a new system created exclusively for OWS that will be “buil[t] off of existing IT [information technology] infrastructure” and will fill any “gaps with new IT solutions.” It then notes that “the Covid-19 vaccination program requires significant enhancement of the IT that will support enhancements and data exchange that are critical for a multi-dose candidate to ensure proper administration of a potential second dose.” The document also states that all data related to the OWS vaccine distribution effort “will be reported into a common IT infrastructure that will support analysis and reporting,” adding that this “IT infrastructure will support partners with a broad range of tools for record-keeping, data on who is being vaccinated, and reminders for second doses.”

Though some Warp Speed documents hint as to the existing IT systems that will serve as the foundation for this new tracking system, arguably the most likely candidate is the FDA-managed Sentinel Initiative, which was established in 2009 during the H1N1 Swine flu pandemic. Like Operation Warp Speed itself, Sentinel is a public-private partnership and involves the FDA, private business, and academia.

According to its website, Sentinel’s “main goal is to improve how FDA evaluates the safety and performance of medical products” through big data, with an additional focus on “learning more about potential side effects.” Media reports describe Sentinel as “an electronic surveillance system that aggregates data from electronic medical records, claims and registries that voluntarily participate and allows the agency to track the safety of marketed drugs, biologics and medical devices.”

One of Sentinel’s main proponent at the FDA is Janet Woodcock, who has aggressively worked to expand the program as director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, with a focus on Sentinel’s use in “post-market effectiveness studies.” As previously mentioned, Woodcock is the only FDA official listed among the ninety or so “leaders” of OWS, most of whom are part of the US military and lack any health-care or vaccine-production experience.

Woodcock’s temporary replacement at the FDA, Patrizia Cavazzoni, is also very active in efforts to expand Sentinel. STAT news reported earlier this year that Cavazzoni previously “served on the sterling committee of I-MEDS, an FDA-industry partnership which allows drug makers to pay for use of the FDA’s real-world data system known as Sentinel to complete certain safety studies more quickly.”

Sentinel has a series of “collaborating partners” that “provide healthcare data and scientific, technical, and organizational expertise” to the initiative. These collaborating partners include intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, tech giant IBM, and major US health insurance companies such as Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield, among many others. In addition, Sentinel’s Innovation Center, which it describes as the program’s “test bed to identify, develop, and evaluate innovative methods,” is partnered with Amazon, General Dynamics, and Microsoft. Sentinel also has a Community Building and Outreach Center, which is managed by Deloitte consulting, one of the largest consultancy firms in the world that is known for seeking to fill its ranks with former CIA officials.

The Sentinel system’s specific surveillance program aimed at monitoring vaccine effectiveness is known as the Post-licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring Program, better known as PRISM. Sentinel’s PRISM was “developed to monitor vaccine safety, but [to date] has never been used to assess vaccine effectiveness.” PRISM was initially launched alongside the Sentinel Initiative itself in 2009 “in response to the need to monitor the safety of the H1N1 influenza vaccine” after it was licensed, marketed, and administered. Yet, as previously mentioned, PRISM has yet to be used to assess the effectiveness of any vaccine while quietly expanding for nearly a decade, which implies that the stakeholders in the Sentinel Initiative have a plan to implement this “safety surveillance system” at some point.

The name PRISM may remind readers of the National Security Agency (NSA) program of the same name that became well known throughout the United States following the Edward Snowden revelations. Given this association, it is worth noting that the NSA, as well as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are now officially part of Operation Warp Speed and appear to be playing a role in the development of Warp Speed’s “pharmacovigilance surveillance system.” The addition of the NSA and the DHS to the initiative, of course, greatly increases the involvement of US intelligence agencies in the operation, which itself is “dominated” by the military and sorely lacking in civilian public health officials.

CyberScoop first reported in early September that members of the NSA’s Cybersecurity Directorate were involved in Operation Warp Speed, with their role—as well as that of DHS—being framed mainly as offering “cybersecurity advice” to the initiative. However, the NSA and DHS are also offering “guidance” and “services” to both the other federal agencies involved in Warp Speed as well as OWS contractors, which now include Google and Oracle.

Google is well known for its cozy relationship with the NSA, including its PRISM program, and they have also backed NSA-supported legislation that would make it easier to surveil Americans without a warrant. Similarly, Oracle is a longtime NSA contractor and also has ties to the CIA dating back to its earliest days as a company, not unlike Google. Notably, Oracle and Google remain locked in a major legal battle over copyright issues that is set to be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming weeks and is expected to have major ramifications for the tech industry.


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Many times, to find out who caused a problem you need to look who’s selling the solution.

Remember “Event 201“? It was them, the World Economic Forum (WEF), alongside the World Bank, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, mainly.
Remember “The Great Reset“? Pretty much same combo.
And now they have “The World Economic Forum COVID Action Platform”, their Covidiocracy propaganda website, where they “care”.

Davos plays host to the World Economic Forum (WEF), an annual meeting of global political and business elites (often referred to simply as “Davos”), and has one of Switzerland’s biggest ski resorts.

Officially, the WEF is a Swiss non-profit foundation, set up in 1971 to “improve the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas”.
Right.

Best WEF portrait I’ve read comes from UK analyst Steven Guiness, here’s a consistent chunk advancing my point:

“Event 201 consisted of fifteen ‘players‘ that represented, amongst others, airlines and medical corporations. Out of these fifteen, six are direct partners of the World Economic Forum. One is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with the other five being Marriott International (hospitality), Henry Schein (medical distribution), Edelman (communications), NBCUniversal Media and Johnson & Johnson.

To be clear, these organisations do not all operate at the same level within the WEF. For instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Johnson and Johnson are ‘Strategic Partners‘, the highest stage for a participant. Only 100 global companies are Strategic Partners, and to qualify for an invitation they must all have ‘alignment with forum values‘. Not only that, but Strategic Partners ‘shape the future through extensive contribution to developing and implementing Forum projects and championing public-private dialogue.’

Next come the ‘Partners‘ which comprise of Marriott International, Henry Schein and Edelman. Partners are described by the WEF as ‘world class companies‘ who possess a ‘strong interest in developing systemic solutions to key challenges‘.

Beneath the Strategic Partners are the ‘Strategic Partner Associates‘, which is the category that NBCUniversal Media fall under. Strategic Partner Associates include some of the largest businesses in the world, who are ‘actively involved in shaping the future of industries, regions and systemic issues‘. According to the WEF, associates also believe in ‘corporate global citizenship‘.

Finally, there are the ‘Associate Partners‘. Whilst they participate in ‘forum communities‘ and have a ‘strong interest in addressing challenges affecting operations and society at large‘, none were present at Event 201.

Every major industry in the world, be it banking, agriculture, healthcare, media, retail, travel and tourism, is directly connected to the World Economic Forum through corporate membership.

What is evident is that the deeper a corporation’s ties with the WEF, the greater its ability to ‘shape‘ the group’s agenda. Which brings us to what the WEF call their Strategic Intelligence platform – the mechanism which brings all the interests that the WEF concentrate on together.

They describe the platform as ‘a dynamic system of contextual intelligence that enables users to trace relationships and interdependencies between issues, supporting more informed decision-making‘.

As for why the WEF developed Strategic Intelligence, they say it was to ‘help you (businesses) understand the global forces at play and make more informed decisions‘.

Growing the platform is an ever present goal. The WEF are always looking for new members to become part of Strategic Intelligence by joining the ‘New Champions Community‘. But they will only allow a new organisation on board if they ‘align with the values and aspirations of the World Economic Forum in general‘. A 12 month ‘New Champions Membership‘ comes in at €24,000.

In arguing for the relevance of Strategic Intelligence, the WEF ask:

How can you decipher the potential impact of rapidly unfolding changes when you’re flooded with information—some of it misleading or unreliable? How do you continuously adapt your vision and strategy within a fast-evolving global context?

In other words, Strategic Intelligence is both an antidote to ‘fake news‘ and an assembly for corporations to position themselves as global pioneers in a rapidly changing political and technological environment. That’s the image they attempt to convey at least.

We can find more involvement from global institutions via Strategic Intelligence. The platform is ‘co-curated with leading topic experts from academia, think tanks, and international organizations‘.

Co-curators‘ are perhaps the most important aspect to consider here, given that they have the ability to ‘share their expertise with the Forum’s extensive network of members, partners and constituents, as well as a growing public audience‘.

It is safe to assume then that when co-curators speak, members and partners of the World Economic Forum listen. This in part is how the WEF’s agenda takes shape.

Who are the co-curators? At present, they include Harvard university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Imperial College London, Oxford University, Yale and the European Council on Foreign Relations.

It was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that in March published an article titled, ‘We’re not going back to normal‘, just as Covid-19 lockdowns were being implemented world wide. Citing a report by fellow co-curator Imperial College London that endorsed the imposition of tougher social distancing measures if hospital admissions begin to spike, MIT proclaimed that ‘social distancing is here to stay for much more than a few weeks. It will upend our way of life, in some ways forever.’

As well as co-curators there are what’s known as ‘Content Partners‘, who the WEF say are ‘amplified by machine analysis of more than 1,000 articles per day from carefully selected global think tanks, research institutes and publishers‘.

Content partners include Harvard university, Cambridge university, the Rand Corporation, Chatham House (aka the Royal Institute of International Affairs), the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institute.

Getting into specifics, the way Strategic Intelligence is structured means that the higher your position in the corporate fold, the more ‘platforms‘ you can be part of. Whereas Strategic Partners must be part of a minimum of five platforms, Associate Partners only have access to a single platform of their choice.

Here is a list of some of the platforms hosted by the World Economic Forum:

  • COVID Action Platform
  • Shaping the Future of Technology Governance: Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies
  • Shaping the Future of the New Economy and Society
  • Shaping the Future of Consumption
  • Shaping the Future of Digital Economy and New Value Creation
  • Shaping the Future of Financial and Monetary Systems
  • Shaping the Future of Technology Governance: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
  • Shaping the Future of Trade and Global Economic Interdependence
  • Shaping the Future of Cities, Infrastructure and Urban Services
  • Shaping the Future of Energy and Materials
  • Shaping the Future of Media, Entertainment and Culture

As we will look at in a follow up article, ‘The Great Reset‘ is made up of over 50 areas of interest that are formed of both ‘Global Issues‘ and ‘Industries‘, which in turn are all part of the WEF’s Strategic Intelligence platform.

Corporate membership is essential for the World Economic Forum to spread its influence, but in the end every single member is in compliance with the agenda, objectives, projects and values of the WEF. These take precedent over all else.

Also in concurrence with the WEF are the organisation’s Board of Trustees. Three of these include the current Managing Director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde and former Bank of England governor Mark Carney. The Trilateral Commission are also represented amongst the trustees through Larry Fink and David Rubenstein.

To add some historical context to the WEF, the group dates back to 1971 when it was originally founded as the European Management Forum. At the time the conflict in Vietnam was raging, social protest movements were building and the United States was about to relinquish the gold standard. By 1973 when the post World War Two Bretton Woods system collapsed and the Trilateral Commission was formed, the Forum had widened its interest beyond just management to include economic and social issues. From here onwards political leaders from around the world began to receive invitations to the institution’s annual meeting in Davos.

The World Economic Forum is classified today as the ‘International Organisation for Public-Private Cooperation‘, and is the only global institution recognised as such. It is in this capacity that the forum ‘engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.’

Like how the Bank for International Settlements acts as a forum to bring central banks together under one umbrella, the WEF plays the same role by uniting business, government and civil society.

The WEF declare themselves as being a ‘catalyst for global initiatives‘, which is accurate considering ‘The Great Reset‘ agenda originates at the WEF level. And it is initiatives like ‘The Great Reset‘ and the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution‘ which the WEF say are distinguished by ‘the active participation of government, business and civil society figures‘.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) narrative was developed out of the World Economic Forum back in 2016. The WEF have confidently asserted that because of 4IR, ‘over the next decade, we will witness changes tearing through the global economy with an unprecedented speed, scale and force. They will transform entire systems of production, distribution and consumption‘.

Not only that, but the world is on the verge of witnessing ‘more technological change over the next decade than we have seen in the past 50 years.’

The group now plan to use ‘The Great Reset‘ as their theme for the 2021 annual meeting in Davos as a vehicle for advancing the 4IR agenda. 4IR is marketed as a technological revolution, where advancement in all the sciences ‘will leave no aspect of global society untouched.’ “
Read even more on WEF from Steven Guiness, whose blog should be in everyone’s bookmarks.

Now let’s hear from Forbes’ pre-review of 2020’s Davos meeting, held in January:

“As world leaders descend on Davos in their private jets and chartered helicopters every January for the World Economic Forum (WEF), the global charity Oxfam likes to remind them about the state of inequality.

Their research, which builds on Forbes‘ billionaires list among other sources, shows how the richest 2,000 people hold more wealth than poorest 4.6 billion combined.

The irony is not lost at the WEF, where the guest list gets richer every year. In 2018, 12 billionaires took to the stage at the annual event in Davos. This week there are 119 billionaires in attendance according to Bloomberg. Collectively they are worth around $500 billion.

But the disparities do not end there. Here are four other statistics which show how out of touch the World Economic Forum is becoming.

Davos Billionaires Worth Nearly Half Of All Women In Africa

Oxfam’s original finding was that the 22 richest men in the world have more wealth than all of the women in Africa.Recommended For You

That’s around $1.2 trillion. Or, to put it another way, just over double the collective worth of the 119 billionaires at Davos this year.

SWITZERLAND-DAVOS-ECONOMY-MEET
Chairman Axel A. Weber (R) listens to JP Morgan Chase chief executive officer Jamie Dimon at the … [+] 2013 AFP

Over Half Think Capitalism Does More Harm Than Good

It is against this stark backdrop that public relations firm Edelman surveyed over 34,000 people. Just over half (56%) thought that capitalism was doing more harm than good. “We are living in a trust paradox,” says Richard Edelman, the CEO of Edelman.

On WEF’s agenda this year is a “better kind of capitalism,” but still many remain to be convinced the summit does not actually erode trust.

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has banned British government ministers from attending the WEF this year, for fear of the image it brings. A government source told the Telegraph in December, “Our focus is on delivering for the people, not champagne with billionaires.”

In 2016, Johnson described the summit as “a struggle between people who want to take back control, and a small group of people who do very well out of the current system and who know Christine Lagarde.”

India Is The 7th Most Unequal Country

This is the WEF’s own research, which shows India ranks as the 7th lowest country in the world in terms of equal opportunity.

Whether or not the organisers saw the irony in hosting 19 Indian billionaires (the second largest contingent of billionaires after the U.S.) is unknown. But it might be hoped that amassing them all on a Swiss mountainside will sort out some of India’s inequality issues.

Another report published by the Forum this week said that global inequality is going to worsen as a result of rapid technological change unless governments and business leaders do something about it.

Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the WEF said at the opening of its 50th session last week he wanted the summit to be more of a “do-shop not a talk-shop.” – Forbes

I know I’m repeating myself, but I don’t do it nearly enough:
If you want the map of the near future, consult The Great Reset, Event 201 and everything Covid-related from WEF/World Bank/IMF, and less their lemmings like WHO and Bill Gates.

These are the people who delivered this astounding article from April 2020, showing how much pre-science they had over the damage they cause to this world. Most of his science was available (at least to their specialists) anytime before the insane Covid response from our governance (most of the data and analysis is not based on new reliable information, it was too early); and yet they went ahead with the collapse. The ongoning genocide is not a collateral effect, or an error, they prove awareness of the consequences, so decimating our lives was the plan all along.
Below you have WEF’s implicite “confession” integrally.

Lockdown is the world’s biggest psychological experiment – and we will pay the price 

09 Apr 2020

By Dr Elke Van Hoof, Professor, health psychology and primary care psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

  • With some 2.6 billion people around the world in some kind of lockdown, we are conducting arguably the largest psychological experiment ever;
  • This will result in a secondary epidemic of burnouts and stress-related absenteeism in the latter half of 2020;
  • Taking action now can mitigate the toxic effects of COVID-19 lockdowns.

In the mid-1990s, France was one of the first countries in the world to adopt a revolutionary approach for the aftermath of terrorist attacks and disasters. In addition to a medical field hospital or triage post, the French crisis response includes setting up a psychological field unit, a Cellule d’Urgence Médico-Psychologique or CUMPS.

Have you read?

In that second triage post, victims and witnesses who were not physically harmed receive psychological help and are checked for signs of needing further post-traumatic treatment. In those situations, the World Health Organization recommends protocols like R-TEP (Recent Traumatic Episode Protocol) and G-TEP (Group Traumatic Episode Protocol).

Since France led the way more than 20 years ago, international playbooks for disaster response increasingly call for this two-tent approach: one for the wounded and one to treat the invisible, psychological wounds of trauma.

In treating the COVID-19 pandemic, the world is scrambling to build enough tents to treat those infected with a deadly, highly contagious virus. In New York, we see literal field hospitals in the middle of Central Park.

But we’re not setting up the second tent for psychological help and we will pay the price within three to six months after the end of this unprecedented lockdown, at a time when we will need all able bodies to help the world economy recover.

The mental toll of quarantine and lockdown

Currently, an estimated 2.6 billion people – one-third of the world’s population – is living under some kind of lockdown or quarantine. This is arguably the largest psychological experiment ever conducted.

Estimated size of lockdowns around the world
Estimated size of lockdowns around the worldImage: Statista

Unfortunately, we already have a good idea of its results. In late February 2020, right before European countries mandated various forms of lockdowns, The Lancet published a review of 24 studies documenting the psychological impact of quarantine (the “restriction of movement of people who have potentially been exposed to a contagious disease”). The findings offer a glimpse of what is brewing in hundreds of millions of households around the world.

In short, and perhaps unsurprisingly, people who are quarantined are very likely to develop a wide range of symptoms of psychological stress and disorder, including low mood, insomnia, stress, anxiety, anger, irritability, emotional exhaustion, depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms. Low mood and irritability specifically stand out as being very common, the study notes.

In China, these expected mental health effects are already being reported in the first research papers about the lockdown.

In cases where parents were quarantined with children, the mental health toll became even steeper. In one study, no less than 28% of quarantined parents warranted a diagnosis of “trauma-related mental health disorder”.

Among quarantined hospital staff, almost 10% reported “high depressive symptoms” up to three years after being quarantined. Another study reporting on the long-term effects of SARS quarantine among healthcare workers found a long-term risk for alcohol abuse, self-medication and long-lasting “avoidance” behaviour. This means that years after being quarantined, some hospital workers still avoid being in close contact with patients by simply not showing up for work.

Reasons for stress abound in lockdown: there is risk of infection, fear of becoming sick or of losing loved ones, as well as the prospect of financial hardship. All these, and many more, are present in this current pandemic.

The second epidemic and setting up the second tent online

Source

We can already see a sharp increase in absenteeism in countries in lockdown. People are afraid to catch COVID-19 on the work floor and avoid work. We will see a second wave of this in three to six months. Just when we need all able bodies to repair the economy, we can expect a sharp spike in absenteeism and burnout.

We know this from many examples, ranging from absenteeism in military units after deployment in risk areas, companies that were close to Ground Zero in 9/11 and medical professionals in regions with outbreaks of Ebola, SARS and MERS.

Right before the lockdown, we conducted a benchmark survey among a representative sample of the Belgian population. In that survey, we saw that 32% of the population could be classified as highly resilient (“green”). Only 15% of the population indicated toxic levels of stress (“red”).

How stress under lockdown is affecting Belgians
How stress under lockdown is affecting Belgians

In our most recent survey after two weeks of lockdown, the green portion has shrunk to 25% of the population. The “red” part of the population has increased by 10 percentage points to fully 25% of the population.

These are the people at high risk for long-term absenteeism from work due to illness and burnout. Even if they stay at work, research from Eurofound reports a loss of productivity of 35% for these workers.

In general, we know at-risk groups for long-term mental health issues will be the healthcare workers who are on the frontline, young people under 30 and children, the elderly and those in precarious situations, for example, owing to mental illness, disability and poverty.

All this should surprise no one; insights on the long-term damage of disasters have been accepted in the field of trauma psychology for decades.

The phases of disaster response
The phases of disaster responseImage: When disaster strikes, Beverly Raphael, 1986

But while the insights are not new, the sheer scale of these lockdowns is. This time, ground zero is not a quarantined village or town or region; a third of the global population is dealing with these intense stressors. We need to act now to mitigate the toxic effects of this lockdown.

What governments and NGOs can and should do today

There is broad consensus among academics about the psychological care following disasters and major incidents. Here are a few rules of thumb:

  • Make sure self-help interventions are in place that can address the needs of large affected populations;
  • Educate people about the expected psychological impact and reactions to trauma if they are interested in receiving it. Make sure people understand that a psychological reaction is normal;
  • Launch a specific website to address psychosocial issues;
  • Make sure that people with acute issues can find the help that they need

In Belgium, we recently launched Everyone OK, an online tool that tries to offer help to the affected population. Using existing protocols and interventions, we launched our digital self-help tool in as little as two weeks.

When it comes to offering psychological support to their populations, most countries are late to react, as they were to the novel coronavirus. Better late than never.


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

According to Bill Gates, part of his success is due to his parents – in fact, his late mother, Mary Gates, was said to be instrumental in a deal that helped propel Microsoft into the big leagues.

How to Become As Rich As Bill Gates – a strange offshoot of the Bill Gates Personal Wealth Clock by Philip Greenspun:

Lesson 1: Choose Your Grandparents Carefully

William Henry Gates III made his best decision on October 28, 1955, the night he was born. He chose J.W. Maxwell as his great-grandfather. Maxwell founded Seattle’s National City Bank in 1906. His son, James Willard Maxwell was also a banker and established a million-dollar trust fund for William (Bill) Henry Gates III.

In some of the later lessons, you will be encouraged to take entrepreneurial risks. You may find it comforting to remember that at any time you can fall back on a trust fund worth many millions of 1998 dollars.

Lesson 2: Choose Your Parents Carefully

William Henry Gates, Jr. and Mary Maxwell were among Seattle’s social and financial elite. Bill Gates, Jr. was a prominent corporate lawyer while Mary Maxwell was a board member of First Interstate Bank and Pacific Northwest Bell. She was also on the national board of United Way, along with John Opel, the chief executive officer of IBM who approved the inclusion of MS/DOS with the original IBM PC.

Remind your parents not to send you to public school. Bill Gates went to Lakeside, Seattle’s most exclusive prep school where tuition in 1967 was $5,000 (Harvard tuition that year was $1760). Typical classmates included the McCaw brothers, who sold the cellular phone licenses they obtained from the U.S. Government to AT&T for $11.5 billion in 1994. When the kids there wanted to use a computer, they got their moms to hold a rummage sale and raise $3,000 to buy time on a DEC PDP-10, the same machine used by computer science researchers at Stanford and MIT.

Read the rest of the course

Mary Gates was a respected businesswoman with many responsibilities, including her membership on the board of nonprofit organization United Way of King County. There, she met the late John Opel, then-chairman of IBM, who also was a member of the United Way board. In 1980, Microsoft was a small, five-year-old firm and Mary saw an opportunity to help her son’s fledgling company by speaking with Opel, according to The New York Times.

That’s because for the first time in IBM’s then 70-year history, the company was looking to outsource help for an endeavor the company called project “Chess.” IBM wanted to hire an outside software maker to develop an operating system for its personal computer.

Microsoft was already in the running for the project, but IBM was considering many software companies, including Digital Research, one of Microsoft’s competitors. With this knowledge, Mary used her connection and spoke with Opel about Microsoft, and afterward, Opel spoke to IBM executives about the company.

Luckily for Microsoft, IBM’s talks with Digital Research started to flounder, and when assessing options, Opel remembered Microsoft as the company “run by Bill Gates, Mary Gates’ son,” according to The Seattle Times.

A young Bill Gates
A young Bill GatesDoug Wilson | Getty Images

As a result, IBM “took a chance,” The New York Times reported, and hired Microsoft for the job. (In addition to Microsoft, IBM also contracted Digital Research and SofTech Microsystems to adapt operating systems for IBM’s personal computer.)

When Microsoft won the job, it didn’t actually have an operating system of its own. So in 1981, the company bought QDOS, an operating system created by hardware company Seattle Computer Products, and with it developed MS-DOS, the Microsoft Disk Operating System. Microsoft licensed its MS-DOS to IBM to use as the operating system for its personal computer. (In addition to Microsoft, IBM also contracted Digital Research and SofTech Microsystems to use their operating systems for IBM’s personal computer.)

Because the MS-DOS was non-exclusive to IBM, it became one of Microsoft’s most profitable products ever. The operating system was not only used in all IBM computers at the time, but also became the go-to operating system for almost every personal computer on the market.

In 1986, Microsoft went public at $21 a share, and following, Gates immediately became a multi-millionaire. As the company’s success continued, Gates became a billionaire just a year later.

Gates was CEO at Microsoft until 2000, stepped down as chairman in 2008 and left the company’s board in March to dedicate more time to his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Microsoft currently has a market cap of $1.6 trillion.

It is interesting to note that Bill Gates, and his Microsoft colleagues, were not the pioneers of the first operating system for personal computers. Nearly ten years before Bill Gates signed the epochal deal with IBM, Gary Kildall, a computer science professor had developed his own system…the Control Program for Microcomputers.

Kildall and Gates had known each other from their years…freely sharing ideas in the Home Brew Computer Club, a group that Kildall had founded. Why IBM connected with Bill Gates, and not Kildall, is not widely known. However, one can speculate that Mary Gates’ connection to IBM‘s John Opel played an important, if not critical, role.” 

“… it was Opel who met with Bill Gates, CEO of the then-small software firm Microsoft, to discuss the possibility of using Microsoft PC-DOS OS for IBM‘s about-to-be-released PC. Opel set up the meeting at the request of Gates’ mother, Mary Maxwell Gates. The two had both served on the National United Way‘s executive committee.

As CEO, Opel was also able to resolve an ongoing antitrust lawsuit with the U.S. Justice Department, which allowed the company to grow more rapidly.” 

Here’s what Paul Graham has to say in How to Make Wealth: Millions, Not Billions:

“Certainly Bill is smart and dedicated, but Microsoft also happens to have been the beneficiary of one of the most spectacular blunders in the history of business: the licensing deal for DOS. No doubt Bill did everything he could to steer IBM into making that blunder, and he has done an excellent job of exploiting it, but if there had been one person with a brain on IBM’s side, Microsoft’s future would have been very different. Microsoft at that stage had little leverage over IBM. They were effectively a component supplier. If IBM had required an exclusive license, as they should have, Microsoft would still have signed the deal. It would still have meant a lot of money for them, and IBM could easily have gotten an operating system elsewhere.

Instead IBM ended up using all its power in the market to give Microsoft control of the PC standard. From that point, all Microsoft had to do was execute. They never had to bet the company on a bold decision. All they had to do was play hardball with licensees and copy more innovative products reasonably promptly.

If IBM hadn’t made this mistake, Microsoft would still have been a successful company, but it could not have grown so big so fast. Bill Gates would be rich, but he’d be somewhere near the bottom of the Forbes 400 with the other guys his age.

There are a lot of ways to get rich, and this essay is about only one of them. This essay is about how to make money by creating wealth and getting paid for it. There are plenty of other ways to get money, including chance, speculation, marriage, inheritance, theft, extortion, fraud, monopoly, graft, lobbying, counterfeiting, and prospecting. Most of the greatest fortunes have probably involved several of these.”

One thing caught my attention in all the counts I’ve read about this story: everyone ASSUMED that IBM made an almost fatal mistake in it’s dealings with Gates.

“In one of the most extraordinary business arrangements in modern history, Microsoft leveraged its knowledge of the Intel microprocessor environment to outmaneuver IBM and establish its operating system as the dominant operating system for the PC. In a strategy Microsoft executive Steve Ballmer called, “Riding the Bear,” Microsoft worked with IBM to the point where it was strong enough to go on its own, ultimately becoming one of the richest companies in the world by having their software on nearly every PC in the world. This would first include developing programming software for the fledgling Intel-based microcomputer industry and then in association with IBM, standardizing an operating system for the non-Apple microcomputer industry.” – Anthony J. Pennings, PhD, in”MICROSOFT AND THE IBM PC CASE STUDY: THE DEAL OF THE CENTURY“.

“The IBM PC offered a choice of three operating systems – the other two being UCSD P and CP/M 86 – and the future development of the personal computer industry might have been very different had Gary Kildall, boss of Digital Research (DR), then a much bigger company than Microsoft, had initially agreed the terms on which IBM originally wanted to contract him for DR’s CP/M.The apocryphal story that he was enjoying a day off flying his plane, is now seen to be an over simplified, or even falsified account, of the events. Even so IBM’s unexpected decision to contract an almost unheard of startup, certainly determined the fates and fortunes of his and Bill Gate’s companies.” – I-programmer

Why would eveyone assume IBM made a huge mistake when all their history, as well as Microsoft’s, proves they built their dominance on connections, intelligent strategic decisions and other people’s intellectual efforts?

SILVIEW.media

Furthermore, if Microsoft and IBM are two pockets of the same suit, and if by moving money from one pocket to another you make more money, that’s a money printer right there. What better way to make money?

An Interesting Comparison

“It’s hard to communicate to people just how large the Standard Oil trust was”, said Ron Chernow, author of “Titan, The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.”. “Standard Oil was 20 times bigger than its nearest competitor.”

It was also one of the two largest companies in America. When it was broken up, among the 34 companies spun off were what we know today as Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Chevron, Arco, Conoco, BP America and Cheesebrough-Ponds.

“At least four of those companies still are dominant in the oil industry and still among the largest 100 companies in the world,” Chernow said. “Rockefeller really owned the whole industry lock, stock and barrel.

“I guess the situation would be equivalent (to the Rockefeller monopoly) if Microsoft was a personal computer manufacturer and not only controlled the operating system, but controlled all of the applications and the microprocessors and all of the collateral equipment and owned all of the retail outlets at the same time.”

Ron Cernow


What goes for Gates in the above quote, also goes for IBM, especially if they are “two pockets of the same suit”.

Coincindences are just causalities we haven’t found yet.
Another coincidence in the series is IBM and Microsoft’s long history of similar problems with the anti-trust regualtions around the world, it’s almost as if the same people with the same manners ran both and separating the mainframe business (IBM) from the software business (MS) was a matter of survival.

Antitrust Cases, U.S. v. IBM, are Tried and Eventually Withdrawn

“The 1969 Case” Alleged That IBM Illegally Acquired And Maintained Its Monopoly Of General Purpose Digital Computers Through Exclusionary And Predatory Conduct Going Beyond The 1956 Decree. 

                The 1969 action alleged that “IBM had undertaken exclusionary and predatory conduct with the aim and effect of eliminating competition so that IBM could maintain its monopoly position in general purpose digital computers. (See Plaintiff’s Statement of Triable Issues (dated September 23, 1974) at 8; U.S. 1969 tab 1.) Specifically, the Government contended that from 1961 to 1969 IBM engaged in anticompetitive practices “for the purpose or with the effect of restraining or attempting to restrain actual or potential competitors from entering” the relevant markets. (Id. at 8.)1 Such practices allegedly included anticompetitive price discrimination such as giving away software services for “the purpose or with the effect of .

On May 19, 1975 the Federal Government’s antitrust suit against IBM went to trial. The complaint for the case: U.S. v. IBM .

After thousands of hours of testimony (testimony of over 950 witnesses, 87 in court, the remainder by deposition), and the submission of tens of thousands of exhibits, on January 8, 1982 the anti-trust case U.S. v. IBM was withdrawn on the grounds that the case was “without merit.”

30,000,000 pages of documents were generated in the course of this anti-trust case, according to historyofinformation.com . Of course they wouldn’t risk another one any soon.

Read: The IBM Hall of Shame: A (Semi) Complete List of Bribes, Blunders and Fraud

For Bill Gates, antitrust fight was a personal crucible

“With the U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft, Gates faced company’s gravest threat” – Patrick Thibodeau, Senior Editor, Computerworld, JUN 26, 2008

“In 1998, Bill Gates was the new John D. Rockefeller. And from the U.S. government’s perspective at the start of its antitrust trial against Microsoft in 1998, Gates was every bit as powerful as the legendary oil baron was — if not more so. The desktop operating system was seen as important to the new, tech-focused economy as oil had been to the industrial economy of the early 20th century.

…It is difficult to believe that in 1998 the U.S. government and more than 20 states were focused on Microsoft’s desktop operating system dominance. The case threatened Microsoft with a breakup and would ultimately bring Gates, then serving as Microsoft’s chairman and CEO, to the witness stand in defense of the company he is now about to leave. It was a brutal case with enormous stakes. It was a crucible, and it was personal.

The antitrust fight turned on many legal issues concerning Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices. Part of Microsoft’s defense was based on the idea that its behavior was constrained by emerging technologies. The company argued that it faced “unknown knowns,” as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld might have put it. Microsoft 10 years ago knew that game-changing threats were certain to arrive — it just didn’t know their exact shape. Linux, Java and browsers were often cited as threats at the trial, but those were known threats; what Microsoft argued was that the unknown threats to come were just as real.

It was not an argument that Rockefeller’s Standard Oil could have raised. It was not an argument the judge bought at the time. But history may still have more to say on whether the argument had merit.

Unlike the strain Windows faces today, Microsoft’s OS was on top of the desktop world. That fact led to the antitrust fight that would roil Microsoft for years, a fight that was personified on the company’s side by its leader.

… Microsoft officials thought the government was seeking a corporate breakup. Gates’ feistiness also underscored a different worldview: that the company saw itself competing in a market that could change overnight. Gates’ now famous 1995 Internet Tidal Wave memo (download PDF) illustrated his view: “Browsing the Web, you find almost no Microsoft file formats. After 10 hours of browsing, I had not seen a single Word DOC, AVI file….”

One of the things Microsoft hoped to accomplish in this case was to convince the government that the tech industry was unlike any other. Just like IBM beore him. The company hired Richard Schmalensee, dean of the Sloan School of Management at MIT, to help make its case. A big part of his argument was that the real threats hadn’t yet arrived. It was fear of these unknown threats that served to constraint Microsoft’s apparent power.

Boies countered Schmalensee with MIT professor Franklin Fisher, who dismissed that warning about future threats. The notion that “a wolf might come out of the forest” to challenge Microsoft wasn’t serious analysis, he said. The issue, the government argued, was about the monopoly power the company had at the time.

Gates tried to explain the threat in his deposition with Boies (download PDF).

Boise: When people used the word with you “commoditize” as in the statement that Netscape was threatening or endeavoring to commoditize the operating system, what did you understand “commoditize” to mean?

Gates: That they were creating a product that would either reduce the value or eliminate demand for the Windows operating system if they continued to improve it and we didn’t keep improving our product.

The argument did not hold — at least as far as the judge was concerned. In 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson order that Microsoft be broken up, Standard Oil-style (read the decision). A year later, in 2001, the U.S.government — in the interest of moving the case along — dropped that remedy and announced a settlement under which Microsoft would agree to change some of its business practices.

Before that agreement was finalized in court, Gates, after refusing to appear years earlier, took the stand. In 2002, one of the points he raised concerned the future.

In 2008, Windows — though still dominant — is facing new platform threats, and a renewed browser war is brewing, thanks to Firefox. Meanwhile, Google looms as an ever-larger threat, as Microsoft has sought — so far unsuccessfully — to scoop up an Internet search company to better fit in with a new age. And Gates, his company intact, is moving on to other endeavors, looking less like Rockefeller the oil baron and more like Rockefeller the philanthropist.” – Patrick Thibodeau, Senior Editor, Computerworld, JUN 26, 2008

Now replace “Rockefeller” with “IBM” in Thibodeau’s story and think that creating or buying a false opposition is the game of the mega-rich, fighting competition is for the poor.

So on July 1st, 2005, Microsoft Corp. and IBM announced that they have entered into an agreement to resolve antitrust issues between the two companies:

“Today’s settlement resolves claims arising from the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case in the mid-1990s, where IBM was identified in U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s findings of fact as having been impacted in its business by certain Microsoft practices.  Under the agreement, Microsoft will pay IBM $775 million and extend $75 million in credit towards deployment of Microsoft software at IBM.

In addition to addressing all discriminatory pricing and overcharge claims based on the findings in the U.S. antitrust case, the settlement resolves all antitrust claims, including claims related to the IBM OS/2 operating system and SmartSuite products, with the exception of claims for harm to IBM’s server hardware and server software businesses.  IBM has further agreed, subject to certain limitations, that it will not assert claims for server monetary
damages for two years and will not seek to recover damages on such claims incurred prior to June 30, 2002.  Microsoft also releases antitrust claims.

In November 2003, Microsoft and IBM entered into tolling agreements extending the statute of limitations on antitrust claims based on the U.S. antitrust case while exploring resolutions that would avoid protracted litigation.  Microsoft’s and IBM’s tolling agreement was set to expire in July and the parties engaged in settlement discussions during the last two months.

“With these antitrust issues behind us, both Microsoft and IBM can move ahead, at times cooperatively and at times competitively, to bring the best products and services to customers,” said Brad Smith, general counsel and senior vice president, Microsoft.  “Over the last few years we have been focused on resolving our disputes with other companies, and today’s announcement takes another significant step towards achieving that goal.”

“IBM is pleased that we have amicably resolved these long standing issues,” said Ed Lineen, senior vice president and general counsel, IBM.


The story that made everyone scratch their heads makes all the sense if you look at IBM not just as founder, but forever owner of Microsoft, even if not in official papers.

Gates, IBM and the Nazis connection

This chapter is, for the most part, a compilation of excerpts from “Is Bill Gates a closet liberal?” by the liberals at Salon.com, and Dean Arnold’s book exposing Gates and his population control efforts in Ethiopia and Africa

Bill Gates’ cold-cash concern for family planning could even be construed as asking for trouble. The groups that the Gates Foundation is giving money to have close ideological and organizational ties with pro-choice bastions like Planned Parenthood

Salon.com

Is it really a wonder though, that IBM made the deal with a eugenicist-supporting family? Let us not forget, that IBM is the very same company that (literally) made the punch cards for the Nazi death camp possible.

Founded in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (C-T-R), the company now known as International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) can be traced back even farther, to the 1880s, when Dr. Alexander Dey invented the first dial recorder. Dey’s business later became part of the foundation of C-T-R, along with Harlow Bundy’s Bundy Manufacturing Company, which produced the world’s first employee time clock.More recently, IBM has become a global information technology company focused on software, cloud computing, and consulting services. 

Investopedia

Edwin Black, in his book, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation, quoted Leon Krzemieniecki, the only man still living, who worked in the Hollerith Department (named after Herman Hollerith, the inventor the infamous ‘electromechanical tabulating machine‘ used by the Nazis, and founder the company that later became IBM), which could be found at Auschwitz (and all Nazi camps). This is what Krzemieniecki said… “I knew they were not German machines,” recalled Krzemieniecki. “The labels were in English. The person maintaining and repairing the machines spread the diagrams out sometimes. The language of the diagrams of those machines was only in English. I asked Krzemieniecki if the machine logo plates were in German, Polish or English. He answered “English. It said Business Machines.” I asked, “Do you mean, International Business Machines?” Krzemieniecki replied, “No, Watson Business Machines.”

When Adolf Hitler came to power, many saw a menace to humanity. But IBM treated Nazi Germany as a lucrative trading partner. Quickly, its president, Thomas J. Watson, engineered a strategic business alliance between IBM and the Third Reich, beginning in the first days of the Hitler regime and continuing right through World War II.

This alliance instantly catapulted Nazi Germany into being IBM’s most important customer outside the United States. As part of that strategic alliance, IBM and the Nazis jointly designed, and IBM exclusively produced, technologic solutions that enabled Hitler to accelerate and automate key aspects of his persecution of the Jews from the initial identification and social expulsion, to the confiscation and ghettoization, to the deportation and ultimate extermination.

Nazi documents contained in the U.S. National Archives and Polish eyewitness testimony make clear that IBM’s alliance with the Third Reich went far beyond its German subsidiary. During the rape of Poland and the Polish Holocaust, which killed millions and plundered a nation, IBM technology was a key factor. The company’s custom-tailored technology was provided directly through a new special wartime Polish subsidiary reporting to IBM New York.

And that’s how the trains to Auschwitz ran on time.

Once the United States entered the war after Dec. 10, 1941, the Reich appointed Hermann Fellinger, a Nazi devoted to IBM, as enemy property custodian. He maintained the original staff and managers, keeping Watson Business Machines productive for the Reich and profitable for IBM New York. The Polish subsidiary now reported to IBM’s Geneva office and from there to New York. After the war, IBM recovered all its Polish machines and profits, which amounted to millions of dollars.

Contacted about IBM’s Polish subsidiary’s involvement in the Polish Holocaust, IBM spokesman Carol Makovich said only, “IBM does not have much information about this period.”

But 21st century silence cannot alter the historical documentation. A tangle of subsidiaries throughout Europe helped IBM reap the benefits of its partnership with Nazi Germany. ” Edwin Black, San Francisco Gate

Bill Gates Sr. administers the approximately $300 million William H. Gates III Foundation

Salon.com

As explained earlier, the public story of Bill Gates is as follows: a middle-class computer geek becomes an overnight billionaire, and one day he wakes up out of nowhere in his forties and decides to take on overpopulation.
But his handlers have kept you from the rest of the story. Bill committed another gaffe in 2006 when he gave an interview to Bill Moyers. He said the following:

“When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it’s fascinating. At the dinner table, my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that.”

No, Bill Gates didn’t just decide one day later in life to take on overpopulation. He was raised from childhood to believe overpopulation was the key problem for humanity. He was discipled by a disciple of Margaret Sanger.

 More excerpts from a Salon.com eulogy for The Gates:
<<Whatever you call it — “population control” or “family planning” — this isn’t just a billionaire fad for the Gates family.

Bill Gates: “Vaccine benefits range from health to population control” (CNN 2011)

“Bill Gates Sr. has been deeply involved in this issue for decades,” says Laurie S. Zabin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Zabin, who served with Gates Sr. on the national board of Planned Parenthood, was instrumental in getting the Gates Foundation grant for Johns Hopkins.

But that doesn’t mean Gates Sr. is the only one who cares about overpopulation, said Zabin: Gates Jr. “has supported issues of real social concern and certainly this is one of them.”

Gates Sr. agreed: “It’s an interest he has had since he was a kid. And he has friends who are interested in supporting research into world population problems, people whom he admires — it’s just a matter of a fit between his proclivities and mine.”

A “proclivity fit” is one way to put it. Or one could surmise that Bill Gates is growing up to be the man his parents raised him to be.>>

“His parents were involved in charitable activity, and I’ve heard him talk about it quite a bit,” said Microsoft spokesman Shaw. “I think that set a strong tradition and ethic of giving back and I should say that we are only seeing the beginning of that now.”

Bill Gates, Sr. This is the only photo that can be legally reused of Bill Gates, Sr, although many exist online, as well as many reusable photos of Bill, Jr.
Bill Gates, Sr. This is the only photo that can be legally reused of Bill Gates, Sr, although many exist online, as well as many reusable photos of Bill, Jr.

We never hear about this again from Bill Gates. He provides a seven-page interview on his late father in 2015 and did not mention Planned Parenthood, although several other boards his father sat on were named. What did Bill mean exactly by “My dad was head of Planned Parenthood”? Did he mean the local chapter?

We learn from Salon that Bill Gates, Sr., was a member of the national board of directors of Planned Parenthood. Let that sink in. Such a nonprofit empire is controlled by its board of directors. They have more power than Planned Parenthood’s president, a position they appoint. This fact means that there was no person on earth with more power over the control, population control efforts, abortion operations, or Planned Parenthood assets ($2.2 billion today) than Bill Gates’s father. He shared that power with a handful of others.

What did Bill Jr. mean by “head of Planned Parenthood”? Perhaps his father was chairman of the board for a time. I could find no records to document that fact. 

But Gates Sr. did acknowledge that he and Mary Gates exerted pressure on their son to do more with all his billions.”His mother and I always pushed a little,” said Gates Sr. Like Mary Gates, Gates Sr. has long been involved in philanthropy — ever since “I first gave a nickel to the Salvation Army man,” he joked.

Salon.com

Bill Gates, Sr., as much as any person in the world, had the power and position to advance the legacy of Margaret Sanger, the woman who openly called for using birth control and sterilization to eliminate “human waste” and “create a race of thoroughbreds.” In her Birth Control Review she promoted Nazi eugenics and white supremacy. As one contributor to Sanger’s Birth Control Review wrote: “It is the lower elements of the population, the negroid aboriginal tribes and the pariahs or outcasts, who are gaining the fastest.” 

Download to read (PDF): “Margaret Sanger – Our Founder,” 100 Years Strong,” from Planned Parenthood

UPDATE: The above link has been deleted from the Planned Parenthood website. Makes you wonder why…
Luckily, there’s still something called The Wayback Machine.
But I’m uploading their “stunning” PDF here too, just in case:

Sanger’s same magazine published a favorable review by her lover, Havelock Ellis, of the book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy by Lathrop Stoddard. Ellis notes that Stoddard chooses to “concern himself mainly with . . . the maintenance of White supremacy.” Ellis agrees that “by prejudice of color, we must mostly be on his side in this matter.” Ellis also shares his concern about African Americans: “the migrations of lower types, even within the white world, such as those which have worked havoc in the United States, must be rigorously curtailed.” Ellis also wrote the preface to Sanger’s 1920 book, Woman and the New Race.

“Reproductive health and family planning” is a buzz phrase that emerged out of the 1994 United Nations Cairo conference on population issues, said Dr. Gordon Perkin, president of PATH. In the past, the research topic used to be referred to as “population control” — though, said Dr. Perkin, “the words ‘population control’ are not used any more, except by people who don’t know the field.”

Salon.com

In a later Birth Control Review article, Sanger calls for giving “certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” She also published an article by close friend and advisor Ernst Rudin, who was then serving as Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization for the Nazis. It was entitled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need.”  Sanger famously said: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

How did Bill Gates’s father view Margaret Sanger? According to an official Planned Parenthood history: “Our founder, Margaret Sanger, was a woman of heroic accomplishments, and like all heroes, she was also complex and imperfect.”
And, of course, Microsoft continued the legacy by funding them.

Billionaires have always had a fond spot in their hearts for population control: Ted Turner is a big supporter, as is Warren Buffett, a Gates family friend.

Salon.com
A canvas I titled “American Prodigy Genius Creates Original American Product and Breaks the Market”
SHARE IT

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

 

Suffice to add that the images were sourced from mainstream media and we’ve all seen them making rounds of the Internet time and again.

BONUS


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Never believe what we say, always research what we say.
As for CDC, if you research what they say you end up finding out they have 85% failure rates.

This is the recent CDC report, in PDF format, sourced from the CDC website.
And below is my sufficient commentary in visual form. There’s nothing else to say, the official narrative is dead and buried, at this point we’re just burning calories if we keep flogging it.

PS: #stopstealingoxygen

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

BY Shanti Das for The Sunday Times

Companies collecting data for pubs and restaurants to help them fulfil their contact-tracing duties are harvesting confidential customer information to sell.

Legal experts have warned of a “privacy crisis” caused by a rise in companies exploiting QR barcodes to take names, addresses, telephone numbers and email details, before passing them on to marketers, credit companies and insurance brokers.

The “quick response” mobile codes have been widely adopted by the hospitality, leisure and beauty industries as an alternative to pen-and-paper visitor logs since the government ordered businesses to collect contact details to give to NHS Test and Trace if required.

Any data collected should be kept by the business for 21 days and must not be used “for any purposes other than for NHS Test and Trace”, according to government guidelines.

But some firms used by businesses to meet the new requirements have clauses in their terms and conditions stating they can use the information for reasons other than contact tracing, including sharing it with third parties. The privacy policy of one company used by a restaurant chain in London says it stores users’ data for 25 years.

Gaurav Malhotra, director of Level 5, a software development company that supplies the government, said data could end up in the hands of scammers. “If you’re suddenly getting loads of texts, your data has probably been sold on from track-and-trace systems,” he said.

One of the firms claiming to offer a privacy-compliant QR code service is Pub Track and Trace (PUBTT), an organisation based in Huddersfield charging pubs £20 a month to keep track of visitors, who are asked to provide their name, phone number and email address.

Despite its claim to be a “simple” service, its privacy policy, which users must accept, explains how personal data of people accessing its website can be used to “make suggestions and recommendations to you about goods or services that may be of interest to you” and shared with third parties including “service providers or regulatory bodies providing fraud prevention services or credit/background checks.”

It may also “collect, use, store and transfer” records of access to certain premises including “time, ID number and CCTV images”.

PUBTT, which works with pubs in England and Wales, said users agreed to its privacy policy before using the service and claimed it had not passed data to third parties. A spokesman, identified only as Adam H, said: “The data we collect is only for use of the Test and Trace service or where a user has agreed for the venue to use their information for marketing purposes.”

Ordamo, which provides track and trace services for restaurants, states that data from website visitors is “retained for 25 years”, a duration Hazel Grant, head of privacy at Fieldfisher, a law firm, said would be “very difficult to justify”. Ordamo did not respond to requests for comment.

The Information Commissioner’s Office is assessing 15 companies that “provide services to venues to collect customer logs”.


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them