• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Damaging Morale

MorningAngel

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 14, 2015
Messages
3,205
We are told in the war that certain things were kept quiet so as to not damage morale. Do you ever feel like today everything is done to keep people's morale at rock bottom? They want us depressed and oppressed. They want us scared of our own shadow and thinking everyone else is a rapist, murder or peodophile.
 
We are told in the war that certain things were kept quiet so as to not damage morale. Do you ever feel like today everything is done to keep people's morale at rock bottom? They want us depressed and oppressed. They want us scared of our own shadow and thinking everyone else is a rapist, murder or peodophile.
It certainly feels that way, doesn't it?
But why would 'they' do that? Do you have a theory?
 
Not really. I think I did read something once that said it was so we were easier to control. I suppose you are if you're in the 'what's the point' mind set it would.
 
:eek: Never, i like that film, No retreat no surrender was a kung fu boxing type film and was rubbish :p
 
Not really. I think I did read something once that said it was so we were easier to control. I suppose you are if you're in the 'what's the point' mind set it would.
A bit like in Orwell's 1984, where the country is always at war and every now and then, rations are cut.
 
It often makes me think of their daily hate.
There may be some truth in that.
We are being hugely manipulated by the media, especially state-owned media. Told what to think.
We should all be our own selves and not listen to the propaganda too much.
 
But if what you think is "propaganda" was something you agreed with, you wouldn't think it was propaganda, you'd think it was good sense. There's such a wide variety of opinion and fact to back those opinions up no matter what side it's on that I think most people pick and choose what to believe, but the more cynical that opinion is the more valid it seems to be to a lot of people. There's a real social phobia about perceived naivety. Going back to the first post, good news might not sell as many papers as bad.
 
They want us scared of our own shadow and thinking everyone else is a rapist, murder or peodophile.
Fear generally keeps people opposing change - conservatism with a small c. If we're all fearing change we'll not really try and do anything to change...fcuk 'em I say.

images.jpg
 
Hi MorningAngel,
this is my perspective on your question, informed partly by having been around newspapers and investigative journalism for a long time and having an interest in psychology (bearing in mind that I'm in the US so things might be a bit different) Hopefully it will make some sense as I'm not well today and not very focused. Apologies in advance if it rambles.

IMO, controlling people by damaging morale works in abusive relationships and smalller organizations to a degree, but becomes unweildy in larger groups. The larger the group, the more difficult it would be to predict how they would respond to such a tactic. Just like too much deprivation, it risks fomenting revolution among the less diffident. Inspiring rabid nationalism would probably be more effective in controlling a population.*

Regarding the news - I'm sure you've heard the old newspaper saying "if it bleeds, it leads" and it's been ever so. This rather trashy state of affairs is partly the fault of the media but the uncomfortable fact is that if a paper only printed good news many readers would lose interest. Paying attention to bad news rather than good appears to be a human survival mechanism - which has been heavily exploited by the media, of course.

Regarding corruption and conspiracy theories - when running down tips about such things for the paper, my OH and I have run into the same scenario again and again - there was no grand "conspiracy" or Machiavellian power play at the back of it but just some greedy prat who wanted more than their share. Occasionally there will be a back-scratching deal, but again, it always seems to come down to someone wanting money for a vacation or a new boat, or something like that. In other words, not a grand plan but petty selfishness instead. Again, it seems to be human nature to impart more meaning to such things than there really is, which sometimes can lead to these tangled and overarching theories.

(And that's when there is something to the story. Many "tips" are simply gossip, or paranoid fantasies which reveal themselves pretty quickly upon investigation. The important thing to take away from this is how gossip spreads and how quickly and eagerly people will rat each other out. Really hard to keep a conspiracy secret when so many people will talk.)

The greedy prat might try to bully you into keeping quiet or try to damage your credibility, and demoralization is always in the bully's playbook. Still, it only works on some.

If this is the microcosm, then the macrocosm might not be much different, IMO.

Demoralization doesn't seem to be a super secure method of controlling a population. Not when there are so many other options available.

*during the George W. Bush years in the US we did have periods of demoralization mixed with fear and rabid nationalism. It's hard to say how much the demoralization was intentional and how much was just a reaction to honestly crappy circumstances. Having noted all this at the time (due to being deeply suspicious of Bush, Cheney and the other neo-cons) I'd say that the demoralization worked against Bush and Cheney, whereas the nationalism worked overwhelmingly in their favor.
 
Thanks Ulalume. It just feels there's so much these day. The TV loves it when something horrible happens they have to wring it dry. I think it doesn't help that there are so many ways to hear about depressing stuff. Thinking back to it I know that Victorian rags loved awful stuff too, like mileage from Jack the Ripper and similar horrible events.

I think your right with the money grabbing people. Although it tends to be people who already have lots of money but want even more (for like a bigger yaught). I don't think it helps that a large percentage of our papers over here are owned by the same person.
 
Thanks Ulalume. It just feels there's so much these day. The TV loves it when something horrible happens they have to wring it dry. I think it doesn't help that there are so many ways to hear about depressing stuff. Thinking back to it I know that Victorian rags loved awful stuff too, like mileage from Jack the Ripper and similar horrible events.

I think your right with the money grabbing people. Although it tends to be people who already have lots of money but want even more (for like a bigger yaught). I don't think it helps that a large percentage of our papers over here are owned by the same person.

Sounds like a media vacation would be a good thing for you right now. Or media de-tox, as Andy X called it.

The local televison news used to run these teasers - probably still do - that went like "this innocent looking household product can kill you in 15 seconds! What is it? Find out at 5:00!" Or "what is the secret killer in your kitchen? Find out at..." Etc. At which point I said eff off tv news and have never watched it again. I've been better for it, honestly. If there is anything important enough that I need to know from the local tv news, I'll find out anyway.

I understand its a bit opposite in the UK, with the televison news being more trustworthy than the papers, so maybe you can limit yourself to one news source you can trust and give all the others the heave-ho?
 
Sounds like a media vacation would be a good thing for you right now. Or media de-tox, as Andy X called it.

The local televison news used to run these teasers - probably still do - that went like "this innocent looking household product can kill you in 15 seconds! What is it? Find out at 5:00!" Or "what is the secret killer in your kitchen? Find out at..." Etc. At which point I said eff off tv news and have never watched it again. I've been better for it, honestly. If there is anything important enough that I need to know from the local tv news, I'll find out anyway.

I understand its a bit opposite in the UK, with the televison news being more trustworthy than the papers, so maybe you can limit yourself to one news source you can trust and give all the others the heave-ho?

Yeah I typically do anyway. I check the BBC news app each morning. They at least are supposed to stay neutral.
 
Just a few isolated thoughts on wartime censorship.

The sinking of the battleship HMS Barham by the Italians was initially suppressed, on the grounds that this might well be one piece of bad news too many for the British public to take, at a a time when the news was pretty much universally ALL bad (Germans on the rampage in North Africa, Russia retreating in the face of Barbarossa, Japanese on the acendency in the east, et c). Of course, the Royal Navy rumour grapevine in Portsmouth went into overtime and everyone, unofficially, either knew or suspected something bad had happened. Thus we get the possibly fraudulent medium, who picked up on the rumours and capitalised on them when anxious Navy wives came to her looking for some sort of certainty that Officialdom was not willing to tell them. She did seances and confirmed the sinking of the Barham - based on well-founded rumours and not on any sort of psychic insight. Then she got nicked, was interrogated as to how she'd found out, and became the very last woman to do time under the Witchcraft Acts of several centruries previously... apparently the vengeance of officialdom, who wanted some means of shutting her up.

There is also the treatment meted out to the Anglican Bishops who broke the consensus over bombing Germany, and spoke up in the House of Lords about their unease that in seeking to defeat Germany, we were only committing war crimes ourselves. This wasn't what Churchill or Bomber Harris wanted to hear, and the prelates were put under lots of pressure to shut up and sit down and follow the party line.

Were there any British war crimes? I recall reading about a ship carrying Italian prisoners from Egypt to England that was torpedoed by a U-boat: in a Titanic situation where there were too few lifeboats, the panicking Italians were machine-gunned by the ship's crew to prevent them swamping the boats: justified on the grounds that "they were trying to escape". That sounds utterly horrible, and I understand some compensation was quietly paid after the war to the new Italian government.
 
Last edited:
Do you ever feel like today everything is done to keep people's morale at rock bottom?

When we went to see Rich D Hall a couple of years ago, he had a segment where he outlined the theory that "they" were trying to undermine society to cause a breakdown in order to get more control. There were several methods used, one of them was by destroying your memories of your childhood heroes. He cited the current child abuse scandal where just about everyone you knew from TV or radio turns out to be a paedophile. Ha, thought I, I will believe that when "they" come for Cliff Richard. Then, a few months later..o_O
 
When we went to see Rich D Hall a couple of years ago, he had a segment where he outlined the theory that "they" were trying to undermine society to cause a breakdown in order to get more control. There were several methods used, one of them was by destroying your memories of your childhood heroes. He cited the current child abuse scandal where just about everyone you knew from TV or radio turns out to be a paedophile. Ha, thought I, I will believe that when "they" come for Cliff Richard. Then, a few months later..o_O
:eek:
 
I skimmed it, but there was a story in the paper today about the SNP basically selling Scottish industry to the Chinese and trying unsuccessfully to cover it up. But the news today has been filled with the Panama scandal, so any steel stories have been swamped.
 
Well done for spotting that.
Full disclosure must be demanded by the people of Scotland!
 
Well, to be fair the SNP haven't been doing anything the Tories in Westminster haven't been doing. They don't call them the Tartan Tories for nothing. Basically we're all doomed - agh, now I'm at it!
 
My view on all this is that 'they' want to segment the population by dividing the population into small interest groups and drip feed these groups with single interest problems, or issues, that divert that specific grouping of people from 'lesser' interest issues which are of an interest to us all.

We have gender interest groups that have been segregated into more and more smaller groups from the more homogenous grouping of straight, Gay and Lesbian people, into the LGBTQA goupings, along with Cisgender people.

We have the strident shoutings of those that want to divide the general populace into political persuasions, rather than 'us Lot'.

We have Pre-war, Boomers, X, Y, and Millenials that divide us, we have clans, or urban tribes like punks, rastas, goths, &c., which divide us further, all the while zealously encouraged by media outlets.

Meanwhile, in the background, we have governments, corporations, ngo's, &c. doing all sorts of bastardry that would not be tolerated if we were a cohesive and united populace - but, and this is the big but - those previously mentioned are the ones encouraging the fracturing of the general population into these disfunctional, ununited groups that have been encouraged to only think to the end of their noses, creating a disorganised rabble that has no chance against political parties that have bugger all differences between 'em.

At the same time, we have human rights being slowly disolved away, we have chronically sick people being judged capable of working when they aren't capable of working, manufacturing being sent off shore.

We have the lads and lasses from those areas of social distress being encouraged to join our 'defence' forces who are then sent overseas to impose our allied governments mores on already fractured societies due to schisms within their non-sectarian governments while millions of people are fleeing these areas, impacting on other countries, making a mockery of state and national boundaries.

And this my dears is happening generally all over the world - and if we kvetch, nay, question it, we are the biggots, we are the racists, we are the tory/whig scum, we are the ones that don't have a clue, we are the ones not partaking in the conversation, we are the micro-agressives who are invading safe spaces.

If we believe the counter argument that we are all of the above then we wind up with damaged morale, we wind up with a head and heart full of doubt, which lends itself toward an easily manipulated populace who are too scared to voice an unpopular opinion in fear that it's me against the rest of the world - which is just what 'they' want.

So fuck'em - keep bringing up those awkward questions, keep talking on that forbidden subject, tell that supercilious egoist 'No', because if you don't, nobody else will...eh.

I'll get of me soapbox now.
 
My view on all this is that 'they' want to segment the population by dividing the population into small interest groups and drip feed these groups with single interest problems, or issues, that divert that specific grouping of people from 'lesser' interest issues which are of an interest to us all.
Exactly this. ^^

It's the same reason we mustn't split up Scotland and England with independence. Keep Scotland Scottish of course, but 'divide and conquer' remember.
 
I was thinking your media might have reported that talks with Liberty House and Tata having been going on since the New Year at the latest and that due diligence tests are happening at the moment. I think rUK is now looking at the same thing?

Is Liberty House Chinese?

Or do you mean the buying in of chinese steel for infrasturucture projects?

Hopefully Scotland will have a steel industry left which can supply the need stuffments in the future.....
 
Back
Top