**The following was written in the summer of 2017 as an introduction to a book project, which—as it transformed—wound up inspiring the creation of this website. Here, the first section of the book is presented unchanged and in its entirety, while subsequent releases will have been revised and reworked.
The intent of this project was to create a manual for dealing with propaganda in the modern world. To do this, I first set out to come up with a solid definition of propaganda, and then embark on a historical survey of its use. Though there is some more thinking and writing and re-writing to do on it, I think that this propaganda avoidance-manual project is worth resuscitating here in some form.
As always, thank you for your interest and attention.***

Introduction

We can best understand the furies of war and politics by remembering that almost the whole of each party believes absolutely in its picture of the opposition, that it takes as fact, not what is, but what it supposes to be the fact.

-Walter Lippmann,
Public Opinion (1920)

Propaganda is one of those words that everybody appears to understand. No matter who you’re with, just utter the word “propaganda” and there won’t be a single person who doesn’t “get it.” People’s images of the concept may vary, of course. Mary might picture fevered dictators and divisive rhetoric; Joe might recall a particularly biased news story. Yet despite the vast differences between the two in fact and implication, it is likely that neither Mary nor Joe would have a problem with the others’ imagery. This is because the word propaganda has been made vague by overuse. It is also because, though people may appear to understand the idea, and can readily conjure up images of it, they don’t in fact know what it means.

Here is the perfect opportunity for the first lesson on propaganda in this book to be presented:

Define your terms.

It’s a very simple lesson, really—it’s a short rule that we would all be wise to remember in every aspect of our lives. When discussing, debating, or arguing with anybody on any topic, make sure that you both clearly define your terms. The reasoning for doing so should be obvious, but, for the sake of being thorough and defining my terms, I will briefly explain what this means. Quite simply, provide a clear and reasonable definition for any important word, phrase, or concept you may use in conversation or debate before presenting your arguments. Insist that, if any discussion of pertinent ideas is to proceed, the other person do the same.

For an exchange of ideas to be fruitful, both parties absolutely must enter into the conversation on the same page. If the terms are not defined, then a casual discussion about something that is for all intents and purposes mundane can devolve into a vulgar melee. Most people are probably aware that this happens often when matters of politics are discussed. A major reason such interactions get heated so easily is that, rather than taking the time to suss out the meaning and intent behind the other person’s point of view, many people don’t really debate their opponent at all.

A result of this imprecise way of debating is people arguing with themselves rather than with the other person. That is, people will create images of their “enemies” and, of course, these images have primarily bad traits. Say you are a member of political party A, and I am part of political party B. As a member of party B, I have a certain preconception about you, based almost exclusively on your alignment with party A. Odds are, you have a similarly negative preconception about me as well.

Within party B—my group—there are certain stereotypes about party A that have been created and repeated. “Everyone in party A is a warmonger”; “those party A people are too soft on illegal immigrants”; “party A’s are just a bunch of uneducated crybabies.” My group has created and sold an image of your group, and therefore you personally (a dangerous phenomenon as we will discuss later), to me. It’s as if a tiny party A person lives in my brain. I can make fun of it for how it responds to certain things, I can get mad at it for being “so obviously wrong,” and I can “debate” it whenever I want to give my ego a boost. That’s the thing about the little party A person in my head: it doesn’t exist, so I always win the argument.

When I get into a conversation or debate with you, a real-live party A person, I assume that you must be almost identical to the handy ideological puppet living in my head. I think that I already know what all of your opinions and responses will be, even though we’ve never met. I know how to argue against that puppet—that image—and so that is exactly what I do. I am not open to new ideas, and I don’t want to be taught anything by you. I am not here to learn, I am here to win. And no matter what happens in this argument, I will win, because I’ve already defeated you in my head, all alone, many, many times.

It is likely that you, as a party A person, have a little party B person in your head. Instead of letting me teach you what I know on a topic, you assume I’m a bigot and don’t listen. Instead of trying to empathize with your point of view, I think you’re a moron and don’t listen. No conclusion is ever reached, no olive branch is extended, nothing is gained at all, and we both part with a little more disdain for the other than we had before. Despite this, it is more likely than not that we will each come away thinking we had “won the debate.”

Those conniving “party A” and “party B” people our heads can easily be avoided, if we define our terms. In this instance, you could begin by explaining your own position. Why did you pick party A over party B? What is its history? What are the party’s tenets? Where is it located? What personal values and ideas do you share with this political ideology? Do you think party A people are superior? If, before we engage, you say to me: “I am a party A, which means I believe X and Y,” you would have defined your position. Now, if I try to accuse you of believing in Z, as the fake A person in my head does, you can simply remind me that you in fact do not believe Z. If I insist you do, then no one could blame you for ending the conversation then and there.

It might be wise to next define what you think of a party B person. What values and ideas do you associate with the opposition party? Why do you not wish to associate with party B? Are party B people inferior? If you say, “As I understand it, party B people believe D, E, and F,” I can step in and clarify: “I personally do not believe F, though some party B’s do.” This way, no one can be accused of believing or supporting something he or she doesn’t. In real life, where ideologies and opinions are not simple A’s, B’s, or Z’s, you are more than likely to find that many if not most of the individuals that make up your “enemy” party share similar values and ideas with you.

Suppose I go through the same process of definition. Both of us having elucidated where we stand ideologically, we move to our actual discussion on ideas. Only, before we do so, we should make sure that we understand exactly what it is the other is talking about. Let us assume that you believe X. I do not believe X; I’ve never even heard a compelling argument for X. In fact, I have only heard of it from others like me who don’t believe it, as they were explaining why they didn’t believe it, and/or ridiculing it. So I’m not exactly sure about what X is, but I know I don’t like it. By admitting my limited knowledge, you can explain exactly what it is you believe, and I will be able to decide for myself how I feel about X. If I already do have a decent understanding of X, than we should have little trouble agreeing on a definition.

***

As the reader may recall, this all began with the word “propaganda,” and how most people don’t really appreciate the meaning of it. We will pull from multiple sources and italicize important themes to gather a working definition of the term. First we go to the dictionary:

1. In the Roman Catholic Church, a committee of cardinals, the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in charge of the foreign missions.

2. Any organization or movement working for the propagation of particular ideas, doctrines, practices, etc.

3. The ideas, doctrines, practices, etc. spread in this way.

4. Any systematic, widespread, deliberate indoctrination or plan for such indoctrination: now often used in a derogatory sense, connoting deception or distortion.¹

Next, we hear from one of the molders of the concept itself:

[T]he effort to alter the picture to which men respond, to substitute one social pattern for another.²

On to a standard reference book:

Selected information, true or false, which is promoted with the aim of persuading people to adopt a particular belief, attitude or course of action. During the 20^th century all the major political ideologies have employed propaganda and made use of modern media to reach a mass audience. It has an important role in modern warfare and by WWII separate bureaus and ministries were established to promote morale and subvert the enemy. The Nazi Ministry of Propaganda, headed by Goebbels, was one of the most effective. In the West there has been an increase in professional propagandists such as people in public relations and advertising.³

Finally, from the renowned Encyclopedia Britannica:

Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, banners, monuments, music, clothing, insignia, hairstyles, designs on coins and postage stamps, and so forth). Deliberateness and a relatively heavy emphasis on manipulation distinguish propaganda from casual conversation and the free and easy exchange of ideas. The propagandist has a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these he deliberately selects facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and presents them in ways he thinks they will have the most effect.⁴

Taking all of these definitions and descriptions into account, we can formulate an accurate and workable definition of the term propaganda, and thus understand and appreciate the concept itself. We will try to keep the definition as simple and concise as possible, while still conveying all the necessary information. Let us say, for the purposes of this book, that propaganda is the deliberate, directed, and secret deception of a person or people, during peacetime or war, by a particular person or group, with the intent of promoting a particular agenda. If we accept this as our definition, anything that meets all of these criteria must be propaganda. The criteria are:

1. Propaganda is deliberate and directed. It does not happen by accident. Certainly people can unwittingly lead others astray, but this would merely be an error; propaganda is on purpose. The reasoning behind this will be made clear by the proceeding criteria.

2. Propaganda is secretive. This means that, though propaganda is presented to a wide audience, it is devised and understood only by the propagandists themselves and those with keen eyes. For propaganda to be effective, the magicians must not reveal their tricks, as it were. The subjects (or victims) of propaganda cannot know that what they are looking at is designed to lead them to a certain conclusion. It absolutely must be taken at face value; any probing into the propaganda piece on the part of its victims threatens its effectiveness.

3. Propaganda is deceptive. Even if a particular propaganda piece is not an outright lie – even if it appears to state some truth – it is, by its nature, dishonest. This is because the intent of the propagandist is to sway people by manipulating their emotions and playing a sort of Skinnerian stimulus-response game with them, rather than presenting a reasonable and logical argument for their position. Even if the intentions of the propagandist are good, and the fruits of their work prove edible, they still utilized dishonest and manipulative means. Propaganda must be distinguished from simply trying to convince somebody of something, for that can be done honestly by simply presenting a logical argument. Truth is more likely to be realized by two people having a reasonable debate than by an entire population lulled into a state of acquiescence by hidden string-pullers.

4. Propaganda is used by one group against another. This seems obvious enough; propaganda cannot be done to oneself, however it is necessary for the subjects to allow themselves to be propagandized, though this mostly happens unconsciously. Acquiescence on the part of the victim is required for propaganda to be effective, and this acquiescence is itself reinforced by the propaganda. This submissive state of mind works to the advantage of the propagandist, for it makes his or her work easier, and ensures the docile controllability of his or her victims.

5. Propaganda can be used during peacetime and during wartime. Though methods and intent may vary from one to the other, propaganda can survive and thrive in both environments. It is also worth noting that a transition from peace to war, or war to peace, can be induced by propaganda.

6. Propaganda propagates an agenda. This criterion ties all the others together; if it weren’t for the agenda – the goal – there could be no propaganda. The agenda is pushed deliberately. It is understood and concocted secretly. It is sold to the target group deceptively. It is inflicted on one group by another. And it is not exclusive to either peacetime or war. The very meat of propaganda is the overall agenda. That agenda could include anything from tricking people into buying a particular brand of socks to deluding people into supporting the mass-extermination of their neighbors.

***

Hopefully I have succeeded by now in beating the definition of the term in question to death. It may seem excessive to go on in such detail, providing multiple definitions and laying out criteria, but I must assure the reader that this is all done with good reason. It is imperative that one completely grasp the notion of propaganda if one is to identify it and combat it.

As was stated in criterion number two, propaganda must be composed and understood in secret if it is to work. By revealing the propagandists’ methods – unveiling the magician’s tricks – one can resist and perhaps completely rid themselves of their influence. That is the purpose of this book; to provide a blueprint on the history and use of propaganda, how to identify it, and how to withstand it.

That is why this began by explaining the importance of defining one’s terms; identifying and analyzing the actual meaning behind what someone is saying, or some movie is showing, or some article is claiming, is the first step in resisting the pull of propaganda. The propagandist relies on the assumption that his or her target group will not question definitions, and thus they dupe the target group into accepting whatever definitions and implications they the propagandists decided upon.

Another reason it is so important to define terms is that misleading and misrepresentative words are often employed to mask something’s true meaning. Examples of this abound: have you ever met someone who described themselves as “progressive”? The root of the word is of course “progress,” which it seems implies to most people the shaking away of obsolete traditions and practices, in exchange for new, more enlightened and accepting ways of dealing with others. A noble and necessary process to be sure. However, what many of these well-meaning, “small ‘p’ progressives” may not be aware of is that in the early twentieth century, there was an actual political philosophy called “Progressivism” gaining traction in the United States. This movement was so monumental, in fact, that the period of approximately 1890 to 1920 is referred to as “the Progressive Era.”

On July 23, 2007, during the Democratic Party presidential debate, candidate Hillary Clinton was asked if she would consider herself a “liberal.” Clinton explained that, because the word had been “turned up on its head,” she instead defined herself as a “modern Progressive,” saying:

I prefer the word “Progressive,” which has a real American meaning, going back to the Progressive Era at the beginning of the twentieth century. I consider myself a modern Progressive. Someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms; who believes that we are better as a society when we are working together. And when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their families. So I consider myself a proud, modern, American Progressive and I think that’s the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.⁵

So what is a Progressive? According to Mrs. Clinton, a Progressive is “someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms; who believes that we are better as a society when we are working together.” Is this brief platitude a sufficient definition of the philosophy that, one could argue, shaped the entire twentieth century for the United States?

To avoid derailing into an entire essay on the Progressive Era (the subject will be explored in detail later), I will cite one prominent leader of the movement, so that the reader can get a general idea of the philosophical concept, and judge for themselves whether or not Mrs. Clinton was being sincere.

The individual we will use to shed some light on Progressivism is described by the White House’s website as “a leader of the Progressive Movement,” who “led America into [World War I] in order to ‘make the world safe for democracy.’” This man’s administration presided over the creation of the Federal Reserve, passage of the Income Tax, initiation of alcohol prohibition, and, at the time, the most destructive war in world history. The man was President Woodrow Wilson. He said in 1890 (emphasis in original):

[The competent leader’s] will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question of the application of force… It is the power which dictates, dominates: the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.⁶

Speaking of the office of the president:

The nation as a whole has chosen him, and is conscious that it has no other political spokesman. His is the only national voice in affairs. Let him once win the admiration and confidence of the country, and no other single force can withstand him, no combination of forces will easily overpower him. His position takes the imagination of the country. … His office is anything he has the sagacity and force to make it.⁷

Finally, while president of Princeton University, on the topic of education:

We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.⁸

These rather blunt quotes should sufficiently prove to the reader that one should not assume the meaning of a word, simply based on what he or she thinks it sounds like; they also show that one should be careful when taking seriously a hopeful politician’s remarks on history and philosophy. Doing so can lead to colossal and perhaps even devastating misunderstandings, like aligning oneself with a political ideology one doesn’t fully understand. As will be seen later, misunderstandings and vagaries are powerful tools of the propagandist.

***

To round out the introduction, I will like to introduce the reader to some vocabulary that will be used throughout this book: the basic and most common media⁹ used to convey propaganda. Naturally, the farther back through history we go, the more primitive these media become. However, there are certain “fundamental media” that exist all throughout recorded history that play an eternal role in the realm of propaganda. These include visual media and audial media—comingled with language—and audio-visual media:

Visual media. The visual media are commonly referred to as simply “art.” For as long as humans have been human, they have been expressing themselves by drawing or painting the world around them. These mimicking symbols eventually evolved into actual written languages, which allowed humans to communicate more complicated concepts than “tree” or “sun.” In its pure form, visual art is nothing more than a manmade image. Despite its lack of language, pure visual art can still convey meaning, primarily in the form of emotive evocation. Paintings and drawings can move the soul in as many ways as there are people. Certain colors and subject matter may trigger particular emotional responses, without ever utilizing organized language. This is typified in one of the most common forms of pure visual art: flags. In many people, flags evoke feelings of national pride and comradery; for others they are reminiscent of militarism and oppression. Whichever it is, emotions are being drawn out by the flag.

When language is combined with visual media, its potential power increases exponentially; for it leaves the realm of pure emotion and enters the world of concepts and information. Examples of linguistic visual media include books and newspapers, silent movies, posters, banners, signs, advertisements, labels, etc. This hybrid between the visual and the conceptual retains the highly emotive elements of pure art, while also including the added power of data communication. Such a hybrid can do great wonders for expanding the human mind, though it also opens up the door for propaganda.

Take for example the following advertisement:¹⁰

Notice how the brand name is distinctly different in size, color, and case from all the other words. Notice the authoritative air with which the doctor holds his cigarette. Notice the smiling faces near the bottom, with the almost entirely meaningless slogan above them: “The doctors’ choice is America’s choice!” Such advertisements are not designed to get people to think critically; they are designed to manipulate people’s emotions to elicit a certain behavior. For something a bit more dire, the following was a British propaganda poster during World War I:¹¹

The man who “wants you” is “Lord Kitchener of Khartoum,” Field Marshal Horatio Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener.¹² This very straightforward poster gives the impression that Kitchener himself was giving the viewer a direct order. The picture combined with the commanding message was designed to evoke senses of loyalty, duty, and patriotism in the average civilian, thus using emotional manipulation to influence thought (support for the war) and behavior (participation in the war). This image served as the inspiration for the very similar American poster on which Uncle Sam exclaims “I want you!”

While today these posters may seem rather frank, at the time they served their purposes well. They are each also merely glimpses of certain points in the evolution of propaganda; they influence the more subtle and effective methods of today.

Audial Media. Audial media, like visual media, is used most effectively when combined with language. In its pure state it is merely instrumental music, which can have measurably positive or negative effects on the brain. Music, like a painting, can be of profound emotional significance without ever uttering a single word. When language is used in conjunction with music, its power, much like that of visual media, is increased. Songs can be some of the most emotional and influential pieces of a person’s life; indeed, music can even play a role in shaping one’s values.¹³

Other forms of linguistic audial media include lectures, speeches, radio, poetry, etc. This basic media can be just as—if not more—effective than visual media, because it can to be listened to with less attention paid to it than one would pay to looking at a drawing or reading a book. One can take in the audial media passively, thereby bypassing the conscious, critical mind even more easily than with the visual media.

Historically, these linguistic audial arts have been employed politically and for propagandistic purposes. The oral communication of legends and myths meant to control people through wonder and fear, the practice of using deceptive rhetoric to get people to buy into false narratives, using music to change the values of a population; all of these will be explored in much greater detail as we crawl through history, and analyze the more specific media used in a given instance. Rather than explain these specifics now, I think it better to let them be revealed as they arise in history, so that different forms of propaganda and media can be understood in their respective contexts, and the reader can clearly see their influences and legacies.

Audio-visual media. A synthesis of the above two media. Audio-visual art includes plays, commercials, movies, video clips and series, television programs, video games—even the internet itself. Naturally, such art can be highly emotive, more so than visual or audial media on their own. This art stimulates multiple senses at the same time, simulating reality more closely than music or drawings. In the modern era, audio-visual art is the most focused on of the basic media; it is a frontier. Exploration of concepts like virtual reality present humankind with the possibility of being totally immersed in media—left to the whims of the creators of false realities.

Though it is easy to speculate that a future with such technology would essentially be a world of, by, and for the propagandist, we need not make such accusations baselessly. Technology is not, in and of itself, “bad.” Film is a very powerful motivator of human emotion. People cry essentially on command when watching films; movies leave lasting impressions on people that can potentially affect their behavior. This is not to recommend that you throw away all your DVD’s—it is simply to say that it is wise—no, vital—to be able to recognize propaganda and critically analyze it, wherever it may appear. Virtual reality need not lead to a Matrix-style world where we are all just brains in a vat. A prerequisite for a peaceful and free future is an understanding of logic, education, history, and propaganda.

The goal of this work is to get the reader to appreciate the magnitude of the public relations world he or she is trapped in:

[I]n 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.¹⁴

It is for this reason that learning to spot deception in media is so important. The growth of propaganda directly correlates with a growth in technology. In our era of instant communication, endless media, portable and perpetual “echo-chambers” (smartphones and social media), individualized advertising, the virtual non-existence of privacy, and the seeming disdain for history and objectivity, the American public is more vulnerable now than ever to propaganda.

One hundred years ago, propaganda could only be spread through books, magazines, and newspapers, as well as traveling carnivals.¹⁵ It was through these primitive media that propagandists were able to convince Americans, a people vehemently opposed to entering World War I, that they actually did want to enter the war. Today, the average American carries instant access to the internet—the world’s largest library—in their pocket. Advertisements are presented to people based on their search histories (call it “personalized propaganda”); news stories are delivered to people based on their preconceived biases. What can the public be convinced to go along with now?

References

1 “Propaganda.” Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Deluxe ed., Simon & Schuster, 1983.

2 Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. Free Press, 1965. Page 16. Originally published in 1920. Lippmann will reappear later in this book as a major player in the history of propaganda. He was no casual observer and commentator; he was a US delegate to the 1919 Paris Peace Talks, took part in writing Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, and assisted in drafting the charter for the League of Nations. No surprise that he should also be a prominent figure in the story of early twentieth century propaganda.

3 “Propaganda.” New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin, 1989.

4 “Propaganda.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., Macropedia vol. 15, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1983.

5 “YouTube Debate: Hillary – Are You a Liberal?” YouTube, uploaded by Politicstv, www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc.

6 Wilson, Woodrow. “Leaders of Men.” Teaching American History, teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/leaders-of-men/.

7 Wilson, Woodrow. “Chapter III: The President of the United States.” Constitutional Government. Teaching American History, teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/ constitutional-government-chapter-iii-the-president-of-the-united-states/.

8 “Woodrow Wilson Quotes.” Good Reads, www.goodreads.com/quotes/35754-we-want-one-class-of-persons-to-have-a-liberal. This statement reflects the mindset of the molders of the American public school system at the time, which was itself based on the militaristic school system of the Germanic region Prussia. One of the most important supporters of early American schools was John D. Rockefeller, Sr., whose adviser wrote in 1913: “In our dream we have limited resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.” (Frederick Taylor Gates, The Country School of Tomorrow, page 6). The sentiment is clear; that a liberal education should be reserved for one “upper class,” while another “much larger class of necessity” is compelled “to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” The subject of education as it relates to Propaganda and Progressivism will be revisited in later chapters.

9 The plural of “medium.” Defined by the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary as: “a medium of cultivation, conveyance, or expression.” The same source defines the singular “medium” as “something in a middle position… a substance regarded as the means of transmission.” In essence, a “medium” or “media” act as a “middle man,” of sorts, carrying a thing (in the context of this book, information) from source to recipient.

10 R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. More Doctors Smoke Camels. 1952. Tobacco, Stanford U. http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/images_body.php?token1=fm_img0074.php.

11 Leete, Alfred. Lord Kitchener Wants You! 1914. http://www.thewestologist.com/symbols/what-inspired-the-uncle-sam-poster.

12 Mr. Kitchener was no ordinary subject of the king: aside from being Secretary of State for War, his lordship was also a Knight of the Order of the Garter, Knight of the Order of St. Patrick, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Bath, Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of India, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire. It was Kitchener who initiated the British use of concentration camps in South Africa after the Second Boer War.

13 For a very long, detailed analysis of the effects of music on the brain and on the values of individuals and societies alike, see the 7-part series Music, Mind Control, and Psychobiology by Jan Irvin and Dr. Hans Utter, available in full at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n5Hfy_dCg&list=PLJ0S88eyUTlYmmytIXF_8RIUWkQNhXVTg

14 Bernays, Edward L. Propaganda. Ig, 2005. Pages 37-38. Originally published in 1928. Bernays, like Lippmann, will be a recurring character in the story of early twentieth century propaganda. He is considered by many to be “the father of propaganda,” having literally written the book. He was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, and, reminiscent of his cigar-loving uncle, led the campaign that popularized smoking amongst American women. This endeavor was not the extent of his work, however; he served as a prominent advisor to the Committee on Public Intelligence—the organization whose intent was to sell the American public on World War I.

15 Strange as it may sound, the Chautauquas would bring comedy, music, and theater to rural towns in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, always flavored with a political message. The Chautauquas served as one of the first forms of mass-media, and generally supported the Populists and the Progressives of the day.