This article had a lot to do with my egress from the Organization. Here's part of a letter I wrote to my mother, who by this time was an exJW, in which I analyze the magazine this article came from:
----------
The June 22, 2000 Awake magazine is titled "Should You Believe Everything You Hear?" The feature articles are about propaganda, and the titles are typically dramatic: "Propaganda Can Be Deadly," "The Manipulation of Information," and "Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!"
According to the magazine, propagandists use several methods to communicate their message and advance their cause: "agitating the emotions," "exploiting insecurities," "capitalizing on the ambiguity of language," and "bending the rules of logic." Ironically, these tactics are used frequently in the books and magazines that come from the Society. I was especially surprised to see "ambiguity of language" listed, since Witnesses have bizarre ways of talking about "truth," "the organization," "the society," "worldliness," "increasing light," "kingdom hall," "disfellowshipping" and so forth. (Did you know that the term "disfellowship" was coined by the Society? At least, I've never been able to find it in a dictionary. It's a softer euphemism for "excommunicate" or "anathematize," which are harsh Christian terms for what Witnesses do more harshly than most religions.)
But the second feature article, "The Manipulation of Information," focuses on five specific tactics in particular:
1) Subheading: "Lies, Lies!" This section simply states that "the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies." It then gives examples of anti-semitism to illustrate the point. What do you think of this? Personally, I am still not quite comfortable saying that the Society deliberately, maliciously lies to us ... but, on the other hand, they *have* printed things that aren't true, and called it "truth." For disagreeing with "truth" and suggesting ideas that later were accepted by the Society, many people have been disfellowshipped. Also, as you remember from *Crisis*, the Society is aware that there is no evidence for believing that 607 BCE is a legitimate date to count from, but since the crucial 1914 doctrine depends upon it, they teach it as an unquestionable fact. I'm sure you can think of examples as good or better than these.
2) Subheading: "Making Generalizations." This section shrewdly observes that "generalizations tend to obscure important facts about the real issues in question, and they are frequently used to demean entire groups of people." Well. Do I even have to point out that Witnesses refer to ALL OTHER PEOPLE as "worldly" or "worldlings?" It is my conviction that reducing the idiosyncratic beliefs of these people to one simple pejorative makes it easier to accept the horrific teaching that God will destroy ALL of them at Armageddon. I have never understood how Witnesses could simultaneously believe that they have the greatest love for their neighbors, and that their neighbors will be deservedly killed by God. (Growing up, I would think, "This can't be true, but if it is true, I want nothing to do with God.") Anyway, even though the Society has "toned down" over the years, they still assert that only some "few millions" will survive into the new world. Now, who do you think those millions are purported to be?
Incidentally, many Witnesses, even if they don't consciously think about it, cannot reconcile these contradictory beliefs -- they just never *do* anything about it. While driving with [my JW brother] this weekend, the topic somehow came up, and without any prompting from me, he said he doesn't believe God will kill all those people. I hope most Witnesses feel that way. But the Society does not.
3) Subheading: "Name-Calling." Now, this I find fascinating. Here is the idea, according to the article:
Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of just focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller's strategy has worked.
Well, what about the Society's use of the word "apostate"? In fact, there is a specific Watchtower article that I have in mind, fairly recent, and I would look it up and quote it to you, except I'm writing this from work and can't look anything up here. Generally, though, the article says that some people have questioned the legitimacy of the organization, since beliefs have been changed and prophecies have failed. In the sentence following this thought, the article says something like this (paraphrase): "Don't such questions reveal the true attitude and character of those asking them? Such persons have probably already succumbed to apostate thinking." Anyway, ex-Witnesses don't need a bunch of quotes, because they know how it is: if you question anything, you are an apostate, or becoming one. It doesn't matter how legitimate your questions, how logical, or even how scriptural. I included several scriptures in my last long e-mail to [my best JW friend], and all he said was "Look -- we are in Jah religion ... we have to accept that this is Jah's organization."
4) Subheading: "Playing on the Emotions." This section focuses on fear, hatred, and pride, and says that although "feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion." Witnesses are encouraged to have a "Godly fear," of course, but more than that, they are (in certain situations) afraid of what elders might do to them, afraid (as I still sometimes am) of being seen with "worldly" people in public, afraid, most of all, of doing anything that will forfeit their passage through Armageddon.
As for hatred, I can only say that believing, implicitly or otherwise, that over 5 billion people DESERVE to die, and to eagerly -- even gleefully -- await their destruction is contrary to the very idea of love. I've never understood it.
As for pride, how many times have we heard that Witnesses are morally superior to those in “the world,” that we are kinder, more compassionate, more sincere, more loving, more honest, more virtuous, more righteous, etc.? Even non-Witnesses who "seem nice" or have "good moral values" are put down as "bad associates." Isn't it prideful to be patting ourselves on the back all the time, meanwhile putting down everyone in "Christendom" (i.e. every non-Witness on the planet)?
5) Subheading: "Slogans and Symbols." Perhaps it is a good thing that the Society chose to print these articles in the *Awake* instead of the *Watchtower*, which has behind its title the graphic watchtower symbol that represents the organization and appears on all its letterhead. Slogans? How about, "Read God's Word The Bible Daily," or any one of the year's texts that are hung up at the front of the kingdom halls? Or what about any of the hundreds of pictures depicting the Society's conception of paradise, with children playing with tigers, men and women in their native garb, generous spreads of vegetables and fruits, fields of wheat with no workers in them, architecturally intricate houses on the horizon with no signs of bulldozers, cranes, and miscellaneous construction equipment? Symbols and slogans like these, as the Awake article points out, are vague and "easy to agree with," yet they gloss over some of the logical problems with the ideas they represent.
Anyway, the following article, "Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda," suggests five ways of combatting propaganda:
1) Subheading: "Be selective." This section encourages the reader to "properly weigh ... new information against the Bible standard and fit what is true into his pattern of thinking." Witnesses know, however, that this does not apply to new information from the Society, which must be accepted as information directed to us from God, through the organization. Nor does it apply to apostate material, which must be avoided at all costs. Remember the picture in the Watchtower of the woman throwing away "apostate" material that came in the mail? Obviously she is selecting one thing over another, but her selection is not based on any objective "weighing" of "new information." Personally, I have been shocked at how scriptural, earnest, meek, and humble a lot of so-called "apostate" literature has been. Rarely does such literature ask anything of its readers except to think for themselves -- unlike our literature, so blatantly designed to recruit and convert. Often the attitude of "apostates" is simply this: "If you want to be a Witness, that's fine and I won't judge you, but these are the reasons why I can't, in good conscience, remain or become a Witness myself, and I only wish I would not be judged so harshly for my carefully considered conclusions." Since Witnesses are not allowed to read such statements, or talk with those who have left, they never have the opportunity to be truly selective.
2) Subheading: "Use discernment." This section tells the reader to perceive "subtleties of ideas." But when I talk about particular aspects of Watchtower articles and scriptures with Andy, he tells me that I have to believe that Jehovah directs the organization, to "believe it even if you don't believe it -- otherwise, what's the point of being a Witness?" He's right about the implications of questioning the organization's spiritual legitimacy -- but is it right to believe something only out of desperation? And what good is my discernment, if I have to act contrary to it?
3) Subheading: "Put information to the test." Amazingly, this section says that "it is far better for each individual to choose what he will feed his mind." WHAT?! Does this mean I can read philosophers like Nietzsche and Sartre, who say that "God is dead," or Darwin's *Origin of the Species,* which implicitly (but never directly) challenges the Genesis account, and compare their arguments to theistic ones appearing in the magazine? Better than that, does it mean I can read Ray's book to see if he has anything legitimate to say? NO! I could get disfellowshipped for reading that book! So what kind of choices do I, as a Witness, really have, anyway? How can I follow the article's advice, which is to test our opinions and beliefs, which "depend on the validity of our facts, on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply"? True, many people feed their minds garbage. But in the pursuit of truth, in the application of intelligence, and in the spirit of scripture (see Acts 17:11 and 1 Thess. 5:21), shouldn't I gather all the relevant information before making a commitment? And is it reasonable to expect that I might have done all this by the time I was thirteen years old?
4) Subheading: "Ask questions." Here the Society says that "when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions." Then, two sentences later, this unbelievable sentence appears: "Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking." Mom, how can they even dare to write this, since their own record is one of false predications, false beliefs, doctrine and reversals of doctrine that have cost earnest worshippers their reputations, their relationships with friends and family, even their lives?
5) Subheading: "Do not just follow the crowd." This, of course, is a simple enough idea, but difficult to put into practice. How many Witnesses do you think just "go along with things" because they are afraid of losing friends and family members? The fear that results from Watchtower propaganda is so strong that it is nearly impossible to follow the Society's advice in this instance.
Well, those are the basic points -- just one more. In a side article titled "Is The Work of Jehovah's Witnesses Propagandistic?", the Society answers the charge of using propaganda with this statement, which follows a list of accusations: "The simple fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses are none of the above." This, amazingly, is itself a subtle propagandistic technique: if the fact is so *simple,* it is self-evident, and only a stupid person would question it! Instead of justifying their publications by addressing the specific characteristics of propagandistic literature, they merely assert that they are doing God's work, carrying out his message, etc. -- typical and generic Witness rhetoric.
A few paragraphs later, the article goes on to list all the fine morals and qualities of Witnesses, in a style that is certainly familiar to both of us. But how is this an argument against charges of propagandism? It may be true that most Witnesses are good people, and live peacefully, exemplifying "honesty, truthfulness, and cleanliness" in many aspects of their lives. But as this very magazine points out, "propagandistic messages can be used to accomplish positive social ends." In other words, Witnesses may very well be so "good" because of the Society's artful use of propaganda!
Whew. Well, I'm sorry to have prattled on so long, but this magazine blew me away. I wonder who wrote it -- perhaps a renegade brother who somehow slipped it by the Governing Body? Or maybe this is the most brilliant use of propaganda of all, an attempt to persuade the readership to be hypercritical of all persuasive literature but the Society's? I don't know.
