It is literally propaganda. Very good propaganda with a very good and truthful message. (Except maybe a bit of too much idealizing the US and also the role of the catholic church but the main point is fine.)
I guess the confusion is because in Western societies people are used to the doublespeak of only calling something propaganda when it is done by the "other side". The other side is "spreading the narrative" you are "reporting facts".
You use different words to describe the same thing. Like the good guys are "rebels" and the bad guys are "terrorists".
There is nothing wrong with propaganda. It can be used for good or bad. Just don't start falling for your own one.
I am not American, and I am having tremendous difficulty understanding what you are talking about. Nobody in this thread has denied this is propaganda or that it is nationalistic.
> It was said to have been produced in 1945, and Paramount Pictures allowed showings for the public "without profit" in 1946. 21st century sources describe a 1943 production and 1947 release instead of 1945 and 1946.
I've been thinking about this video for a few months now. I've been telling people to "not be a sucker" referencing it. I haven't re-watched in a few years, though.
The real disservice of this sort of this sort of stuff is how flagrantly obvious they make the bad guy. Yeah, everyone can identify the idiot spouting off about skin color and engaging in an un-obfuscated textbook exercise in divide and conquer as probably not worth listening to. Patting yourself on the back becase you can identify it when it's flagrantly obvious is counterproductive.
The guy in the internet comment section or the Youtube talking head, subtly peddling inequality under the law under the guise of carrot and stick government policy games, he's the real evil. Because letting him guide you at every turn is what incrementally builds the cultural, ideological, political and procedural situation in which it's possible for the "comic book evil" type things to be possible.
I was watching a clip from the The Lost World (1925) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chwzrwHnCtk] the other day. I was struck by the silly (to my ears) orchestral fanfare scoring such a dramatic scene, and the fact that almost all of the men are wearing nearly identical outfits. It's still pretty much the same 20 years later in this video. The timbre of the voice of the narrator is another thing, so universal in media from that time and comically foreign today.
Note that the orchestral score on that YouTube video was composed in 2016 by Robert Israel. The original film had no recorded sound; it would have been accompanied on the piano (or, if lucky, pipe organ).
If you get a chance to see a silent film in the theater with live music, don't pass up that chance! I recently went to see "The General" (1926) with semi-improvised music by pianist Ben Model,[1] and (obviously) recommend the experience.
Their outfits aren't nearly identical, they only look that way to us because we weren't there and don't know the details. It's no different than how classic cars all look close to the same but someone who was there can just tell you at first glance "that one's a <brand>, that one's the top trim, and so on".
One very interesting aspect is how the Churches are portrayed as "seeking truth" and speaking out in this piece. In the US today it is reversed - in large part due to Baptists. But even in Nazi Germany the relationship between the Church and Hitler was much more complicated than portrayed. For instance, many Catholics supported the NSDAP.
Unfortunately we are more divided then ever. The algorithms place each of use in its own little echo chamber. And micro targeting makes it easy for people with money to control what each of us is fed in their bubble. Stay united. Don't give up over their perceived power. Don't be a sucker. Easier said, then done.
This is important for everyone here to watch. A divided house does not stand, and if you haven't noticed, it's getting more divided every day. Don't be a sucker, don't let them divide us.
For perspective, we now have masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight. In the United States. Think about how fast this came.
EDIT: Why not have a conversation instead of downvoting. What did I say is wrong?
I didn't watch this yet but am going to be curious to hear how to not be divided about "we now have masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight. In the United States.", when some clearly think there are reasons this isn't a problem (or not worth paying attention to).
Entering private property without a warrant does seem like it would be unlawful, yes. Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument?
Regarding protests and the response, that very much contradicts the video evidence I've seen.
There is no rhetoric, as far as I can tell, about "how democrats are terrorists", except in the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists". There is rhetoric about antifa, no quotes, because (among other things) of the demonstrable existence of protesters using black bloc tactics, explicitly describing themselves with that label, and explicitly stating a goal of countering supposed "fascism".
Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration?
> An important part of the premise of "Don't Be a Sucker" is that the Hungarian storyteller is an American citizen who followed all the necessary legal processes to gain citizenship.
An important part missing from your argument is a comparison of how difficult it was to gain citizenship then and now.
No, nothing about the argument considers that comparison relevant. The claim includes a provision that nations are allowed to make the process easier or harder, according to their perceived needs and aims.
i'm fine with upholding laws, but secret police are bullshit. we have a serious problem with police accountability in the USA, they shouldn't be allowed to obscure their badge number and face, as that only encourages bad behavior.
You said nothing wrong. Some people just feel embarrassed about being responsible for the current situation by voting for Trump. And they react to that embarrassment by trying to shift blame.
A shocking number of people are simply unaware (or worse, don’t care) that the current regime pardoned a thousand insurrectionists either while being nakedly corrupt to the point of taking cash in CAVA bags. The attention simply isn’t there.
Why not have a conversation instead of downvoting. What did I say is wrong?
Your second paragraph is implying that the half of Americans who voted for Trump are "bad Americans". That seems to be sowing the division that your first paragraph warns against (even if it is a reason to dislike Trump).
I don't think either democrats or republicans can claim the moral high ground about sowing division.
It seems to me as though you're reading a lot in to that second paragraph. Are you disputing the basic facts outlined, about "masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight"? Because that is, in fact, a thing that is happening in cities all over the country right now, and simply pointing out that it is happening is not a partisan act.
I posted a substantial reply to this comment but immediately deleted it. It's impossible honestly to take issue here without crossing into culture war territory.
The guy speaking at 3:35 reminds me of a recent blog post by a certain tech celebrity, where he was recalling his recent visit to London and was unhappy to find less white people that he remembered from his previous visit.
I get it and it does make sense. Humans always consider the unfamiliar dangerous by default, but I believe it's deeper and simpler than the arguments you present.
This is not a strictly human trait. Anthropologists are pretty sure we received this trait from our primate ancestors. It evolved out of family groups/tribalism.
Also, a large part of our brains are safety mechanisms. Many features are directed at keeping us alive which is why so many of our what if scenarios are about the worst happening.
In very tribal environments anyone not in your in-group is considered unsafe even if they look exactly like you (i.e. a tribe from 10 km away).
But the thing that has made humans the most successful species on Earth is our ability to override this behavior to cooperate at larger and larger scales.
To turn it around, you should assume anyone in the dark alley is potentially dangerous, and not allow biases or racism to cause you to lower your guard to someone who may end up stabbing you.
I agree with your general premise, in that there are bad actors, and appearance is a powerful classifier, so identifying potential bad actors by appearance is genuinely useful. I think there are many caveats in practice, such as:
How do I demonstrate that I arrived at a conclusion reasonably, with data?
How do I calibrate my probabilities, instead of a binary "safe or unsafe"?
How do I keep from overanalyzing appearance and making incorrect perceptions?
I think the primary sign of danger in your example is being in a dark alley.
Moreover, learning danger where there is danger is valuable, but so is unlearning danger where there isn't danger. And then there are the errors of learning danger where there isn't danger, and unlearning danger where there is danger. So, I take your point broadly, but there are many demons this way.
I think you’re conflating intuitional alarms Gavin de Becker style with treating people as individuals which is two very different things. Racism is about our society treating people of color fairly whereas the other is about maintaining healthy boundaries and respecting your intuition.
I think this is a nuclear bad not only because I think it excuses bad behavior but also because I think it’s just intellectually lazy.
If I’m misinterpreting you please let me know because I hope I’m mistaken.
This film is an attempt to ignore the economic causes of the war and entirely pin them on the population of Germany. This film mostly seeks to reduce the power of American public participation and labor organization by inferring that anyone who engages in the necessary steps to achieve them must be a type of "proto Nazi" to be ignored or feared.
The public square is a recognized American institution for political change and messaging. The first amendment covers way more than freedom of the press. This video, to me, seems to deride it.
I don't see any derision of the first amendment or of the public square (not sure which you were referring to as "it" in your last sentence). When we exercise our freedom of expression, we have zero guarantee that we will be listened to, believed, or respected.
The derision I see in this video is directed at visceral belief in whoever is shouting in the public square, especially when their message is so clearly divisive. The discussion between the Freemason and the naturalized citizen is itself a fine example of free expression in the public square.
I mean, the previous administration famously pulled strings across Twitter and Facebook to demote right wing media outlets on those platforms. This kind of crap isn’t new, and needs to stop.
I love that this was US propaganda at one point.
The US always has failings, but this message is something we can be proud of.
Except for the endorsement of littering, which fit the time period.
It would be decades before they wheeled out a crying native american on TV to make people feel guilty about the matter(s).
Italian*
Is it still true that Americans find it hard to see how this is very clearly propaganda?
Yes, it's anti-Nazi but it's still has very obvious problems.
It is literally propaganda. Very good propaganda with a very good and truthful message. (Except maybe a bit of too much idealizing the US and also the role of the catholic church but the main point is fine.)
I guess the confusion is because in Western societies people are used to the doublespeak of only calling something propaganda when it is done by the "other side". The other side is "spreading the narrative" you are "reporting facts".
You use different words to describe the same thing. Like the good guys are "rebels" and the bad guys are "terrorists".
There is nothing wrong with propaganda. It can be used for good or bad. Just don't start falling for your own one.
Well, the standard definition of propaganda is that it is false and misleading :
> information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a particular cause, doctrine, or point of view.
Which I think most people consider bad. If the information is true and not misleading, it would be considered educational or informational.
My wild guess is that most people who are aware of this film recognize that it's a kind of propaganda.
Of course you're going to get nationalism-tinged anti-fascist propaganda from the US Dept. of the Army in 1945.
There are large voting blocs who need to hear and comprehend the message of this film that happens to be propaganda, right now.
What problems?
Well it's massively overtly nationalist for one. There's a hilarious sequence at the beginning that's just shots of American industry and agriculture.
Are there governments that aren’t heavily nationalistic in wartime?
[flagged]
I am not American, and I am having tremendous difficulty understanding what you are talking about. Nobody in this thread has denied this is propaganda or that it is nationalistic.
Do you get this way about signs in restrooms telling you to wash your hands? Americans fall for that trick constantly.
The idea that national governments should not work for the good of their citizens is propaganda.
What, by your definition, would not be problematic?
And, why would anyone like it?
Awesome video. So much great content is so easily accessible today. The challenge is discovery!
Grateful HN is a quality “feed” - way better than all the algorithmic feeds..
If something as curated as HN existed & appealed to the masses - even if it was ad funded! - we could live in a different world.
These are precisely the kind of posts on HN that get flagged and blackholed. I will eat my hat if it stays on the frontpage.
The post did dive but it managed to cling to the frontpage.
https://hnrankings.info/45573025/
My condolences for your hat.
Did you lose faith in humanity gradually or all at once? :P
Same as divorce, or bankruptcy.
Gradually, then all at once.
so, we can agree that will be fedora?
Date must be wrong, because it mentions the end of the war and D-Day. Per this date was 1947: https://archive.org/details/DontBeaS1947
It could refer to the production date:
> It was said to have been produced in 1945, and Paramount Pictures allowed showings for the public "without profit" in 1946. 21st century sources describe a 1943 production and 1947 release instead of 1945 and 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Be_a_Sucker
YouTube description says:
> This item was produced or created: 1945
I've been thinking about this video for a few months now. I've been telling people to "not be a sucker" referencing it. I haven't re-watched in a few years, though.
The real disservice of this sort of this sort of stuff is how flagrantly obvious they make the bad guy. Yeah, everyone can identify the idiot spouting off about skin color and engaging in an un-obfuscated textbook exercise in divide and conquer as probably not worth listening to. Patting yourself on the back becase you can identify it when it's flagrantly obvious is counterproductive.
The guy in the internet comment section or the Youtube talking head, subtly peddling inequality under the law under the guise of carrot and stick government policy games, he's the real evil. Because letting him guide you at every turn is what incrementally builds the cultural, ideological, political and procedural situation in which it's possible for the "comic book evil" type things to be possible.
I was watching a clip from the The Lost World (1925) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chwzrwHnCtk] the other day. I was struck by the silly (to my ears) orchestral fanfare scoring such a dramatic scene, and the fact that almost all of the men are wearing nearly identical outfits. It's still pretty much the same 20 years later in this video. The timbre of the voice of the narrator is another thing, so universal in media from that time and comically foreign today.
Note that the orchestral score on that YouTube video was composed in 2016 by Robert Israel. The original film had no recorded sound; it would have been accompanied on the piano (or, if lucky, pipe organ).
If you get a chance to see a silent film in the theater with live music, don't pass up that chance! I recently went to see "The General" (1926) with semi-improvised music by pianist Ben Model,[1] and (obviously) recommend the experience.
[1] - https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/23
Their outfits aren't nearly identical, they only look that way to us because we weren't there and don't know the details. It's no different than how classic cars all look close to the same but someone who was there can just tell you at first glance "that one's a <brand>, that one's the top trim, and so on".
Should be required watching in public school history classes.
One very interesting aspect is how the Churches are portrayed as "seeking truth" and speaking out in this piece. In the US today it is reversed - in large part due to Baptists. But even in Nazi Germany the relationship between the Church and Hitler was much more complicated than portrayed. For instance, many Catholics supported the NSDAP.
Unfortunately we are more divided then ever. The algorithms place each of use in its own little echo chamber. And micro targeting makes it easy for people with money to control what each of us is fed in their bubble. Stay united. Don't give up over their perceived power. Don't be a sucker. Easier said, then done.
love this
This is important for everyone here to watch. A divided house does not stand, and if you haven't noticed, it's getting more divided every day. Don't be a sucker, don't let them divide us.
For perspective, we now have masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight. In the United States. Think about how fast this came.
EDIT: Why not have a conversation instead of downvoting. What did I say is wrong?
I didn't watch this yet but am going to be curious to hear how to not be divided about "we now have masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight. In the United States.", when some clearly think there are reasons this isn't a problem (or not worth paying attention to).
By talking to those apathetic and talking to those that think this isn't a problem. There is a war for your mind.
[flagged]
The scary part is how this is being done, not that immigration laws are being “followed” (they aren’t).
Masked men roaming the streets arresting even US citizens without a warrant.
Going into court rooms and houses of worship to do it.
Using violence on unarmed peaceful protesters, regardless of the protest legality.
Combine it with the Republican inability to follow the law and the current rhetoric about “antifa” and how democrats are terrorists.
That’s why this isn’t good and people are scared. It could turn into civil war at this point, with very little spark.
Thankfully you’re from Canada and your stake in the matter is fairly nil.
Can you show that they have arrested US citizens without reasonable suspicion? Can you otherwise show that law is not being followed? From what I can tell, they are legally allowed to wear masks for this. ICE's webpage also is adamant that they legally do not always require a warrant (https://www.ice.gov/immigration-enforcement-frequently-asked...), and Snopes agrees (https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/21/ice-arrest-people-war...).
Entering private property without a warrant does seem like it would be unlawful, yes. Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument?
Regarding protests and the response, that very much contradicts the video evidence I've seen.
There is no rhetoric, as far as I can tell, about "how democrats are terrorists", except in the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists". There is rhetoric about antifa, no quotes, because (among other things) of the demonstrable existence of protesters using black bloc tactics, explicitly describing themselves with that label, and explicitly stating a goal of countering supposed "fascism".
Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration?
> An important part of the premise of "Don't Be a Sucker" is that the Hungarian storyteller is an American citizen who followed all the necessary legal processes to gain citizenship.
An important part missing from your argument is a comparison of how difficult it was to gain citizenship then and now.
No, nothing about the argument considers that comparison relevant. The claim includes a provision that nations are allowed to make the process easier or harder, according to their perceived needs and aims.
ICE actively targets and arrests people who are legally staying in the US as well, detaining them for weeks without due process.
What exactly is your evidence for this claim?
What do you consider to be their basis for such targeting, and what is your evidence for that claim?
i'm fine with upholding laws, but secret police are bullshit. we have a serious problem with police accountability in the USA, they shouldn't be allowed to obscure their badge number and face, as that only encourages bad behavior.
You said nothing wrong. Some people just feel embarrassed about being responsible for the current situation by voting for Trump. And they react to that embarrassment by trying to shift blame.
A shocking number of people are simply unaware (or worse, don’t care) that the current regime pardoned a thousand insurrectionists either while being nakedly corrupt to the point of taking cash in CAVA bags. The attention simply isn’t there.
it’s at least good for everyone to notice that a government can start enforcing the law at any time
the people who need to watch this aren't likely on HN or critically thinking about any of this.
The people who need to watch this are precisely the ones on HN, because we have outsized money and power.
Keep in mind it was the tech elite that helped elect Trump. Some of them are here and will see this. Lets see how long until this post is flagged...
The "tech elite" making actual decisions are not reading and commenting on HN. A startup CTO or a Amazon Director is not part of the "elite."
It is fair to assume that some suckers are reading though.
> Lets see how long until this post is flagged...
I wouldn't be surprised if the video disappears too
[dead]
Why not have a conversation instead of downvoting. What did I say is wrong?
Your second paragraph is implying that the half of Americans who voted for Trump are "bad Americans". That seems to be sowing the division that your first paragraph warns against (even if it is a reason to dislike Trump).
I don't think either democrats or republicans can claim the moral high ground about sowing division.
It seems to me as though you're reading a lot in to that second paragraph. Are you disputing the basic facts outlined, about "masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight"? Because that is, in fact, a thing that is happening in cities all over the country right now, and simply pointing out that it is happening is not a partisan act.
The partisan act is the description of what is going on.
Can you show that the arrests are unlawful? Or else what exactly is your basis for the use of the term "kidnapping"?
How about "Federal judge rules ICE arrests at Liberty restaurant unlawful"? Does this meet your standard?
https://fox4kc.com/news/federal-judge-rules-ice-arrests-at-l...
I posted a substantial reply to this comment but immediately deleted it. It's impossible honestly to take issue here without crossing into culture war territory.
I love this one. Relevant today.
Divisive nonsense belongs in the garbage.
[flagged]
The guy speaking at 3:35 reminds me of a recent blog post by a certain tech celebrity, where he was recalling his recent visit to London and was unhappy to find less white people that he remembered from his previous visit.
History repeats itself.
Mind providing a link to the blog post?
I believe it's this one: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64
[flagged]
.
I get it and it does make sense. Humans always consider the unfamiliar dangerous by default, but I believe it's deeper and simpler than the arguments you present.
This is not a strictly human trait. Anthropologists are pretty sure we received this trait from our primate ancestors. It evolved out of family groups/tribalism.
Also, a large part of our brains are safety mechanisms. Many features are directed at keeping us alive which is why so many of our what if scenarios are about the worst happening.
In very tribal environments anyone not in your in-group is considered unsafe even if they look exactly like you (i.e. a tribe from 10 km away).
But the thing that has made humans the most successful species on Earth is our ability to override this behavior to cooperate at larger and larger scales.
To turn it around, you should assume anyone in the dark alley is potentially dangerous, and not allow biases or racism to cause you to lower your guard to someone who may end up stabbing you.
I agree with your general premise, in that there are bad actors, and appearance is a powerful classifier, so identifying potential bad actors by appearance is genuinely useful. I think there are many caveats in practice, such as:
Moreover, learning danger where there is danger is valuable, but so is unlearning danger where there isn't danger. And then there are the errors of learning danger where there isn't danger, and unlearning danger where there is danger. So, I take your point broadly, but there are many demons this way.I think you’re conflating intuitional alarms Gavin de Becker style with treating people as individuals which is two very different things. Racism is about our society treating people of color fairly whereas the other is about maintaining healthy boundaries and respecting your intuition.
I think this is a nuclear bad not only because I think it excuses bad behavior but also because I think it’s just intellectually lazy.
If I’m misinterpreting you please let me know because I hope I’m mistaken.
Jesus H. Christ. Are we now trying to make our racism sound acceptable by sprinkling it with scientific concepts like Bayesian thinking?
[flagged]
Defending racists is even more disgusting.
Nazi Germany built it's regime through direct control of the media and censorship of anyone or any idea that challenged their ideology.
I'm not sure propaganda that ignores the power of propaganda is a great idea.
Making media != direct control of the media
Nazi Party == direct control of the media.
Both our statements are true.
What is the ultimate point of burning books? Does it represent the manufacture of media or the control of it?
I don’t quite follow- could you spell out your argument?
This film is an attempt to ignore the economic causes of the war and entirely pin them on the population of Germany. This film mostly seeks to reduce the power of American public participation and labor organization by inferring that anyone who engages in the necessary steps to achieve them must be a type of "proto Nazi" to be ignored or feared.
Dunno. My takeaway was that race baiting and religious bigotry aren’t good for the country, no matter if the party of your choice is the one doing it.
Ah, but how exactly did the Nazis reach that point when they didn't have that capability? Perhaps... the things in the video?
Compare: "This video on pulling weeds is useless, because after the tree has grown it has a mighty root-system."
> Ah, but how exactly did the Nazis reach that point when they didn't have that capability?
The economic crises of the 20s and 30s. This is very well documented.
> Perhaps... the things in the video?
Speeches on street corners? I find that notion absurd. I find the presentation incredibly ignorant and manipulative.
What has this to do with one another? This video doesn't advocate for censorship of the media.
The public square is a recognized American institution for political change and messaging. The first amendment covers way more than freedom of the press. This video, to me, seems to deride it.
> This video, to me, seems to deride it.
I don't see any derision of the first amendment or of the public square (not sure which you were referring to as "it" in your last sentence). When we exercise our freedom of expression, we have zero guarantee that we will be listened to, believed, or respected.
The derision I see in this video is directed at visceral belief in whoever is shouting in the public square, especially when their message is so clearly divisive. The discussion between the Freemason and the naturalized citizen is itself a fine example of free expression in the public square.
These days there is social media. Controlled by whom? A handful of billionaires.
We’ve gone from CCP control of the media spigot to pro-US regime billionaires controlling it. One step forward and another step back.
I mean, the previous administration famously pulled strings across Twitter and Facebook to demote right wing media outlets on those platforms. This kind of crap isn’t new, and needs to stop.
Fascist propaganda needs a foothold. In the US, it's got a step ladder.