In this post, we explain a way in which propaganda is spread. We first propose an observation about when a person P says a statement X in a context C:
In a context C, P said a statement X if and only if P can say not(X), i.e., the opposite of X. If not(X) cannot be said in context C, then there exists some underlying propaganda being spread while saying X.
We now give examples of our observation for different contexts:
Politics: Consider two political parties, A and B. A spokesperson for party A says that party B is corrupt. Here, the context is political, and the complementary statement would be that party A's spokesperson says party B is honest. But we know that party A would never explicitly praise party B. Thus, the complementary statement cannot be said. So, party A's spokesperson's propaganda is to promote party A over B, no matter what.
Dating: Consider a man A trying to woo a woman B. A says to B that she is very beautiful. Here, the context is dating. The complementary statement would be A saying that B is not beautiful. But we know that A would not say that if they want to have a chance of dating B. Thus, the complementary statement cannot be said. So, A's propaganda is to make B feel good, not tell them the truth.
Selling a product: Consider a CEO announcing a product, A, and consider a competing product, B. The CEO says that A is better than B overall. Here, the context is marketing. The complementary statement would be that B is better than A. But we know that the CEO would never make such a statement because the laws of capitalism prevent it. So, the propaganda that the CEO is spreading is that his company's product A is better than others, whether it is objectively so or not.
Day-to-day Life: Consider A wishing B a happy birthday. The complement of this would be A wishing B a sad birthday. But we know that this would not happen in a general context. Here, the propaganda being spread is that birthdays are inherently good.
War: Consider country A's spokesperson saying to country B that country A is going to attack country B tonight. Now the complementary statement would be A's spokesperson saying that they are not going to attack B tonight. But we know that this rarely happens. So, here the propaganda is that conveying that an attack is going to happen is more important than conveying that an attack is not going to happen.
So, we gave a few examples of how not being able to say the complement of a statement in a context inherently means that some underlying propaganda is being spread.