March 17, 2026: TikTok, a short form video app, currently has about two billion users worldwide. Used mainly for entertainment and communication, it is also used to disseminate propaganda. To do this TikTok makes use of numerous propaganda techniques currently in use. If you spend any time at all consuming mass media, you will find these techniques familiar.

1. Guilt By Association: This is used to damage someone's reputation by associating them with an unattractive person or organization. It doesn't matter if there is an actual association or not.

2. Backstroke: Systematically belittling the goals of the subject of the article as the goals are being listed. For every step forward for the subject, the propagandist pulls the reader back.

3. Misinformation: This is a subtle technique, it involves reporting information in such a way that the final message of the story is not true, it's what the propagandist wants you to believe.

4. Over Humanization: It is a perfectly valid technique to tell a story by focusing on the real people who the story impacts. However, this is also an easy technique for manipulation when a propagandist tries to mask an issue by making anyone who has a valid disagreement look evil due to all the human suffering talked about in the story.

5. Name Calling: This is officially the oldest trick in the book. It is cheap and easy. Often immigration reform activists are called anti-immigrant, while people who are against state sponsored racism are called racists themselves. Name calling clouds and confuses issues, and when repeated by enough people on one side of an issue, creates a weight of its own, which isn't really there, but must now be explained before the victim may have an opinion regarding the issue in question. Example: By saying that the population is growing too quickly, many people assumed she was a racist.

6. He Said, She Said: This is a technique whereby the author can say something they know isn't true, or isn't fair, but they want to say it anyway.

7. Unproven Facts: This is when a usually immature writer is frantically trying to prove a position and they begin to quote studies, reports, and experts as proving this or that, but they never mention the study's name, location, where copies can be found, or the conditions specific to the experiments.

8. Lying: Sometimes complete lies are told. Example: An author in Arizona writes a report which states that the reason that a local mayor decided not to use the police to enforce immigration law was because protests by a certain ethnic group scared him away from it. In actual fact, as stated by the mayor himself, the reason the police weren't used was because no training program had been set up between the police and the INS/ICE. Any person who was a member of said ethnic group would gain from a report like this because, if people begin to hear that that group is really aggressive and authorities do what they say, then the power of that group is enhanced, and everyone reading the news will begin thinking they should always let that group have what it wants. The fact that our police need special permission to enforce some laws and not others is a topic for another discussion.

9. Telling the Truth, For a While: To throw people off the track, biased news services will give good accurate reporting for a while, usually when it no longer matters, then they will stick it to you the next time your guard is down. The best way to recognize this technique is to simply remember who the biggest transgressors are. You must understand that if someone lies or tries to manipulate a story once, they will do so again. They will never be unbiased. They will, however, say something fair from time to time. This is due to the fact that if they were biased every time they spoke, they would soon run out of credibility. Do not trust them twice. Would you buy a car from someone who cheated you on a previous purchase just because they say something you want to hear later?

10. Not Talking: At all about something. Of course the biggest recent example of this was a series of Moslem riots in France. The fact that the rioters were still burning more than one hundred cars each night was suppressed and avoided, rather readers were fed the line that the riots were over. The media went days and days not reporting on the riots which were revealing the complete failure of French social, economic, and immigration policy. However, France, being a socialist country, is favored by the socialist media so the country's failings were not reported. When you're aware of a major issue underway, but see no coverage on it, then you can be sure the media is against the ideas which discussing that topic would raise.

11. Subtle Inaccuracies/Dismissive Tone: Misstating a topic, often a serious one, and pretending any objection or concerned view is silly, unrealistic, or just not necessary. Illegal immigration is a major threat to the United States. With the rapid importation of distinct, and not particularly grateful, ethnic groups who have no interest in anything American, we create division, conflict, and risk. This is a risk that will grow to overwhelm our children. One writer used a childlike, grandmotherly tone to try to belittle and dismiss this serious topic. Her style was to write with pleasantries such as oh, my you've grown, look at the happy big new population. This is an intentional disservice to the readers and an attempt to manipulate them into not recognizing the risk they and their children face of being supplanted in their own home once and for all by foreigners, who, by the way, won't care about you once they outnumber you. At best, this is a foolish policy. At worst, it is self-destruction. In any case, it must be controlled responsibly if we are to remain masters of our own future. This author's method is just one way to use a dismissive tone to trick people into not recognizing the topic's seriousness. The next time you're reading an article which seems to speak childishly of a serious issue, you should be aware that in all probability the author doesn't fail to understand the seriousness of the issue, rather they may be trying to further an opposing agenda.

12. A One One Punch: Pretending to represent two sides, but one side gets a couple of great lines; the other side gets a lame line. Example: Tax cuts are all the rage these days, but two senators disagree on how appropriate tax cuts would be right now. Left Senator Jones says the rich are the ones getting a cut. Who needs rich people with more money? Right Senator Smith doesn't think that's correct. He thinks only certain individuals should benefit. The smallest number of people who enjoy this are the people with the most money, repeated Left Senator Jones. I think that money belongs to all the people, and the best way to give out money the government collects through friendly tax raises is for the government to do it! It's like all the people getting a raise, said Left Senator Jones. Right Senator Smith didn't agree. He thought the money should reflect the people who had earned the most. When asked why Right Senator Smith felt this way he said People have to earn a living. Left Senator Jones said, it is precisely this attempt by Senator Smith to keep people from earning a living that I and my party oppose.

13. Volume: This is related to Coordination, it is merely a deluge of the same story line everywhere, until it becomes dominant, and the media's view of it becomes the dominant view. Examples: Elian Gonzalez, Florida Recount, Poor Election Night Coverage. If you pick a topic with a strong liberal attraction, you will often find that all the news stories about a given current event seem to draw a similar conclusion about it. When you notice this, just ask yourself if it's probable that, in a nation of nearly 300 million, no one has a legitimate opposing opinion. For example, does everyone think Republicans want to poison themselves and all the rest of us? Does everyone want unlimited, uncontrolled, illegal immigration to displace their children? Does everyone love working from January till May for free to pay the government taxes? No, they don't.

14. Coordination: This occurs when a number of like-minded journalists all report the same angle at about the same time. This really doesn't require a conspiracy, there are few media journalists so they can easily see what their buddies' takes are on issues, then parrot the same line. A couple years ago we saw an article in a Southeast paper that actually addressed the damage being inflicted by uncontrolled immigration. We were shocked. Unfortunately, there followed soon after a long rose-colored story about the wonderful immigrants saving our economy which was the magnet for their arrival in the first place at no expense to us, written by the previously honest author, plus 5 other additional co-authors aka thought police. It did have a tiny list of challenges, which was followed by an immediate rebuttal, and all together comprised less than five percent of the article, which among journalists passes for equal time. Magically, a very similar article appeared at the same time in a nearby regional paper written by three other authors with almost the same structure, a list of wondrous immigrants and everything was perfect about them. Did the Censoring 5 and The Three Amigos just happen to telepathically think the same thing, write it, and publish it at the same time? We'll let our readers decide the odds of Spontaneous Identical Publishing /S.I.P. for themselves.

15. Fogging an Issue to Total Nonsense: Sometimes certain groups have an interest in making sure that as few people pay attention to an issue as possible. A good propagandist can write a long, nonsensical article for the purpose of confusing the majority of readers, who themselves work hard all day. It doesn't take much for them to see a catchy headline, then begin to dig into a long rambling article, then throw their hands up and say I don't have the extra energy to decipher this. The reader is correct; the fault is with the propagandist. Example: The Real Reason Why We Need Tax Cuts! A lot of people want tax cuts these days. Here's the real reason they might not be such a good idea. The social ramifications themselves are reason enough! Given a perplexing view of the real intergenerational conflict in today's live and let live society, most people make the more responsible choice. This leads us to the logical question, with school budgets tight, can we afford to argue over social services? A close examination of IRS records plainly displays the fiduciary incentive for economic re-examination in a post-socialist sense. This article will then ramble on like this for 3 or 4 pages.

16. 2,3,4 Technique: Mentioning only one side of an issue 2, 3, or 4 times in an article, each time pretending you are about to present the opposing side, but you never do. Then the article suddenly ends and the reader feels bombarded, outnumbered and alone. In reality the opposing view is by definition held by many people, the author merely refused to present the side of the argument he or she disagrees with. Example: The decision to seal off an additional 4 million acres was a controversial one. Barbara Oaks of Centerville says, there are great advantages to sealing the area off. Many in town feel the same way, less traffic means less pollution, less damage to the area, and less noise. However, not everyone agrees with her. The most common complaints don't address the additional benefits of closing the forest, such as increased education opportunities for area children. Not many opportunities like this afford themselves year round, and keeping the area closed will guarantee the educational hikes around the perimeter can continue. Many longtime residents feel that closing all 4 million acres will be a burden. But don't tell Steve Longmont. “I hope they close even more”, Steve told our interviewers. “There's no good reason for heavy travel through the whole forest, and I'd like to see the place prohibited. Several area polls show a large number of people in favor of closing the area. Keeping the forest closed is what is best for the town.”

17. Pre-emptive Strike: This is when the writer attacks the reader viciously at the very outset of the article with the acceptable view of the topic. The writer tries to beat it into the reader. Example: Just a couple days ago the possible presidential run of a politician who is very pro-enforcement of immigration law was featured in an article by an East Coast paper. The article began by saying the candidate doesn't expect to win because of this or that, and in fact doesn't think he'll win at all, he just wants people to talk about immigration. Nowhere in the article did the candidate say he didn't expect to win, or that he only wanted people to talk about immigration. In fact, the article pointed out that he had already visited Iowa 4 times in 6 months, not at all like someone who doesn't even want to win. At the end of the article were instructions on how to defeat this candidate. The opening attack on his seriousness as a candidate, and the closing advice on how to defeat him are classic examples of Pre-emptive Strike.

18. Framing the Debate: Setting an argument around two alternatives which you would prefer, rather than the true alternatives. Example: The debate over how much funding to give to the project continued. Some are arguing for a reduced amount, while others want to see a much higher contribution level. The needs for both a lower budget and a higher budget have been laid out and defended in the debate brochure, which all members of the decision making body have been reading over for the last three days. Note: the correct decision was to stop the project completely, it accomplishes nothing and the people running it are stealing the money, but you weren't offered the choice of stopping it.

19. Token Equal Time: Sometimes a weak, tiny understatement is added to a propaganda piece, apparently so the writer can pretend they had been fair. This technique is quite common, it consists of an article written with entirely one point of view, then at the end a meager statement from the opposing view is printed, it is immediately refuted, then the article either ends or continues on with the preferred point of view.

20. Interpreting A Statement: Have you ever seen a writer say that someone said something, then what the person said followed, but it didn't look anything like what the writer claimed was meant? Example: The official said that they didn't hold anyone from the previous administration responsible for the loss. I think we should just focus on the future, said the official. note: he didn't say he didn't hold anyone from the previous administration responsible, he said we should focus on the future. See the difference?

21. Withholding Information: Is it the same as lying? Some in the media might not want to answer that question. Recently a candidate for mayor of Los Angeles was portrayed as a jubilant son of an immigrant in an article. What the article didn't mention was that he also once said Prop 187 is the last gasp of white America in California while he belongs to, or once belonged to, a racist separatist organization which plans to take over the American southwest for Mexico to rule, and at a recent ceremony honoring early black leaders he called one of the early union members a nigger in front of 400 black leaders. A hundred people walked out of the meeting room, though it was reported as 25 percent in order to diminish the effect. None of this was included in the article about the jubilant son of an immigrant. More recently there is the example of multiple murders on private land in Wisconsin by a Hmong immigrant. In actual fact, of the six people murdered all but one were unarmed, one was a woman, and shell casings were found all around the area, meaning the murderer chased his unarmed victims all around to try and kill them. The story as reported called all the victims hunters to conjure up the image of tough armed men in a fair fight, even though the victims weren't hunting at all but were warning the killer to stay off of their private land, hence he murdered them. The upsetting details only came out long after the story was initially reported. Are the authors of these articles lying to the public by not presenting all of the information about the stories, or are the authors so incompetent and clueless that they aren't even aware of these major points even though they are supposed to be writing about these important stories? The authors are either liars or morons.

22. Distracting or Absurd Metrics: With this technique, the writer attempts to drag the reader into a debate about what the reader is even seeing. This is usually used when the propagandist is falling behind and must hurry to destroy the correct understanding of events. Example: During the French riots many writers began arguing about the number of cars burned and whether the number still indicated riot levels. In other words, let's argue about what a riot is, and when you have enough destroyed cars, we'll talk. Meanwhile, you're discussing burnt cars and not the ongoing riots.