There's a simple propaganda test. It can be used to test if someone has been subjected to propaganda. It is very simple. It is this statement:
If you feel allowed to hate someone, you've been subjected to propaganda.
That's the extent of it. There's nothing more to it. It's as simple as that, and it is an effective test because of that.
Why would such a test be effective?
Thing is, most readers have strong feelings about either propaganda or hate, or both. There's an immediate impetus to try to refute this statement, or modify it in some way. And it is in this very act of refutation that makes the test an effective one.
It gets people to talk. And they talk propaganda. Either by reaching for those justifications that allow them to hate some particular someones (this staple of propaganda), or by trying to invalidate the test in some other way. It doesn't really matter in what particular way - the act speaks for itself, as it were. However the response is phrased, it finds itself trying to justify hate in some form. Usually because at some level, there's some hate that is perceived to be in need of justification.
It's a simple test. It is also slightly unethical. And, to be sure, it is in itself a nice piece of propaganda.
Not unlike the propaganda that you are subjected to on a daily basis. -