I think that is untrue. It was harder (but not impossible) to push propaganda to uniformist societies because:
1. they were already brainwashed to some degree. In the sense that someone made them believe things that were objectively either not true or arbitrary ("our rabbit god against their duck god")
2. these societies did have no mass media. Reaching many people of the society was only possible through elaborate structures and later the printing press, hence the influence of the back then most elaborate brainwashing structure there was: the catholic church. And even they had a lot of work to make this count as many people could not read the books they were printing.
The bible is a perfect example for how those societies in fact were very unprepared for being brainwashed. The fact that mass media didn't exist just meant the whole thing was much more time- and labor-intensive than a similar thing would have been today. Although I argue today the challenge would be to get as broad of a movement — because people were more isolated back in the day and therefore more scared to deviate from the perceived norms.
Hence why today's brainwashing movements, cults etc. always strive to isolate their followers from the rest of society.
This is why I meantioned Everett, who got rejected by the natives. It took centuries of organized effort, that often involved a total reorganization of the society, to christianize Europe.
As in traditional societies that burn scientists for suggesting earth revolves around the sun? This is why it’s important to learn history instead of just making things up in your head.
Giordano Bruno comes closest and is perhaps what peppertree has in mind. But have a look at his Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno for some more nuance.
Let's assume, just for laughs, that I know a little history.
Many people have been burnt alive, Bruno included, Galileo excluded.
Bruno was a singular immolation for multiple heresy's, the Cathari were immolated en masse along with non heretics (for God to sort out) .. but none for claiming the earth traveled about the sun, Bruno (IIRC) made waves for denying actual core beliefs.
( Wikipedia cites Bruno not accepting the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, transubstantiation, et al as the main items on the docket .. more than enough for the church of the time )
Galileo wasn't burnt at the stake and many would hold that despite popular opinion his trial had less (almost nothing) to do with his support of heliocentrism nor even his "mocking" of an old friend and now Pope as "Simplicio" and was instead rooted in the worst kind of corporate infighting - he had savagely insulted people that ascended to power within the church who seized their chance for revenge when it came.
You can always find a hook to hang people upon if you look hard enough, the actual reasons for wanting them hung are often orthogonal to any claimed in performative public trials.
I don't agree with your implied 1:1 isomorphism between "traditional societies" and "illiterate peasants".
Many would argue that the "highly educated, clerical class" of those times represented a rigidly traditional society that punished any who deviated slightly from their norms.
Orwell, in particular, via his character Goldstein, called out the highly educated, clerical class as the most likely to define deviation and punish deviants.
moderately educated, owning class: these can afford (at least some privacy for) their deviations, but in order to administer the economies which support their lifestyle, have need of the
highly educated, clerical class: these (having been deputised some power) must conform, lest they be rusticated into the
poorly educated, working class: these again get to deviate (because who cares); they've never ever been, and they're never ever going to be, any danger to the owning class.
But of course this tripartite division only holds true in Oceania (and Eastasia, and Eurasia); it clearly wouldn't in any actual earthly polities, right?
The original point was about the evils of traditional religious societies and brain washing. Religion is a convenient way to kill people, and a way to brain wash the masses. Of course it is both easier and harder than the meme religion is bad because of its apparent need of traditional catharsism through burning people. You seem to agree with this so what are we discussing?
The history of religion contradicts your point. Judaism emerged in the most illiterate area of its time.
I think "immunity for brainwashing" is the wrong term. Back in the simple days people got less exposed to, how ever you would like to call it. The first ever printed western book was the f'ing bible and people in the 2000s thought the internet would spark a new era of education, you know, printing press 2.0 and such.
> Judaism emerged in the most illiterate area of its time.
I'm pretty sure Australia was way more illerate at that time - plenty of cave and rock art going on for some 70K years prior, sure, but no written language at all even by 1788.
What? You're forgetting that those traditional societies had a class with a literal cheat code to push anything into the minds of people: religion. All that "thinking for themselves" didn't happen there - historically, people have always been more than happy to outsource the spiritual to a small group of specialists.
Then again, traditional societies had little to do other than farming and breeding ad infinitum, so there was limited value to any propaganda.
The pope might have had a word with any king or priest that tried to push the wrong things into peoples head though. It wasn't like a do whatever concept. You'd had to have broad support in the ruling class.
For the big things, yes. But for matters of community, or trivialities of daily lives, the words of the clergy might as well have been words of god. You can still see this today, for example in countrysides of various Christian countries, where the local priests are given authority and respect by default, and when they e.g. start hinting that one political option is good and the other is evil, people end up voting just like the priests hinted.
