Because You Never Asked

(5/04)

     Perhaps the most reincident theme appearing throughout this mass of dubious philosophical patter is a discussion of how small concentrations of power can control the thought patterns of the masses below. Propaganda. All governments, rulers, authority figures, all patterns of behavior and belief, to some greater or lesser extent, are propagated by some vested interest with a survival instinct similar to that of a living organism.

     Propaganda is usually associated with information sources controlled by a government apparatus; Pravda, Castro, Hitler, etc. But we live in a world where the nation-state is becoming less a factor to the huge sums of international capital operating in an ever more integrated global economy. Government, in this era of spectacular sums of private money, has become more an instrument of commercial concerns than a watchdog for the public interest. One of the most potent blocks of capital (power) in this financial hierarchy is commercial media. It is a pivotal player (I'm tempted to say the most pivotal) in the neo-liberal-global-economy, and its interests are exactly the same as Daimler-Chrysler, Nike, Wal-Mart, Carnival Cruise Lines, or any other lucro-predator trying to get the consumer's money. Who's point of view do you think these commercial media giants will represent?

     The Bush administration is the quintessence of a government installed to represent huge sums of international capital. What makes the modern form of propaganda so effective is that it is disseminated by supposedly "independent" sources. The government (which is what people traditionally associate with propaganda) does not have to control it because the government is nothing more than a branch of the same enterprise: government, industry, media --- natural allies in the "New World Order".

     When vacationing by the Roman Sea, it is always a yearning to find out something about the baseball season that spurs my interest in buying an International Herald Tribune. Two weeks went by this year before such yearning became irrepressible. I thus found out that the Yankees were making their move, the Giants can't win with Bonds alone, and other sundry sporting tidbits. Over the next few days, like leftovers from a Thanksgiving feast, I would eventually read the rest of the news "American style".

     In the supercharged political climate created by the American incursion in Iraq, a two-week hiatus from gringo spin is sufficient time to show how isolated the United States has become in the international community. Media sources in Spain --- and Europe in general --- almost echo the views of this writer, whose strident dissent would be considered a radical view in his homeland. At the conclusion of this essay I will present a sample of this attitude from the mainstream Spanish press.

     One returning to the American version of things after such an extended absence is immediately struck by the difference in tone. Even in the midst of the ongoing deterioration of things, with the added disaster of the prison abuse scandals, American information sources are still dancing around the issues raised by the war in an attempt to soften the blow and maintain its legitimacy. Propaganda, if it is to be successful, must not be perceived as such. The old definition of propaganda embodied in a government controlled media apparatus, now seems as antiquated and ineffective as a two handed set shot. The "new" propaganda elaborated by commercial information sources, has reached a level of sophistication the boys of Goebbels or Stalin could not even conceive of.

     Now class, in order to further develop this theme, I will take some short excerpts from the editorial pages of the "Trib" and explain how American propaganda works.

     The first two remarks come from a column by Thomas Friedman. Friedman is a lead columnist for the New York Times and a serious honcho of American journalism. Although he supported the war in Iraq, his article is extremely critical of the way in which it has been handled. Once again, like everyone else in America's mainstream press, he debates policy, not legality or morality. (See essay "Escape From America, II").

     Friedman criticizes the Bush administration by saying that it now seems " . more important that the president appear to be true to his team than that America appear to be true to its principles." This remark sets forth the most fundamental essence of "Yanqui" rhetoric, that being the idea that the United States has some kind of moral mission in the world, that it represents something pure and good, that its motives are not the usual materially driven self interest of the imperial powers of old . that we are doing it for you, not us. Friedman goes on to say that as a result of his mishandling of the Iraqi war ". our president, who has a strong moral vision, has no moral influence."

     This second remark should have a dumbfounding effect on anyone not considered illiterate. Just what "moral vision" is Friedman talking about here? Peace on earth? Health care for all? Free market electricity? A further monopolized media industry? Strict government control over a woman's womb? The outlawing of atheism? Clean air and water? Halliburton-Enron cronyism? An increased disparity between rich and poor?

     Anyone trying to convince the rest of the world of America's lofty "principles" or George W. Bush's "strong moral vision", would be laughed out of town.

     The next set of excerpts is extracted from an article by Scot Lehigh, a regular columnist for the Boston Globe. He writes a piece that tries to come to grips with the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. I quote, " . the tragic error here is the Pentagon's apparent assumption of American exceptionalism, the notion that the basic decency of our society will still obtain even without strict rules and requirements." Once again, this inherent premise that America operates from some kind of moral high ground is a fundamental part of the message. This is not surprising. All nations, regardless of the truth of such assertions, indoctrinate their citizens into the nobility of their cause, and the United States has not been any nobler or more sincere than those who preceded it in the imperial power game. But the quoted passage is queasily insincere in another aspect as well: It assumes that the Pentagon was completely in the dark with regard to these widespread penal excesses. Lehigh is insulting the intelligence of anyone who has some. War is the Pentagon's game. Does a baseball manager not know that his pitcher knocks down a batter on occasion?

     Lehigh goes on to say, "What U.S. soldiers have done pales beside what Saddam himself did to Iraqis." Here's rule #1 with regard to understanding the Iraqi conflict: any reference to Saddam Hussein being a bad dude should immediately be thrown into the incinerator of discardable informational rubbish. This war did not commence because of Saddam's attitude towards the Iraqi people, but due to his attitude towards American and Bush Gang interests (or is it just the latter?). One only needs to cast a superficial glance at history to see that the United States has supported --- and still does when deemed beneficial to its interests --- 3^rd world dictator swine who kill their own people on a regular basis. In addition, whatever "Hussein himself did to Iraqis" can only seem benevolent when compared to the chaos the Disney army has engendered in Iraq over the last decade or so.           

     Lehigh goes on to say that the prison abuses are all the more damaging to America's credibility "because in the absence of weapons of mass destruction, what remains of the rationale for this war has narrowed to liberation and human rights." At this stage of the game, to even suggest the possibility that such concerns motivated this war has become a purely American exercise. Nobody abroad ever really believed such rubbish and any attempt to give credence to such could not find, outside the United States, the level of naivety necessary for acceptance. But the statement's true insincerity lies in what it has omitted to say, an omission that has been adhered to religiously by America's mainstream sources of information.

     The "o" word.

     The means of mass diffusion in the United States, by systematically refusing to seriously discuss the oil factor in this conflict, has, in a sense, lied to the American people. To say, as Lehigh has, that the war's reason to be has been narrowed to just human rights and liberation, without at least touching upon the "o" word, is a manipulation of reality beyond good conscience.

     Lehigh goes on to talk about "the anger this scandal has sparked amongst Iraqis". To the sensitive ear, there is something a bit off key in this song as well. Does this mean that before these prison episodes they were not so angry, that there was some kind of plausible relationship between the Americans and the Iraqis? Is there an Iraqi anywhere (other than our stooges), even before these sadistic incidents, who sympathized with the incarceration of these men? Anger? Is "anger" the proper word?

     Let's be sincere here: the Iraqis have been conquered by an invading imperial army. They are not angry. They are resisting. They are struggling to regain their independence.

     The last excerpt is extracted from a letter to the editor that, ironically, is very much in harmony with my own point of view in that it questions American idealism. But there is one sentence that troubles me and reflects a mistaken assumption. I quote, "The question is, when will we Americans liberate ourselves from the fear and isolation that has persisted since 9/11?"

     For those who concocted the atmosphere necessary to justify our military aggression, 9/11 has been turned into some kind of "turning point" in history, as a watershed moment when all our lives changed forever. This remarkable, horrible event, for all its photogeneity and visual sexiness, was not a historical fulcrum with before and after relevance. Unlike such events as the firing on Fort Sumter in 1861, or the Stock Market crash of 1929, or the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or perhaps the greatest 9/11-like event in history, Hiroshima, or the removal of the Berlin Wall --- events that shaped the course of history forever --- 9/11 was no more than an escalation of a previously existent condition. Trying to deal with Islamic terrorism, even in the United States, had been a part of the global scenario long before the events of 9/11, which, in spite of their spectacular nature, were no more hi-tech or sophisticated an operation than anything seen before. Even on the most mundane daily level, except for those most directly effected by the gruesome deed, nobody's life was seriously changed. Nobody missed a meal, nobody lost a home, nobody was displaced, almost nobody's livelihood was seriously prejudiced, the baseball season continued, nobody's erotic habits were interrupted. The good life, with some minor hiccups, continued to be present or absent in the same measure as before. Even in New York --- and I was there when it happened --- sure, people were upset, concerned, worried, angry, sad, but they were not "traumatized". There were no long lasting psychological-emotional scars. This idea that this event has changed us all forever could almost be considered a romantic notion.

     September 11^th was expropriated by a certain focal group of American politics (once again, we might refer to it as the "Military-Industrial-Media Complex", see essay "September 11^th" and others) and exploited for its own agenda. They fabricated this notion of a "turning point" in our history. If the attacks on the Twin Towers had never occurred, chances are they'd have found some other "turning point" to justify their military aggression upon.              

     I finish with the commentary from the mainstream Spanish press promised above. It was penned by one Gabriel Ferret, whose short opinion column appears regularly in a prominent place of a local daily newspaper. Although its tone would seem radical in the United States, it is dead center in Spain. I'll let the reader contrast it to what one reads in America.

     "Taking advantage of the current strained relations between Brazil and the United States, the New York Times has launched a smear campaign against Lula (the President of Brazil), accusing him of drinking too much. It's funny to think that such an accusation comes from a country directed by someone who was a stupid alcoholic in the past and who is now only stupid, and, on top of that, dangerous. Bush has always boasted of his victory over alcohol, qualifying it as a 'divine work'. Frankly, I'm not one to mix God in these affairs, especially if the 'divine work' ends up giving fruit to an individual who has stopped drinking, only to put humanity at the brink of chaos with his killing. (.)"

     I don't think Gabriel Ferret --- and he is representative rather than exceptional in Spain --- has much faith in George W. Bush's "strong moral vision".