What explains the gullibility of Americans, a gullibility that has mired the US in disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and which promises war with Iran, North Korea and a variety of other targets if neoconservatives continue to have their way? Part of the explanation is that millions of conservatives are thrilled at the opportunity to display their patriotis [jingoism and to show their support for their country. Bush’s rhetoric is perfectly designed to appeal to this desire.
"You are with us or against us" elicits a blind and unquestioning response from people determined to wear their patriotism on their sleeves. "You are with us or against us" vaccinates Americans against factual reality and guarantees public acceptance of administration propaganda.
Another part of the explanation is that emotional appeals have grown the stronger as the ability of educated people to differentiate fact from rhetoric declines.
Emotional appeals to fear and to patriotism have led close to half of the population to accept unaccountable government in the name of "the war on terrorism."
Another reason for the gullibility of Americans is their lack of alternative information to government propaganda. The independence of print and TV media disappeared in the media consolidations of the 1990s.
Today a handful of large corporations own the traditional media. The wealth of these corporations consists of broadcast licenses, which the companies hold at the government’s discretion.
Newspapers are run by corporate executives, whose eyes are on advertising revenue and who shun contentious reporting. The result is that the traditional media are essentially echo chambers for government propaganda.
The Internet and the foreign news media accessible through the Internet are the sources of alternative information. Many Americans have not learned to use and to rely on the Internet for information.
Many Americans find the government’s message much more reassuring than the actual facts. The government’s message is:
"America is virtuous. Virtuous America was attacked by evil terrorists. America is protecting itself by going to war and overthrowing regimes that sponsor or give shelter to terrorists, erecting in their place democracies loyal to America."
Sugar-coated propaganda doesn’t present Americans with the emotional and mental stress associated with the hard facts.
With such vicious rhetoric, it's understandable that Iranians would want to develop the means to defend themselves against nuclear threats.
They're afraid America/Israel will invade on any pretext, as the US did with Iraq.
Anti-Iran Rhetoric: Vicious Neocon/Zionist Propaganda
Special interest groups, individuals and specially planted moles in the Bush Administration create policies such as those that dragged us into the invasion of Iraq, and are now paving the way to expand the bloodshed into Iran.
Now Iran is looming bigger and bigger in the crosshairs.
The older, vaguer and less imminent threats of regime change through anti-Iran propaganda, exploitations of pro-democracy and human rights advocates, support for dissident groups inside and outside Iran, and various economic pressures, have now been ratcheted up to a level that might quickly get out of control.
Now we are hearing that Iranian weapons are "killing Americans" and Brits in Iraq, as well as allied forces in Afghanistan. We hear that Iran is training and sending Lebanese Hezbollah fighters to Iraq to commit terrorism and to "kill Americans."
This is a cunningly created new catch-phrase that is meant to generate just the perfect rationale to declare war.
We hear that Iran is sending arms to the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, and even to Al-Gha'eda terrorists in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Naturally, nobody expects the public to demand some proof of all this involvement; allegations seem to always suffice. After all, it is not like having doubts about who the father of Anna Nicole's daughter was!
Of course, it is common knowledge that American arms are found in the hands of terrorists who kill Iranians in Iran or Iranians on pilgrimage in Iraq.
And it doesn't seem to matter if American Special Forces or the Brits are supplying arms and training to the likes of Jund-Ullah terrorists, among many other groups, to infiltrate Iran and "kill Iranians".
We hear that a former politician and part-time television actor, now a candidate (by default, because of the lackluster Republican hopefuls) for presidency of the United States, is also a visionary in foreign policy.
Like his co-campaigners on the Republican ticket, is a proponent of bombing Iran. Leading Democratic candidates for presidency refuse to rule out a preemptive attack on Iran.
They prefer for the Democratic majority Congress to approve and get credit for such a decision, which it surely will.
And, the sly weasel himself, Senator Joseph Lieberman, the so-called Independent (he is definitely independent of true American interests, but fully committed to the mandates of the Israeli regime) believes we shouldn't even wait past the end of this year!
His compatriots and co-conspirators are the top foreign policy advisors to Vice President Dick Cheney (the real decision maker), as well as to the State Department.
We also saw the American Congress almost unanimously (minus only two votes by Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul) approve a resolution accusing the Iranian President Ahmadinejad of inciting "genocide" by promoting the destruction of Israel (against all evidence that he ever said such a thing!).
The other sly fox, the Holocaust survivor Tom Lantos, now the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, has just championed another resolution to strengthen sanctions against the Islamic Republic in order to strangulate the Iranian people beyond recovery.
Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.
American Indoctrination 101: Freedom Is a Fallacy
“Freedom of speech” in the media is a fallacy. The spectrum of accepted ideas is embarrassingly narrower than it is in most European countries.
The voices in those media form a small, hermetic, repetitive and self-preserving elite that has less to do with ideology than a form of religious belief in the status quo.
Once again blogs have dented the club and forced it to own up to realities it might not have otherwise, but even the blog world has developed its own class system, its own establishment, conventions and, quite rigorously, its own rules of intolerance.
Freedom of speech is pointless when it doesn’t provoke conversations, when dissent isn’t accepted not only as an inherent value of the liberal mindset, but as its necessity.
I’m tempted to say that we live in a conformist age. But in reality most of American history has been one age of conformism after another, shocked and jagged periodically by brief periods of radical rethinking, by that shaking of the tree of liberty Thomas Jefferson spoke about, often with drips of blood as a consequence.
This is not, by any means, one of those periods. Not even close. Dissent over Bush has formed its own establishment.
But a movement to be rid of something as specific as one presidential administration and its follies isn’t the same as a movement to change the culture, politically and socially.
There isn’t, among viable Republican or Democratic candidates running the slightest desire to question the status quo, to, for example, up-end assumptions about the market economy.
Or to challenge the eminently challengeable belief that American interests begin and end with its business interests. Fire up those engines of subversion and see how far your “freedom of speech” will take you.
False Flag: Virtuous America
The disconnect between the neocons’ Bush-Cheney version of the world and the reality we face is clear enough.
With simple-mindedness that makes George Babbitt seem like a foreign policy whiz, Bush thinks that American power and institutions are innate virtues that the world craves, that no people could want another system.
It’s what drove his assumptions that American tanks in Baghdad could metamorphose into the making of another San Antonio on the banks of the Tigris. He got an Alamo in reverse, writ large.
But he had the majority of Americans’ support as late as 2004. And if he did so, it’s because the disconnect he projected is alive and well in the heart of most Americans.
They have soured on Bush. Yet they haven’t lost their illusions about 'virtuous' America.
Bush will soon be gone. Not so the fatal assumption that to be an American is to be the world.
Democracy serves the interests of the bourgeois class. Democracy's narrow limits are set by capitalist exploitation. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: Freedom for the slave-owners.
Bourgeois Society (Capitalism)
Bourgeois Society is the social formation in which the commodity relation – the relation of buying and selling – has spread into every corner of life.
The family and the state still exist, but – the family is successively broken down and atomised, more and more resembling a relationship of commercial contract, rather than one genuinely expressing kinship and the care of one generation for the other.
The state retains its essential instruments of violence, but more and more comes under the sway of commerical interests, reduced to acting as a buyer and seller of services on behalf of the community.
The ruling class in bourgeois society is the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production as Private Property, despite the fact that the productive forces have become entirely socialised and operate on the scale of the world market.
The producing class in bourgeois society is the proletariat, a class of people who have nothing to sell but their capacity to work; since all the means of production belong to the bourgeoisie, workers have no choice but to offer their labour-power for sale to the bourgeoisie.
This system of buying and selling labour-power is called wage-labour and is characteristic of bourgeois society, though it has been around since the Peasant Revolt of 1381.
The classic form of wage labour is payment for work by the hour or week. Nowadays many workers work on the basis of contracts and piece-work but these forms only disguise the underlying relationship, which remains that of wage-labour.
Money and all forms of credit reach their highest development in bourgeois society. As a result, life in bourgeois society “happens” to people in much the same way as the weather happens to people, with money flowing around apparently according to its own laws.
To put this another way, in bourgeois society there is a “fetishism” of commodities.
Just as tribal peoples believed that their lives were being determined by trees and animals and natural forces possessing human powers, in bourgeois society, people's lives are driven by money and other commodities, whose value is determined by extramundane forces.
American politics is a form of government that serves in the interests of the bourgeois class.
The word Democratic is attached to such a government, because in it all people in such a society have certain freedoms:
Those who own the means of production, the bourgeoisie, are free to buy and sell labor-power and what is produced by it solely for their own benefit.
Those who own only their own ability to labor, the proletariat, are free to sell themselves to any bourgeois who will buy their labor power, for the benefit of maintaining their own survival, and giving greater strength and power to the bourgeoisie.
The state fundamentally represents the interests of one class over others. On this basis Lenin named bourgeois democracy bourgeois dictatorship.
On the same token, Lenin made no distinction that the socialist state, being a state that represents the working-class, is a dictatorship of the proletariat.
In no civilized capitalist country does "democracy in general" exist. All that exists is bourgeois democracy.
It is not a question of "dictatorship in general", but of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, i.e., the proletariat, over its oppressors and exploiters, i.e., the bourgeoisie, in order to overcome the resistance offered by the exploiters in their fight to maintain their domination.
by Edward Strong We know who they are We must do something about them - turn them off, tune them out, and build an oppositional media that...
by Edward Strong The unwillingness of American and Western societies to confront naked Islamophobic incitement recalls so many pathological...
by Edward Strong What could better reflect the collective psychosis of the American Empire than our mass obsession with the NFL, culminating in...
by Edward Strong The only people who identify Hillary Clinton as part of the “left” are the wingnuts on right-wing talk radio and Fox News....
by Edward Strong Although Bush has two years to run and still has the power to embark on another war, his SOTU speech marks the point at which...
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites