Not Paying Attention

The main reason that Bush & Co., including supporting operatives like Fox News, are able to float their lies on the sea of American public opinion is that most Americans don’t pay attention.

First, the majority of Americans simply aren’t very interested in what their country does internationally. They have the vaguest idea where countries like Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan are. A woman once said to me with a dismissive gesture, “Africa is down that way somewhere.” These are the people whose interests don't go beyond their own families, romances, jobs, health, homes, clothes, vehicles, television entertainment, and favorite sports teams.

The result: Most Americans are abysmally ignorant about everything which is important to their political leaders, to the powerful lobbyists such those which make up the Israel Lobby, and to the heads of international corporations such as armaments manufacturers and Big Oil.

But wait, it gets worse. Our rulers are happier with an indifferent population than with an informed one, but a population which accepts the beliefs it is told to accept makes the rulers even happier. After all there are elections to consider, and the need for acquiescence to taxation – especially the vast thefts from the workers needed to finance wars – and the hunger for people to join the military. And, ultimately, it is crucial to persuade people that they are better off with what they have than they would be if they rebelled.

In order to create opinions, people are bombarded every day with propaganda posing as “news” and “opinion". It follows, unfortunately, that even the terminally ignorant and uninterested have opinions. They parrot the slogans they are told are respectable, and they believe in a few simple “facts” which are usually falsehoods.

Here's the main point I want to make: If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, very little knowledge is even more dangerous. Because they are not interested and aren't paying enough attention, the mass of people believe that they have been presented with proof of facts when they have been presented with no such thing. Witness the lies which led much of the populace to enthusiastically support an invasion of Iraq. Even though reality has dampened that enthusiasm, I’ve heard that there are still Fox News followers who believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, that Sadaam Hussein was friendly with Al Qaeda, and even that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” and was on the fast track to making a nuclear bomb. It is amazing how a Big Lie can outlive all proof to the contrary!

The root of the trouble is that people don’t question and don’t distinguish between proof and mere assertion. Like a microorganism that can distinguish only between light and dark, they cannot sort out the gray areas where the truth lies. They listen to a burst of double-talk and obediently come away with a “fact” and an opinion.

Here is the example which triggered my diatribe. On Sunday, an anonymous group of US officials showed journalists what they said was proof that Iranian agents had smuggled weapons to Iraq, including "explosively formed penetrators". The officials refused to allow reporters to name them or to record their briefing, but instead just released pictures of weapons.

NYT
“BAGHDAD, Feb. 11 — Senior United States military officials on Sunday literally put on the table their first public evidence of the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war.”

Comment: Persons who pay attention are immediately on guard because they remember the completely fabricated “evidence” that has us mired in Iraq. To the dodos, however, the message is already clear: Iran is supplying America’s enemies in Iraq with lethal weapons! Iran is killing our boys!

“Never before displayed in public, the weapons included squat canisters designed to explode and spit out molten balls of copper that cut through armor. The canisters, called explosively formed penetrators or E.F.P.s, are perhaps the most feared weapon faced by American and Iraqi troops here.”

Comment: Wow! Canisters! Never before displayed in public! Even though they could have been made in Cincinnati, here they are, on display. That must prove something.

Watch for the weasel words and innuendo, some of which I’ve put in caps:

“Officials spread out on two small tables an E.F.P. and an array of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades with visible serial numbers that the OFFICIALS SAID link the weapons directly to Iranian arms factories. The officials also ASSERTED, WITHOUT PROVIDING DIRECT EVIDENCE, that Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans. The officials said such an assertion was AN INFERENCE BASED ON GENERAL intelligence assessments.”

Skepticism came naturally to the New York Times reporter, but by now the dodos have stopped reading.

“That inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it, seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with Iran.”

If the dodos had read this far, they would be attacking the reporter as an unpatriotic swine.

The officials “also LEFT MANY QUESTIONS UNANSWERED, INCLUDING PROOF THAT THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT WAS DIRECTING THE DELIVERY OF WEAPONS.”

“The officials were repeatedly pressed on why they insisted on anonymity in such an important matter affecting the security of American and Iraqi troops.

“The officials also WERE DEFENSIVE ABOUT THE TIMING of disclosing such incriminating evidence, since they had known about it as early as 2004.

“The officials asserted WITHOUT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that the Iranian security apparatus, called the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force controlled delivery of the materials to Iraq. And in A FURTHER INFERENCE, the officials asserted that the Quds Force, sometimes called the I.R.G.C. - Quds, could be involved only with Iranian government complicity.”

So, we have “proof” presented by persons who kept their identities secret who made various “assertions” which were “not based on direct evidence” but instead were based on “inferences ” which were based on “general assessments”. The anonymous “officials” “left many questions unanswered,” including questions about proof “that the Iranian government was directing the delivery of weapons.” They made other assertions “without specific evidence” -- sometimes based on inferences based upon inferences, one of the least trustworthy attempts at “evidence”.

The officials were also “defensive about the timing” of the disclosure of their so-called evidence, which has been around for three years. It appears that the “evidence” was dusted off to support the recent crescendo of anti-Iran war drums heard in Washington and Israel. The display on the tables was flimsy innuendo in the service of propaganda, not evidence that could support action.

So, the dodos now know for a fact that Iran is supplying weapons which are being used to kill our troops.

The final dangerous addition to this mix is patriotism. A former acquaintance of mine thought I was insane for not believing, before the Iraq invasion, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He has admitted I was right but he has not lost his “patriotism”, and he still feeds on the same kind of Bush/neocon lies that poisoned his brain before his country invaded Iraq.

If I asked him today, “If the US were Iran and Canada was Iraq, and the Chinese had invaded Canada, wouldn’t you think the US would be interested in 'interfering' and supplying weapons to the Canadians?”, he would say, “Sure.”

I once asked him these things:

If Israel had been created in California instead of Palestine, based on a 3000 year old book, with the backing of Chinese military force, do you believe that America should fight to take California back? He said, “Of course.”

Would you object if Russia attacked us because we have weapons of mass destruction? He answered, “Of course I'd object!”

If Cuba had nuclear weapons and the US didn't, do you think the US would be justified in creating nuclear weapons? He replied, "Absolutely!"

My punch line is that when I asked him, “How can you apply a different set of standards to what the US does than to what other countries do?” his hesitant but loud reply was,

“Because we’re Americans, dammit!"

You can't argue with that kind of logic.

Wrestling Lessons, Part II

Today I’m going to apply yesterday’s wrestling lessons to international conflicts.

There is always a Good Guy and a Bad Guy. With rare exceptions, people identify with the Good Guy and see his victories as theirs.

Can you remember the United States ever fighting a war in which there was no Bad Guy, or in which America was not the Good Guy?

What makes the Good Guy good and the Bad Guy bad?

First, appearance. The Good Guy is usually good looking, or at least pleasant looking, and the Bad Guy looks unpleasant, if not outright ugly. It helps if the villain appears foreign in some way, or of an unpopular race.

In international propaganda, “we” look better than “they” do. Our facial features are familiar, while theirs are depicted as alien, or distorted into unpleasant expressions in the case of people, like the Germans, who may actually look better than we do. Our soldiers are handsome and familiar-looking, while theirs are, for example, short, yellow, and buck-toothed, with slanty eyes behind thick glasses – or swarthy, big-nosed, and bearded. Our clothing is “normal” while they are “towel heads”. If “they” are from the Arab World (other than Israel), they are usually shown in U.S. photos as poorly dressed in un-American robes, squatting in the dirt next to ruins – not shown in the modern western dress in a well-furnished home one would actually see if one visited middle class and professional people in Arab countries. How many photographs have you seen of an Arab in a business suit, carrying a Gucci briefcase?

Appearance is related to the first aim of war propaganda -- to “dehumanize” the enemy so as to make the Good Guys willing to see the enemy killed, or even willing to help kill him. We must never be allowed to identify with the people our leaders want to destroy. Showing the enemy looking “different from us” is an important step toward dehumanization.

Second, reputation. The Good Guy is good primarily by designation, and not because he has done anything in particular to earn the title. In international politics, unlike wrestling, there is the additional arbitrary factor of where one is born. For most people, where they happen to be born determines where their patriotism lies. Loyalty goes with birthplace, which designates where the “Good Guys” come from . . . whether it’s California, Tokyo, Shanghai, Moscow, Berlin, or Marseilles. Few Americans would ask, “Why should I fight for America instead of North Korea?” It’s just a given.

(Wrestlers know how to use the “patriotism” factor. Some deck themselves out like the star spangled banner for a kind of “Captain America” effect, while some deliberately appeal to the denizens of a certain region, as by wearing cowboy boots and a Western hat. Wait a minute now; I could be talking about politicians!)

Third, demeanor. The hero may be confident and even cocky, but he is not as outrageously vain and boastful as his opposite number. Boasting is less important on the international front than in wrestling, but what Americans cheer as admirable in the shouting bravado of a U.S. Marine would be seen as threatening bluster in an armed Al Qaeda trainee. Foreign leaders we are meant to dislike are almost always portrayed as bombastic boasters.

Fourth, courage. The Good Guy is always brave, even when he is in serious trouble, but the Bad Guy exhibits bravery only as long as he’s on top. When the Bad Guy gets into trouble, he cringes, cowers, kneels and begs, retreats, and even tries to jump out of the ring and run away from the fight.

Yes, “our” people are courageous by nature, by virtue of being born where we were, while the enemy appears brave (if ever) only because of insane fanaticism or outlandish religious beliefs, or drugs, or brainwashing, or some other factor which explains the apparent bravery away. When an American “celebrity” opined that the men in the planes which brought down the twin towers were brave, he was promptly ostracized. The enemy can never be brave. His attacks, no matter how courageous and self-sacrificing, are “cowardly”. Professional military men may acknowledge the bravery of enemy troops, but that remains a private matter.

Fifth, fair fighting and abiding by the rules differentiate a Good Guy from a Bad Guy . . . but only to a point. What the audience wants, and often gets, is a Good Guy who is driven over the edge by a cheating, dirty-fighting villain, so that the Good Guy gives back worse than the Bad Guy gave in the first place. Whereas rule-breaking, sneaky tactics, and torture were booed by the audience when they are used by the villain, they are cheered when used by the hero. The very things which most marked the Bad Guy as a villain are now approved for the Good Guy. Here we see also the holy power of “retaliation” as compared to villainous “aggression”. "Isn't it terrible? But we have to do it."

We Americans were always told – until the past few years when the truth became too obvious to hide – that American soldiers fought cleaner than their enemies, abided by the rules of war and the Geneva Convention, and were in particular distinguished from the enemy because the enemy used torture and Americans didn’t. Atrocity and torture tales – true and untrue – are the staple of war propaganda. Why was Saddam Hussein so bad? Mainly because he tortured people. (How many times before and during the invasion of Iraq did I see that photograph of an empty chair in the middle of an empty room with some kind of line hanging above it, supposedly going to prove Saddam Hussein’s use of torture. It could have been in Minnesota.) Why were Nazis so bad? Because they tortured people. Many a Hollywood “war movie” told us so. And what was the main Nazi evidence that the Soviet Bolsheviks were so horrible? The Bolsheviks tortured people.

What is now the main evidence before the world that Americans are bad? They torture people. While the president of the U.S. says (in ludicrous contradiction of hundreds of photographs and documented reports) that “Americans don’t torture people”, he seeks and obtains laws which make torture legal. Has torture become respectable – as torture by the Good Wrestler is okay under certain circumstances – or has America become a Bad Guy? It sometimes happens, even in wrestling, that a Good Guy turns bad.

(I’ll remind myself, in a future blog entry, that the U.S. was not such a Good Guy in previous wars either.)

To wrap this up, when I read the daily propaganda and the results of opinion polls and man-in-the-street interviews, I often think of that evening of wrestling in West Palm Beach. It was truly illuminating.