New Page 1

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time..."

Every now and then an excellently insightful book comes to my attention that deserves wider awareness among all members of our American society. The book Weapons of Mass Deception by Rampton and Stauber falls into that category as a book that every American needs to read in order to penetrate incisively through the pervasive and persisting smokescreen of symbols, words, spin-twisted definitions, and assumptive biases thrown out by the present Bush Administration to justify its recent agenda of domestic political and foreign imperialist aggressions.

The book's cover (left) features a cartoon by 'Tom Tomorrow' (AKA: Dan Perkins), who is in my opinion one of the most brilliant and sardonic political cartoonists we have today, and it summarises in one single cartoon panel the essence of the Bush Administration's efforts to bamboozle the citizens of America with its neoconservative-derived spin-version of political reality. [Those who are interested in discovering Dan's pungent pictorial humor can find more at http://dir.salon.com/topics/tom_tomorrow/index.html and http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2003_08_03.html ]. Although there is a general belief that all is not truly lost as long as we may find something even remotely funny about otherwise tragic circumstances to laugh at, despite Tom's Piranha-like reality checks, there is indeed great tragedy to be found in the fact that so many of our fellow citizens prefer thinking with their medulla oblongata, rather than their cerebral cortex. This is another way of saying that far too many Americans presently confuse presidential 'brain farting' with astute, soundly based, and well-intended political philosophy.

Be that as it may, this book is a singular consciousness-raising tool in that it not only explores the deceits, half-truths, and outright lies of the Bush administration itself, it more importantly documents and dissects the strong associative ties that today's institutional 'truths' have with established techniques and tested principles of modern advertising--which are in turn greatly derived from the basic tenets of classical propaganda ('brain-washing' for those who would rather use a more vulgar term for this social instrument for achieving mind-control and establishing patterns of behavioral manipulation/modification).

As a general topic, this is something that we have harped upon incessantly over the past years, but this books helps to bring a dangerous influence in American society (that is such a widely pervasive phenomenon in our present society that it is accepted dumbly and unquestioningly by the masses, without so much as a whimper) into sharp and immediate focus.

Perhaps the most basic fact that the book seizes upon is the fact that today's Republican, right-wing, neoconservative flavored dogma is formulated, guided, directed, and carried out using the insidious social technology that derives directly from American advertising. That is, the frightfully effective behavior-modifying tactics that have been in use for decades by commercial corporations to form and shape consumer preferences are today being increasingly turned loose on the American public in the form of grossly spin-doctored, 'cooked', and 'sexed-up' distortions of truth to achieve the political ends of the political party that presently occupies the corridors of power in Washington DC. The fact that techniques of commercial marketing are extremely useful in many venues other than consumption of domestic material products is perhaps best illustrated in the appointment of Charlotte Beers (known as the "queen of Madison Avenue") to the State Department's position of 'Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy' shortly after the events of 9/11 took place. Massively funded and carefully orchestrated American foreign and domestic policy (see 'public relations', read 'propagandising') efforts are nothing new to the Bush Administration, having been carried out and relied upon with increasing frequency by American political administrations since the rise of commercial advertising first demonstrated (along with the Third Reich's master propagandist, Josef Goebbels) how useful carefully titrated partisan alterations of reality could be employed to successfully form public and worldwide opinion.

Regrettably, to perhaps 9/10ths of the American population, fully socialised into numbed unawareness by years of relentless exposure to the the artful half-truths and deceptive exaggerations of commercial advertising, these facts fail to be generally recognised for what they are: exceptionally dangerous distortions of concrete form and cold, factual logic. This is, moreover, particularly the case at the present time, when commercial media and the popular entertainment industries have succeeded so skillfully in pandering to the adolescent fantasies of half-matured youthful minds to the point where virtually everything today is aimed at that vulnerable soft juvenile target of susceptibility, rather than at an audience of potentially reflective and critically aware individuals. 'Fantasy escapism', still at an infant stage of social development as recently as the 1950s, has today grown beyond a small substratum of the population that originally sought refuge from the harshness of reality in it to assume status as a firmly adhered part of virtually every individual's life in America. Coexisting cozily alongside the strong trait of hypocrisy that is an inheritance of white Anglo-Saxon religion, there are presently no longer any absolute truths to be found in any aspect of our American culture....just the existence of an endless series of 'reinvented', 'reinterpreted', and grossly bias-skewed, fantasy-based substitute realities that are completely devoid of any ultimate objectivity whatsoever.

Found in this book: "The propagandist wants to promote his or her own interests, or those of an organisation--sometimes at the expense of the recipients, sometimes not", write Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, in their book Propaganda and Persuasion. "The point is that the propagandist does not regard the well-being of his audience as a primary concern". Propagandists also tend to have a relatively low regard for the rationality and intelligence of their audiences. An example given by Rampton and Stauber to highlight this fact follows: "In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that he preferred to speak before audiences that had just eaten dinner, when they were relaxed and sleepy. Early scholars who studied propaganda called this a 'hypodermic needle approach' to communication, in which the speaker's idea was to 'inject' his ideas into the minds of the target population." This was, of course, back before the advent of wide-reaching mass video communications, in which the forceful power of visual suggestion would far outstrip the effects of interpretative verbalisations.

Regardless of the form used to convey these deceptive and bias-altered substitutions for logical and physical reality, nothing has changed the basic fact that an audience that thinks critically and is prepared to challenge your message becomes a problem that must be overcome. In times before mass communications made it possible for communication to consist of broadcast monologues (to which no immediate response could be made), critically reflective responses could still be made to refute any possible 'fantasy factor' a speaker might attempt to pass off on audience. Examples of this may be found among the accounts of Hitler's early years as a regional speaker, 'drumming up' support for the NSDAP, in which antagonistic audiences made their vehement disagreement with the offered message forcefully (and sometimes violently) clear.

The advent of electronically transmitted verbal and visual communications offered a new and welcome opportunity for propagandists to totally control the medium of delivery, so as to conveniently exclude any possible immediate response whatsoever. After all, as Rampton and Stauber go on to observe, "Whereas democracy is built on the assumption that 'the people' are capable of rational self-governance, propagandists regard rationality as an obstacle to efficient indoctrination. Since propaganda is often aimed at persuading people to do things that are not in their best interests, it frequently seeks to bypass the rational brain (cerebral cortex) altogether and manipulate us on a more emotional level, appealing to emotional symbolism. Advertisers speak of selling 'the sizzle and not the steak.' They pose bikini-clad young women next to automobiles and alcohol products in the expectation that we will associate their products with sex. Television uses sudden, loud noises to provoke a startle response, bright colors, violence--not because these things are inherently appealing, but because they capture out attention and keep us watching. When these practices are criticised, advertisers and TV executives respond that they do this because 'this is what the audience wants'. In fact, however, they are appealing selectively to certain aspects of human nature--the most primitive aspects, because they are the most predictable."

"Fear is one of the most primitive emotions in the human psyche and it definitely keeps us watching. If the mere ability to keep people watching were really synonymous with 'giving audiences what they want', we would have to logically conclude that people 'want' terrorism. On 11 September, Osama bin Laden kept the entire world watching. As much as people hated what they were seeing, the power of their emotions kept them from turning away. And fear can make people do other things that they would not do if they were thinking rationally."

"During the war crimes trials at Nuremberg, psychologist Gustave Gilbert visited Nazi Reichsmarshall Herman Goering in his prison cell. 'We got around to the subject or war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction,' Gilbert wrote is his journal Nuremberg Diary."

'Why, of course, people don't want war', Goering shrugged. 'Why would some poor slob on the farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war, either; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a Communist totalitarian regime.'

'There is one difference,' Gilbert pointed out (to Goering). 'In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the USA only Congress may declare wars.'

'Oh, that is all well and good,' Goering responded, 'but voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'

Rampton and Stauber also remark considerably upon the use of a technique George Orwell first illuminated in his writings in 1946. "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India ((one could certainly draw an acute and exceedingly apt parallel with the continuing brute rule of Israel within Palestine lands)) the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments that are too brutal for most people to face and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging, and sheer cloudy vagueness."

Rampton and Stauber go on to say that "Orwell was a shrewd observer of the relationship between politics and language. While he did not invent the term 'doublespeak', he popularised the concept (which is an amalgam of two terms that he coined in his novel 1984). Orwell used the term 'doublethink' to describe a contradictory way of thinking that lets people say the opposite of what they actually think. He used the term 'newspeak' to describe words deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them."

"For example, consider the now-famous phrase 'Axis of Evil' which was first used by President Bush in his 29 Jan 02 State of the Union Speech. Bush characterised Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as an 'axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them then means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States."

"The concept of an 'axis', of course, evokes memories of the 'Axis Powers' of WWII and functions to prepare the public for acceptance of war against nations that purportedly belong to the axis. However, the use of this term is misleading. It suggests an alliance or confederation of states that poses a significant danger precisely because of their common alignment--a menace greater than the sum of their parts. In fact, Iran and Iraq have been bitter adversaries for decades, and there is no pattern of collusion or collaboration between North Korea and the other two states."

"To say that these nations are 'evil' depends in part upon your theology and in part upon your politics. There is no question that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea have all committed horrible and egregious violations of human rights, although Iran has recently been undergoing internal democratisation (a process that may well be disrupted as the US invasion of Iraq fans the flames of Islamic fundamentalism). The singling out of these particular nations as evil, however, invites the question of why the Bush Administration failed to include US-supported nations that violate human rights on a comparable scale, such as Columbia or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as nations that already possess nuclear weapons such as China, France, or Israel--not to mention Pakistan and India, two nations that came close to using them recently. In reality, the 'Axis of Evil' is a term chosen to deliberately stigmatise specific countries for the purpose of justifying military action against them."

"Bush's use of the term 'Axis of Evil' sparked a number of sardonic jokes, such as a humorous news spoof on www.satirewire.com . 'Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the 'Axis of Evil', Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the 'Axis of Just as Evil', this website stated. Also 'Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the 'Axis of Somewhat Evil' and Bulgaria, Indonesia, and Russia established the 'Axis of Not So Much Evil as Just Generally Disagreeable'. Jokes notwithstanding, however, the term has played an influential role in creating the frame through which the American public has perceived the problem of terrorism and the question of whether to go to war with Iraq." Rampton and Stauber go on to discuss the use of political 'doublespeak' and 'doublethink' by the government as part of the massive thought laundering and opinion forming processes that were brought to bear on the people of America by its (Republican, neoconservative inspired) leaders at great (and engaging) length, on the path towards initiating 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. Mention is made of typical examples of spin-terms such as the substitution of 'defense' for 'war', 'pacification' for 'suppression', and 'pre-emptive defense" for "undeclared war', 'regime change' for 'overthrow', etc." Ironically, in further consideration of how terms are skewed, depending upon whom are the good guys and whom are the bad, our own American nuclear 'weapons of mass destruction' are preferentially referred to as the 'US nuclear deterrent'!

"'Doublespeak' has accompanied war for thousands of years,' observed English Professor William Lutz, who provided examples as early as Julius Caesar's description of his brutal and bloody conquest of Gaul as 'pacification'. 'The military is acutely aware that the reason for its existence is to wage war, and war means killing people and the deaths of American soldiers as well', Lutz remarked. 'Because the reality of war and its consequences are so harsh, the military almost instinctively turns to doublespeak when discussing war.' Perhaps the best example of political doublespeak came from President Bush himself, the utterance of which he made consequent to a visit with wounded US soldiers that had been air-evac'ed from the Iraqi war fighting: "I reminded them and their families that the war in Iraq is really about peace..."

Another of many fascinating excerpts from this book is equally illuminating: 'While Operation Desert Storm was underway in 1991, a research team at the University of Massachusetts surveyed public opinion and correlated it with knowledge of basic facts about US policy in the region. The results were startling: the more TV people watched, the less they knew. Despite months of (TV) coverage, most people did not know basic facts about the political situation in the Middle East, or about the recent history of US policy towards Iraq. Moreover, this study revealed a strong correlation between knowledge and opposition to the war. The more people knew, in other words, the less likely people were to support the war policy. Not surprisingly, therefore, people who generally watched a lot of television were substantially more likely to strongly support the use of force against Iraq.'

This excellent book closes with a prophetic statement that, seen against the increasing socio-economic chaos and disruptive religious contention that America's failure to think through the post-war phase of our recent pre-emptive war against Iraq has created, is sobering: "It is impossible for anyone to predict whether the Bush administration's 'bold' (I would have more properly stated it: 'loony') gamble in Iraq has succeeded or whether, as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned at the peak of the war, 'there will be 100 bin Ladens afterwards."

The authors of this book end by saying "In the wake of this conflict, we should ask ourselves whether we have made the mistake of believing our own propaganda, and whether we have (again) been fighting the war on terror against the wrong enemies, in the wrong places, and with the wrong weapons."

Weapons of Mass Deception is a formidably thought-provoking and stimulating book that should be required reading for everyone, regardless of one's outlook on politics or patriotism, for it strips away the smoke and mirrors of semantic deceitfulness and empowers the reflective intellect. In my opinion, it should also be on the mandatory reading list for all students of English language, most particularly. What a pity that it is not.

October, 2003...............Cheers, C2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: I was reading the 'Letters' column of the Wall Street Journal a few days ago and ran across a few words written there by one George Cochran of San Antonio, Texas, that impressed me considerably. To wit: "All American citizens have the right to vote, but they do not have the right to be protected from their own stupidity. All citizens are expected to be educated and informed; these qualities are essential for the preservation of a free society". These are exactly the same 'qualities' that all of our contemporary media organisations, public relations firms, the entertainment & advertising industries, and most political representatives appear to be so eager to eliminate through liberal use of the 'weapons of mass deception' that the book above refers to.

Since we're on the subject of propaganda and 'doublespeak', I am reminded that during the years of my own service in the US Air Force in the 'Cold War' era of the 60s, the most ironic euphemism I can recall was the motto of the (a terrifying nuclear arsenal comprising the collective ICBM missile and B-52 strategic bomber forces) US Air Force's Strategic Air Command:

"PEACE IS OUR PROFESSION!"

(Return to AEOLUS AEROSPACE homepage)