Sometimes some people get upset with me when I point out that the U.S. corporate media is a massive (and eerily effective) propaganda machine. The main objection to this observation is that I'm somehow claiming that I'm able to see things nobody else can; that I'm underestimating the intelligence of people; that I'm arrogant in thinking that my conclusions about complex issues are right, and everybody else's are wrong--because of the effects of propaganda.
I get it... I'm trying my best to change the tone. Heck, my own wife has told me to tone it down a little bit when it comes to me harping on the pernicious effects of propaganda.
But now, as the U.S. Government/MIC ramp up the war propaganda, and I see people repeating the talking points almost verbatim, I revert back to bad habits.
Where are people getting this stuff from? Is it TV? Let me try something... How many readers know that if you watch MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews, ABC, CBS, NBC, and their local affiliates in the cities all across the country, you are being served up straight corporate/war propaganda? Let me have some faith in humanity and at least tell me you know that. Jesus, at least a few people; I'll take that.
What's happening, are they showing non-stop loops of horrific videos of people dying from the effects of a gas attack, and then offering as the only solution to such an outrage a "limited, targeted" strike meant to "punish," "send a message," or "degrade chemical weapons' productions capabilities?"
Are they presenting it as something that's going to be easy, low risk?
I know that that type of cheap disingenuous propaganda works in Banana Republics, but for God's sake, we're more savvy here! Aren't we?
I'm sorry, but some people take exception to comparing this situation to the war of aggression against Iraq, predicated upon lies and misinformation--and propaganda; I really can't see that much difference.
The crescendo of voices calling for war (or is it "limited strike?") is growing louder and louder by the day (not, by the minute); the simplistic false dichotomies that are always used in war propaganda are repeated over and over, like a mantra: "We don't want babies to be killed with gas attacks by the monster, Assad, and so we need to launch missiles at the country to prevent babies form being killed."
The mockery and name-calling and marginalizing of those calling for restrain, for careful examination of all the facts and all the options, increases exponentially, drowning out their voices, as drums of war are banged louder and louder--in a frenzy.
Here's one of those voices...
The Disastrous Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on SyriaBelieve me, I want to change the subject; I was going to write about something completely different, but when one sees people repeating the ludicrous propaganda talking points being peddled by the U.S. mainstream media, on something so important as war, it is very hard to.
President Obama has not spelled out the possible consequences of a military attack on Syria, but U.S. military leaders are warning about the risks.
September 2, 2013 | Its 4am and I can’t sleep, just like 10 years ago when President Bush was telling the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the United States must invade and occupy Iraq to rid humanity of these weapons. I didn’t believe President Bush ten years ago and I resigned as a U.S. diplomat.
Now a decade later, President Obama is telling the world that the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Assad government must be answered by other weapons, even though the results of the UN inspection team have not been compiled—just as the Bush administration refused to wait for the UN report by the inspectors who had been looking for WMD in Iraq.
Secretary of State John Kerry pronounced that the UN inspectors “can’t tell us anything that we don’t already know.” President Obama says that any U.S. attack on the Assad government will be as punishment, not regime change. The strike will be “limited”—but tell that to the civilians who inevitably die when military attacks take place.
-- Ann Wright
Anyways, for those interested in getting "boots on the ground" against this war of aggression, please visit the United National Antiwar Coalition.
Secretary of State Kerry’s demagogic speech on August 26 on the situation in Syria makes it clear that the U.S. is serious about military action against the people of Syria. Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans are against any further intervention. However, as with the Iraq War, the government shows contempt and disregard for the will of the people.Also, get information regarding antiwar resistance at Popular Resistance. There are protests planned all over the country.
UNAC calls for all antiwar and social justice organizations to prepare for a response if there is any military action by the U.S. in Syria. We call upon all organizations to mobilize to take action opposing U.S. intervention before any military action. We also call upon all organizations to work together and make plans for an emergency response on the day after any military action against Syria.
And make sure Congress hears from you if you want to stand up against this unprovoked and unwarranted war of aggression.
UPDATE 1: MON SEP 02, 2013 AT 09:20 PM PDT - Recently I've seen people who happen to disagree with the arguments I present in my diaries, not only share their counter-arguments, but they also criticize people for recommending my diaries. I think that's a low blow. I would never do such a thing in somebody else's diary. Anybody who disagrees with me is free to post a cogent and intelligent counter-argument. They should leave other readers to make their own conclusions about whether they want to rec my diary or not.
Note: I argue that the overall narrative in the U.S. mainstream media is pro-attack. This is a rare example of the truth being told on MSNBC, but you will not see this type of (accurate and truth-telling) narrative overall.
U.S. War Propaganda:
Huffington Post: Obama Will Launch a Huge Propaganda Blitz -- And May Attack Syria Even If He Loses the Vote in Congress
Foreign Policy Magazine: U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans
BuzzFeed Magazine / Michael Hastings: Congressman Seeks To Lift Propaganda BanEffects of Media Conglomeration:
An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill, BuzzFeed has learned.
The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the independent Broadcasting Board of Governors, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee’s official website.
The more [concentrated] the media landscape becomes the greater risk of harm there is to the public interest. As powerful corporations grow increasingly wealthier, powerful, influential, and politically affiliated the greater risk there is to the political economy on a global scale. The risk inherent with affluential transcultural media corporations is the mass homogenization of content and, thus, propagandist reinforcement of corporate and political interests serving only the dominant elites and, in turn, harming and marginalizing non-elites. One would be grossly remiss of the tangible danger and malign effects to the public to simply abridge the issue examined in this study as a case of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.P.S. I welcome spirited debate about this topic, and I'm especially interested in hearing from people who do not agree with my position. However, I will not engage in discussion with people who write personal insults, or engage in disruptive behavior. I ask other serious people to do the same. To learn more about this subject, please visit the following links: New Community Guidelines / The 15 Rules of Web Disruption / Thirteen Rules for Truth Suppression / Disinformation: How It Works.
-- Gonzaga University Master's Degree Thesis by Frank McCoy
Market For The People |Ray Pensador | Email List | Twitter | Facebook