By James F. Tracy
Over ninety years ago political analyst Walter Lippmann noted how the
masses rely on independent conjectures–“the pictures in our heads,” or
what he termed “stereotypes”–to make sense of the world. “The
stereotype,” Edward Bernays similarly observed, “is the basis of a large
part of the work of the public relations counsel.”[1]
These
views mirror those of an elite class that Lippmann and Bernays were
pleased to serve—an elite that, taken as a whole, now retains several
thousand such minds throughout government and the private sector working
under the broadly-held assumption that a long forsaken public condemned
to flounder in the womb of Plato’s cave may be easily dismissed as more
“qualified” parties proceed to enact realpolitik.
Along these lines, Australian propaganda researcher
Alex Carey observed how among all countries in the world the United
States has the greatest tendency for possessing a “Manichean”
worldview—one where social and political phenomena are typically
perceived as binary opposites of good-evil, sacred-satanic, and so
on.[2] Such a belief system is anticipated and encouraged by the
carefully-crafted propaganda and disinformation that pervades government
pronouncements and corporate news reportage and commentary on both
foreign and domestic affairs.
US public opinion is overall against military
action against Syria. Yet this attitude obscures the fact that a similar
majority doesn’t understand that the Obama administration and its
allies have for over two years supported an intense guerrilla war in
Syria that has killed close to one hundred thousand inhabitants and
displaced over one million.
A New York Times-commissioned public
opinion poll reveals that while Americans are skeptical of President
Obama’s attempt to sell them a new war, with seventy-two percent wishing
to refrain from inflicting “US democracy” on Syria. A subsequent
question suggests the American public’s unfamiliarity with the grave
situation in that country.
“Based on what you have seen or read,” the poll
asks, “do you think the Syrian government probably did or probably did
not use chemical weapons against Syrian civilians?” An overwhelming
seventy-five percent responded that it “probably did,” ten-percent said
that it “probably did not,” and the remaining fifteen-percent had no
opinion.[3]
In other words, nine out of ten Americans are
unmindful toward the true geopolitical underpinnings of the Syrian
crisis apart from White House propaganda and its heavy reverberation via
the corporate media.
A Pew Research Center poll offers similar findings,
with fifty-three percent replying that there is “clear evidence” that
Bashar al-Assad’s government “used chemical weapons against civilians”,
versus twenty-three percent responding that there was “not clear”
evidence of such, and an amazing twenty-four percent claiming
ignorance.[4]
Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry’s position
that Assad is guilty of such crimes is based on doubtful evidence that
initially included a photograph taken in Iraq in 2003 of a child leaping
over piles of shrouded bodies.[5]
On the other hand, the “rebels” operating in Syria
have clear chemical weapons capabilities. This was proven in May when
members of the Al-Nusra front were caught by Turkish police preparing to
deploy two kilograms of sarin gas inside Turkey and Syria.[6]
Yet such observations may be easily obscured or
dismissed—particularly for the educated classes–as the guardians of
proper thought deem them among the many “anti-American conspiracy
theories,”[7] a term that intends to short-circuit any inquiry among
those inclined think twice about conflicting information in news
reports.
The experts who craft the “war on terror”
propaganda recognize how truly effective publicity must be direct and
unambiguous. The official narrative rests on the still broadly-held
notion that that US and its allies are “the good guys.”
Proclamations concerning the triumph of genuinely
independent fact-based analytical reports of the tragic situation in
Syria are thus premature. Despite the cracks and fissures in the
official “war on terror” narrative initiated by alternative media, it is
still more or less accepted by a US populace that the western-backed
Al-Qaeda mercenaries operating in Syria are indeed “protesters,”
“activists,” and “rebels.”
The effectiveness of such propaganda rests in the
fact that such figures are routinely depicted throughout mainstream news
outlets wielding machine guns, grenade launchers, and other
sophisticated weaponry while they frolic throughout the country.
9/11 and the subsequent brutal and calculated
military onslaughts that have unfolded Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now
Syria cannot emerge as prevailingly uncontested historical events
without a citizenry relegated to the hinterlands of what passes for
today’s civil society—indeed, without a mass man willing to abandon his
own reason and embrace the carefully constructed pictures in his head.
Notes
[1] Mark Landler and Megan Thee-Brenan, “Survey Reveals Scant Backing for Syria Strike,” New York Times, September 10, 2013.
[2] “Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Air Strikes,” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, September 3, 2013.
[3] “’CIA Fabricated Evidence to Lure US Into War with Syria,’” RT.com, September 9, 2013; Julie Wilson, “Bombshell: Kerry Caught Using Fake Photos to Fuel Syrian War,” Infowars.com, August 30, 2013.
[4] “Turkish Police Seizes 2 kg of Sarin Gas From Al-Nusra Militants,” Voltaire.net, May 31, 2013.
[5] Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, New York: The New Press, 1997 (1922); Edward Bernays, Crystallizing Public Opinion, New York: Ig Publishing (1923), 115.
[6] Alex Carey, Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda Versus Freedom and Liberty, Andrew Lohrey, ed., Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996.
[7] Jon Lee Anderson, “Putin and the Syria Conspiracy Theory Problem,” The New Yorker, September 6, 2013. See also, Jamelle Bouie, “Enough Already: Syria Wasn’t A False Flag Operation,” The Daily Beast, September 10, 2013.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario