by Stephen Lendman

Going to war depends first on selling it. Gaining public support is vital. Previous articles discussed it. Walter Lippmann coined the phrase “manufacture of consent.”

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky discussed the “propaganda model” in their book titled “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.”

Media scoundrels use it to manipulate and control public thinking and perceptions. News and information are filtered. Acceptable “residue” only is reported.  Dissent is marginalized. Government and dominant private interests are prioritized.

Michael Parenti explained:

“The enormous gap between what US leader do….and what American’s think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments….”

In their book titled “Propaganda and Persuasion,” Garth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell defined their topic as “the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”

Richard Alan Nelson described the technique as follows:

“Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels.” 

“A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion.”

Propaganda has different forms. Advertisers use it to generate sales. So do politicians to get elected. Religious leaders use it to indoctrinate the faithful. So do nations to promote their agendas.

When war is planned, it’s used to create fear, demonize enemies, dehumanize them, falsely accuse them of atrocities and other crimes, and enlist public support for intervention for alleged humanitarian reasons.

In 1917, George Creel first used propaganda successfully to turn pacifist Americans into raging German-haters.

In his 1928 book titled “Propaganda,” Edward Bernays said it’s possible to “regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies.”

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?”

In his book titled “Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty,” Alex Carey said:

“The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.”

It’s also used to launch wars, trick enemies for strategic purposes, and deceive the public while waging them. Media scoundrels play a crucial role. People are manipulated to think aggressive wars are just ones.

Big lies launch them. None achieve peace, security and stability. One conflict begets others. Endless destructive cycles follow. Countless millions die. Vast destruction ravages countries. Human misery, not liberation, results.

Human needs go unmet. Wealth, power, and imperial interests only matter. Successful propaganda convinces people that what harms their well-being actually helps them.

Post-9/11, America waged multiple direct and proxy wars. They continue without end. Obama itches for more. Syria is target one, then Iran, then other nations for unchallenged US dominance. At issue is can humanity survive?

On June 11, Global Research published Russian journalist Marat Musin‘s firsthand observations of what really happened at Houla. He exposed media scoundrel misinformation and lies. Doing so provided a vital service.

Western-enlisted death squads bear full responsibility. Government forces and/or so-called pro-Assad shabbiha had no involvement. 

Scoundrel media and Western officials provided fabricated accounts of what went on. It was classic, duplicitous propaganda. It rages to enlist public support for war.

Musin’s article is powerful reading. Circulating it widely is important. Only public rage can stop wars. Nothing else works. Knowing the truth and spreading it has impact. Imperial America and war profiteers fear that most. 

It’s time ordinary people got radicalized for their own well-being. Focus first on ending imperial wars. Imagine what’s possible at peace. Imagine public needs prioritized over conquests and domination. If that’s not worth fighting for, what is?

Below is a snapshot of what Musin wrote. Read his article for the full account.

On May 25, Houla was attacked by hundreds of “bandits and mercenaries.”

Ar-Rastan-based and Free Syrian Army terrorists were responsible.

Civilians abandoned the town of Ar-Rastan. Lebanese Wahhabi/Salafist extremists dominate the area. With foreign money and weapons, they carry out terrorist attacks.

When killer gangs entered “the lower checkpoint in the center of” Houla, they attacked pro-government residents.

“Many of those killed were ‘guilty’ of….dar(ing) to change from Sunnis to Shiites.” They were murdered in cold blood “with knives (or) shot at point blank range.”

Scandalous accounts blamed Assad. Government forces and/or supporters had nothing to do with it.

Musin called UN observers claiming they heard artillery fire “a bad joke.” Assad’s forces were in Homs, 50 kilometers away.

“After a visual inspection of (Houla), it is impossible to find traces of any of fresh destruction, bombing and shelling….Militants used heavy weapons and snipers…”

Official and scoundrel media reports wreak of inconsistencies and duplicity.

“Militants opened fire on virtually everyone who tries to get closer to (Houla). Before us a UN convoy was fired upon and two armored jeeps of the UN observers were damaged, when they tried to drive up to an army checkpoint in Tal Dow.”

“….(M)any of the militants are professional snipers.”

“….(B)andits even fired an automatic burst on our group of journalists….”

About 108 civilians were killed, including 38 or more young children. They were executed in cold blood. They were pro-government loyalists.

Musin discussed media disinformation, saying:

“To exert pressure on public opinion and change the positions of Russia and China, texts and subtitles in Russian and Chinese languages were prepared in advance, reading:

‘Syria – Homs – the city of Hula. A terrible massacre perpetrated by the armed forces of the Syrian regime against civilians in the town of Houla. Dozens of victims and their number is growing, mainly women and children, brutally killed by indiscriminate bombing of the CITY.’ “

“Two days later, on May 27, after the residents’ stories and video recordings made showed that the facts do not support the allegation of shelling and bombing, the bandits’ videos had undergone significant changes.” 

“At the end of the text appeared this postscript: ‘And some were killed with knives.’ “

Musin reported what everyone needs to know and tell others. Pentagon war plans were ready months ago. Obama itches to attack Syria. Perhaps Houla or another planned incident will trigger it.

On Friday, Syria’s Human Rights Council representative, Faisal al-Hamwi, blamed Houla killings on terror gangs. They’re trying to incite sedition, he said.

“No sane person can believe some of this session’s sponsors when they show sorrow and pain for the victims at the time when they participate in killing the Syrians and shedding their blood,” he added.

On June 1, the Human Rights Council met to discuss Syria. Washington pressure assured its conclusions in advance. 

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, blamed Assad for killer gang crimes. She wrongly said the “Syrian military allegedly unleashed a barrage of heavy weapons on” Houla, “including artillery and tank fire….” She also blamed “pro-government Shabiha paramilitary groups….”

Doing so ignored clear evidence of responsibility. She wants government officials prosecuted at the International Criminal Court. Western and complicit regional states’ accountability wasn’t mentioned.

On June 2, the State Department claimed satellite images show Houla mass graves. Assad was named responsible. Alleged nearby artillery craters were also shown.

So-called images can be easily manipulated and/or fabricated. They can also be from other areas unrelated to Houla or Syria. State Department claims are spurious and unverified. So are scoundrel media reports about them.

On Friday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said preliminary government investigations showed a well-planned operation carried out by gunmen intent on violence, not a diplomatic solution to Syria’s conflict.

He blamed weapons and funding supplied foreign mercenaries.

Houla killings advanced the ball closer to war. Launching it could happen anytime, with or without Security Council authorization. 

Doing so will ignite a regional firestorm. Imagine the potential catastrophic consequences. Future updates will cover more.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour. 

By Stephen Lendman

 

One leader supports peace and stability. The other thrives on violence and wages imperial wars.  

One believes nation-state sovereignty is inviolable. The other endorses the divine right of intervention.

One affirms UN Charter and other rule of law principles. The other discards them as quaint, old fashioned, and obstacles to achieving global dominance.

Expect these doctrines to clash.

Under Putin, Russia is back proud and reassertive. He’s not about to roll over for America, Eurasian issues especially concern him. He wants Moscow’s influenced increased, national sovereignty respected, and rule of law principles observed.

The 1648 Treaty of Westphalia established the principle of state sovereignty. It considered it immune from foreign interference or intervention. 

During the 18th and 19th centuries, philosophers like Immanuel Kant said states, as well as individuals, should be subject to international law. Force by one nation against another should be prohibited.

His “Preliminary Articles” provided ways to prevent war. They included:

(1) Prohibiting secret peace treaties that tacitly include the possibility of future war.
(2) Abolishing standing armies.
(3) Prohibiting national debts from provoking external conflicts.
(4) Affirming that no state shall forcefully confront others.

Three other articles included ways to establish peace:

(1) Every state constitution should be republican.
(2) The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states.
(3) The law of world citizenship shall respect “Universal Hospitality” conditions. 

Kant defined “Universal Hospitality” to mean unrestricted global free movement.

Post-WW I, the League of Nations failed to prevent war. So did Kellogg-Briand. Signed by America, Germany France, Britain, Italy, Japan, and nine other nations in August 1928, it promised wars would no longer resolve “disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them.”

Parties violating this mandate “should be denied the benefits furnished by this treaty.”

The 1950 Nuremberg Principles defined crimes against peace to include:

“(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (and)
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”

Signed in June 1945, the UN Charter failed “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war….”

How could it when belligerents like America put their rights above international laws, as well as their own constitutional and statute ones.

Wars thus rage without end. Washington endorses permanent ones. Aggression is considered America’s divine right. Inviolable international laws are spurned. New World Order considerations are prioritized.

Wars of aggression are called liberating ones. Humanitarian intervention is pretext for waging them. Peace is illusory because it’s spurned. Putin and Obama clash on these fundamental principles.

On February 27, 2012, Moskovskiye Novosti (The Moscow News) published the text of Putin’s foreign policy comments on “Russia and the changing world,” saying:

Moscow faces “key foreign challenges….” Decisions made affect “our economy, our culture, and our budgetary and investment planning.”

Given America’s belligerence, they also impact Russia’s survival.

Moscow pursues “an independent foreign policy.” It will continue doing so. Global security depends on cooperation, not confrontation. Washington stresses other priorities.

Putin affirmed the “inalienable right to security for all states, the inadmissability of the excessive use of force, and the unconditional observance of the basic principles of international law.”

Failure to abide by these principles assures destabilized international relations.

Washington and NATO conduct “contradict the logic of modern development….”  Expansion assures confrontation. Global security and stability are undermined.

“Regrettably,” America and other Western nations remain dismissive of Russia’s concerns. Aggressive wars masquerade as liberating ones. They undermine state sovereignty. Doing so creates “a moral and legal void…”

The Security Council and other UN bodies long ago breached their mandates. Nations usurp their obligations with impunity. Force is lawlessly used against sovereign states. America and NATO consistently undermine global peace.

States are victimized by “humanitarian” intervention and “missile-and-bomb democracy….” 

Washington and key NATO partners “developed a peculiar interpretation of security that is different from ours.” 

America is “obsessed” with using force to “becom(e) absolutely invulnerable.” The more it tries, the greater the destabilizing consequences.

Absolute invulnerability for one nation assures none “for all others” outside its aggressive alliance. Middle East and other uprisings replaced one “dominant force with another even more aggressive.” It’s also hostile to popular needs.

Destroying nations to save them is cover for global dominance. Russia stands fundamentally opposed. “No one should be allowed to employ the Libyan scenario in Syria.”

Washington keeps advancing the ball for it. Conflict resolution is replaced by warmongering interventionism. Putin’s doctrine endorses cooperation, not confrontation. Given a chance, diplomacy works. Protecting civilians requires ending violence, not escalating it.

People yearn for democracy and deserve it. America wants unchallenged dominance and dictatorship. On vital geopolitical issues, Russia and America remain fundamentally at odds.

“….US attempts to engage in ‘political engineering’ ” undermine relations. Washington’s missile shield targets Russia aggressively. It “upsets the military-political balance established over decades.”

“Russia intends to continue promoting its security and protecting its national interest by actively and constructively engaging in global politics and in efforts to solve global and regional problems.”

“We are ready for mutually beneficial cooperation and open dialogue with all our foreign partners. We aim to understand and take into account the interests of our partners, and we ask that our own interests be respected.”

In April 1999, during NATO’s war on Yugoslavia, Tony Blair addressed the Chicago Economic Club. He presented principles of his “doctrine of the international community.” It became known as the Blair Doctrine.

He couched his ideas in misleading newspeak. He advocated “just war.” He endorsed humanitarian interventions. He proposed five questions needing answers to decide:

(1) Are intervening powers sure?

(2) Are diplomatic options exhausted? 

(3) Are military operations feasible and prudent?

(4) Are intervening powers committed for the long term?

(5) Are national interests of targeted states involved?

If yes to all five, intervention is justified, he claimed. Now it called “responsibility to protect (R2P). It’s as spurious as illegally attacking Yugoslavia in the 1990s. It culminated with 78 days of bombing in 1999. 

Affected people in targeted areas still haven’t recovered. Rule of law principles were blown to peaces. The scenario repeats in all NATO wars.

Invoked humanitarian considerations now justify NATO interventions. Bush governed by them. So does Obama.  Romney will as well if elected. 

Putin stands fundamentally opposed. So do China and other key Russian partners. Loggerhead disagreements promise greater confrontations ahead. 

Humanity depends on which side wins. At issue is preventing global war and neo-serfdom. 

Allied with leaders intolerant of imperial dominance, ordinary people have a chance. Sustained resistance is the only chance to live free in peace. They’re worth laying everything on the line for. 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour.