I can remember it well, May of 2002. America was still reeling from the aftermath of September 11th and we were all slowly exhaling, after holding our collective breaths for so long, wondering how and what this event that supposedly “changed the world” would bring in terms of significant differences in our society. It was a time when every other word out the mouths of news anchors and political commentators was still either, “Al-Qaeda,” “the Taliban,” “terrorism,” “Islamic Fundamentalism,” and even the newly formed term, “Islamo-fascism” (yes, that was a actually term that was used not too long ago). Obviously the personification and face of all of this anger, uproar, hoopla, hysteria, and paranoia was that of Osama Bin Laden. So, I found it quite odd when one day, during this time, walking through the grocery store, I saw on the cover of TIME Magazine, a photo of our over-the-hill has-been nemesis—Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein. I actually stopped and stared at the cover. He looked more Cuban than Middle-Eastern. The photo was actually of a huge mural in Iraq of his face decked out with a neatly trimmed mustache, large designer sunglasses, and one of those off-white hats with a black band around it that you see middle-aged guys wear on Caribbean beaches. It also had a sky-blue background along with Mr. Hussein sporting a loosely fitted, white collared shirt. He looked more like a tourist than a dictator—more like an associate of Ricky Ricardo at The Babalu than the guy who invaded Kuwait a little over a decade earlier. The only thing the whole scene was missing was Barry Manilow singing Copacabana in the background.
Anyway, the wording next to the picture (in all capitals) read, “THE SINISTER WORLD OF SADDAM.” This made me pause for a moment. A sudden feeling of discomfort came over me because I could not understand why this guy would warrant the cover of TIME Magazine when everyone knew that at this time, America’s Public Enemy Number 1 was clearly Osama Bin Laden. I could not imagine why this guy, from the era of the early 90’s (when I was in high school) all of a sudden became an issue--again. I thought we were engaged in an all-out-assault on Muslim Afghanis that (I hate this tired, ignorant phrase) “hated us for our freedom.” It was my understanding that Saddam Hussein was just some pesky mosquito of a dictator that was beat into submission back in the day in a military operation (I can’t quite call that a war) that lasted a few weeks. He was a political relic of sorts—a caricature if you will, of an annoying Middle-Eastern dictator that no one took seriously (i.e. Muammar Gaddafi). Sure, he popped up from time to time on the news screaming some anti-American rhetoric or refused to cooperate with UN inspectors there to check out his weapons cache—but to be on the cover of TIME Magazine—right here—right now? I made wrinkles in my forehead, scratched the top of my head, and wondered to myself—“HUH?” As I proceeded to the check-out counter, this confusion quickly faded into the back of my mind until I got home later that same day and saw something on TV that answered my bewilderment…
I was casually walking through the living room in my college days era apartment (complete with mitch-match furniture—some of which was found by a dumpster and a homemade entertainment center) when a commercial came on about a 60 Minutes episode scheduled to air that month about who else—Saddam Hussein. The TV was on for background noise but when I overheard this I stopped dead in my tracks—I thought “Saddam Hussein again? A TIME Magazine cover and now a story on 60 Minutes about this dude—again?” That uneasy feeling I felt at the supermarket earlier that day quickly resurfaced and it hit me. It was the beginning of my personal belief in conspiracy theories and thus, the start of my significant distrust of the American government. I thought about how and why two stalwart American sources of news, TIME Magazine and the TV show 60 Minutes, would both suddenly bring this fossil to the forefront of our consciousness and begin demonizing him all over again. Consequently, TIME magazine has a readership of 25 million worldwide with different global editions. It is the most highly circulated weekly news magazine in the world—also owned by the TIME-Warner Company. While 60 Minutes, on the other hand, is the longest running prime time television show in history. Since it airs on CBS, at that time, it was fully under the control and ownership of Viacom. I began to link things together. The two sources of news and information were not owned by the same company, thus, it wasn’t a two-front effort to get people watching/reading. So, why? It must have been a joint effort between the U.S. government and these two major media outlets. It is common knowledge that the media not only influences and shapes public opinion—but in some instances—it creates and sustains it. It all became clear. In an environment where anyone Middle-Eastern, Muslim, or even anti-war was becoming more and more suspect, Saddam Hussein and any unfinished/new business concerning him could easily be moved up the list of American priorities. The phobias that America was bathed in at that time made it easy to resurrect this Ba’ath Party leader in the context of being a public and international menace. Well, the story that was run on 60 Minutes during that time is described this way, “… Ed Bradley examines the effects of chemical weapons used on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988.” (http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=100005&more=ucepisodelist&episodeid=3481807). Now, I am in no way disregarding or even diminishing the seriousness of the horrific brutality that took place under his rule against the Kurdish people. But why did this story air at the same time as the cover story in TIME Magazine? Also, how was something that took place in 1988 on Iraqi soil relevant in a world that was at that time obsessed with Osama Bin Laden? It didn’t make sense. To me, when I began to put this all together, it only made sense if the government and the media were working together to remake this guy into a common American foe. At this time, deep in the back of my mind, I thought, the government was using the media to make us conscious of this guy again because in this gung-ho, patriotic, war-hawk, “with us or against us” atmosphere, they are going to go after this guy—again, watch and see. So, after sticking that mental Post-It note on my brain I watched and waited…
It did not take long for the media and the government to start trying to link Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (the Al-Qaeda network) together—even though it has since been irrefutably proven that these two men held very little in common in terms of socio-religious ideology, strategic goals or coordination, and political associations. Yet, by September of that year, CIA Director, George Tenet was testifying in front of Congress about his alleged strong evidence of a close connection between the two and a few months later in February, Colin Powell was selling this same story in a speech to the United Nations Security Council. Also, guess who again made the cover of TIME Magazine in September and December of 2002—Yep, Saddam Hussein. One was “coincidentally” another image of him in contextual setting of propaganda—as a cracking statue with a caption reading, “THE WAR BEFORE THE WAR Inside the Secret Campaign to Topple Saddam Hussein”—question is, was it really “secret?”
Why have I said all of this? I know, I know, I have a tendency to write huge essays as introductions. Yes, this little story is really not the main subject of this blog entry. It simply serves as a stark example of how the powers that be—whether they be the government, the media, Hollywood, a dominant ethnic/religious/cultural group, and/or all of the above work together to control the minds of the average citizen in terms of influencing, making, shaping, directing, or even redirecting public opinion. In the above mentioned instance, it was to gain support for a military action that would eventually evolve into a full-scale war. War is not popular. Therefore, the enemy must be demonized, used as a constant symbol of all things evil, and even at times resurrected or created. But this is nothing new. Haven’t you ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident that helped open the door for America to enter the Vietnam War?
I believe that this sort of social-mind-control occurs very frequently and involves the aforementioned parties with the intent of introducing something to the public with the least amount of resistance. The invasion of Iraq had to be sold to the U.S. first and the world later. In order to do that, the government had to craftily utilize the media. In my observations about the many ways this occurs, I also believe that every action of this sort or every step society takes has been carefully calculated and is done in a way that each amount of progress seems to be an isolated incident or the result of natural social evolution. However, the fact really is that no such thing actually occurs. These steps are all intended to take society down a path to get the citizenry to be aware of, then tolerate, next accept, and finally support and defend certain issues or perspectives that yesterday we viewed as crazy, abnormal, or even unthinkable. Sometimes, such a set of actions produce positive results, or in theory at least, tend to strongly resemble a road towards a more humanitarian and just way of thinking and living. This is displayed when one views the progress in the areas of race relations, religious tolerance, and gender equality. Nonetheless, when this same method of mind-control is applied to change a society’s views on morality, ethics, and certain established traditional norms and mores, it can be to a society’s detriment and quite possibly its decline and destruction. No societal shift, adjustment, or any other type of change is an isolated phenomenon. It is all part of larger plans to eventually have the norm be something that is far from what it is today so that agendas can be sought, priorities can be injected, and particular methods to do so will be readily accepted—and later on encouraged and defended by the very people that vehemently shunned them yesterday.
This plan of shifting views, changing minds, reversing social direction comes in five carefully constructed waves:
1. Build AWARENESS
2. Push TOLERANCE
3. Create SYMPATHY
4. Generate SUPPORT
5. Encourage to DEFEND
This 5-step plan is intended to totally change and control a society’s thought process, perspective, and even moral compass in order to drive that society down an intended road. In order to further explore each step, read the second part of this blog entry that will be posted in a short time.
No comments:
Post a Comment