With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaching, be wary of your
government's propaganda efforts against you. The White House has just
issued guidelines to government officials on conducting observances, of
which you can be sure there will be numerous. Two sets were issued, in
fact. One for the benefit of other nations, acknowledging the losses
that other their citizens have suffered at the hands of al-Qaida and
associated groups. The other provides instructions to US officials on
what tone to set and what themes to discuss when hosting functions here
in the United States. It is the latter in which I am most interested.
The
memorializing will be nigh unavoidable. You will not be able to turn
on the TV or pick up a paper without having to revisit that day. Call
me a cynic, but this will not be about healing the wounds created. For
most Americans, those wounds have healed, by and large. So this will be
about opening those wounds just enough for political gain. These
events will have great propaganda value, and it is for this reason that
it is necessary to strike the right emotional chord. Not too much, but
not too little either. Otherwise these events become either obvious
exploitation or insultingly crass. Both extremes are bad for the
business of politics as reflected in opinion polls (which are a lot like
political porn - like porn, no one watches them, but they are oddly and
obviously consumed in great quantities).
A lot rides on
these grand theatrical presentations and powerful images. One would
think that such things have far less of a place in our Republic than
they did in Imperial Rome, but have you ever stopped to look, and I mean
really look, at even small town municipal buildings? They, like the
parade routes and majestic palaces of Constantinople are designed to awe
you with their faux columns and grand doorways. With television, it is
now easier to reach and awe the masses, but mistakes are magnified by
the 24 hour news cycle. Hence guidelines, so that all the bureaucrats
are using the same script.
These guidelines instruct
bureaucrats to memorialize those killed in the attacks, first and
foremost. Then they will state what has been done to prevent another
attack, paying particular attention to the military (a must),
intelligence entities, homeland security and law enforcement. They will
tell us that it's important to serve our nation. Then they will tell
us that, despite all the kudos issued to the aforementioned groups, we
must remain vigilant because another attack could come at any moment
(rather literally in the case of 9/11 memorials) and if one does we
should be resilient like before.
This is propaganda, and
serves several functions. One, it binds us together, if only
fleetingly, in the memory of our unity after 9/11. This cannot be
overstated - few people currently alive have ever experienced such
American unity in another context. Two, it gives you confidence in all
the bloated, inefficient entities that make us "safe." We like feeling
safe, and this reminds us that we are. But it also (three, if we're
still counting) reminds us to be afraid, because if we stop being afraid
we won't need all those entities as much. And we might actually want
back some of the individual rights we have so graciously ceded for
collective safety. Lastly (four), and this is an interesting one, if we
are attacked again, it allows the politician/bureaucrat to obviate
blame preemptively, and place it onto the laps of those supposedly
highly effective groups that have kept us safe. Good propaganda does a
lot with a little, and the very best covers antipodean scenarios without
the recipient even noticing.
For example, the document
says that al-Qaida and associated franchises "still have the ability to
inflict harm..." but you are to be reminded that "al-Qaida and its
adherents have become increasingly irrelevant." With propaganda, you
really can have it both ways. Al-Qaida is still dangerous, but it has
also become irrelevant. If something happens, we can be assuaged by the
knowledge that our officials did, in fact, tell us that danger still
existed. So be afraid, just in case. But not too afraid.
Deputy
National Security Adviser Benjamin Rhodes says, "It’s a statement of
strength that the United States can outlast our adversaries. We’re
stronger than the terrorists’ ability to frighten us." Outlast,
perhaps, but our government routinely tries to scare us with the
specter of terrorism and the anniversary provides no better opportunity
than to do just that. Rhodes' second sentence is patently false; we've
been frightened ever since that day, and our government encourages that
fear because fearful citizens are docile citizens. The imagery flashed
on television in the coming weeks, over and over again, of those planes
slamming into those two beautiful towers; of the people jumping from
them; of NYC and its citizens covered in dust; of a smoking Pentagon;
will be capped with teleprompter-armed and well-rehearsed speakers, all
of which subtly justifies the billions of dollars spent keeping us
safe. Perhaps not really, but that's not how propaganda works.
Propaganda is supposed to make you believe something you might not have
otherwise believed, or to get you to continue believing something that
you might otherwise begin to question. How can I argue with the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security, airport security
"improvements," a hyper-vigilant Customs and Border Protection, and
staggering amounts of wealth spent? I'm still alive, after all.
I'm
not saying that our government is evil, nor am I saying that it's good
(it should be neither). I'm saying be skeptical and question the
motives of career politicians and bureaucrats who issue and/or are
issued guidance on how the message should be delivered in a homogeneous
way, void of spontaneity or true emotional sentiment. Nor am I saying
that the anniversary isn't meaningful. It is incredibly meaningful.
Fully one-third of my life has been defined by that event and I intend
on marking it in my own way. And so should you, if you so desire. Just
be mindful of the messages being sent by those who claim to lead us.
I
could be wrong and if I am, take a moment to refute my positions and
assertions. If that's too much work, I invite you to walk by any
federal building carrying a full backpack on 11 Sep 2011 and see what
the reaction will be.
You can read the New York Times
article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/us/politics/30terror.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065
