"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
'Why, of course, the people don't want war,' Goering shrugged. 'Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.'
'There is one difference,' I pointed out. 'In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.'
'Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'"
Say what you want about Hermann Goering, he had a wealth of practical experience in manufacturing consent for aggressive war.
Only American-boots-on-the-ground militarism has fallen out of fashion. Arming rogue regimes to the teeth, funding murderous proxy militants, drone and air strikes don't count. Trump who had a back and forth with Ted Cruz in the 2016 primaries about who would be more willing to carpet-bomb civilian population centers in Iraq and Syria is considered a "non-interventionist."
Americans tend not to pay much attention to foreign policy unless there are boots on the ground, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is still what our mental picture of a "war" looks like. It doesn't involve funding militias or bombing campaigns that involve no ground troops patrolling the streets of Kabul, etc.
We need to update this image, because it sure as hell feels like war to the rest of the world.
Chris G and the Finster sum it up well enough. The messaging isn't the least bit subliminal. Elected and "security" officials, along with the likes of Luce, trot out their daily overload of interventionist spin--and of course, every outlet has to find half a dozen articles to keep Trump in the headlines--either as villain or hero (pick your side).
“ Surveys show that the diet of propaganda has had an effect in making the public at least nominally more supportive of sending U.S. forces to fight for countries where the U.S. has no vital interests…”
I can’t speak to US cable news since I no longer tune in, but I do find readers’ comments in the Washington Post and lately the New York Times to be depressingly hawkish. While some of the anti-Russia commentary is certainly due to Russiagate and TDS, I believe much is driven by the steady drumbeat of interventionist propaganda served up by these two major papers. Due to concentrated corporate control of the MSM nothing will fundamentally change.
Just lucky we still have independent media like Substack and writers willing to risk this new medium like Daniel Larison.
Oh dear.
"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
'Why, of course, the people don't want war,' Goering shrugged. 'Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.'
'There is one difference,' I pointed out. 'In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.'
'Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'"
Say what you want about Hermann Goering, he had a wealth of practical experience in manufacturing consent for aggressive war.
Only American-boots-on-the-ground militarism has fallen out of fashion. Arming rogue regimes to the teeth, funding murderous proxy militants, drone and air strikes don't count. Trump who had a back and forth with Ted Cruz in the 2016 primaries about who would be more willing to carpet-bomb civilian population centers in Iraq and Syria is considered a "non-interventionist."
Americans tend not to pay much attention to foreign policy unless there are boots on the ground, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is still what our mental picture of a "war" looks like. It doesn't involve funding militias or bombing campaigns that involve no ground troops patrolling the streets of Kabul, etc.
We need to update this image, because it sure as hell feels like war to the rest of the world.
Chris G and the Finster sum it up well enough. The messaging isn't the least bit subliminal. Elected and "security" officials, along with the likes of Luce, trot out their daily overload of interventionist spin--and of course, every outlet has to find half a dozen articles to keep Trump in the headlines--either as villain or hero (pick your side).
“ Surveys show that the diet of propaganda has had an effect in making the public at least nominally more supportive of sending U.S. forces to fight for countries where the U.S. has no vital interests…”
I can’t speak to US cable news since I no longer tune in, but I do find readers’ comments in the Washington Post and lately the New York Times to be depressingly hawkish. While some of the anti-Russia commentary is certainly due to Russiagate and TDS, I believe much is driven by the steady drumbeat of interventionist propaganda served up by these two major papers. Due to concentrated corporate control of the MSM nothing will fundamentally change.
Just lucky we still have independent media like Substack and writers willing to risk this new medium like Daniel Larison.