YESTERDAY I WROTE ABOUT an email, which told a story about an Iraqi sculptor who, out of pure gratitude for the American invasion of his country, created a statue honoring America.
I also listed six of the blatant lies in that email.
As you can easily see from that post, aside from a couple of details...
- there was a sculpture, and
- the sculptor was Iraqi
...the entire story is a fabrication.
The intent of the sculpture—a monument to the dead of a specific unit, by the soldiers in that unit—has been changed.
The intent of the sculptor has been changed.
Everything about the meaning of this work of art has been twisted to fit the political agenda of the propagandist.
The truth—that American soldiers donated money to create a statue to honor their unit's dead—has been replaced with a lie about an Iraqi who was so grateful to the Americans that he melted down busts he had formerly made of Saddam, and spent his own time and money creating a sculpture to thank us for invading his country.
Why would anyone want to take this noble and important gesture by our troops in memory of their own and turn it into a lie about an Iraqi who doesn't even like us?
The answer is in the subtexts.
The email version implies two things directly which the truth didn't.
- It implies that Iraqis are extremely grateful to us for our invasion or their country.
You've heard this line elsewhere, particularly in the mouths of people like Cheney and Rumsfeld before the invasion.
It's one of the oldest propaganda lines in history—invaders claiming that they are only coming to benefit the country they are invading.
But it's much more believable coming from the mouth of one of the victims of the invasion, isn't it? - It implies that the media is, for some reason, covering up this story.
And, by "the media" the writer does not mean Fox, although I have no idea whether Fox picked up the story or not.
No, we are supposed to think that the "mainstream media" covered up the story, ignoring it for reasons of their own.
And why would the "mainstream media" do that?
Here comes the deeper subtext, the subtext to the subtexts, if you will.
We are supposed to understand, and most people will, the implication that the "mainstream media" is so "liberal" and "unAmerican" that it is intentionally hiding the fact that poor Iraqis are overwhelmed with gratitude toward us for bombing the hell out of their country.
And the subtexts under that subtext?
- The media—other than Fox—cannot be trusted because they are liberal, so don't pay any attention to them. (Especially when they uncover conservative lies.)
- "Liberals" and the "media" aren't interested in the truth.
- "Liberals" and the "media" are unpatriotic.
Think about it.
You got all of that, on your first reading, whether you agreed with it or not.
But because it was artfully hidden in the subtext, your normal defenses against the deepest part of the message were less effective than they would have been if it had all been said outright.
This is the conservative propaganda game.
The interesting thing, to me, is that the method requires them to commit the very sins they are subtly condemning:
- It is highly unpatriotic to twist the meaning of a statue, paid for by donations of soldiers to honor their dead, for political purposes.
- The entire email shows a complete and utter disregard for the truth on the part of the writer.
- That, in turn, means that conservative sources of information—like this email—should not be trusted, rather than the mainstream media, who got this story right.
- And it goes without saying that the same reasoning applies to exactly who is involved in a cover-up of the true story—there's not a mention here, for example, of the sculptor's real opinions about America.
In fact, the "liberal main-stream media" were the ones who got the true story out there.
There's only one way to counteract this kind of blatant dishonesty and psychological manipulation.
Americans must wake up to it.
We must realize the tricks that are being played on us, and we must learn—not only to see the subtexts, but to question them.
Is it hard work to do this?
Yes—in the sense that it means caring enough about the truth, and our country, to take the time to check something, particularly before passing it on.
But no, it isn't that hard to do the actual checking.
Most of the time a simple visit to Snopes.com will give us the leads we need to track down the real sources in minutes.
But yes, it does take the effort to go to Snopes or some similar source, and it does take the effort to actually read what we find there, and check out the references.
Is it worth the trouble?
Think of it this way:
- The direction our country takes is up to us, and others like us—up to how we vote, where we stand on the issues, and how we influence others.
- A concerted effort is being made to influence us to ignore our best sources of information, to believe one lie after another, and to not think about our vote very deeply.
- Whether we just accept this, and become pawns in the game, or whether we take the time and the trouble to check the facts could make all the difference.
At least, that's what I think today.
