How does propaganda work in a free society? Here’s how!

A couple of weeks back, trapped in someone else’s car, I was forced to endure the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio Two. Nauseating as it was, this prolonged period of exposure was illuminating. An excellent illustration of how propaganda works in a free society.

The programme featured an interview between Vine and a Muslim spokesman (of some hue, it wasn’t clear at first) regarding the London bombings. For the first half I couldn’t fault the stranger’s arguments. Whatever obstacles ‘impartial’ Jeremy put in his way he just kept blurting out simple important truths: “Why must I apologise?” “This is because of British involvement in Iraq” “Blair is the real terrorist”, etc. “Do you condemn the London bombings?” pressed a flailing Vine, over and over. “Do YOU condemn the invasion of Iraq and sanctions that have left a million dead ?” the interviewee fired back, quite rightly. Naturally Jeremy refused to answer.

For a while it sounded like a refreshing splash of dissent, aired mainstream. So it was deeply disappointing when Vine eventually did succeed in persuading this man to describe the actual basis of his beliefs. Clearly he did condone the London bombings. Clearly he did hope that the whole world would be converted to Islam. Clearly, he was a full-blown religious bigot, committed to violent retribution.

Now it was clear why this particular Muslim had been invited onto the show. It wasn’t to provide a platform for those who oppose the ‘war on terror’. It wasn’t to allow a public figure to make the connection between the London bombings and the invasion of Iraq. It was precisely to discredit such viewpoints, chuck them in the loony bin with all the rest. That’s why the media loves to quote Islamic fundamentalist cranks. Not only do they help to make Islam seem sinister and inherently malevolent, they also help to discredit anti-war thinking in general. They help to conflate important truths about the world (Blair IS a liar and a terrorist) with superstition and bigotry. Both truth and fiction can be combined to discredit each other.

With the playing field thoroughly skewed it was now safe to bring on ‘a moderate Muslim’ from the MCB. And my, how moderate he was. With that as an introduction who wouldn’t be? The MCB could be a important political force at this time. Peaceable people, appalled at the West’s treatment of those in other countries. This could have been a valuable opportunity for him to tell us about their suffering, and the suffering of friends and relatives abroad. Instead he had to waste the first half of the interview bowing and scraping to distance himself from the previous speaker. By the time he did get to: “But, well you know, the west’s role in the world….” Jeremy was still able to close him down, effortlessly: “So you’re saying that these bombings are justified by our foreign policy? We had it coming to us?”, to which the poor man flung himself to the floor again, and begged for another whipping. Fat chance of any issues being discussed.

I wrote to Jeremy to ask him why he wouldn’t condemn the killing of a million Iraqis but he is yet to respond. Clearly those innocent victims exist in a moral grey area, unlike our own stark variety. If he ever does get back my next question would be: Would you have invited a right-wing religious crank to comment on Bush’s policy in Iraq?

In one sense I’m sure his answer would be yes. I’m sure he’d be delighted if Tony himself offered to guest. But in the sense I mean it there’s really no chance. And it’s not because they’re not out there. There are scores of Christian screwballs in the mid-west who would be delighted to inform us of how the “war on terror” is an essential stage in humanity’s progression toward Armageddon (Bring it on!), but they aren’t consulted when it comes to discussing US policy in Iraq. Only with Islam.

You can find Zionist cranks who condone running tanks over unarmed protesters. You can find Christian cranks who advocate castrating homosexuals, and atheist cranks who’d happily send all God believers to the Gulag (Christ knows, I’m one of them!). But none of these are consulted when it comes to assessing Jewish, Christian or Godless ethics. Only when it comes to Islam are the cranks rolled out. Only Islam gets to be represented by its least representative.

There are a multitude of bright British people, Muslim or otherwise, who could argue a watertight case for Blair the terrorist, without adding any of the cranky baggage. But Jeremy wouldn’t dream of inviting them on. “Did Tony Blair lie to take us to war?” would be a fascinating subject for discussion, but there’s no chance of that either; well, not unless the person arguing the case was also known to hold other abhorrent views, or came oven-ready-smeared, like poor George Galloway.

The London bombings constitute the gravest threat to that which Tony Blair holds most dear. From the moment they went off he has campaigned frenetically to keep the spotlight off himself, and on Islam. Truth is, the only remaining barrier between Blair and the flak he so richly deserves are British Muslims. They are his last shield. If he didn’t have them to cower behind he would be fully naked, exposed.

One might wonder why our media would be so keen to bail out this scoundrel, especially when it endangers the public at large. In the case of the BBC, direct government pressure is certainly a crucial factor, as is corporate pressure in the private media. Another sad reason, surely, is that many media big-wigs share his world view. They cherish the material benefits of global inequality. They see the suffering of foreigners as a price worth paying for material abundance at home. They don’t want to be the ones who slow-up the gravy train.

And you can’t rule out embarrassment. Much of our media establishment jollied along the ‘war on terror’. Most big name journalists are already suffering excruciating cognitive dissonance. Always knowing that this was all about oil, but always having avoid to the subject. Always knowing how savage and ignorant and hypocritical and psychotic the neo-cons clearly are, but having to paint them as the world’s only hope. The last thing these people need is glaring proof that they’ve been peddling lies, lies that have now led to deaths at home.

Quite simply, the media is keeping the ‘war on terror’ in place (I can’t think of a single person I’ve met face to face who bothered trying to defend it. Can you?) It’s really something only people in government and media take seriously, or pretend to take seriously. The cost of this complicity is vast, and terrible. Out of a mixture of vanity, greed, shame and cowardice the British corporate media is guaranteeing the next UK bombing, the next war crime, the next racial attack.

Proof of the latter came with the post interview phone-in. It was little better than hate week. What a revelation! Most callers thought that any man who refused to condemn the London bombings must be a bad man. Swathes of indignation and barely concealed racist bile. Little England tripe about ‘our values’ and ‘these people’. No analysis, just indignation and misunderstanding. No causes, just a battle between good and evil. Clearly the net effect of the programme was an increase in ignorance and fear. Just what Tony wants. Job done.

Only acting on orders

Sir Ian Blair shares more than the Prime Minister’s surname, judging by his comments in The Times last week. Key sound-bite:

“It is not the police, it is not the intelligence services, that will defeat terrorism. It is communities that will defeat terrorism.”

Come again? Communities? Not cynical politicians? Not governments who wage illegal wars in spite of massive public opposition, after being warned by their own intelligence services that domestic terrorism would be the likely result? How did the chief of Scotland Yard come to overlook these clues? Seems pretty bum detective work. Sherlock Holmes would simply point to Tony Blair and suggest The Hague, but somehow Sir Ian managed to stumble upon a less obvious conclusion.

So who are these ‘communities’ that he believes to be capable, or rather culpable? Does he mean us? Well yes, but only some of us. For ‘communities’ read ‘Muslim communities’. He’s urging innocent British Muslim’s to question themselves, and blame each other. He’s encouraging non-Muslim Britons to focus their anger on Islam. After all Britain has done to the world since 911 the head of the Met chooses to point his finger at innocent members of his own citizenry. It’s their fault, not the powerbrokers. It’s up to them to sort this out.

Now is a good time to clarify the structural political inclinations of the police. If Sir Ian truly cared about protecting the public, if that really was his central concern, he would have to declare that Tony Blair bore great responsibility for what has happened. Blair was warned, he lied, thousands died, some in London. He should stand trial. But of course it would be career suicide if he did:

“Sir Ian must stick to his job and concentrate on catching the perpetrators. He must not allow politics to colour his judgement”

As if! As with all important public posts, Sir Ian’s job description was strictly circumscribed. The state simply cannot afford to employ senior policemen who are inclined to criticise British foreign policy, regardless of its effect on the home front. The bizarre reality is, before anything else, to be a senior policemen means accepting that you will have to parrot state policy even when it endangers the citizenry you are supposedly employed to protect. Whatever the UK does abroad, however we make our living, the job of senior policemen is to ignore it and just mop up the consequences. The first priority is to protect the state from the people, not the other way round.

Unfortunately for Sir Ian, the British government has given him a pretty ludicrous script to defend. As always, Tony Blair’s central concern has been to save his own neck. Even at this late stage a gentleman might concede defeat, take it on the jaw. Instead he swings the spotlight onto the perfectly innocent. People who actively opposed his imperialist adventure. People who just happen to look like the bombers, or happen to look Brazilian: “Blame them, not me!”

The unsurprising consequence is a massive increase in violence against innocent British Muslims. The rage and indignation generated by the bombings is hurled at those who had nothing to do with it. Those who created this situation walk free, unhurt, unhindered. Free to plan more raids abroad. And as for national security? Going along with Mr Blair’s fairy story means no end to UK terror campaigns. We just sit and wait for the next bomb. Wasting millions policing tube stations won’t make this problem go away. As long as key public figures won’t face up to the government’s culpability, as long as they are prepared to parrot state propaganda, we citizens will remain at risk.