http://www.informationclearinghouse.info:80/article23498.htm
Why Propaganda Trumps Truth
By Paul Craig Roberts
September 15, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- -An article in
the journal, Sociological Inquiry, casts light on the effectiveness
of propaganda.
Researchers examined why big lies succeed where little lies fail.
Governments can get away with mass deceptions, but politicians
cannot get away with sexual affairs.
The researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that
Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious
that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed
elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda
that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their
beliefs. Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their
personal identity and sense of morality. They looked for information
that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged
them, regardless of the facts of the matter.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie
as compared to the small lie: In the simplicity of their minds,
people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie,
since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but
would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would
never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even
though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly
to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that
there may be some other explanation.
What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time
facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs
planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to
free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the
truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.
The psychology of belief retention even when those beliefs are wrong
is a pillar of social cohesion and stability. It explains why,
once change is effected, even revolutionary governments become
conservative. The downside of belief retention is its prevention
of the recognition of facts. Belief retention in the Soviet Union
made the system unable to adjust to economic reality, and the Soviet
Union collapsed. Today in the United States millions find it easier
to chant USA, USA, USA than to accept facts that indicate the need
for change.
The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the
9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break. The assertion
that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and
crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are
highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists,
structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials
in the government. Unlike their critics parroting the governments
line, they know what they are talking about.
Here is a link to a presentation by the architect, Richard Gage,
to a Canadian university audience:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13242 The video
of the presentation is two hours long and seems to have been edited
to shorten it down to two hours. Gage is low-key, but not a dazzling
personality or a very articulate presenter. Perhaps that is because
he is speaking to a university audience and takes for granted their
familiarity with terms and concepts.
Those who believe the official 9/11 story and dismiss skeptics as
kooks can test the validity of the sociologists findings and Hitlers
observation by watching the video and experiencing their reaction
to evidence that challenges their beliefs. Are you able to watch
the presentation without scoffing at someone who knows far more
about it than you do? What is your response when you find that you
cannot defend your beliefs against the evidence presented? Scoff
some more? Become enraged?
Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that few
people have the education to follow the technical and scientific
aspects. The side that they believe tells them one thing; the side
that they dont believe tells them another. Most Americans have no
basis to judge the relative merits of the arguments.
For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece
of evidence that was used to convict Magrahi was a piece of circuit
board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded
the airliner. None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in
Magrahis and Libyas guilt and in the offense of the Scottish
authorities in releasing Magrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds,
know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion
temperatures and go up in flames easily. Semtex produces very high
temperatures. There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device
that contained Semtex. It is obvious to an expert that the piece
of circuit board was planted after the event.
I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer,
which does not mean that there isnt one, how millions of pieces of
unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhatten from
the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of
the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they
caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously
so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if
they had been brought down by controlled demolition.
What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper
does not combust?
People dont even notice the contradictions. Recently, an international
team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced
by the twin towers destruction collected from three separate sources,
reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust. The US
government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk
the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the
samples could not be verified. In other words, someone had tampered
with the samples and added the nano-thermite. This is all it took
to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to
thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military
and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.
The physicist, Steven Jones, has produced overwhelming evidence
that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. His evidence
is not engaged, examined, tested, and refuted. It is simply ignored.
Dr. Jones experience reminds me of that of my Oxford professor, the
distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi.
Polanyi was one of the 20th centuries great scientists. At one
time every section chairman of the Royal Society was a Polanyi
student. Many of his students won Nobel Prizes for their scientific
work, such as Eugene Wigner at Princeton and Melvin Calvin at UC,
Berkeley, and his son, John Polanyi, at the University of Toronto.
As a young man in the early years of the 20th century, Michael
Polanyi discovered the explanation for chemical absorbtion. Scientific
authority found the new theory too much of a challenge to existing
beliefs and dismissed it.
Even when Polanyi was one of the UKs ranking scientists, he was
unable to teach his theory. One half-century later his discovery
was re-discovered by scientists at UC, Berkeley. The discovery was
hailed, but then older scientists said that it was Polanyis old
error. It turned out not to be an error. Polanyi was asked to
address scientists on this half-century failure of science to
recognize the truth. How had science, which is based on examining
the evidence, gone so wrong. Polanyis answer was that science is
a belief system just like everything else, and that his theory was
outside the belief system.
That is what we observe all around us, not just about the perfidy
of Muslims and 9/11.
As an economics scholar I had a very difficult time making my points
about the Soviet economy, about Karl Marxs theories, and about the
supply-side impact of fiscal policy. Today I experience readers
who become enraged just because I report on someone elses work that
is outside their belief system. Some readers think I should suppress
work that is inconsistent with their beliefs and drive the author
of the work into the ground. These readers never have any comprehension
of the subject. They are simply emotionally offended.
What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word
the government says about anything except 9/11. For reasons that
escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about
everything else tells them the truth about 9/11. How can this be,
I ask them. Did the government slip up once and tell the truth?
My question does not cause them to rethink their belief in the
governments 9/11 story. Instead, they get angry with me for doubting
their intelligence or their integrity or some such hallowed trait.
The problem faced by truth is the emotional needs of people. With
9/11 many Americans feel that they must believe their government
so that they dont feel like they are being unsupportive or unpatriotic,
and they are very fearful of being called terrorist sympathizers.
Others on the left-wing have emotional needs to believe that peoples
oppressed by the US have delivered blowbacks. Some leftists think
that America deserves these blowbacks and thus believe the governments
propaganda that Muslims attacked the US.
Naive people think that if the US governments explanation of 9/11
was wrong, physicists and engineers would all speak up. Some have
(see above).
However, for most physicists and engineers this would be an act of
suicide.
Physicists owe their careers to government grants, and their
departments are critically dependent on government funding. A
physicist who speaks up essentially ends his university career. If
he is a tenured professor, to appease Washington the university
would buy out his tenure as BYU did in the case of the outspoken
Steven Jones.
An engineering firm that spoke out would never again be awarded a
government contract. In addition, its patriotic, flag-waving
customers would regard the firm as a terrorist apologist and cease
to do business with it.
In New York today there is an enormous push by 9/11 families for a
real and independent investigation of the 9/11 events. Tens of
thousands of New Yorkers have provided the necessary signatures on
petitions that require the state to put the proposal for an independent
commission up to vote. However, the state, so far, is not obeying
the law.
Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a
real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists? The 9/11
skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the
uninformed people who call them names. Most of the people I know
who are content with the governments official explanation have never
examined the evidence. Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who
have studied the matter closely.
There are, of course, some kooks. I have often wondered if these
kooks are intentionally ridiculous in order to discredit knowledgeable
skeptics.
Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that their
natural allies, those who oppose the Bush/Obama wars and the internet
sites that the antiwar movement maintains, are fearful of being
branded traitorous and anti-American. It is hard enough to oppose
a war against those the US government has successfully demonized.
Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned,
it would brand them as "terrorist sympathizers"
and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information
Clearing House.
Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation,
they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you
accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose
punishing them for the event. In recent months, important antiwar
sites, such as antiwar.com, have had difficulty with their fundraising,
with their fundraising campaigns going on far longer than previously.
They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise
for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.
As far as I can tell, most Americans have far greater confidence
in the government than they do in the truth. During the Great
Depression the liberals with their New Deal succeeded in teaching
Americans to trust the government as their protector. This took
with the left and the right. Neither end of the political spectrum
is capable of fundamental questioning of the government.
This explains the ease with which our government routinely deceives
the people.
Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings
who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated.
Studies are not finding this to be the case. In my own experience
in scholarship, public policy, and journalism, I have learned that
everyone from professors to high school dropouts has difficulty
with facts and analyses that do not fit with what they already
believe. The notion that "we are not afraid to follow the truth
wherever it may lead" is an extremely romantic and idealistic notion.
I have seldom experienced open minds even in academic discourse or
in the highest levels of government. Among the public at large,
the ability to follow the truth wherever it may lead is almost
non-existent.
The US government's response to 9/11, regardless of who is responsible,
has altered our country forever. Our civil liberties will never
again be as safe as they were. America's financial capability and
living standards are forever lower. Our country's prestige and
world leadership are forever damaged. The first decade of the 21st
century has been squandered in pointless wars, and it appears the
second decade will also be squandered in the same pointless and
bankrupting pursuit.
The most disturbing fact of all remains: The 9/11 event responsible
for these adverse happenings has not been investigated.