Re: Stephen Crockett & Al Lawrence: 'Ending the 'war on terror' myth' 
by BajanMan on Wednesday, April 14 @ 13:44:46 EDT
(User Info)

The so-called "War On Terror" is a dangerous myth that is undermining American national security. This myth is a deliberate creation of the Bush Administration and their political allies. It has been very useful in promoting the Corporate Agenda of the Bush Republicans. 

I have been pounding this puppy for some time. Trying to alert the remnant bastions of sanity that it's a PR ploy to justify evisceration of civil liberties, while consolidating a unilateral political hegemony.

It is a 'lingual wedge' or 'Trojan horse' to rape and deform critical thought, and prevent it from venturing into the realm of critical assessment or analysis. The authors of Collateral Language: A Users’ Guide to America’s New War (2002), note its purpose is to pervert thought, more than enlighten or inform it. This is accomplished along with a nexus of related terms including "axis of evil", and "terrorist" itself (which definition is so wide open that virtually any opponent of the Bushies can now be labelled so).

The authors' concern is that as we yield and submit to the phony gravitas and meaning in these euphemisms and bogus terms, we surrender our thoughts, allow them to be forged and crafted by others, and hence permit the manipulation of our consent. Once we permit manipulation of consent, it's game over.

The molding of language is important, because it helps to mold thought. By molding thought, the architects of current 'acceptable' language also are able to pre-emptively exclude certain issues, and protests or make their exercise much more difficult.

They also hope that they can foment a mob of witless, uncritical sheep who don't discriminate actions from symbols, and are therefore more likely to act as willing agents of the manipulators' thought Gestapo. (Perhaps a better analogy is to the Sonderkommando in the Nazi concentration camps. I.e. the Jews that did the Nazis- SS' work for them in herding their compatriots where they were told to take them.)

Right now, perhaps one third of our population is stoked and hyped on the "war on terror" bogey, and hence ripe to act as Sonderkommando for the fascists on the rest of us.

The authors of 'Collateral Language' also note that the invocation of 'war on terror' negates and undermines all traditional definitions of what war is. I.e. fought between two nation states, defined in location, and which has the capability of offering terms of surrender- by appeal to conditions that allow and specifiy what constitutes surrender. And hence, closure to the conflict.

By contrast' 'war on terror' leaves open all parameters and enables a perpetual conflict. What would be better for corpoate defense contractors, privateers and others - short of turning over a blank check to them with access to the Treasury?

'War on terrorism' also features a meme-construct such that anyone who challenges the term is likely to be branded a 'terrorist'. (Why else would you challenge it?) This confirms its misuse of language, intended purely to manipulate a cowed and gullible populace. The ultimate intent being to annihilate all nuance and irony. Put everything in black and white. ('Y'er with us or agin' us!)

In all instances in which 'war' is evoked to run an agenda or stake a claim, we must be suspicious of the motivations of the purveyors. We must ask: Does this truly meet the objective conditions for real war, or are we being mentally drumbeaten into compliance and acting as willing participants in the stifling of dissent?

It is incumbent on us to be aware that when we passively comply with collateral language we assist in mutating language and thought toward an ideological agenda, rather than shedding light on the issues themselves. So long as any of us play this game, we are in the matrix of collateral language and doomed to act as secondary ‘faux news’ or corporate outlets or agents to the detriment of our countrymen’s enlightenment and edification.

As in so many concerns and areas, critical awareness is the way out of the language morass. And part of that is adopting the purview of the super-critical observer.

When we rise to that task, we recognize first and foremost that 9-11 was NOT an 'act of war', and we are engaged in no 'war on terrorism'. These were artifacts of language (and thought) fabricated simply to enlist compliance, stifle domestic dissent and allow destruction of our democracy by having a convenient pretext to demolish The Bill of Rights.