written by john pilger saturday october 29, 2016 american journalist edward bernays is often described as the man who invented modern propaganda. the nephew of sigmund freud, the pioneer of psychoanalysis, it was bernays who coined the term <u+201c>public relations<u+201d> as a euphemism for spin and its deceptions. in 1929, as a publicist for the cigarette industry, bernays persuaded feminists to promote cigarettes for women by smoking in the new york easter parade <u+2013> behavior then considered outlandish. one feminist, ruth booth, declared, <u+201c>women! light another torch of freedom! fight another sex taboo!<u+201d> bernays<u+2019>s influence extended far beyond advertising. his greatest success was his role in convincing the american public to join the slaughter of the first world war. the secret, he said, was <u+201c>engineering the consent<u+201d> of people in order to <u+201c>control and regiment [them] according to our will without their knowing about it.<u+201d> he described this as <u+201c>the true ruling power in our society<u+201d> and called it an <u+201c>invisible government.<u+201d> today, the invisible government has never been more powerful and less understood. in my career as a journalist and filmmaker, i have never known propaganda to insinuate our lives and as it does now and to go unchallenged. tale of two cities imagine two cities. both are under siege by the forces of the government of that country. both cities are occupied by fanatics, who commit terrible atrocities, such as beheading people. but there is a vital difference. in one siege, the government soldiers are described as liberators by western reporters embedded with them, who enthusiastically report their battles and air strikes. there are front-page pictures of these heroic soldiers giving a v-sign for victory. there is scant mention of civilian casualties. in the second city <u+2013> in another country nearby <u+2013> almost exactly the same is happening. government forces are laying siege to a city controlled by the same breed of fanatics. the difference is that these fanatics are supported, supplied and armed by <u+201c>us<u+201d> <u+2013> by the united states and britain. they even have a media center that is funded by britain and america. another difference is that the government soldiers laying siege to this city are the <u+201c>bad guys,<u+201d> condemned for assaulting and bombing the city <u+2013> which is exactly what the good soldiers do in the first city. confusing? not really. such is the basic double standard that is the essence of propaganda. i am referring, of course, to the current siege of the city of mosul by the government forces of iraq, who are backed by the united states and britain, and to the siege of aleppo by the government forces of syria, backed by russia. one is good; the other is bad. behind the fanatics what is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war if britain and the united states had not invaded iraq in 2003. that criminal enterprise was launched on lies strikingly similar to the propaganda that now distorts our understanding of the civil war in syria. without this drumbeat of propaganda dressed up as news, the monstrous isis and al qaeda and the nusra front and the rest of the jihadist gang might not exist, and the people of syria might not be fighting for their lives today. some may remember in 2003 a succession of bbc reporters turning to the camera and telling us that british prime minister tony blair was <u+201c>vindicated<u+201d> for what turned out to be the crime of the century, the invasion of iraq. the us television networks produced the same validation for george w. bush. fox news brought on former secretary of state henry kissinger to effuse over then-secretary of state colin powell<u+2019>s fabrications. the same year, soon after the invasion, i filmed an interview in washington with charles lewis, the renowned american investigative journalist. i asked him, <u+201c>what would have happened if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged what turned out to be crude propaganda?<u+201d> he replied that if journalists had done their job, <u+201c>there is a very, very good chance we would not have gone to war in iraq.<u+201d> it was a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom i put the same question <u+2014> dan rather of cbs, david rose of the observer, and journalists and producers in the bbc, who wished to remain anonymous. in other words, had journalists done their job, had they challenged and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today, and there would be no isis and no siege of aleppo or mosul. there would have been no atrocity on the london underground on july 7, 2005. there would have been no flight of millions of refugees; there would be no miserable camps. when the terrorist atrocity happened in paris last november, president francoise hollande immediately sent planes to bomb syria <u+2013> and more terrorism followed, predictably, the product of hollande<u+2019>s bombast about france being <u+201c>at war<u+201d> and <u+201c>showing no mercy.<u+201d> that state violence and jihadist violence feed off each other is the truth that no national leader has the courage to speak. <u+201c>when the truth is replaced by silence,<u+201d> said the soviet dissident yevtushenko, <u+201c>the silence is a lie.<u+201d> punishing independence the attack on iraq, the attack on libya, the attack on syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the west. the human rights record of a saddam or a gaddafi was irrelevant. they did not obey orders and surrender control of their country. the same fate awaited slobodan milosevic once he had refused to sign an <u+201c>agreement<u+201d> that demanded the occupation of serbia and its conversion to a market economy. his people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in the hague. independence of this kind is intolerable. as wikleaks has revealed, it was only when the syrian leader bashar al-assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from qatar to europe, that he was attacked. from that moment, the cia planned to destroy the government of syria with jihadist fanatics <u+2013> the same fanatics currently holding the people of mosul and eastern aleppo hostage. why is this not news? the former british foreign office official carne ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against iraq, told me: <u+201c>we would feed journalists factoids of sanitized intelligence, or we would freeze them out. that is how it worked.<u+201d> the west<u+2019>s medieval client, saudi arabia <u+2013> to which the us and britain sell billions of dollars<u+2019> worth of arms <u+2013> is at present destroying yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished. look on youtube and you will see the kind of massive bombs <u+2013> <u+201c>our<u+201d> bombs <u+2013> that the saudis use against dirt-poor villages, and against weddings, and funerals. the explosions look like small atomic bombs. the bomb aimers in saudi arabia work side-by-side with british officers. this fact is not on the evening news. refined messengers propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education <u+2013> oxford, cambridge, harvard, columbia <u+2013> and with careers on the bbc, the guardian, the new york times, the washington post. these organizations are known as the <u+201c>liberal media.<u+201d> they present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. they are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-lgbt. and they love war. while they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life. in 2011, libya, then a modern state, was destroyed on the pretext that muammar gaddafi was about to commit genocide on his own people. that was the incessant news; and there was no evidence. it was a lie. in fact, britain, europe and the united states wanted what they like to call <u+201c>regime change<u+201d> in libya, the biggest oil producer in africa. gaddafi<u+2019>s influence in the continent and, above all, his independence were intolerable. so gaddafi was murdered with a knife in his rear by fanatics, backed by america, britain and france. hillary clinton cheered his gruesome death for the camera, declaring, <u+201c>we came, we saw, he died!<u+201d> the destruction of libya was a media triumph. as the war drums were beaten, jonathan freedland wrote in the guardian: <u+201c>though the risks are very real, the case for intervention remains strong.<u+201d> intervention <u+2013> what a polite, benign, guardian word, whose real meaning, for libya, was death and destruction. according to its own records, nato launched 9,700 <u+201c>strike sorties<u+201d> against libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. they included missiles with uranium warheads. look at the photographs of the rubble of misurata and sirte, and the mass graves identified by the red cross. the unicef report on the children killed says, <u+201c>most [of them] under the age of ten.<u+201d> as a direct consequence, sirte became a capital of isis. ukraine is another media triumph. respectable liberal newspapers such as the new york times, the washington post and the guardian, and mainstream broadcasters such as the bbc, nbc, cbs, cnn have played a critical role in conditioning their viewers to accept a new and dangerous cold war. all have misrepresented events in ukraine as a malign act by russia when, in fact, the coup in ukraine in 2014 was the work of the united states, aided by germany and nato. inversion of reality this inversion of reality is so pervasive that washington<u+2019>s military intimidation of russia is not news; it is suppressed behind a smear-and-scare campaign of the kind i grew up with during the first cold war. once again, the russkies are coming to get us, led by another stalin, whom the economist depicts as the devil. the suppression of the truth about ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts i can remember. the fascists who engineered the coup in kiev are the same breed that backed the nazi invasion of the soviet union in 1941. of all the scares about the rise of fascist anti-semitism in europe, no leader ever mentions the fascists in ukraine <u+2013> except vladimir putin, but he does not count. many in the western media have worked hard to present the ethnic russian-speaking population of ukraine as outsiders in their own country, as agents of moscow, almost never as ukrainians seeking a federation within ukraine and as ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government. there is almost the joie d<u+2019>esprit of a class reunion of warmongers. the drum-beaters of the washington post inciting war with russia are the very same editorial writers who published the lie that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. excerpt reprinted with permission from rt . selling <u+2018>regime change<u+2019> wars to the masses related
selling <u+2018>regime change<u+2019> wars to the masses
john pilger