ARCHIVE ARTICLES

 

 

 
HINT 1: WHAT THE MEDIA CALL "RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS" ARE AMERICA'S HISTORIC ALLIES


To liberals, the term "freedom of religion" means that one does not take religion seriously. If a Baptist says something bad about Catholics or vice versa, a liberal says he is against religious freedom.

In actual fact there is no religious freedom if you are prevented from making a PURELY RELIGIOUS STATEMENT, no matter how extreme it may be.

Americas' religious freedom is important precisely because we take our religion so seriously. It is the right of a Bob Jones to say all Catholics are going to Hell. It is the right of an American Catholic to say that there is no salvation outside his One True Church. See September 9, 2000 - THE UN DECIDES TO "USE" RELIGION.

For generations, the most steadfast allies America has had, both at home and abroad, have been the very people our media call "religious extremists." Almost the only people who denounced Joseph Stalin in the 1940s were Protestant fundamentalists and conservative Catholics.

This is also true of non-Christian resistance to our enemies.

After fifty years of armed victory, Soviet armies were finally stopped and almost destroyed in Afghanistan -- by religious extremists. Osama Bin Ladin gave up life as a billionaire businessman in Saudi Arabia. He went to Afghanistan and put his life on the line against those who were invading Moslem territory, which he looked upon as blasphemous. In that country all of the real anti-Communist fighters were "religious extremists."

The Buddhist Dali Lama is the symbol of resistance to Communism in Tibet.

As more than one conservative Jewish writer has pointed out, the media culture takes it for granted that the words "liberal" and "Jewish" are interchangeable. But even among Jews the group which is most deadly serious about its faith, the Hassidim, votes solidly conservative.

So now the line is that Bin Laden and his Islamic fundamentalist followers have no goal but the destruction of America. According to today's media line they want to come over here and destroy us because we are "free and rich and good."

Does that really make sense to anybody?

 

 

HINT 2: THE UNITED MEDIA MESSAGE IS "ALL THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISRAEL"

For as long as I can remember, which means well over fifty years, when the term "Middle East" has been mentioned in the news it has been followed by the term "Arab-Israeli."

By a curious coincidence, our media are now united in declaring that the one thing that our present terrorist problems in the Middle East have nothing to do with is the term "Arab-Israeli."

The flagship of respectable conservatism, National Review, has a lead article assuring us that fundamentalists in the Arab camp just hate America for what WE are.

The fact that we backed a movement to take away Arab land and helped dispossess Arabs from what Islamic people chose to call THEIR land had nothing to do with it. No, the subject American media have considered almost interchangeable with the term "Middle East" now has absolutely nothing to do with all that hatred that is spewing at us from the Middle East.

So repeat after me: Whatever the cause of Arab hatred of America, it has nothing to do with Israel.

Usually the one thing that Americans agree on is the consistent falseness of the media line. In terms of their believability, the press is in the same category with used car salesman.

So what do we do when the chips are down and it is more important than ever to reject the line that the media -- for obvious reasons -- has chosen to push?

Why, we believe it of course! You'd better if you value your job and maybe even your life.

Guess what happens if you question the media line that Mideast terrorism has nothing to do with Israel? If you mention Israel as a cause of our troubles, you are anti-Semitic. That makes you anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

I have seen that label used thousands of times, and never yet has it been used for any purpose but to prevent someone from saying what we all know to be true.

In America, you can't yet jail somebody for saying something you decide to label "Nazi." You can ruin him professionally, but so far he can't be jailed for political heresy.

But you can actually imprison somebody for it in a country with Hate Laws. In Britain, the American Ambassador was asked if Middle East hatred of America was not due to our founding and support of the State of Israel. This put the American Ambassador in a bad position. If he addressed the subject, he would have to say that a great deal of that enmity has to do with Israel.

But the Ambassador found a way around that.

He stated crying. British officials apologized for letting a member of the audience ask that question, and the person who asked it may be charged under the British Hate Law.

As usual, when a propaganda line is being pushed this hard, we all know it is nonsense. Nobody is ever this desperate to suppress all opposition unless they know very well that everybody knows what they are saying is false.

 

 

PROPAGANDA IS FOR SUBJECTS, NOT FOR CITIZENS


Rulers use propaganda in time of war. But these same leaders had better not fall for their own propaganda or their country will be destroyed.

Propaganda is aimed at those whose only function is to obey. Their job is to be enthusiastic. It is not to make a rational decision about who is right and who is wrong, who is good and who is evil. You don't want those whose only job is to blindly obey to understand the enemy they are fighting.

In time of war, the subject whose only job is to follow orders needs no understanding of the enemy. In fact, a realistic view of the enemy is the last thing you want them to have. It is hard to hate anyone blindly if you understand him.

The opposite is true for those who must make decisions about the war. A leader who sees the whole situation can fight an enemy effectively ONLY if understands his foe. The more you have to do with strategy, the more realistic you must be about the other side.

Those who must make the decision should be the least susceptible to propaganda.

Should you and I be realistic about terrorists, or should we see them as purely anti-American, the way the media wants us to?

We have just answered that question. The answer is that, in a democracy where citizens want to be in on the decisions, citizens must be aware of any propaganda line and reject it.

 

 

Home | Current Articles | Article Archive | About Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links | Privacy Policy

MENU

Home

Current Articles

Article Archive

Whitaker's World View

World View Archives

About Bob Whitaker

Contact Bob

Links

Privacy Policy


Current Issue
Issue: Sep.. 27, 2001
Editor: Virgil H. Huston, Jr.
© 2001 WhitakerOnLine.org


Email List
Sign up for our email list to be notified of site updates:
E-Mail:

© Copyright 2001, 2002. All rights reserved. Contact: bob@whitakeronline.org