Readers of the following rant be warned. The author of this piece takes it that almost all wars are symptomatic of our globally perverse economic system, and rarely exclusive unfortunate flare-ups.
'The Free world' and 'Fundamentalism' are two terms that we have heard a lot of lately. When these terms are heard the presumption, in most cases, is that the 'free world' is a morally superior 'civilized' society, led by the American government, and of which Europe is a part, and that 'fundamentalism' is a by-word for the Islamic extremism that is a threat to our way of life, not to mention our very lives themselves.
These presumptions are the result of the lazy thinking that dominates current political thought and which is facilitated by the simplified reductionism of the global news media (C.N.N., N.B.C., Sky News, etc.) You can imagine the editorial teams: "Just keep to the official line, good guys and bad guys, that's about all they'll be able to follow, got the graphic ready? Got the news wall ready? Good, then let's roll."
Of course it suits the 'kept press' to propagate these misinformed presumptions. After all, both they and the governments of the free world are dependant on the same affluent sponsors. The sponsors in whose interests wars are really fought. This is the first factor that brings the 'free world' presumption into question. How free a world is it?
Having governments and media outlets under the thumbs of the same powerful lobbies is hardly a healthy thing for the freedom of speech, and what kind of free world does not have a healthy amount of freedom of speech? I am not suggesting that those who express political thoughts that are contrary to the official line are whisked off to room 101. The restriction of freedom of speech, for the most part, is never so crassly executed. Instead we have a more insidious approach. In the United States for example freedom of speech is a reality and it is a reality that can be afforded, as long as the exposure to different sides of the argument remains disproportionate. For example; the thoughts of Noam Chomsky are rarely discussed in the mainstream media, unless in the form of a 'Wall Street Journal' put down, despite the fact that Chomsky is a thinker of growing influence. You can imagine the editorial policy: "Chomsky, like the rest of those anti-war, anti-globalisation sorts are part of the lunatic fringe. Their arguments fall outside of what can be considered reasoned debate," another presumption reinforced, another horizon narrowed. If you want to have your opinion aired on the national or international media stage your opinion better not upset the apple carts of the good folks who paid for that stage. Hence a world of homogenous debate, between the 'centrist' lefts and 'centrist' rights, between those who want to drop a lot of bombs and those who only want to drop a few. Yes, the free world has freedom of speech, it is just that some of it is spoken from a loud speaker under the glare of spotlights and some of it is cried desperately in the shady distance.
There is also a presumption that we in the 'Free World' of the west aspire to see our freedoms spread to other, less civilised, parts of the world. "You too can be free as long as you agree to be free on our terms. If for example you do not accept the helping hands of our financial global institutions we will 'kick your ass'. Like it or not you will become 'a model pupil of globalisation', just like Indonesia became after an American backed coup and resulting, unreported, holocaust." These lessons in how to show those with fanciful notions of economic self-determination just what 'freedom' really means found their origins in Guatemala. It was there that the 'free world' began to perfect a new form of insidious colonisation. Guatemala was the first 'banana republic', where a popular leader who refused to play global economic ball was deposed and "yeah, a few folks got killed." Western consent for this was manufactured by the media stylings of psychologist Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew no less). Bernays ensured that there was no shortage of misinformation or downright lies out there, another first of sorts. Guatemala, like so many other nations (Venezuela's current troubles for example) know only too well just what 'the free world' means. This of course is probably no news to most of you, but it sure puts the kibosh on all this fraudulent talk of the freedom ideal.
It also gets us to that other presumption, the presumption that is so often the reaction to the use of the term 'fundamentalism'. There is another fundamentalism out there besides the Islamic kind, it is the "my way or the high way" fundamentalism of neo liberal economics. Colonisation by any other name, only now the slaves that serve us no longer live in huts at the bottom of our gardens but in distant shantytowns, on the outskirts of sweatshops. We no longer plant our flags and assume control of governments, now we display our logos and install murderous boot boys to keep the natives from getting restless. That is 'Fundamentalism' for you, and so much for the 'Free World'.
Two things are worth remembering. The first is that those who call themselves 'the leaders of the free world' also call MX missiles 'peace keepers'. The second is that any freedom of speech we enjoy here in the west comes at the expense of the violent suppression of freedom of speech that we tolerate elsewhere. We should use our freedoms to express our disgust at the hypocritical practises carried out in the name of the supposed 'free world'. Our voices will no doubt be drowned out by the fan fare of the 'kept press' and news networks so we should communicate our points clearly and well. We are up against a very slick and massive machine. A machine designed to mutilate truths and accommodate lazy thinking. An attempt to appeal to the general public's inherent decency must be made. It will have to be coordinated and direct without being over bearing, but at least there will be no need for spin. Why spin the truth when the truth itself is what you intend to impart?
There is certainly an appetite for
unequivocal critical evaluations of western policies towards the
Middle East and the 'developing world', an appetite that is rarely
satiated by the mainstream media. In short: there's a gap in the
market, lets fill it.
Start Date: 2002-04-23 01:00:00-04
End Date: 2002-05-23 01:00:00-04
Created By: Garret Shanley