On Patriotism, Indoctrination & Preconceived Notions & Ideas

On Patriotism, Indoctrination & Preconceived Notions & Ideas

(please note the three endnotes that include substantial excepts from the cited sources-pgatos)

Last month during ‘Black History Month’ we featured a speech by Malcolm X during his last year of life. The speech was on Valentine’s Day 1965, the day following the night of the firebombing of his house in Detroit in which he along with his four daughters and wife lay asleep. A week later he was assassinated on February 21st 1965.

My own perspective about Malcolm X and his 'body of work' changed as I followed through on my commitment to form my opinion of his ideas only after reading his words for myself, some dozen speeches or so, and his autobiography rather than uncritically basing it on what others said or wrote about him. I found that the ‘violent and anti-white’ mainstream perspective of Malcolm X would prove to be shallow, misleading and prejudicial as I gained my own understanding of the substance and quality of his ideas. What I discovered was that the ideological posture we were acculturated to believe, was presented or based largely on excerpts from speeches or interviews that were purposely or unpurposely taken out of context. Such an acculturation, to what I found to be a false misrepresentation of his ‘body of work’, could only be successful in the absence of a critical and independent substantive reading of Malcolm X’s own words.

Malcolm X was an orator rather than a writer, so in addition to reading his autobiography I read, reread and studied many of his speeches. I found his last year of speeches, particularly following his second visit to Mecca to be his most powerfully mature work. He was a student of history and current events, and his ideas had evolved rapidly and had crystallized into a profound historically based critique of injustice, particularly as he saw it inflicted upon African Americans. His historical understanding was a well researched one, and combined with his delivery style and use of analogies made his critique of the status quo one of the most lucid and indicting to date.

But the system he was critiquing had its own masters of history. And they provided the information base that largely made up the ‘informational milieu’ from which we ultimately create our opinions from. A major component of our acculturation process influences us to often believe not what a person's ‘total body of work’ says, but rather by ‘what was said or thought’ about that person and his/her 'ideas'. Or to paraphrase what Malcolm X said during that Valentines' day speech in 1965, 'They take one part out of what you say, broadcast it throughout the world as something it is not, to represent you (or your ideas) as something you are not'. Such, is an instructive example of the nature of how ‘preconceived notions’ are manufactured.

During the same speech (2/14/65) Malcolm X spoke of an ‘International Power Structure’ and described it as the representation of the common bonds that elite economic interests within powerful industrialized countries of the world have with each other. What he was describing was his belief that these ruling economic elites had, with respect to their economic welfare and maintenance of their privileged economic status, more in common with each other’s privileged position within their respective countries, than they had allegiance to their own country and its people's welfare. That in this way then, the elite business interests at that time, in France, the UK , the United States, and other countries, formed this ‘International Power Structure’ in a manner that made them ‘international blood brothers’ of sorts.

Fast forwarding to today, what I found underreported, economically speaking, was that, as a result of going to war in Iraq and the terror and destruction that it has reaped, the business elite interests’ of the 'coalition nations', led way out front by U.S. companies, made ‘windfall profits’ while the American economy took a beating with the U.S. taxpayers footing the bill. This can be empirically demonstrated. One just has to think about how much the war has cost (financially)[1] and compare that to how it has affected the bottom line of the companies that were awarded the lion’s share of contracts necessary to execute the war and to rebuild its destruction. Perhaps, the most sensational proof of how the war has benefited ‘business’ lies in comparing the value of ‘Halliburton’ stock before the planning and invasion of Iraq with rumors of potential bankruptcy, with its post invasion stock values.[2]

Another irony lies in the ‘indoctrinating effect’ that rationalized the Iraq invasion, first as necessary and then sustained its support by attacking the 'patriotic' and moral fiber of those that opposed it. The opposition (to the war) side argued that the invasion was a War of choice and a war that allowed profiteering ‘victories’ for a small minority of business interests at the cost to the lives and welfare of thousands of U.S. soldiers and millions of Iraqis. Such ‘blasphemy’ was duly 'symbolized as unpatriotic' by representatives of U.S. Foreign policy interests particularly the mainstream press led by its pseudo ‘left’ wing newspapers, the Washington Post and New York Times. Meanwhile, again what went on relatively unreported was the rate of profiteering that those contracting firms’ primarily of U.S. origin, who along with the business interests of other contractors from the UK [3],Kuwait and other ‘Coalition Countries’, were successfully accruing.

In fact, the war was a winner for them and those connected to them. That the 'coalition countries' primary allegiance was not to our country or to their country, but rather to making profits and to each other in the form of their allegiance to and being part of the ‘International Powerstructure’, brings us back to Malcolm’s claim. And the fact that the gap between the rich and poor in our own country, not to mention throughout the world, is ever increasing is consistent with that insight.

But instead we are snuckered into viewing the situation through the lens of a simplistic and dogmatic polarizing perspective, as either ‘for the war and for the surge and for the troops’ or ‘against the war, against the surge and against the troops’. The result is that we conveniently miss the bigger picture, namely that the world is being turned into an ecological disaster with a certain premature end to our species unless we wake up and challenge the foundation upon which economic greed rules our country while self-camouflaging under the guise of ‘democracy’ and ‘protecting the homeland’. But let us refocus on and not stray to far from our present discussion of the ‘indoctrinating effect’ and its impact on the U.S. political dialogue regarding the Iraq invasion…….

In order to misrepresent the primacy of their business interests over their concern for the welfare of our country and the written principles upon which it stands, its public relations message, duly reported and repeated throughout the mainstream press, went out loud and clear, ‘to support the troops you must support the war and that to be against the war meant not only to be against the troops but to be 'unpatriotic' by not rallying around our government’s foreign policy during a time of war!’

That indeed is quite ironic! Let’s review. Companies align their highest allegiance not to ‘patriotism’ to their country, but to the bottom line. By doing so they realize that their primary (economic) interests are more congruent with other economically powerful elite interests in other countries within the ‘coalition of the willing’, than with the interests of its own 300 million American citizens. Yet they are presented as ‘patriotic’ because they support the war while those that oppose the war are ‘unpatriotic’.

Now let’s take a step back to realize the significance of the $3.22 - $5 trillion dollars the war has cost taxpayers to date (which apparently includes only, the cost of “providing medical care to the veterans, the cost of providing disability compensation to the veterans, the cost of replacing the military equipment and (the) weaponry that's been used up” see endnote -1). Remembering (by readinfg the endnote) that this is a conservative estimate we will take the middle range number of $4 trillion dollars and divide it by an estimated number of taxpayers, 150 million (half the U.S. population). The result is that it has cost the U.S taxpayer (conservatively) some $26,666 per person. Now, imagine receiving a check for $26,000 as opposed to the $500 from the pending Congressionally approved economic stimulus package and imagine how that might be a stimulus to the 'economy'.

Arguably, we would have been better off morally and ethically, and most importantly would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if we had just done the more ‘patriotic’ thing, and written blank ransom checks signed by U.S. taxpayers to those U.S. companies in the amount of the 'contracting portion of the war cost taxpayers have shouldered to date', instead of going to war in the first place........... But the U.S people could never have been successfully indoctrinated to agree to that, so they went to 'Plan B', invade Iraq!


[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/12/2187215.htm?section=world (excerpted from) Iraq, Afghan wars costing $US3 trillion: experts By Barbara Miller, Mar 12, 2008 , ABC news.com With the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war just days away, (March 19th –pg) its cost is becoming clearer. Ahead of that anniversary, two prominent US economists have come up with a new estimate on the cost to the economy of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. That figure is $US3 trillion ($3.22 trillion). At the same time, a parliamentary committee in the UK has estimated that Britain's expenditure on military operations on the same fronts will almost double this year. Former World Bank chief economist (and former nobel prize winning economist -pg) Joseph Stiglitz and a professor of Public Finance at Harvard University, Linda Bilmes, have written a book with that figure in mind: The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. The authors say the $600 billion spent so far on the war is only the tip of the iceberg. Professor Bilmes told ABC Radio National's Breakfast program yesterday that the authors' estimate took into account a number of long-term indirect costs of the conflict. "It's the cost of providing medical care to the veterans, the cost of providing disability compensation to the veterans, the cost of replacing the military equipment and weaponry that's been used up," she said. "And the cost of essentially resetting the military personnel to their pre-war state of readiness, and then there is the cost of paying the interest on the money that we borrowed to fight the war so far, so all those numbers are not included in the top line result." The authors accept that some people will scoff at the $3 trillion figure they have come up with, but Professor Bilmes says it is realistic. "We have tried to be very, very conservative. Extremely conservative. We could have called this book the $4 trillion or the $5 trillion war but we tried to be as conservative as possible because, frankly, we didn't want to quibble with anyone about the particular details," she said. "We were trying to just get a sort of realistic sense of how much it was costing."…….Meanwhile a British parliamentary committee has estimated that the cost to the UK of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to almost double this year to 3.2 billion pounds, or around $7 billion.
James Arbuthnot, the chairman of the UK Commons Defence Committee, says the public needs to know why the costs are soaring beyond expectations….."What we do find surprising is the size of the increase that has come to light three months after we were told it was going to be much less." The estimated cost so far of Australia's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is roughly $3 billion. But Robert Ayson, the director of studies at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, says he expects that figure to rise significantly.

[2] The Privatization of War by Niloufer Bhagwat, 6/28/05 p8, www.globalresearch Copyright Niloufer Bhagwat, World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), 2005 "In 2002 Halliburton was saddled with multibillion asbestos liability and the Company was affected by a slow down in domestic oil production, as a consequence Halliburton’s stock prices rapidly plummeted to $12.62 from a high of $22 the year before with rumors that the company would be filing for bankruptcy. With the no bid contract awarded a few months before of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the fortunes of Halliburton have undergone a dramatic change. In fact Kellogg Brown and Roots the subsidiary of Halliburton is a beneficiary of most of the wars waged since 1991 with contracts ranging from former Yugoslavia, to Afghanistan to Iraq including the construction of new prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay which require inmates irrespective of the justification for their incarceration. (Reported by Centre for Public Integrity International Consortium of Investigative Journalists)” ……. Also see p8 "Apart from Halliburton the Bechtel Corporation was immediately singled out for a no bid contract by USAID, for the repair and rebuilding of destroyed power generation facilities, electrical grids, municipal water systems, sewage systems, airport facilities, dredging and repair of Umm Qasr seaport before the seaport was occupied; and for reconstruction of schools, ministries, irrigation structures and transport links, after the deliberate destruction of a substantial part of the civilian infrastructure by targeted precision bombing only with a view to justify these reconstruction contracts. Never before in history has one company been granted a contract for the reconstruction of an entire country which will eventually be worth up to $100 billion. " ……….also see p8 "Since 2003 more than one third of the annual revenues of Halliburton and Bechtel are derived from the no bid contracts in Iraq.”

[3] http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article350959.ece The War Dividend: The British companies making a fortune out of conflict-riven Iraq ,By Robert Verkaik The Independent Online Published: 13 March 2006 British businesses have profited by at least £1.1bn since coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein three years ago, the first comprehensive investigation into UK corporate investment in Iraq has found. The company roll-call of post-war profiteers includes some of the best known names in Britain's boardrooms as well many who would prefer to remain anonymous. They come from private security services, banks, PR consultancies, urban planning consortiums, oil companies, architects offices and energy advisory bodies. Among the top earners is the construction firm Amec, which has made an estimated £500m from a series of contracts restoring electrical systems and maintaining power generation facilities during the past two years. Aegis, which provides private security has earned more than £246m from a three-year contract with the Pentagon to co-ordinate military and security companies in Iraq. Erinys, which specialises in the same area, has made more than £86m, a substantial portion from the protection of oilfields. The evidence of massive investments and the promise of more multimillion-pound profits to come was discovered in a joint investigation by Corporate Watch, an independent watchdog, and The Independent. The findings show how much is stake if Britain were to withdraw military protection from Iraq. British company involvement at the top of Iraq's new political and economic structures means Iraq will be forced to rely on British business for many years to come. A total of 61 British companies are identified as benefiting from at least £1.1bn of contracts and investment in the new Iraq. But that figure is just the tip of the iceberg; Corporate Watch believes it could be as much as five times higher, because many companies prefer to keep their relationship secret. The waters are further muddied by the Government's refusal to release the names of companies it has helped to win contracts in Iraq. Many of the companies enjoy long-standing relationships with Labour and now have a financial stake in the reconstruction of Iraq in Britain's image. Of the total profits published in the report, the British taxpayer has had to meet a bill for £78m while the US taxpayer's contribution to UK corporate earnings in Iraq is nearly nine times that. Iraqis themselves have paid British company directors £150m. The report acknowledges that British business still lags behind the huge profits paid to American companies. But, in two fields, Britain is playing a critical and leading role. The threat from the Iraqi insurgency means British private security companies are in great demand. Corporate Watch estimates there are between 20,000 and 30,000 security personnel working in Iraq, half of whom are employed by companies run by retired senior British officers and at least two former defence ministers. The biggest British player, Aegis - run by Tim Spicer, the former British army lieutenant colonel who founded the security company Sandline - has a workforce the size of a military division and may rank as the largest corporate military group ever assembled, according to the report. Other private security companies have sprung up overnight to protect British and American civilians. Britain is also playing a leading role in advising on the creation of state institutions and the business of government. PA Consulting, which has also received a contract for advising on the Government's ID cards scheme, worth around £19m, is now a key adviser in Iraq. Adam Smith International, a body closely linked to the right-wing think-tank used by Margaret Thatcher, has been heavily involved in the foundation of the Iraqi government and continues to influence its newly formed ministries. According to the Tory MP Quentin Davies, who visited Iraq, the advisers are "reordering Iraqi government operations at the most basic level, to help restructure some of the Iraqi ministries, in fact physically restructure them, even suggesting how the minister's office should be laid out". Another favourite of the Thatcher governments, now involved in Iraq, is Tim Bell, who ran the Tories' election campaigns in 1979, 1983 and 1987. His PR firm Bell-Pottinger has been involved in advising on the 2004 elections and a strategic campaign to promote bigger concepts such as the return of sovereignty, reconstruction, support for the army and police, minority rights and public probity. Loukas Christodoulou, of Corporate Watch, has been monitoring British business relations with Iraq since the invasion. He says in his conclusion to our joint report: "The presence of these consultants in Iraq is arguably a part of the UK government's policy to push British firms as lead providers of privatisation support. The Department for International Development has positioned itself as a champion of privatisation in developing countries. The central part UK firms are playing in reshaping Iraq's economy and society lays the ground for a shift towards a corporate-dominated economy. This will have repercussions lasting decades." In five years, the £1.1bn of contracts identified in the report will be dwarfed by what Britain and the US hope to reap from investments. Highly lucrative oil contracts have yet to be handed out.