Home

Contact Johnny Peaceseed

Commentaries

Poetry

Daily Archives

Links to Great Web Sites

Johnny's Heroes

Boycott These Products

Quotes for the Revolution

Free Seeds of Peace...

Buttons 1

Buttons 2

Buttons 3

Flyers

Posters

June 9, 2003

The Narrowing of Discourse
The Use of Masking Terminology to Control Public Opinion

Language
We humans, when we created language, both expanded our understanding of the world and limited it. We expanded our understanding by using language to construct a representation of reality that allowed us to share our experiences and ideas. At the same time, we limited our understanding because language, by its nature, is a description of reality, not reality itself. Our experience of the world is in the moment by moment “now” of our existence, and can only be hinted at through the medium of language. As we developed language we came to trust it more than our direct experience. Our description, our story of the world, became the world. The use of language is so pervasive in our thought processes that most of us can no longer separate the description of reality it offers from reality itself, and therein lies the rub.

By accepting this simulacrum of reality, we are susceptible to the phenomena of misstatement, misdirection and dishonesty. The world we created with language, can lie to us, can lead us to believe what is false. The way we employ language determines the extent to which we limit or expand our assessment of reality. This is why it is essential that we describe our world by using language that is as accurate and truthful as possible. We can then trust the world our language provides. When language is used to deceive, it breaks that trust, but only when we recognize the deceit.

Masking Terminology
You could say that, in the realm of language, we live in treacherous times. Our leaders consistently distort our understanding of events instead of clarifying them. They use broad generalizations, make sweeping misstatements and craft jargon to limit how we perceive events. “Spin” is given greater emphasis than accuracy of meaning because it enforces their point of view. A key element of language used to spin or slant information is what I would call “Masking Terminology.” Masking terminology is language, that, on the surface, has one meaning, but is used to disguise the intention of the speaker. These terms are used either to persuade the listener to believe something that might not match the listener’s values, needs or interests, or to evoke emotions such as pride, anger, hate and fear. Examples of masking terminology, from the current discourse, are “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” “Terrorist,” “Policeman to the World,” ”and “Human Rights Abuses.” These and other masking terms, such as “Collateral Damage,” are used to define an enemy, limit our viewpoint, or win our support for a particular action. They avoid the acknowledgment of any culpability or responsibility by the United States for its part in creating the situation being addressed.

Weapons of Mass Destruction
“Typically, the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ means nuclear, biological and chemical weapons intended to have indiscriminate effect upon large populations and large geographical areas.”[1]

Whether we choose to limit the definition of weapons of mass destruction [WMD] to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, or a more expanded definition that includes everything from landmines to cluster bombs and bunker busters, one thing remains clear. WMD are ALWAYS weapons our enemies possess, NEVER our own. If this were not so, we would be dismantling our arsenal, instead of expanding it. If we really did abhor WMD and their use we would have to first point the finger of guilt at ourselves, and this we can not do. The U.S. is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons on an enemy. The U.S. has by far the largest stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of any nation and continues to develop them. So it is clear that the term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” is used solely to demonize an enemy.

So, why would the United States wish to demonize Iraq over potential WMD" Was Iraq a threat to our existence" Was Iraq a threat to its neighbors" Did Iraq threaten our business interests" All of these questions must be answered in the negative, given the paucity of evidence that Iraq possessed WMD in any quantity large enough to pose a threat to anyone, even its own people. WMD must then be seen as a pretext for a hidden agenda.

Terrorist
Since 9/11, the word terrorist has acquired a special significance because of its power to invoke fear and uncertainty in Americans. After 9/11 we no longer felt safe. Terrorists could strike anywhere and at anytime. Because of its power to direct our emotions, the word terrorist has been used unremittingly by our leaders. Just the use of the word terrorist has been enough to cloud many people’s judgment and has kept the country in a state of agitation.

As with the discussion of WMD, the term terrorist only pertains to the enemy, never to the United States and for the same reasons. So, was Iraq responsible for any terrorist act in the last five years" No evidence has been forthcoming. Was Al Qaeda operating out of Iraq" There is no evidence of any links to Al Qaeda and Iraq. Why then, was Iraq called a terrorist regime" The term was used because it kept Americans in fear, polarized and in favor of war.

The Policeman to the World
What about the argument that the U.S., because of its dominance and overwhelming military power, should be the policeman to the world" If Iraq was a threat, if it threatened its neighbors, why weren’t other nations doing the same placed at least as high on our list of states in need of policing. Certainly North Korea, with its nuclear weapons program, or Pakistan, or India would fall into this category. Why did the U.S. focus on Iraq" Again, it wasn’t because of an imminent threat.

Human Rights Abuses
An argument has been made that we attacked Iraq because of its deplorable human rights record. If that were true, why didn’t we attack other nations with equally bad or worse records. Why not Saudi Arabia, or Libya, or Congo, or Zimbabwe, or Syria, or Israel for that matter" Once again the argument fails in the face of our diplomatic recognition of, and support for, these and other equally inhumane regimes.

Some Truths
The effect of masking terminology is that it limits discourse. Moreover, our view of the world is narrowed and we become polarized. Debate and discussion metamorphoses from considering the world from many perspectives into seeing the world as a simple battle between good and evil. Subtlety and nuance are lost and the context of conflicts and the conditions that led to them become irrelevant. In this world, Weapons of Mass Destruction are never eradicated, and the origins of Terrorism and Human Rights Abuses are never addressed, let alone corrected. They are allowed to continue unabated, until used as a pretext for the next assault.

The United States, like the empires before it, has always couched aggression against its neighbors and its citizens with masking phrases such as “Manifest Destiny” and “States Rights.” Hidden is the oligarchy’s agenda of domination, expansion and conquest. Throughout its history, the United States has broken treaties. It has manufactured incidents such as those leading up to the Spanish-American War. It has expanded wars such as Vietnam using lies and deceit and it has employed agents to overthrow governments not yielding to its economic imperative. Over and over, the same underlying policy. The same strategy used for the last two hundred and twenty-seven years continues today. And so “we, the people,” [another masking term], can ignore any underlying subtleties or distinctions, and we can ignore the real foreign policy objectives being exercised. The attack and brutalization of Iraq is justified. We can shut our eyes to the economic disparities, pillaging and poverty that follow in its wake.

[1] Lieutenant Colonel John Kunich, Air Force Law Review, 1997, p. 130

Johnny Peaceseed