Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Tag: perception management

Pulling it off

We find ourselves wondering how come those of us who weep for the Palestinians, content ourselves with weeping. Why are there no armies of angry citizens with pitchforks in front of every US or Israeli embassy in Europe? Why do we allow unelected EU commissars to refer to Israel as a “beacon of Democracy”. What’s the matter with us?

Propaganda is not a new science. I have previously written about Arthur Ponsonby’s remarkable little 1928 book Falsehood in War-Time, about how nations were fooled into starting WWI and about how their populations were bamboozled into believing they were sacrificing their lives for a noble cause.

Since then, propaganda has made even greater strides, whereas our ability to resist propaganda has not. We swallow the bait, time and time again.

In school we were taught to look up information, to question its reliability, to consult sources, to seek other sources, to consider dissenting opinions without prejudice and assess the sources for them. That, we were told, is how science has brought us to where we are. Since then, however, those who have questioned official narratives – be they about Covid, the Ukraine war, Russia-gate, the murder of JFK or the weather forecast are labelled “conspiracy theorists”. Such an approach to controversy bodes ill for so-called Democracy and, for that matter, also for “science”.

We have long understood that history is written by the victor, and nowadays there are numerous researchers who challenge the victors’ stories, after the fact, as it were. Thus we know a great deal about the infamous cruelty of colonialism, for instance. That was a long time ago, and the perpetrators are dead. But what about the cruelties being perpetrated as we speak? Who dares expose them?

If you tell me, “time will be the judge”, I will riposte: Too much damage will have been done, by the time “time is ready to pass its verdict”, if we choose, today, a very dangerous course.

We are choosing a very dangerous course, Many dangerous courses, in fact. The old world order is cracking, but governments in the West are desperately trying to hold it together rather than pave the ground for a more just system.

There are numerous ways of airbrushing history. You can f.ex. apply the playground narrative: “He started it!” The other guy, the one with the bloody nose, will indignantly protest, “But that was after he––” before teacher grabs him by the ear and drags him off to be whipped. This constitutes what Yanis Varoufakis calls “truncation of history“. Our governments define one particular event as the catalyst of a conflict and all preceding events are simply deleted from the public memory. We won’t even be allowed to hear what the other guy, the one with the bloody nose, has to say for himself. This method has been used again and again by, not least, the USA to lend legitimacy to the new wars it needs to engage in, every couple of years or so.

Thus the Gaza war started on October 7, not a day earlier, when Hamas, the aggressor, allegedly mass-raped women and beheaded babies. Yes, here we apply not only “history truncation”; we also resort to demonization, as we did about Sadam, i.e. outright lies. When you are going to wipe out a population, you need to resort to fiction. By the time your lies are exposed, your own population is so emotionally involved that nothing can shift its outlook.

Thus the Ukraine war started in February 2022 with the so-called “unprovoked invasion” of 120 000 Russian troops in Ukraine. Yet an example of “history truncation” + demonization – as Russia’s president is regularly referred to as a modern-day Hitler. I have written extensively of this elsewhere on this site.

Now if, as is often the case, a US war ends badly for the USA, we have to resort to “framing“. By “we”, I mean not only the USA but all the US vassals in Europe. We make a big show of how good we are and how unspeakably horrible the opponents are. In Afghanistan, for instance, we provided schools and health care and, above all, we liberated women from the madmen who had used them as cows. To this day, we often see an unforgettable meme: desperate Aghans hanging from the underbelly of departing NATO planes. Yes, NATO suffered defeat in Afghanistan, but NATO was loved and missed by some thousand Afghans who had worked with the NATO forces and had reason to fear reprisals.

Now I put to you, that through framing, past Afghan history has gone missing in the most extraordinary way from the official narrative. Admittedly, I know very little about Afghanistan. But there is no doubt that Afghanistan has been egregiously fiddled with by all and sundry powers. Few seem to have noticed that (according to Wikipedia) the period 1933 to 1973 was not bad at all:

Zahir Shah [1933-1973,] like his father Nadir Shah, had a policy of maintaining national independence while pursuing gradual modernization, creating nationalist feeling, and improving relations with the United Kingdom. Afghanistan was neither a participant in World War II nor aligned with either power bloc in the Cold War. However, it was a beneficiary of the latter rivalry as both the Soviet Union and the United States vied for influence by building Afghanistan’s main highways, airports, and other vital infrastructure. On a per capita basis, Afghanistan received more Soviet development aid than any other country.

Needless to say, that king was deposed in a coup. We can’t have heads of state who actually benefit their country. Neighbouring countries might be tempted to follow their example.

Currently, Afghanistan is subject to a US-imposed starvation campaign, euphemistically referred to as “sanctions”. (Israel did not invent starvation campaigns!)

“Perception management” is big business in the US, not only for dealing with dissenters against wars. Environmentalists, for example are a menace to “US interests”, i.e. the interests of the proverbial 1%. Trump’s and Biden’s people deal with them differently, but none of them intend to avert environmental disaster.

In US vassal states, US “soft power” has blinded us. All the films we have seen, with all those good and honest heroes and heroins have dimmed reality.

Then there is the matter of why poor countries are poor and getting poorer in spite of all the aid we are giving them? We have been led to blame corrupted officials, bad governance, inefficient institutions, difficult climates, lazy workers, etc. And of course too much fornication, which we politely refer to as “too many children”.

This is an example of “truncated history” + framing. Mind you, I am not referring to the ghastly age of colonialism, which most governments are quite willing to “fess about”. I am referring to the decades since the 50s and 60s. See, for instance, the paper by Dylan Sullivan and Jason Hickel in Review of African Polical Economy. The details of how and why Africa has had to pay the west far more than the amount it has received in loans, aid and investment combined would take far too much space in a humble blog. Besides, it’s about economic exploitation, a field most of us find too technical. What seems clear, though, is that African countries have had to accept the terms of the more powerful countries. The injustice has been papered over with “aid”.

Which, of course, is why “perception management” is so effective. Few will be bothered to read papers published in the Review of African Economy. At least here in Norway. Most ordinary citizens in “the West” are left with the idea that in spite of a US invasion here, a US-orchestrated coup there – and yes, aggressive meddling just about everywhere, for instance in Haiti – we, the West give enormous sums of aid every year. We care about you poor sods, even if you are incompetent; we honestly try to keep you afloat. [For the record, Haiti was hell on earth under the French, then under USA until Aristide. The Haitians loved Aristide, but the US Americans did not, needless to say, so Haiti is still hell on earth.)

In his 2023 book, The Divide, Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets, Jason Hickel explains it all to us. I have not read the entire book because I stopped for a break after reading about how he was taken on a long drive on a dirt road to a place on the West Bank with an enormous sign: USAID. Apparently a well had been paid for by US tax payers to alleviate “Recurring water shortages” in the area. The well was, the sign read, a “gift from the American people”.

What made me feel quite ill as I read this was that since the 1967 war, Israel illegally controls:

water-rich territories like the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. These areas now provide a significant portion of Israel’s water supply. However, this control has come at the expense of neighboring states and Palestinians, who face severe restrictions on water access. For example, Palestinian per capita water consumption averages just 20 cubic meters annually, compared to Israel’s 60 cubic meters.

The Israeli government strictly regulates Palestinian water use, prohibiting the drilling of new wells and imposing fines for exceeding quotas, while Israeli settlements face no such restrictions. The result is a terrible inequality in access to water, …(source)


Perception management has been a priority in the USA ever since Reagan decided to energetically get the American people to “kick the Vietnam syndrom”.

Jason Hickel’s 2023 book, The Divide, is addressed to people like you and me, not to academics. However, if you are willing to read academic papers you can find him here.

Defence of self or of hegemony

Have you heard of “perception management”? Simply put, it means persuasion on the basis not of facts but of lies (or suppression of facts).

During the 1980s, Reagan decided to “kick the Vietnam syndrome“, a condition from which the US public was suffering, sick to the heart of the horror and shame of the Vietnam war, so that future presidents would find it very difficult to pursue the nation’s foreign policy goal of maintaining global hegemony.

In Reagan’s case, the challenge was to convince the US public to support US martial activities in Central America. As Robert Parry subsequently wrote (in 2014):

In that sense, propaganda in pursuit of foreign policy goals would trump the democratic ideal of an informed electorate. The point would be not to honestly inform the American people about events around the world but to manage their perceptions by ramping up fear in some cases and defusing outrage in others – depending on the U.S. government’s needs.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/30/endless-war-and-victory-perception-management

Various tactics were used, one of them being:

to weed out American reporters who uncovered facts that undercut the desired public images. As part of that effort, the administration attacked New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner for disclosing the Salvadoran regime’s massacre of about 800 men, women and children in the village of El Mozote in northeast El Salvador in December 1981. Accuracy in Media and conservative news organizations, such as The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, joined in pummeling Bonner, who was soon ousted from his job.

Ibid

During its wars, the US Government found new ways of limiting television viewers’ insight:

One solution involved imposing strict control over the movements of journalists. The government could no longer afford to allow – as it had in Vietnam – enterprising reporters to run around the battlefield, going wherever they wanted and speaking with whomever they pleased.

https://theconversation.com/how-the-pentagon-tried-to-cure-america-of-its-vietnam-syndrome-83682

An important group targeted by perception management consisted of the many who were saddened and shocked by revelations of crimes against humanity. We have therefore been seeing, with increasing frequency, the waging of what Joseph Darda calls “humanitarian wars”. In his paper Kicking the Vietnam Syndrome Narrative: Human Rights, the Nayirah Testimony, and the Gulf War, he quotes George Bush, who in 1990 was preparing for yet another war:

With a war on the horizon, Bush took the proclamation [his own presidential proclamation designating December 10 as Human Rights Day] as an opportunity to situate the looming Gulf War in a human rights context. “In a world where human rights are routinely denied in too many lands,” he observed, “nowhere is that situation more tragic and more urgent today than in Kuwait.” Listing the atrocities reportedly committed by Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait, Bush concluded, “As long as such assaults occur, as long as inhumane regimes deny basic human rights, our work is not done.” The Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait was not merely a threat to Kuwaiti sovereignty but also, Bush alleged, a threat to the sanctity of human rights everywhere. Americans could not feel secure in their own liberal rights until these rights were restored to the citizens of this small, oil-rich state in the Persian Gulf. Thus, the United States’ intervention in the Middle East was not really a war but, as Bush continually stressed that fall and winter, a unified “stand in defense of peace and freedom.”

https://josephdarda.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/darda-kicking-the-vietnam-syndrome-narrative-human-rights-the-nayirah-testimony-and-the-gulf-war.pdf

Next, I quote someone who appreciated George Bush’s appeal to humanitarianism. On the face of it, he sounds like a humane fellow. Only the name of the source, (hoover.org) gives us pause:

The Bush administration made its case for military action, and, after considerable debate, the American people, through their representatives in Congress, gave approval. The administration also made its case to the United Nations, highlighting the damage that inaction would inflict on prospects for peace in the long term.

Although the dangers of careless military activism are easy to imagine, the cost of passivity is more difficult to discern. In the 1990s, the Vietnam syndrome helped delay and limit U.S. military intervention in the Balkans. Those delays and limits extended murderous Serbian repression and actually accelerated ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Failure to intervene militarily often permits humanitarian crises to continue and leads to more dangerous conflicts.

https://www.hoover.org/research/kicking-vietnam-syndrome

I have previously written about the bombing to kingdom come of Libya, a vicious NATO operation performed allegedly to protect demonstrators. This was definitely a case of successful perception management, since the public hardly raised an eyebrow at the devastation in NATO’s wake.

Of course, one very important reason to go to war is “self defence”. For some years now, the USA has been spreading its network of military bases in the Far East – obviously for “self-defence” (in case the humanitarian plight of the Uighurs fails to capture sufficient public sympathy). I quote Glenn Greenwald, mocking the self-defence rationale:

I was looking at a video earlier today of George Bush and others saying that the reason we had to go fight in Iraq and invade Iraq is that we’d rather fight them over there than fight them over here. And I saw a video earlier today of California Democrat Adam Schiff saying exactly the same thing about the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine. Namely, the reason we must fight Russia over in Ukraine is that, if we don’t, we’ll have to fight them over here. Presumably, the Russian army is on the verge of attacking the American homeland right after it gets done trying to hold a town or two for more than three months in Ukraine, confident that it can conquer the American homeland, despite spending 1/15 in its military of what the United States spends.

https://rumble.com/GGreenwald (Sorry, I failed to take a note of the post)

More recently, “freedom and democracy” has supplanted humanitarian justification of destabilisation activities – bellicose or otherwise. During the Euromaidan Protests, Senator John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Chris Murphy visited Kiev to “show solidarity” to the demonstrators. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right‐​wing Svoboda Party, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.

John McCain — repeat: a US Senator — enthusiastically addressed the protesters — Ukrainian protesters in Ukraine, not in the USA:

Ukraine will make Europe better and Europe will make Ukraine better.

We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause (bold text is my highlighting)

He told CNN:

What we’re trying to do is try to bring about a peaceful transition here, that would stop the violence and give the Ukrainian people what they unfortunately have not had, with different revolutions that have taken place – a real society. This is a grassroots revolution here – it’s been peaceful except when the government tried to crack down on them, and the government hasn’t tried that since.

I’m praising their ability and their desire to demonstrate peacefully for change that I think they deserve.

Ibid (bold text is my highlighting)

Now, there is every reason to question how “peaceful” this so-called “peaceful transition” was. After all, quite a few protesters and some police officers were killed. We have been told that they were killed by officers defending (the Democratically elected) president Yanukovich. Apparently, the story is being compellingly disputed by Ukrainian-Canadian political scientist at the University of Ottawa, Ivan Katchanovski. Read the abstract of his paper and/or download it here.

However, his peer-reviewed paper has been ignored by mainstream media (which has proven its stalwart ignorance of late). It is truly quite fascinating. No less fascinating is the story of its suppression and the suppression of another of his papers, that of the 2014 Odessa massacre.

To conclude, for now, my exploration of applied perception management in Western foreign policy matters, I bring to your attention an investigative journalist’s address on March 24 this year, to the UN security council about the OPCW examination of the dreadful deaths by mysterious means in Douma, Syria, in April 2018.

So! The final OPCW report appears to have been a cover-up. For what? Why? What/who killed the victims in Douma?

There are still nearly 1000 US troops in Syria. What are they doing there? Who is currently controlling Syrian oil? What are the effects on the Syrian population of US sanctions?

Every day, to this day, Syrian civilians are being killed or maimed by land mines. And the nearly 20 Israeli attacks on Syria over the past year have not helped.

The regime change attempt in Syria was motivated and presented to the public as defence of human and civil rights. I put to you, though I cannot provide documentation — because investigative journalism is now becoming illegal in a growing number of “Democratic” countries — that the regime change attempt was largely orchestrated by the USA for reasons that are totally non-humanitarian. The result was death and devastation.

As usual.

Meanwhile, the arms race is on, full speed. And the engines of perception management are running at maximum capacity.

Please do not bring any more children into this world. I put to you that bringing children into the world now is turning into an act of parental egoism, the victims of which will be those same children.

© 2025 Pelshval

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑