What Misinforming the US Public Has Produced
What Misinforming the US Public Has Produced by Eric Zuesse – Strategic-Culture
Misrepresentations by the U.S. ‘news’ media — often serving as mere stenographers for the White House, instead of as authentic journalists — caused the U.S. public to support invading Iraq in 2003, invading Libya in 2011, and also into invading Syria in 2013 on cooked-up charges that Bashar al-Assad instead of the jihadist rebels who were supplied by the U.S. and Saudi governments, perpetrated the 21 August 2013 sarin gas attack.
On March 22nd, a Morning Consult/POLITICO poll of 1,927 registered American voters reported (page 52) that, when asked, «Please indicate if you think the government should be spending more, spending less or spending about the same amount as it currently does for each of the following: National defense / military»? 51% said «Spending more», and only 18% said «Spending less».
Then, when asked which of four options would be (page 84) «the best way to pay for this increase», the overwhelming top choice, 50% of the answers, was «Cutting spending in other areas», and that happens to be precisely what the Trump budget is proposing to do — increase the Pentagon by 9% and slash all other cabinet Departments to pay for it.
On March 20th, I had headlined about that budget, «Americans Support Increasing Budget of Most Wasteful Federal Department» and opened: «There is only one Cabinet-level federal Department that is so wasteful — so corrupt (&/or incompetent) — that its financial records can’t even be audited, meaning that no auditors can be found who will certify its books: the Defense Department, otherwise called «the Pentagon» — it’s 54% of the Fiscal Year 2016 federal budget for all Departments of discretionary (i.e., legally non-obligatory) federal spending».
So: why do the American public support taking money from other Cabinet Departments, such as those for health care, and for education, and giving that money instead to the military? Is it because they actually prefer military spending, over federal spending for health care, or federal spending for education? No. To the contrary.
This same poll actually found that Americans prefer the federal government to be spending more on health care, and also more on education — and that they prefer it by even more lopsided majorities than the majority of Americans who want more federal spending on the military.
Here are those figures:
p.64: «Health care»: 68% say they want «more» (federal spending), 15% say they want «less». Every demographic but «Tea Party supporter» want MORE spent on health care. Even Republicans do — but only the «Tea Party» faction within that Party don’t.
p.68: «Education»: 60% say they want «more», 13% say they want «less». Every demographic but «Tea Party supporter» want MORE spent on education.
So: although by a ratio of 51% to 18%, more Americans want more to be spent on the military than want less to be spent on it — and by an overwhelming ratio of 50% want that money to be taken out of other governmental functions, as compared to a total of 50% favoring together the three alternative methods for paying this increase to the military — there was actually a much higher percentage of Americans, 68%, who want more federal spending on the Health Department (versus only 15% who want «less»), and 60% who wanted more federal spending on the Education Department (versus only 13% who want «less») on that.
No question was asked by the pollster, regarding any other Department, comparable to the additional question that was asked regarding the military: «As you may know, some have proposed increasing the amount the U.S. spends on defense and the military. Which do you think is the best way to pay for this increase?» So, whether or not the American people would want money transferred from weapons-purchases to health care, or to education, wasn’t even a subject of inquiry by the pollster. Why wasn’t it?
The same U.S. Establishment who deceived the American public into believing such things as that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program in 2002, and who deceived the American public into believing that Bashar al-Assad instead of America’s own clients were behind the 21 August 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria, and who deceived the American public into believing that Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in Ukraine by a ‘democratic revolution’ instead of by a bloody U.S. coup in Ukraine, which sparked the breakaway of two regions of Ukraine (Crimea and Donbass) that had voted more than 75% for Yanukovych — this very same Establishment, is now deceiving them to think that transferring money from other (the auditable) Cabinet Departments into the unauditable U.S. Aggression (called ‘Defense’) Department, makes good sense.
So: which is the bigger hoax by the U.S. aristocracy: That Russia is evil? Or: That the ‘news’ media that they (America’s aristocracy) own (or otherwise politically control) and which ‘serve’ the vast bulk, over 99%, of the nation’s audience for news, are a ‘free press’ (such as America’s Founders wanted) instead of merely the stenographic ‘press’ for a dictatorship — the press collectively by those aristocrats themselves (and their agents), against the American people, and against the entire world, the hoax by not only America’s aristocracy but including by that aristocracy’s vassal-aristocracies in other countries, America’s ‘allies,’ such as the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, but also including some ‘democracies’ in Europe and elsewhere — all joined cooperatively in this vast imperial American enterprise?
The American people during the last Presidential election were given a choice between two opposing candidates, Clinton and Trump, who were overwhelmingly despised by the electorate, and chose which of the two poison-cups to drink from; most selected Clinton, but, outside of California, most selected Trump — and therefore Trump won in the Electoral College, but neither of the candidates was actually approved by the electorate, in this ‘democracy’. Consequently, it’s no surprise that, on 23 February 2017, when the Quinnipiac University poll of 1,323 American voters was published, headlining «Republicans Out of Step with Voters on Key Issues», it found an electorate that was very «out of step» with ‘its’ White House (because the American President — regardless of Party — actually represents the aristocracy, not the public), and reported:
62 – 31 percent against reducing taxes across the board, even if it increases the deficit;
51 – 38 percent against restarting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines;
60 – 37 percent against building the wall on the Mexican border, with 65 – 33 percent against the wall if the U.S. must pay for it;
76 – 18 percent against lowering taxes on the wealthy;
50 – 43 percent against lowering taxes on businesses and corporations;
54 – 34 percent against removing regulations on businesses and corporations;
63 – 27 percent against removing specific regulations intended to combat climate change;
54 – 43 percent against repealing the Affordable Care Act.
It was a scalding rejection of the ‘winner’s’ actual post-‘election’ program for the nation. And yet, this must be called a «democracy». To call it a «dictatorship» is to not be publishable — except in a few small venues such as this: samizdat in the United States. But whatever it is, is what we actually have, and it’s a very disappointed electorate. America is served by a ‘press’ that’s unworthy of a democratic nation. So: we don’t have a democratic nation. Nowadays, no dictatorship teaches its public that they’re being ruled by a dictatorship: it’s called a ‘democracy’, instead. Big Brother rules a ‘democracy’.
Which, then, is the bigger hoax? The hoax against Russia, or the hoax for America’s press (i.e., for the fronts for America’s aristocracy)? Isn’t this a difficult question to answer? But, unless a person thinks about it, America’s continual succession of invasions and coups abroad, routinely wreaking death and destruction and extreme misery for millions of people abroad and tens of millions of refugees that America itself won’t let in, can only be incomprehensible. So: it’s worth thinking about, even though it’s a very hard question to answer.