Wanted Man
2nd November 2006, 13:48
This is my translation of a summary of Anne Morelli's book. The source:
http://www.aidanederland.nl/halabja/contri...propaganda.html (http://www.aidanederland.nl/halabja/contributions/De%20tien%20geboden%20van%20de%20oorlogspropaganda .html)
The ten commandments of war propaganda
Anne Morelli on propaganda - on the evening before the Iraq War
The book "Elementary Principles of War Propaganda, useful in times of cold, lukewarm and hot war" was recently published by Labor. The book was written by historian Anne Morelli. Therein she describes the ten 'commandments' of war propaganda, which date back to the First World War, but are still being used in recent conflicts to win public opinion for a 'just cause'.
Anne Morelli about the book: "I wanted to systematically describe the general principles of war propaganda. After the First World War, the British Lord Ponsonby summarised war propaganda in ten commandments which had to be spoon-fed to the public opinion. These ten commandments are: we want no war, the enemy forced the war upon us; only the enemy is responsible for this war; the leader of the enemy camp is a devil, we defend a noble cause; the enemy commits cruelties, while we only do more damage than is necessary by accident; the enemy uses weapons which are not allowed; the enemy suffers more losses than we do; the intellectuals and the artists support our cause, proving its justness; our cause is sacred, and finally: whoever questions our propaganda, is a traitor. From this, I have gone on to show that these principles are not specific to the First World War, but were later also used, and only very recently in the wars against Iraq and Yugoslavia.
I do not pick sides in my book. I do not say: so-and-so was right. I merely show the mechanisms of propaganda."
Now that a war on Iraq is rapidly coming closer, the war propaganda machine is running at full speed. According to professor Anne Morelli, teacher of historical criticism at the Université Libre de Bruxelles(ULB), there is an ingenious sytem behind propaganda which operates in the same way with every war. By ten simple principles, leaders prepare their people for battle. These principles are universal, and they work. Always.
Morelli did not invent the ten commandments of war propaganda herself. She gathered them from the work of the British Lord Arthur Ponsonby, deputy of the Labour Party in the House of Lords in the early last century. Ponsonby was opposed to Britain taking part in the First World War. A critic of the war rhetoric of his government, he tried to show how lies are spread and how the population was being dragged along in a war hype fed by hatred, national pathos, and populism. In 'Falsehood in Wartime', he described several essential mechanisms of war propaganda. Morelli systematised these ten commandments in her remarkable book 'Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre', which she completed after having travelled through Yugoslavia as a peace inspector during the May 1999 bombings. Morelli explains in detail how these principles not only worked during the First World War, but were also deliberately wielded in all wars after: hot, cold and lukewarm ones.
Therefore, there are plenty of reasons to ask the historian to test her ten principles on the war rhetoric against Iraq. Their applicability is astounding. "I do not make value judgements about the purity of the intentions of either party", says Morelli, who is herself of leftist persuasion. "I do not take sides. But the analysis of the mechanisms shows how the public opinion is being kneaded, and prepared for the eventual war against Iraq."
1. We do not want war.
"The paradox of every war: all parties try to maintain until the end that they absolutely do not want a war," explains Morelli. "The US are not belligerent, they say. What they are doing is purely defensive. That's why there is no War Minister, just a Defence Minister. It's just like that in Europe. Countries like Belgium, France, and Germany are loudly crying that they do not want war. That's what their population wants to hear. But eventually, they still come around. The official discourse is completely unrelated to the agenda behind it. In late January, the new Belgian ambassador in the US gave a conference in Philadelphia. He put the Americans at ease, stating that we would definitely join this war, but that they had to give us some time to 'work on our public opinion'. And this man would not say this if his foreign affairs minister was not behind it.
It is very similar to what Hermann Göring, Hitler's right-hand man, wrote at the evening before the Second World War: 'Of course, no people want war. But the leaders can get the spirits to follow if they wield good propaganda.' The peace protests going on in all European cities show that the European people do not want war. But the propaganda is doing its work. It has always been successful, so we shall not escape it this time."
2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war
"This principle is entirely connected to the first: we do not want war; if one does come, it is because the enemy pushed us that far. It is important to make the war look like a retaliation to an enemy attack. Ideally, today that would be a retaliation to a terrorist attack. Sadly, there is no clear link between Saddam Hussein and the islamic fundamentalists. Therefore, the Americans try to create one.
The Americans say: 'Saddam Hussein is defying us. He is forcing us to react.' Let's be honest: it is difficult to say in what way Saddam truly forms a threat at present. There are definitely no neighbouring nations complaining. Must we really believe that this small country forms a threat to the US? Let's not look at Saddam as a religious fanatic, either. He does attend the mosque to avoid insulting his people, but religion is not his first concern. And yet, that is exactly what they want the world to believe, because it fits the picture of the struggle against terrorism.
It is very typical that we allow the war logic to evolve by making all sorts of things official in mutual assistance treaties and UN resolutions. That way, you have a reason to attack on paper. This gives more legitimity. The standard keeps getting higher, too. It is logical that the head of state at some point says that it has been enough, that he will no longer cooperate. That is exactly the point: then, the Americans have an 'objective' reason to invade.
Europe says that it is 'obligated' to participate. She already does this concretely: the transport of American soldiers and weapons through the Antwerp port are a logistic support for the war. Just like the replacement of American soldiers with Belgian ones in Afghanistan, so that American soldiers can go to Iraq.
Nevertheless, this obligation is relative. In the NATO, it only counts when an ally is attacked. Also, the enforcability of UN resolutions is relative. A dozen or so have already passed regarding the Palestinian question. Never have they been obeyed."
3. The enemy is the face of the devil.
"On French television, I recently saw a commentary on a documentary of the American station ABC News. It was about an interview with a lover of Saddam Hussein. She argued that Saddam was the biggest monster ever. She said that he raised gazelles as pets, and then brutally killed and ate them. At that point, a small deer was shown on the screen. The message was clear: 'Monster eats Bambi.' The lady also told that Saddam is actually atheist, despite his mosque visits. A hypocritical atheist, who drinks a glass of whisky every evening. Enough to completely fall out of grace with the American people. The image of the monster takes shape. It is strange, by the way, how the American media manage to show Saddam as an atheist on one hand, and as a religious terrorist on the other, depending on what is most convenient for the logic of propaganda. Saddam is the serving monster today. We must not forget how our political leaders received him on their sofa as a great ally against the fanatical Iran.
The monster constantly finds an alter ego: from Milosevic to Osama bin Laden to Saddam. Voluntarily or not, the media follow.
The same goes for the way we picture Bush in Belgium or France. The cartoons and caricatures in which Bush is represented as a big idiot are common. This has an intention: to show that the intelligence of the man is doubtful, and that someone like him is not to be followed blindly. All parties are guilty of this: one demonises the other."
4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interest.
"It is inherent to all wars that the true reason is hidden. In this case, the role of oil is obvious. Still, this is hardly mentioned. Not only in the US, oil also seems to be an important motive for French resistance. France has big oil interests in Iraq. The French are in agreement with Saddam on this. They must defend him. For the same reason, we will still eventually have to follow the Americans. After the war, after all, we want our slice of the oil cake, which is distributed according to the willingness to cooperate.
We are bombarded with arguments of democracy, human rights or oppression in that poor small country, but in reality, only economic interests are in play. That is not to say that Saddam Hussein is not a dictator. But there are others in the world who deserve at least as much attention. The ability to take the Americans and their argument of democracy seriously, is highly doubtful. In 1973, they put dictator Pinochet to power in Chile at the cost of Salvador Allende. Terms like human rights and democracy can be stretched very far.
It is always better to present the war as a crusade for the liberation of an oppressed people. They make it look like the Iraqis will welcome us with joy. You can be sure that the advertisers are already preparing this happy entrance. In Kuwait, the case is directed by Hill and Knowton, in Yugoslavia by Rudder Finn. Where else do you think that the Iraqis will get their American flags to wave on the day that the Americans are at the gate of Bagdad?"
5. The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
"An essential component of the propaganda: the enemy's mistakes are inflated; the damage that we do is called 'collateral damage'. At this moment, there is a lot of controversy about the gassing of Kurds after the first Gulf War. It is an important element in the propaganda against Saddam. Now that even The New York Times openly questions whether this cruelty can definitely be attributed to Saddam, apparently doesn't matter. The Americans know that gassing is sensitive in Europe. Therefore, this argument must absolutely remain on its feet. That the western countries themselves used gas in the First World War does not matter at this point. What counts is that the enemy is going too far.
There is a deep silence about the victims we make. During the first Gulf War, a refuge near Bagdad was bombed. Final balance: hundreds of dead. In the eyes of Iraq, this was an intentional cruelty by the western countries. In our media, the incident was pushed aside as an accident: 'We thought Saddam was in the middle of that mass.' And there you see how the reasoning is turned around: 'Saddam has used these defenseless citizens as a human shield. Actually, it is all his fault.' Two measures and two weights, that's what war damage is all about."
6. The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
"There are two things at play here. On the one hand, the enemy uses a specific weapon: terrorism. Terrorists fly airplanes into the heart of our economic life. This is denounced as a very cowardly way of making war. We like to forget that here in Brussels, after the Second World War, we erected a statue of Jean de Sęlys, the famous pilot who had rammed his airplane into the Gestapo building in Brussels, doing a lot of damage. Imagine if the war had gone differently. Then he would probably have been a terrorist to the Germans. The same goes for chemical and biological weapons. A lot of the propaganda is about these weapons which Saddam might possess. That the US have them is irrelevant. Why allow the people to take on that strange thought?"
7. We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
"This mostly happens during the war, but also before: the government must show that the war involves no risk for us. 'We are so much stronger than the enemy, that it will only be a matter of days or weeks.' No mention about the cost of this, however.
Because it is clear that the war in Iraq is going to cost an immense amount of money. If the government was even reminded of this, it would bring up the economic boom that the war will create.
It is really rather strange that you can let a people agree with these enormous amounts of money, purely in the name of the noble, humanitarian objective. People like to believe in good versus evil. The amount of money spent on this supposedly earns itself back."
8. Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
'It always looks better if you can put your propaganda in the mouth of someone with legitimacy in the public opinion. Like artists.
There are, of course, many in the US who have spoken out against the war. But there are just as many who openly support the president. In this matter, intellectuals especially play an important role.
They know how to play the public opinion. Journalists have a key position in the strategy. The media are the most important channel to the people. Therefore, it becomes important to have the press on your side. There are specific institutions for this. The American Defence minister, Donald Rumsfeld, founded a Bureau for Strategic Influence in 2001. Since then, this bureau has seen an increase of subsidies from 400 to 655 million dollar, with the task to steer propaganda in Europe by persuading journalists to work on the US image.
Charlotte Beers, vice-state secretary of Public Diplomacy is responsible for this campaign. Of course, it remains to be seen to what extent these people can be bribed."
The same strategy was behind a letter from the eight European leaders who joined the US. That was an initiative by The Wall Street Journal of Europe. That paper was always known as an objective, independent source. But look at the structure behind it. The paper is owned by the Dow Jones Company. One of the leaders of this company is Harvey Golub. He happens to be a member of Bush's advice commission for political-commercial negotiations. Someone else on the board is William Steere, former Texaco director and leader of a lobby group to improve transatlantic ties. Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld are in this pression group as well. I can go on like this for a while. Coincidence? I don't think so."
9. Our cause is sacred.
"The ages-old 'God bless America' is playing once more. The crusade against Saddam almost gets religious dimensions in America. Some go very far in this. John Ashcroft, the American minister of Justice, is known as a religious fanatic. His ideas can be read on his website. He claims, among other things, that justice is an instrument of divine retribution, and begins his day with a bible study. He is not alone. It looks as if one fundamentalism is fighting the other."
10. All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.
"This becomes clear in the discourse against the European 'traitors', buttlickers of Saddam Hussein. There is already a boycott against European products. But opponents in the own country have to deal with the effects as well. The actor Sean Penn, for example, who has openly opposed Bush, has already been taken on by Fox News. It brings an important thought to our heads: can the media still critically report on the eventual war in Iraq? To answer this, it is important to see who they belong to. There is a constantly growing web between the economy, politics, and the media. The latter must pay tribute to their masters. Journalists may want to be objective, but to what extent can they? It is notable to what extent they follow the position of their own government. The Belgian press can afford a critical sound because it can hide behind the back of the Foreign Affairs minister, Louis Michel, the figurehead of resistance. This is a lot more difficult in the US.
Anne Morelli - Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre.
-2001, Brussels, éditions Labor, 93 pag. ISBN 2-8040-1565-3.
In March, the Dutch translation will appear for EPO.
Anne Morelli, age: 53, mother of four.
Career: studied history at the ULB, a Brussels university. Became assistent in 1974, and taught for high school. She is professor since 1985, and is currently teaching history about migration and modern christianity. She also teaches historical criticism, but not in the History faculty. Until last year, she was vice-chair of the MRAX(movement against fascism and xenophobia). She is a union representative in the works council of the ULB.
Bibliography: Anne Morelli wrote the following books: "Histoire des étrangers en Belgique et de l'immigration depuis la préhistoire jusqu'a nos jours", 1992. "Les grands mythes de l'histoire de Belgique", 1995. "Belgische emigranten", 1999. "Open brief aan de sekte van de sektetegenstanders", 1998.
http://www.aidanederland.nl/halabja/contri...propaganda.html (http://www.aidanederland.nl/halabja/contributions/De%20tien%20geboden%20van%20de%20oorlogspropaganda .html)
The ten commandments of war propaganda
Anne Morelli on propaganda - on the evening before the Iraq War
The book "Elementary Principles of War Propaganda, useful in times of cold, lukewarm and hot war" was recently published by Labor. The book was written by historian Anne Morelli. Therein she describes the ten 'commandments' of war propaganda, which date back to the First World War, but are still being used in recent conflicts to win public opinion for a 'just cause'.
Anne Morelli about the book: "I wanted to systematically describe the general principles of war propaganda. After the First World War, the British Lord Ponsonby summarised war propaganda in ten commandments which had to be spoon-fed to the public opinion. These ten commandments are: we want no war, the enemy forced the war upon us; only the enemy is responsible for this war; the leader of the enemy camp is a devil, we defend a noble cause; the enemy commits cruelties, while we only do more damage than is necessary by accident; the enemy uses weapons which are not allowed; the enemy suffers more losses than we do; the intellectuals and the artists support our cause, proving its justness; our cause is sacred, and finally: whoever questions our propaganda, is a traitor. From this, I have gone on to show that these principles are not specific to the First World War, but were later also used, and only very recently in the wars against Iraq and Yugoslavia.
I do not pick sides in my book. I do not say: so-and-so was right. I merely show the mechanisms of propaganda."
Now that a war on Iraq is rapidly coming closer, the war propaganda machine is running at full speed. According to professor Anne Morelli, teacher of historical criticism at the Université Libre de Bruxelles(ULB), there is an ingenious sytem behind propaganda which operates in the same way with every war. By ten simple principles, leaders prepare their people for battle. These principles are universal, and they work. Always.
Morelli did not invent the ten commandments of war propaganda herself. She gathered them from the work of the British Lord Arthur Ponsonby, deputy of the Labour Party in the House of Lords in the early last century. Ponsonby was opposed to Britain taking part in the First World War. A critic of the war rhetoric of his government, he tried to show how lies are spread and how the population was being dragged along in a war hype fed by hatred, national pathos, and populism. In 'Falsehood in Wartime', he described several essential mechanisms of war propaganda. Morelli systematised these ten commandments in her remarkable book 'Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre', which she completed after having travelled through Yugoslavia as a peace inspector during the May 1999 bombings. Morelli explains in detail how these principles not only worked during the First World War, but were also deliberately wielded in all wars after: hot, cold and lukewarm ones.
Therefore, there are plenty of reasons to ask the historian to test her ten principles on the war rhetoric against Iraq. Their applicability is astounding. "I do not make value judgements about the purity of the intentions of either party", says Morelli, who is herself of leftist persuasion. "I do not take sides. But the analysis of the mechanisms shows how the public opinion is being kneaded, and prepared for the eventual war against Iraq."
1. We do not want war.
"The paradox of every war: all parties try to maintain until the end that they absolutely do not want a war," explains Morelli. "The US are not belligerent, they say. What they are doing is purely defensive. That's why there is no War Minister, just a Defence Minister. It's just like that in Europe. Countries like Belgium, France, and Germany are loudly crying that they do not want war. That's what their population wants to hear. But eventually, they still come around. The official discourse is completely unrelated to the agenda behind it. In late January, the new Belgian ambassador in the US gave a conference in Philadelphia. He put the Americans at ease, stating that we would definitely join this war, but that they had to give us some time to 'work on our public opinion'. And this man would not say this if his foreign affairs minister was not behind it.
It is very similar to what Hermann Göring, Hitler's right-hand man, wrote at the evening before the Second World War: 'Of course, no people want war. But the leaders can get the spirits to follow if they wield good propaganda.' The peace protests going on in all European cities show that the European people do not want war. But the propaganda is doing its work. It has always been successful, so we shall not escape it this time."
2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war
"This principle is entirely connected to the first: we do not want war; if one does come, it is because the enemy pushed us that far. It is important to make the war look like a retaliation to an enemy attack. Ideally, today that would be a retaliation to a terrorist attack. Sadly, there is no clear link between Saddam Hussein and the islamic fundamentalists. Therefore, the Americans try to create one.
The Americans say: 'Saddam Hussein is defying us. He is forcing us to react.' Let's be honest: it is difficult to say in what way Saddam truly forms a threat at present. There are definitely no neighbouring nations complaining. Must we really believe that this small country forms a threat to the US? Let's not look at Saddam as a religious fanatic, either. He does attend the mosque to avoid insulting his people, but religion is not his first concern. And yet, that is exactly what they want the world to believe, because it fits the picture of the struggle against terrorism.
It is very typical that we allow the war logic to evolve by making all sorts of things official in mutual assistance treaties and UN resolutions. That way, you have a reason to attack on paper. This gives more legitimity. The standard keeps getting higher, too. It is logical that the head of state at some point says that it has been enough, that he will no longer cooperate. That is exactly the point: then, the Americans have an 'objective' reason to invade.
Europe says that it is 'obligated' to participate. She already does this concretely: the transport of American soldiers and weapons through the Antwerp port are a logistic support for the war. Just like the replacement of American soldiers with Belgian ones in Afghanistan, so that American soldiers can go to Iraq.
Nevertheless, this obligation is relative. In the NATO, it only counts when an ally is attacked. Also, the enforcability of UN resolutions is relative. A dozen or so have already passed regarding the Palestinian question. Never have they been obeyed."
3. The enemy is the face of the devil.
"On French television, I recently saw a commentary on a documentary of the American station ABC News. It was about an interview with a lover of Saddam Hussein. She argued that Saddam was the biggest monster ever. She said that he raised gazelles as pets, and then brutally killed and ate them. At that point, a small deer was shown on the screen. The message was clear: 'Monster eats Bambi.' The lady also told that Saddam is actually atheist, despite his mosque visits. A hypocritical atheist, who drinks a glass of whisky every evening. Enough to completely fall out of grace with the American people. The image of the monster takes shape. It is strange, by the way, how the American media manage to show Saddam as an atheist on one hand, and as a religious terrorist on the other, depending on what is most convenient for the logic of propaganda. Saddam is the serving monster today. We must not forget how our political leaders received him on their sofa as a great ally against the fanatical Iran.
The monster constantly finds an alter ego: from Milosevic to Osama bin Laden to Saddam. Voluntarily or not, the media follow.
The same goes for the way we picture Bush in Belgium or France. The cartoons and caricatures in which Bush is represented as a big idiot are common. This has an intention: to show that the intelligence of the man is doubtful, and that someone like him is not to be followed blindly. All parties are guilty of this: one demonises the other."
4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interest.
"It is inherent to all wars that the true reason is hidden. In this case, the role of oil is obvious. Still, this is hardly mentioned. Not only in the US, oil also seems to be an important motive for French resistance. France has big oil interests in Iraq. The French are in agreement with Saddam on this. They must defend him. For the same reason, we will still eventually have to follow the Americans. After the war, after all, we want our slice of the oil cake, which is distributed according to the willingness to cooperate.
We are bombarded with arguments of democracy, human rights or oppression in that poor small country, but in reality, only economic interests are in play. That is not to say that Saddam Hussein is not a dictator. But there are others in the world who deserve at least as much attention. The ability to take the Americans and their argument of democracy seriously, is highly doubtful. In 1973, they put dictator Pinochet to power in Chile at the cost of Salvador Allende. Terms like human rights and democracy can be stretched very far.
It is always better to present the war as a crusade for the liberation of an oppressed people. They make it look like the Iraqis will welcome us with joy. You can be sure that the advertisers are already preparing this happy entrance. In Kuwait, the case is directed by Hill and Knowton, in Yugoslavia by Rudder Finn. Where else do you think that the Iraqis will get their American flags to wave on the day that the Americans are at the gate of Bagdad?"
5. The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
"An essential component of the propaganda: the enemy's mistakes are inflated; the damage that we do is called 'collateral damage'. At this moment, there is a lot of controversy about the gassing of Kurds after the first Gulf War. It is an important element in the propaganda against Saddam. Now that even The New York Times openly questions whether this cruelty can definitely be attributed to Saddam, apparently doesn't matter. The Americans know that gassing is sensitive in Europe. Therefore, this argument must absolutely remain on its feet. That the western countries themselves used gas in the First World War does not matter at this point. What counts is that the enemy is going too far.
There is a deep silence about the victims we make. During the first Gulf War, a refuge near Bagdad was bombed. Final balance: hundreds of dead. In the eyes of Iraq, this was an intentional cruelty by the western countries. In our media, the incident was pushed aside as an accident: 'We thought Saddam was in the middle of that mass.' And there you see how the reasoning is turned around: 'Saddam has used these defenseless citizens as a human shield. Actually, it is all his fault.' Two measures and two weights, that's what war damage is all about."
6. The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
"There are two things at play here. On the one hand, the enemy uses a specific weapon: terrorism. Terrorists fly airplanes into the heart of our economic life. This is denounced as a very cowardly way of making war. We like to forget that here in Brussels, after the Second World War, we erected a statue of Jean de Sęlys, the famous pilot who had rammed his airplane into the Gestapo building in Brussels, doing a lot of damage. Imagine if the war had gone differently. Then he would probably have been a terrorist to the Germans. The same goes for chemical and biological weapons. A lot of the propaganda is about these weapons which Saddam might possess. That the US have them is irrelevant. Why allow the people to take on that strange thought?"
7. We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
"This mostly happens during the war, but also before: the government must show that the war involves no risk for us. 'We are so much stronger than the enemy, that it will only be a matter of days or weeks.' No mention about the cost of this, however.
Because it is clear that the war in Iraq is going to cost an immense amount of money. If the government was even reminded of this, it would bring up the economic boom that the war will create.
It is really rather strange that you can let a people agree with these enormous amounts of money, purely in the name of the noble, humanitarian objective. People like to believe in good versus evil. The amount of money spent on this supposedly earns itself back."
8. Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
'It always looks better if you can put your propaganda in the mouth of someone with legitimacy in the public opinion. Like artists.
There are, of course, many in the US who have spoken out against the war. But there are just as many who openly support the president. In this matter, intellectuals especially play an important role.
They know how to play the public opinion. Journalists have a key position in the strategy. The media are the most important channel to the people. Therefore, it becomes important to have the press on your side. There are specific institutions for this. The American Defence minister, Donald Rumsfeld, founded a Bureau for Strategic Influence in 2001. Since then, this bureau has seen an increase of subsidies from 400 to 655 million dollar, with the task to steer propaganda in Europe by persuading journalists to work on the US image.
Charlotte Beers, vice-state secretary of Public Diplomacy is responsible for this campaign. Of course, it remains to be seen to what extent these people can be bribed."
The same strategy was behind a letter from the eight European leaders who joined the US. That was an initiative by The Wall Street Journal of Europe. That paper was always known as an objective, independent source. But look at the structure behind it. The paper is owned by the Dow Jones Company. One of the leaders of this company is Harvey Golub. He happens to be a member of Bush's advice commission for political-commercial negotiations. Someone else on the board is William Steere, former Texaco director and leader of a lobby group to improve transatlantic ties. Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld are in this pression group as well. I can go on like this for a while. Coincidence? I don't think so."
9. Our cause is sacred.
"The ages-old 'God bless America' is playing once more. The crusade against Saddam almost gets religious dimensions in America. Some go very far in this. John Ashcroft, the American minister of Justice, is known as a religious fanatic. His ideas can be read on his website. He claims, among other things, that justice is an instrument of divine retribution, and begins his day with a bible study. He is not alone. It looks as if one fundamentalism is fighting the other."
10. All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.
"This becomes clear in the discourse against the European 'traitors', buttlickers of Saddam Hussein. There is already a boycott against European products. But opponents in the own country have to deal with the effects as well. The actor Sean Penn, for example, who has openly opposed Bush, has already been taken on by Fox News. It brings an important thought to our heads: can the media still critically report on the eventual war in Iraq? To answer this, it is important to see who they belong to. There is a constantly growing web between the economy, politics, and the media. The latter must pay tribute to their masters. Journalists may want to be objective, but to what extent can they? It is notable to what extent they follow the position of their own government. The Belgian press can afford a critical sound because it can hide behind the back of the Foreign Affairs minister, Louis Michel, the figurehead of resistance. This is a lot more difficult in the US.
Anne Morelli - Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre.
-2001, Brussels, éditions Labor, 93 pag. ISBN 2-8040-1565-3.
In March, the Dutch translation will appear for EPO.
Anne Morelli, age: 53, mother of four.
Career: studied history at the ULB, a Brussels university. Became assistent in 1974, and taught for high school. She is professor since 1985, and is currently teaching history about migration and modern christianity. She also teaches historical criticism, but not in the History faculty. Until last year, she was vice-chair of the MRAX(movement against fascism and xenophobia). She is a union representative in the works council of the ULB.
Bibliography: Anne Morelli wrote the following books: "Histoire des étrangers en Belgique et de l'immigration depuis la préhistoire jusqu'a nos jours", 1992. "Les grands mythes de l'histoire de Belgique", 1995. "Belgische emigranten", 1999. "Open brief aan de sekte van de sektetegenstanders", 1998.