Trusting the government

Some heated debated we had lately in less formal PIS meetings revolved about the question, how trustworthy governments are and what they would or would not do to their people.

As an anarchist, I tend not to trust governments, and as Media&Communication student I learned already a lot about the quality of news.

Chomsky's propaganda model of the media provides a scientific account how media coverage was manipulated in several cases to justify wars. Understanding this model helps determining how much factual background the daily news yarn owns.

However, I noticed an apparent lack of critical thinking with some fellow debaters, which seem to assume benevolent governments axiomatically.

In my political science lectures I learned about the concept of the post-911 world, although I managed to score a H2A for an essay that claimed that 9/11 has hardly changed anything in global politics.

Nevertheless, 911 has been the prime excuse to illegally invade countries and to massively restrict civil rights. And whenever some myth are blown away, like the existence of WMDs in Iraq, the responsible actors claim to have been wrongly informed.

Of course, admitting outright lies means political suicide, even though the voting sheep don't care too much about the integrity of their rulers.

Here is an account about the knowledge available to British MPs before they send their soldier to die, spread death, torture and devastation in Iraq, or, to use the Unspeak terms of the media propaganda, to liberate Iraq and spread freedom and democracy.

The lies of the American president are legion, the UK government knew how harmless Iraq was, and Tony Blair spun the same lies than his American collegue. I'm sure, John Howard is innocent, maybe a bit too gullible, and sent Australian soldiers in the battle just to protect his homeland.