Understanding the "War On Terrorism": The Cult of Patriotism
Compiled by Bob Aldridge
What does this mean? ... that the individual never is considered as an individual, but
only in terms of what he has in common with others, such as his motivations, his
feelings, or his myths. ... Moreover, the individual is considered part of the mass and
included in it (and so far as possible systematically integrated into it), because in that
way his psychic defenses are weakened, his reactions are easier to provoke, and the
propagandist profits from the process of diffusion of emotions through the mass, ...
Emotionalism, impulsiveness, excess, etc, – all these characteristics of the individual
caught up in a mass are well known and very helpful to propaganda.
– Jacques Ellul, Propaganda (1962, p. 7)
This is the second part in a series on “The Cult of Patriotism.” As in the previous part, I wish to distinguish
between authentic patriotism and the blind patriotism that makes up the Cult of Patriotism. I will repeat that
a true patriot seeks the well being of everyone. He or she is not centered on a nationalistic goal.
Mohandas Gandhi wrote: “It is not nationalism that is evil, it is the narrowness, selfishness, exclusiveness
which is the bane of modern nations which is evil. Each wants profit at the expense of, and rise at the ruin
of, the other.”2
In this series I am borrowing from a book called Age of Propaganda by Pratkanis and Aronson.
Specifically, I am drawing from one chapter on “How To Become A Cult Leader.”3 The authors say:
“Today, cults can be centered on a range of issues including the occult, race, politics, therapy, and selfhelp,
as well as religion and spirituality. The term cult is used to describe a pattern of social relations within
4Pratkanis and Aronson, p. 306
5Pratkanis and Aronson, p. 216.
Page 2 of PLRC-040516
a group.”4 The Cult of Patriotism is a political cult being used to muster support for the War on Terrorism.
The techniques for accomplishing this are nothing more than propaganda in its most profound sense. I will
discuss seven techniques, as outlined by Pratkanis and Aronson, which are being used to sustain the Cult
of Patriotism:
1. Create your own social reality (discussed in Part 1)
2. Create a granfalloon (to be discussed in this part).
3. Create commitment through a rationalization trap.
4. Establish the leader’s credibility and attractiveness.
5. Send members out to proselytize for the unredeemed.
6. Distract members from thinking “undesirable” thoughts.
7. Fixate members vision on a phantom.
In this Part 2 will address the second element that a political cult leader must do – create a granfalloon.
CREATE A GRANFALLOON
“My God,” she said, “are you a Hoosier?”
I admitted I was.
“I’m a Hoosier, too,” she crowed. Nobody has to be ashamed of being a Hoosier.”
“I’m not,” I said. “I never knew anybody who was.”
Hazel’s obsession with Hoosiers around the world was a textbook example of ... a seeming team that
was meaningless in terms of the ways God gets things done,... a granfalloon.
If you want to study a granfalloon.
Just remove the skin of a toy balloon.
– Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle (1963, pp. 90-92)
All of us have been in situations where a group of people had to divide into teams. One method of doing
this is to count off by twos, or threes, or whatever number corresponds to the quantity of teams desired.
Those who counted the same number are all on one team. Whether they be friends or strangers, they soon
develop some type of spirit for the team and camaraderie with other team members. And in developing
this team spirit they tend to pit themselves against those belonging to other teams. Their team is the “in”
group and the other teams are the “out” groups. American novelist Kurt Vonnegut coined the word
“granfalloon” for such proud and sometimes meaningless groupings of people. Machinations of this type
are also an “emotionally powerful persuasive technique. In this procedure, first identified by the British
social psychologist Henri Tajfel, complete strangers are formed into groups using the most trivial,
inconsequential criteria imaginable.”5
6Pratkanis and Aronson, p. 217.
7Pratkanis and Aronson, p. 217.
8Ellul, p. 8.
9Ellul, pp. 8-9.
10See Ellul, pp. 116-117.
Page 3 of PLRC-040516
At this point I will paraphrase from Pratkanis and Aronson, who point out that granfalloons have “two basic
psychological processes, one cognitive and one motivational.”6 The cognitive part is awareness of being
part of a group. It is through this awareness of belonging that group members are inculcated to view the
world in a prescribed manner. Similarities among group members are emphasized and they are refered to
in a personal manner. Co-members are called by names or titles. They are shown respect and referred to
with respect.
At the same time, differences between their group and the members of other groups are exaggerated. The
“out” group is depicted in a pejorative manner. Its members are given a label, and perceived as being of
a common ilk with no personality differences. They are stereotyped.
It is this cognitive nature of a granfalloon that cult leaders use to motivate their members. By getting
members to link their self esteem to the group, the leaders can manipulate their behavior. They are in
essence saying “You are on my side (never mind that I created the teams), now act like it and do what we
say.”7 Of course they don’t say it in words that are that blunt. But in the end, that is the message that is
conveyed. That is the motivational aspect.
Now I will expand the concept of a granfalloon to the larger society, and then to the nation. French
sociologist Jacques Ellul points out that “modern propaganda profits from the structure of the mass, but
exploits the individual’s need for self-affirmation; and the two actions must be conducted jointly,
simultaneously.”8 Today’s mass media has this ability to reach the entire crowd and the individual
simultaneously. This psychological mass, as Ellul calls the audience, “is the situation of the ‘lonely crowd,’
or of isolation in the mass, which is a natural product of present day society and which is both used and
deepened by the mass media. The most favorable moment to seize a man and influence him is when he is
alone in the mass; it is at this point that propaganda can be most effective.”9 It is precisely this loneliness
which motivates an individual to “belong.” The granfalloon is imposed as the answer. It invites the
individual to become a member of the “in” group.
On the national level, this granfalloon is the Cult of Patriotism. Again, let me remind the reader that the Cult
of Patriotism is not the same as true patriotism. True patriotism is an ideology. The Cult of Patriotism is
a myth. To illustrate how the latter is devolved from the first, I will discuss the difference between ideology
and myth.
In America, “true patriotism” is an allegiance to democracy based on the rights, freedoms, and obligations
spelled out in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Democracy is an ideology. I use
the term ideology as defined by Jacques Ellul – a set of ideas accepted by individuals or peoples which are
cherished, relevant to the present, and are believed rather than proved.10 For instance, the concept of all
11Ellul, p. 31.
12Ellul, pp. v - vi.
Page 4 of PLRC-040516
people being created equal is part of our American ideology. It is an idea which is cherished and very
much relevant, although it has not been proven in practice. If anything, facts and reality better support the
opposite. Nevertheless it is an idea which is central to our democratic ideology.
The Cult of Patriotism, on the other hand, is a myth. The difference between a myth and an ideology,
according to Ellul, is threefold:
First, a myth embeds its roots deeper and more permanently into a persons being. It provides the
most rudimentary comprehension of one’s condition and the world as a whole.
Second, a myth is more intellectually scattered. It is observed and felt with emotion, rather than
reason. It is viewed as something sacred, rather than a concept. It is more of a sentimental
response than pragmatic. And it is more important and impelling than an ideology.
Third, The myth, being emotional, is more persuasive and motivates action, whereas an ideology
is more passive. “Eventually the myth takes possession of a man’s mind so completely that his life
is consecrated to it.”11
This definition of a myth precisely defines the Cult of Patriotism – an emotional yet unrealistic concept of
America and Americans. To form the mythical Cult of Patriotism, the leader must create it as a granfalloon.
The basic ideology of Constitutional democracy is already a widespread belief in America, and the cult
leader’s propaganda can build on that. In this War on Terrorism, the myth begins when the people feel
their freedom, lifestyle, and national interests are being threatened. Never mind how exploitive that lifestyle,
or how far-reaching the national interests – they are now emotionally perceived as part of America’s
destiny. Consequently, any threat to that freedom stokes the emotional fury of cult members.
Virtually all Americans have heard of the atrocities committed in Afghanistan and Iraq. They know,
intellectually, that the war against Iraq was perpetrated through lies and deception. But their emotional
feelings are somewhere else. Deep inside they nourish the myth that America stands for democracy for all
people and that human rights is the cornerstone of US foreign policy. They feel the community of nations
should respect America and thank Americans for their contribution to a just world order. In the conflict
between knowledge and emotions, the gut feeling wins out.
In the introduction to the English edition of French sociologist Jacques Ellul’s 1962 book, translator Konrad
Kellen explains that most people are easy prey to propaganda “because of their firm but entirely erroneous
conviction that it is composed only of lies and ‘tall stories’ and that, conversely, what is true cannot be
propaganda. But modern propaganda ... operates instead with many different kinds of truth – half truth,
limited truth, truth out of context.” Kellen then explains that a “second basic misconception that makes
people vulnerable to propaganda is the notion that it serves only to change opinions. That is one of its aims,
but ... more importantly, it aims to intensify existing trends, to sharpen and focus them, and, above all, to
lead [people] to action (or ... to non action ... to prevent them from interfering).”12 (Emphasis and
parentheses his)
13Hutcheson.
14Hutcheson.
15It is a general believe that cult members are weak or foolish. That is not the case. Research shows that
most people who join cults have middle-class backgrounds, are fairly well educated, and are not seriously disturbed
prior to joining. French sociologist Jacques Ellul says “education, or what usually goes by that word in the modern
world, is the absolute prerequisite for propaganda. In fact, education is largely identical with what Ellul calls ‘prepropaganda’
...” (Propaganda, p. Vi) Ellul believe intellectuals are more susceptible than others to modern
propaganda techniques because 1) they read the most second-hand, unverifiable information, 2) their compelling
need to have an opinion for everything make them easy prey to the misinformation offered by propaganda, and 3)
they feel capable of judging things for themselves.
16Pratkanis.
17See PLRC-040224, Understanding the “War on Terrorism:” The Cult of Patriotism – Part 1 – Creating
Your Own Social Identity.
18See Vonnegut, pp. 90-92
Page 5 of PLRC-040516
Intensifying existing trends is what George W. Bush was doing when he exhorted the graduating class at
Concordia University in Wisconsin to “promote ‘a culture of life’ in America as part of a lifetime
commitment to serve the weak, the vulnerable, and ‘the most easily forgotten’.”13 He went on to extol the
virtues of America and justify the Iraq war: “Where there is tyranny, oppression and gathering danger to
mankind, America works and sacrifices for peace and freedom. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift
to the world, it is the almighty God’s gift to all humanity.”14, 15
Yes, that is exactly how the granfallooners in the Cult of Patriotism like to be stroked. God is on our side,
says the leader. A. R. Pratkanis states in a separate article that granfalloons are easy-to-start propaganda
devices and, “once established, the granfalloon defines social reality and maintains social identities.... To
maintain a desired social identity, ... one must obey the dictates of the granfalloon and its leaders.”16
In a previous paper on how a cult leader creates the social identity of cult members, I illustrated how the
Bush administration censors and restricts what information the American public has access to.17 This
convoluted view of what is going on in government creates a pseudo social identity for those who follow
the cult leader. That is why Vonnegut says a granfalloon is “meaningless in terms of the way God gets
things done.”18
Pratkanis goes on to explain that granfalloons quickly develop “out” groups on which blame can be
attributed – “we” have the correct answer and “they” are the evil ones. In this manner, many granfallooners
in the Cult of Patriotism, when faced with the lies that got us into the war on Iraq, quickly justify that war
by emphasizing the evils that Saddam Hussein wrought. Never mind international law, never mind the
atrocities and horrors the US invasion created, never mind the disdain in which our former allies now view
us, the important thing is that we got rid of Saddam. The Iraqi people are now better off, they say. The
rules of the granfalloon are that members believe America did the right thing.
Another “out” group, at least in some of the more dogmatic circles of granfallooners, are the Muslims.
America is composed of a Christian majority. There are rules about separation of church and state but our
19Cited in Kripalani, p. 219.
20See Vonnegut, pp. 90-92
21If the links don’t work, key the URL into your browser address bar.
Page 6 of PLRC-040516
coins display “In God We Trust,” every session of Congress is begun with a prayer, and the US President
takes his oath of office with his right hand on the bible. Religion – Christianity in particular – is an important
element on our democratic ideology. Consequently, in the Cult of Patriotism, Christianity is the “in”
religious group. Conversely, since today’s terrorists proclaim to be followers of Islam, the Muslims have
become the “out” group.
Dismal as it seems, it is the Cult of Patriotism that is today allowing America to be steered down the path
of world dominion, preemptive force, international criminal atrocities, and Pax Americana. Yet the
granfallooners in that cult are ordinary people who love their family and want a decent way of life. They
merely suffer from a distorted concept of patriotism and rely too much on the delusion that America’s
leadership is always just. The solution to this dilemma is not an easy one. Serious reevaluation,
introspection, and prayer are called for. Sincere criticism of the road America is now travelling warrants
consideration. To facilitate an opening of minds and constructive communication on all sides of the
political-religious spectrum, this thought from Mohandas K. Gandhi may be a good beginning:
“It is a bad habit to say that another man’s thoughts are bad and ours only
are good and that those holding different views from ours are the enemies
of the country.”19
And, I will also recall Kurt Vonnegut’s definition of a granfalloon – an apparent team that is “meaningless
in terms of the ways God gets things done.”20 For all of us, whatever our religion, who take our spiritual
teachings seriously, it would be helpful to contemplate the ways God gets things done.
* * * * *
REFERENCES21
Ellul, Jacques; Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, (New York; Alfred A. Knopf, 1965). Originally
published in France as Propagandes (1962).
Hutcheson, Ron; “”Bush: US Values Support Iraq War,” Knight Ridder wire service article published in the San Jose
(CA) Mercury News, 15 May 2004.
Kripalani, Krishna (compiler and editor); All Men Are Brothers: Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi As Told in
His Own Words, (Ahmedabad-14, India; Navajivan Publishing House, 1960/1968).
Pratkanis, A.R.; “Granfalloons, Etc.,” The Heretical Press (Yorkshire, England), 1995. Available at
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/granfall.html
Pratkanis, Anthony R. and Aronson, Elliot; Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Misuse of Persuasion, (NY,
W.H. Freeman, 2000).
Tye, Larry; The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations, (New York; Crown Publishers,
1998).
Vonnegut, Kurt; Cat’s Cradle, (New York; Delta Book of Dell Publishing, 1963).