Archive

Posts Tagged ‘capitalism’

Chomsky, Chossudovsky, and Controlled Opposition

October 8, 2010 Leave a comment

In a recent article for GlobalResearch.ca, Michel Chossudovsky cogently describes how the present day oligarchy creates and manipulates its own opposition.

Acknowledging the propaganda model of “manufacturing consent”, posited by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Chossudovsky goes further to fill in more of the picture with the concept of “manufacturing dissent”.  Some of his observations include:

“Under contemporary capitalism, the illusion of democracy must prevail.  It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order.  The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent.”  

“To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition, with a view to preventing the development of radical forms of protest, which might shake the very foundations and institutions of global capitalism.  In other words, “manufacturing dissent” acts as a “safety valve”, which protects and sustains the New World Order.”

“The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement.”

“The inner objective is to “manufacture dissent” and establish the boundaries of a “politically correct” opposition.  In turn, many NGOs are infiltrated by informants often acting on behalf of western intelligence agencies.  Moreover, an increasingly large segment of the progressive alternative news media on the internet has become dependent on funding from corporate foundations and charities.”

Chossudovsky goes on to reveal:  “The economic elites –which control major foundations– also oversee the funding of numerous NGOs and civil society organizations, which historically have been involved in the protest movement against the established economic and social order. The programs of many NGOs and people’s movements rely heavily on both public as well as private funding agencies including the Ford, Rockefeller, McCarthy foundations, among others.”

In other words, if a few disruptive thinkers see through the media/educational propaganda façade and succeed in waking the rest of the herd, the elite will take a proactive approach and guide the rebellion into results that benefit them.  Moreover, the truism, money talks, bullshit walks, is readily applied here.

Perceptive, he also points out that funding and maintaining a ‘citizen watch group’ legitimizes the watched group in the public’s mind.  Generous, the mugger can now invite the victim to sit down at the table and, well, you know.., work things out.  Textbook dialectics.

While funding, and other forms of direct interaction with the controlled opposition by the ruling class, are well explained and documented in the article, a question remains.  Can money alone buy a mindset?  Can bribes induce a specific ideological perspective?  The “politically correct” opposition does not begin with a payoff.  It begins at a more pervasive level.  The leaders of a movement can be bought.  The mass followers, however, can only be indoctrinated.

The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work, with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.  Aldous Huxley

Huxley understood the power of indoctrination and propaganda.  For generations, government education (public schools) and the mass media have existed to serve the interests of its final owners – the transnational corporations.  An epistemological cartel serves the scientific dictatorship.  It is vital to the corporate-banker complex to maintain a homogenous market of predictable credit-debt consumers yet, oppositional dichotomies must be ‘shaped and moulded’ to create division and polarization.  Non-issues become issues.  Non-issues often adorn the banners of permitted protests.  Politically correct non-issues provide the illusion for superficial revolutionary change.

The words, “conservative” and “liberal” have lost currency as meaningful political labels.  Where once a Conservative defended the monarchy, he now defends limited government.  Where once a Liberal agitated against monarchy, and for individualism and free enterprise, he now defends the status quo of statism and socialism.  Both words are bandied about and, at best, used as a generality – a catch-all when definitive description is too much of a chore.  Add to the mix, “neoconservative”, and we now have a politician giving campaign speeches about the virtues of limited government and the prudent need to extend the Patriot Act.    

The popular cultural dichotomies that the education/media complex have programmed us with, such as, pro-life and pro-choice, Gay and straight, creationist and evolutionist, and so on, are superfluous to the fiat money debt-slave Ponzi scheme, i.e., the foundation of the New World Order.  Guns or butter?  It doesn’t matter.  Government entitlements for both increases social debt and private bankster profits.  Wedge issues are employed to keep us busy in our common slavery.  Successful political gains won by either side are heralded as “revolutionary”.  Change happens, yet nothing changes.  Seats are rearranged in the prison cafeteria.  It’s the “safety valve”. 

Lest Focus on the Family Christians or pro-choice atheists might forget the other and seriously question global empire, both can stay contented world citizens and, at the same time, enjoy the elation of righteous partisanship.  The fake drama of successive Democrat and Republican electoral victories salves the reality of the bipartisan agenda to serve the globalist paymasters.

Conveniently, non-issue dichotomies serve as devices to sabotage incipient populist rebellion.  We have witnessed the devolution of the Tea Party.  Beginning as an anti-tyranny movement, it had strong common appeal to values shared by rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans.  Now, it is nothing more than a faction within of the neocon GOP.  Orwellian War-on-Terror hype and Islamophobia have seemingly neutralized any populist challenge to the banker war-for-profit agenda.  The duopoly dictatorship has absorbed the threat to its existence and remains intact.  One day, historians may summarize the upcoming November, 2010, elections as a contest between career politicians and their opponents, exploiting Tea Party anger, hoping to begin careers.

Amid the clamor against Obama style Big Govt totalitarianism, the voices for anti-globalization and restoration of the Constitution must stay consistent, clear and nonpartisan.  The obsession to support any Republican, who sermonizes about “limited government”, should be examined:  Does he mean limited government for the people, or does he mean limited control for Wall Street and the transnational banker cartel?  Follow the money.  The insurance industry is contributing more to Republican candidates than to Democrat candidates:

.., having backed the Obama health care legislation because it forced 30 million Americans to buy insurance or face fines, the insurance industry wants a Republican-controlled Congress to write more business-friendly rules for the new coverage, so that it can offer cut-rate, high-profit plans to this new captive market.  Patrick Martin

The November elections will bring to the table freedom issues on a scale unprecedented in recent history.  We cannot, however, compromise principles merely to see victory for a “libertarian” candidate.  Real revolutionary change rarely occurs by ballot.  Most often, it occurs when the people, en masse, decide to make their own destiny.       

Notes:
[1] Manufacturing Dissent”, M. Chossudovsky: the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites.  The People’s Movement has been Hijacked, by Michel Chossudovsky.  Full article here: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21110
[2] ibid: “Manufacturing consent”. [It] implies manipulating and shaping public opinion. It establishes conformity and acceptance to authority and social hierarchy. It seeks compliance to an established social order. “Manufacturing consent” describes the submission of public opinion to the mainstream media narrative, to its lies and fabrications.  Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, 1988.
Aldous Huxley, – Brave New World Revisited, 116: http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/sci-dictatorship.htm 
Scientific Dictatorship: http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=ScientificDictatorship and
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy.htm
[3] Focus on the Family: Colorado Springs based evangelical Christian organization: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/
[4] Corporate Cash Floods US Congessional Elections, P. Martin: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21346

In A Perfect World: ObamaCare

August 24, 2009 Leave a comment

In a supreme disconnect with reality the Left is pushing for a single payer health care program.  Needless to say, ‘single payer’ translates to ‘government run’.  It cannot effectively be otherwise.  An astouding desire for a political grouping that decries oppression and advocates choice.  How can this be?

progress obamaWe are undeniably within a transitional era marked by crony capitalism morphing into national socialism.  With the groundwork laid by the Neocons, the Obama administration will continue to build the total surveillance State.  This is not an option cooked up by radical social engineers.  It will be out of necessity.

Much of our industrial base has been moved overseas.  The once prospering and comfortable middle class is shrinking and in panic mode.  Mainstream prognosticators now acknowledge that massive civil unrest looms as the value of the dollar plunges and the central private banks continue their looting spree unabated and backed by a complicit federal government. 

The Marxist View

Our country’s founders knew well the painful tyranny of despotic monarchy.  In a unique and singular event in all of history they created a constitutional republic endeavoring to legally enshrine freedom for generations to come.   Rightfully so, it was a government structure that reflected free enterprise.  Classical capitalism depends on the free movement of labor and capital.  Each man and woman were free to choose their livelihood.  Marx described the government of a capitalist economy as,  “but a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie as a whole.”  (Manifesto, Marx, 1848) 

Marx went on to say that capital inevitably concentrates.  Financial assets flow to even fewer bank accounts as more small businesses fail and corporations merge.  Correspondingly, the State, as an evolving structure dedicated to the current needs of the bourgeosie, must defend the gains made by its paymasters and initiate more police state measures to repress rebellion engendered by growing impoverishment and discontent.  Fascism, Marx said, is the inescapable (dialectical) outcome in the later stages of capitalism.  The Republic is falling.  The Empire is emerging. 

Dangerous Idealism 

Curiously oblivious to a pragmatic and materialist conception of capitalist class relations socialists, and leftists in general, now desire the federal government to dispense and/or supervise our nation’s health care.  In a brazen abandonment of their Marxist ideological roots, they expect the Feds to humanely care for our health.  Am I missing something here?!!  The last I knew, Marxists regard the government as merely the executor and protector of the exploitative capitalist ruling class.

October 1917 Revolution

October 1917 Revolution

So where did this idealism come from?  An astute Marxist-Leninist will admit the futility of this thinking and note that it is only a stratagem.  It is an ‘issue’ to promote in order to raise class consciousness.  In other words, as the people struggle for socialized medicine, or any other ‘human right’, such as free housing, guaranteed employment, etc., the masses will be educated as to the true nature of capitalism and, disgruntled, be easily led to overthrow the government.., and seize the means of production.  The ‘issue’ is solely a means to an end.  And, in theory, thenceforward a workers’ state would be established to eradicate all vestiges of capitalist behavior and thought; Totalitarianism.

Today’s ‘Liberals’ would abhor Soviet or Chicom forms of government.  However, in his controversial book, “Liberal Fascism”, Jonah Goldberg argues that modern Liberals are philosophically descended from 19th and 20th century Progressives.*  Then, as now, Progressives have in common an undying faith that only an all powerful government can cure society’s ills and right all wrongs.  All answers can be found within varying degrees of statism.  It is an idealist mindset.  At best, it is naivete often used by others with dark motives.  It is an invitation to totalitarianism and worse horrors.  Horrors produced when self-righteous elitism is unleashed.

For example, eugenics was popular among early Progressives.  It was of necessity a program that could only be carried out by government force.  The thought of relying on individual choice as a way to sterilize and abort humans with ‘inferior’ genes to create a racially pure utopia was anathema.., obviously.  Although it could be argued that Planned Parenthood, and similar progeny of the Eugenics movement, work quite well without government enforcement to trim the population, they fall short of Margaret Sanger’s** ideal, as well as the ideal of one of her avid supporters, Hitler. 

The Progressive movement is also marked by what I call, ‘good will imperialism’.  Jeffersonian “peace and commerce with all nations” and the acknowledgement of the right of national self-determination are replaced with aggression against other countries if they do not conform to our version of enlightenment and democracy.., the perfect cloak for wars of occupation and corporate pillage. 

Intrinsically philosophically idealist, Progressivism ideology stands in contrast to classical Marxist philosophical materialism that is normally associated with true left-wing politics.  Based on Marxist reasoning alone, progressive left thinking is closer to fascism than it is to democratic socialism.   

A Happy and Perfect World

A Happy and Perfect World

In an ideal and perfect world wise and compassionate rulers would lovingly administer health care to all according to the Progressive Left faithful.  This type of socialism promoted by the Progressive Left has less to do with a workers’ revolution than what it does with a Huxlian Brave New World mentality.  It is mindset ripe to be cultivated and managed by charismatic fascist leaders promising Change.   This is not conjecture.  It is well documented that social progressives supported Mussolini in his rise to power.  Mussolini, another socialist change politician, promised improved economic conditions and ‘holistic’ solutions, as well.

‘ObamaCare’, or any other stripe of a single payer health care system, would be a ready made launch platform for eugenics and even outright genocide.  Socialists, and the fashionably socialist, who pay intellectual homage to Marx, should reexamine their own fundamental ideologies.   As freedom lovers and patriots, we would do well to point out these inconsistencies to those Americans on the left interested in critical and independent thinking. 

 * “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg: http://www.randomhouse.com/broadway/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780767917186

** Blackgenocide.org: http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

In future posts we will explore further the current false Left/Right dichotomy.  Presently, we are asked to choose between fascism or communism, i.e., Dictatorship A or Dictatorship B.

%d bloggers like this: