Posts Tagged ‘Orwellian’

Chomsky, Chossudovsky, and Controlled Opposition

October 8, 2010 Leave a comment

In a recent article for, 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.       

[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:
[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: 
Scientific Dictatorship: and
[3] Focus on the Family: Colorado Springs based evangelical Christian organization:
[4] Corporate Cash Floods US Congessional Elections, P. Martin:


The New Harmony of Zeitgeist

January 31, 2010 11 comments


Robert Owen’s envisioned New Harmony

“Dialectical Materialism is the philosophy of Karl Marx which he formulated by taking the dialectic of Hegel and joining it to the Materialism of Feuerbach, extracting from it a concept of progress in terms of the contradictory, interacting forces called the thesis and antithesis, culminating at a critical nodal point where one overthrows the other, giving rise to the synthesis, and applying it to the history of social development and deriving therefrom an essentially revolutionary concept of social change.”*     

and Utopian Socialism

In the Marxian school of thought all socialism not based on dialectical materialism falls within the category of utopian socialism.  Referring to their political aims as, scientific socialism, Marxists believe in the inevitable collapse of capitalism and its replacement by socialism due to the inherent flaws (antitheses) within free market socio-economies.  It is ‘scientific’ because it is claimed it is a predictable, foreseen, and natural outcome – it has the color of science.  Despite Marxism-Leninism, and its theoretical addition of the necessity of human action in the form of revolutionary parties to nursemaid the process, Marxists believe that history’s inexorable march to a socialist future is beyond and outside of human aims and desires.  ‘Social developement’, itself, has a chemical evolutionary life of its own.      

Utopian socialism, however, openly starts with human desires regardless of objective reality.  Essentially idealist, utopian socialism is identified by an attempt to impose a subjective ideal on outside reality.  It begins with a personal value system and ends with a codified society reflecting the way things should be.  In varying degrees of collectivization, ‘intentional communities’, communes, and Robert Owen’s 19th century utopian experiment in New Harmony, Indiana, are examples.  Because it is the product of subjective will, it is necessarily a top-down authoritarian system, as well.  Although some communities have thrived based on voluntary association, its members must be of like-mind.  For those not in the mind-hive it follows that conformity must be enforced.      

In our global village of today ‘revolutionry socialism’ is becoming passe’.  No longer necessary as the antithesis to free market systems and ideology, it has served its purpose.  Laissez-faire socio-economies have been synthesized into mixed economies – a form of state/corporate partnerships reflecting a maturation of the fascist model and agenda.  Much of the population is  comfortably acclimated to life regulated by faceless bureaucrats.  A new breed of collectivist propagandists, serving the globalist agenda, are now rushing in to complete the Orwellian dream.  Gaia utopianism is one such offering.  One such organizational vehicle for this is ‘The Zeitgeist Movement’.     

Eco-totalitarianism with hugs all around.

In 2007 this movement introduced itself with a well-researched, megapopular film, Zeitgeist, The Movie.  Exposing the 911 terrorist attack as a false flag event and uncovering the fraud of the Federal Reserve banking system were masterfully brought to millions of viewers.  Interestingly, the film also includes a scathing attack on Christianity declaring it a primitive, patriarchal, and violent false religion.  It concludes with a sales pitch for a global Gaia-esque type of spirituality.  The message is clear.  The old order must be torn down along with its corrupted ideology and religion before we are to embrace Earth as the new god and live happily ever after in an eco-utopia.     

Today, the leaders of the Zeitgeist Movement are busy designing models for a cybernated technocracy to run the world with a “resource based economy”.  They call it, “The Venus Project”.  From the Zeitgeist website:     

An important association, upon which many of the ideas of this movement are derived come from an organization called ” The Venus Project” directed by social engineer and industrial designer, Jacque Fresco. He has worked nearly his entire life to create the tools needed to assist a design of the world which could eventually eradicate war, poverty, crime, social stratification and corruption.     

Implied is a global control grid run by computers overseen by a few geeks who have read Plato and Marx.  Supposedly, this will appeal to the masses that are fed up with war and poverty.     

Merriam-Webster defines ‘Zeitgeist’ as: “the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era”.  As a philosophical concept it first gained currency in 18th century German Romanticism.  Roughly translated as ‘spirit of the time’, Zeitgeist, is also connected to the ‘collective unconscious’ and was considered an element of Volk.  Promoted by German nationalists of the time, ‘Volk’ (folk) was a call for a classless, yet hierarchical, system of nationhood.  As a side note, the occultism, eco-paganism, and Aryan nationalism, of Volk heavily influenced the German Nazi Party that later appeared.         

Of course, in this virtual classless society, a hierarchy of intellectuals are needed for administration.  But first the masses need to be won over to this scheme using effective propaganda.  As one German patriot* of that time boasted:  “A poet is the creator of the nation around him, he gives them a world to see and has their souls in his hand to lead them to that world.”     

Robert Owen and New Harmony, IN:
Intentional communities:
The Zeitgeist Movement:
Zeitgeist, The Movie:
The Venus Project:
*Johann Gottfried Herder:

%d bloggers like this: