Sirius
22-11-06, 07:19 PM
August 12, 2006
The most brainwashed society in the world
Spending some weeks in the United States after a year and half in Venezuela, there has been one reoccuring thing that has continued to amaze me. The population is subjected to some of the most effective mind control in the world. In a repressive, dictatorial society, the population is controlled by force. Regardless of what they think, their actions are controlled, and thus the general population is marginalized from power and control of their country. However, in a free, open, and democratic society like the United States, the population must be controlled and marginalized by other means. Instead of controlling their actions, it is necessary to control their thoughts.
I was amazed to find out that one of the most popular books among my friends and aquaintances is now "The World Is Flat" by Thomas Friedman. Friedman is the famous New York Times columnist who has historically supported United States' foreign policy. He now supports the U.S. War on Terror, the U.S. unconditional support for Israel, and the corrupt poltical system in Washington. But could we expect much different from one of the most promoted "intellectuals" in the United States? Since he is promoted and featured by the New York Times, we can already be sure that his views are acceptable to the corporate business world to which the NYTimes belongs.
But the problem with "The World Is Flat" is none of the above. Friedman writes a compelling account, from a lot of personal experience and careful analysis. But what is his basic conclusion? Basically he comes to the conclusion that U.S.-led globalization, dominated by multinational corporations, is not only unavoidable, but desireable. His only criticisms of U.S. corporate-led globalization is the way in which we are doing it. Are we using our military correctly? Are we going to be competitive enough to succeed at this, or are we too complacent? Never does he consider the question, do we have any right at all to dominate the world with our form of globalization? Never does he explain how current form of coporate globalization, using the tools of the IMF and the World Bank limit democracy in poor nations, and benefit U.S. corporations.
But, its not really a surprise that one of the most promoted authors on U.S. politics comes to these conclusions. What else should we expect from the corporate-owned media that dominates in the center of the empire? The most amazing part is that this book, along with many other similar ones, are largely read by the political "left" in the United States! And this is a key factor in how U.S. thought control works. If you make people think that this is the most "left" on the spectrum, then they will automatically not be capable of going beyond that. This false "left" restricts the debate within those limits, and thus all thought is controlled within these barriers. This form of thought control has been explained in detail by Noam Chomsky in numerous books and articles.
For example, on the war in Iraq, the debate varies between two extremities. On the right the position is,"we must hold strong and we will prevail in our war on terror." On the left, the most extreme position is, "We are making mistakes in the war on terror, we are not capable of bringing democracy to Iraq, and therefore we must withdraw." The truth, that the U.S. has no right to invade a country and massacre its people, never even enters the debate. The fact that a "War on Terror" is impossible because War IS terror is not mentioned. Nor does anyone ever question whether the real motive is even terrorism, or are there hidden motives? Imagine for a second, a parallel situation. When Japan invaded China before WWII, would we ask the question, "Will the Japanese be capable of winning, or was it a mistake?" Would we have said during WWII that the Germans should withdraw from France not because they had bad intentions but because it was a mistake and they won't be capable of winning? These positions would be absolutely ludicrous. Those are the positions of the left in the United States.
The debate concerning Israel and Palestine is another very revealing example. Time Magazine, or the New York Times are seen by many Americans to be on the extreme left side. However, when reading the analysis of the middle east, both of these support Israel unconditionally. However, again, the debate is framed into a small spectrum. On the left (NYTimes, TIME) the position is, "Will Israel be able to succeed in their attack on the Palestinians and Lebanese, or will it hurt their interests?" On the right they would say , Israel must continue their invasion and occupation. On the left, they agree with Israels motives and goals, but they say they should change their strategy. Never do they ask the question "Does Israel have any right to invade, occupy, and massacre the Arab populations that surround them?" Never do they mention that Israel has engaged in an illegal military occupation of Arab territories for over 50 years, with constant condemnation by the nations of the world, except the United States. Never do they mention the fact that many many times more Arabs have been killed by Israel than the number of Israelis killed by Arab attacks.
And, again, the question that U.S. media always ask is "Should the United States get involved in the conflict and work for peace, or should we not get involved?" The spectrum of thought is already very limited, with the assumption that the U.S. is not involved. What they fail to report is that the U.S. is VERY involved in the conflict. The U.S. supplies Israel with billions of dollars of weapons and military aid, and has consitently, for decades, blocked any and all resolutions in the United Nations to stop Israel's colonization of the surrounding territory. The reality is that Israel has no military. What they have is a U.S.-equipped military, but with Israeli soldiers.
Should the U.S. be the "world police", or should we stay out of others' affairs? Should the U.S. help poor nations, or not? Are we succeeding in our goal to "bring democracy" to the world? These questions all assume that that is our intention and that we don't have other motives! Few Americans are even capable of seeing their nation as the imperial, rogue-nation that it is. Few Americans are even aware of the oppressive, colonial economic policies that maintain and worsen the conditions of the poor across the globe, and consistently prevent real democracy, to the benefit of the U.S. Few are aware of the long history the United States has of installing and supporting dictatorships around the world in order to secure U.S. business interests. So effective is the thought control, that the truth about American policy is not even conceivable for the majority of American citizens. In the belly of the empire, the notion of empire doesn't even exist!
http://boog.dnsalias.org/chris/
The most brainwashed society in the world
Spending some weeks in the United States after a year and half in Venezuela, there has been one reoccuring thing that has continued to amaze me. The population is subjected to some of the most effective mind control in the world. In a repressive, dictatorial society, the population is controlled by force. Regardless of what they think, their actions are controlled, and thus the general population is marginalized from power and control of their country. However, in a free, open, and democratic society like the United States, the population must be controlled and marginalized by other means. Instead of controlling their actions, it is necessary to control their thoughts.
I was amazed to find out that one of the most popular books among my friends and aquaintances is now "The World Is Flat" by Thomas Friedman. Friedman is the famous New York Times columnist who has historically supported United States' foreign policy. He now supports the U.S. War on Terror, the U.S. unconditional support for Israel, and the corrupt poltical system in Washington. But could we expect much different from one of the most promoted "intellectuals" in the United States? Since he is promoted and featured by the New York Times, we can already be sure that his views are acceptable to the corporate business world to which the NYTimes belongs.
But the problem with "The World Is Flat" is none of the above. Friedman writes a compelling account, from a lot of personal experience and careful analysis. But what is his basic conclusion? Basically he comes to the conclusion that U.S.-led globalization, dominated by multinational corporations, is not only unavoidable, but desireable. His only criticisms of U.S. corporate-led globalization is the way in which we are doing it. Are we using our military correctly? Are we going to be competitive enough to succeed at this, or are we too complacent? Never does he consider the question, do we have any right at all to dominate the world with our form of globalization? Never does he explain how current form of coporate globalization, using the tools of the IMF and the World Bank limit democracy in poor nations, and benefit U.S. corporations.
But, its not really a surprise that one of the most promoted authors on U.S. politics comes to these conclusions. What else should we expect from the corporate-owned media that dominates in the center of the empire? The most amazing part is that this book, along with many other similar ones, are largely read by the political "left" in the United States! And this is a key factor in how U.S. thought control works. If you make people think that this is the most "left" on the spectrum, then they will automatically not be capable of going beyond that. This false "left" restricts the debate within those limits, and thus all thought is controlled within these barriers. This form of thought control has been explained in detail by Noam Chomsky in numerous books and articles.
For example, on the war in Iraq, the debate varies between two extremities. On the right the position is,"we must hold strong and we will prevail in our war on terror." On the left, the most extreme position is, "We are making mistakes in the war on terror, we are not capable of bringing democracy to Iraq, and therefore we must withdraw." The truth, that the U.S. has no right to invade a country and massacre its people, never even enters the debate. The fact that a "War on Terror" is impossible because War IS terror is not mentioned. Nor does anyone ever question whether the real motive is even terrorism, or are there hidden motives? Imagine for a second, a parallel situation. When Japan invaded China before WWII, would we ask the question, "Will the Japanese be capable of winning, or was it a mistake?" Would we have said during WWII that the Germans should withdraw from France not because they had bad intentions but because it was a mistake and they won't be capable of winning? These positions would be absolutely ludicrous. Those are the positions of the left in the United States.
The debate concerning Israel and Palestine is another very revealing example. Time Magazine, or the New York Times are seen by many Americans to be on the extreme left side. However, when reading the analysis of the middle east, both of these support Israel unconditionally. However, again, the debate is framed into a small spectrum. On the left (NYTimes, TIME) the position is, "Will Israel be able to succeed in their attack on the Palestinians and Lebanese, or will it hurt their interests?" On the right they would say , Israel must continue their invasion and occupation. On the left, they agree with Israels motives and goals, but they say they should change their strategy. Never do they ask the question "Does Israel have any right to invade, occupy, and massacre the Arab populations that surround them?" Never do they mention that Israel has engaged in an illegal military occupation of Arab territories for over 50 years, with constant condemnation by the nations of the world, except the United States. Never do they mention the fact that many many times more Arabs have been killed by Israel than the number of Israelis killed by Arab attacks.
And, again, the question that U.S. media always ask is "Should the United States get involved in the conflict and work for peace, or should we not get involved?" The spectrum of thought is already very limited, with the assumption that the U.S. is not involved. What they fail to report is that the U.S. is VERY involved in the conflict. The U.S. supplies Israel with billions of dollars of weapons and military aid, and has consitently, for decades, blocked any and all resolutions in the United Nations to stop Israel's colonization of the surrounding territory. The reality is that Israel has no military. What they have is a U.S.-equipped military, but with Israeli soldiers.
Should the U.S. be the "world police", or should we stay out of others' affairs? Should the U.S. help poor nations, or not? Are we succeeding in our goal to "bring democracy" to the world? These questions all assume that that is our intention and that we don't have other motives! Few Americans are even capable of seeing their nation as the imperial, rogue-nation that it is. Few Americans are even aware of the oppressive, colonial economic policies that maintain and worsen the conditions of the poor across the globe, and consistently prevent real democracy, to the benefit of the U.S. Few are aware of the long history the United States has of installing and supporting dictatorships around the world in order to secure U.S. business interests. So effective is the thought control, that the truth about American policy is not even conceivable for the majority of American citizens. In the belly of the empire, the notion of empire doesn't even exist!
http://boog.dnsalias.org/chris/