from the book
Burning All Illusions
by David Edwards
South End Press, 1996
"We can ... be controlled by simply not being informed,
by limiting our access to the facts so that we perceive no need
to be concerned or take action ..."
" ... truth, compassion and understanding seem a side
issue and even a hindrance in our lives devoted to improving our
standard of living and 'having fun'."
Erich Fromm, The Art of Being
"Our whole social system rests upon the fictitious belief
that nobody is forced to do what he does, but that he likes to
do. This replacement of overt by anonymous authority finds its
expression in all areas of life: Force is camouflaged by consent;
the consent is brought about by methods of mass suggestion."
Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, Manufacturing Consent.
" [The Propaganda Model] ... reflects our belief, based
on many years of study of the workings of the media, that they
serve to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate
the state and private activity, and that their choices, emphases,
and omissions can often be understood best, and sometimes with
striking clarity and insight, by analyzing them in such terms."
In fact [the propaganda model] is intended to account for
a system of control far tighter than anything imagined by Orwell,
or practised by totalitarian governments. The achievement of this
extreme level of control, it is argued, is ultimately facilitated
precisely by the fact that it is almost completely invisible.
The ultimately secure system of control, after all, would be one
presenting every appearance of complete freedom - for who, then,
would perceive any need to challenge it? This would represent
a system of control far beyond any based on totalitarian force.
... modern democracies are in thrall to a system of control
so complete that it surpasses anything achieved by totalitarianism
... powerful state and business elites seek to determine the
basic framework of modern social goals: maximum economic growth
generated by maximized corporate profit, fueled by mass production,
fueled by mass consumerism.
... any threat to compromise the basic, unchallengeable goal
of maximum economic growth from maximum corporate profit is vigorously
and consciously opposed at home and abroad.
Mark Hertsgaard in conversation with David Barsamian
[... major media corporations tend to avoid reporting that
seeks out root causes of the problems that afflict our world:]
" ... that's the kind of reporting that raises very serious
and pointed questions about the way our society is organized,
about power relations in our society, about the advantages of
and problems with a capitalist system. It raises real questions
about the status quo. Those questions are not going to be asked
on a consistent basis within news organizations that are owned
by corporations that have every interest in maintaining the status
quo. Those corporations are not going to hire individuals to run
those organizations who care about that kind of reporting. Therefore,
those individuals are not going to hire reporters who do that
kind of reporting, and so you're not going to see it.... Generally,
if you start as a reporter early in your career you pick up the
messages and it becomes almost instinctive. You don't even realize
all of what you've given up, all of the small compromises that
you've made along the way."
According to the propaganda model, the media will tend to
emphasize and ignore news according to its appropriateness for
state and above all corporate ends.Thus, for example, human rights
offences committed by clients of the United States supporting
US corporate aims will tend to be downplayed or overlooked, while
offences by states deemed to be unsupportive or enemies-of US
corporate interests will tend to be vigorously emphasized.
In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky and Herman argue that elite
state managers are essentially drawn from - and/or controlled
by - the same pool of ehte managers controlling the major corporations
and, for this reason, state interests are often indistinguishabie
from corporate interests.
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark in is book The Fire
This Time: US War Crimes In The Gulf, suggests that the media
plays an important part in maintaining our ignorance and passivity:
"The media, owned by the wealthy, speaking for the plutocracy,
has the dual role of anaesthetizing the public to prevent serious
consideration or debate of such staggering human issues as world
hunger, AIDS, regional civil wars, environmental destruction,
and social anarchy, and emotionalizing the people for aggression,
all without a serious military threat in sight."
"From the fight against the authority of Church, State,
and family which characterize the last centuries, we have come
back full circle to a new obedience; but this obedience is not
one to autocratic persons, but to the organization. The 'organization
man' is not aware that he obeys; he believes that he only conforms
with what is rational and practical."
" ... we are completely free to write what we like so
long as we do not threaten to interfere with state or corporate
interests. Even when we do go beyond these limits, we will still
be free to write such a challenge without being dragged from our
beds in the middle of the night (the inefficient totalitarian
way). Instead, we will simply tend not to find a publisher, will
tend not to be supported by advertising, will tend not to have
significant audience out-reach and so will tend to be ignored
or drowned-out by those who are supported by major publishers
[... corporate consumerism will tend to discourage the capacity
of people to imagine alternative ways of living.]
"They (the public) ought to be sitting alone in front
of the TV and having drilled into their heads the message, which
says the only value in life is to have more commodities or live
like that rich, middle class family you're watching and to have
nice values like harmony and Americanism.That's all there is in
life. You may think in your own head that there's got to be something
more in life than this, but since you're watching the tube alone
you assume, I must be crazy, because that's all that's going on
over there. And since there is no organisation permitted-that's
absolutely crucial-you never have a way of finding out whether
you are crazy, and you just assume it, because it's the natural
thing to assume."
... our culture needs to be infused with a 'buying environment',
it needs to be swamped in 'muzak' encouraging us to have fun-and
fun requires that we do not consider anything too seriously. For
were we to do so, the version of common-sense reality to which
we are continually encouraged to adhere (that fun, status and
consumption are everything) would be revealed for the childish
absurdity that it is.
R.D. Laing, The Politics of Experience
"The 'normally' alienated person, by reason of the fact
that he acts more or less like everyone else, is taken to be sane...
The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man.
Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to
lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal. Normal
men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men
in the last fifty years."
... the orthodox version of religious understanding - as a
matter of believing in an authoritarian, cosmic overlord - has
long suited the requirements of the powerful institutions in our
society, emphasising as it does that we should worship an all-powerful
God precisely because He is all-powerful (with clear implications
for our attitude towards His earthly representatives).
Because state and corporate power depend on a similar set
of unchallenged, unquestionable distortions and delusions, incoherence
remains vital for their survival. After all, to present a coherent
explanation as to why the Third World is starving, why the environment
is falling apart, why there was a Cold War, why Panama was invaded,
why there was a Gulf war, why forty per cent of British children
live below the poverty line, and so on, would immediately involve
revealing the truth that society is built on a set of necessary
illusions. Consequently, the news we see and read, like education
at school, must consist of a stream of disconnected, disembodied
facts, with no context, no coherent explanation of meaning or
significance, no background and no logical framework by means
of which they could be understood. Because the only logical framework
that fits-that the Western world is motivated by corporate profit
at very nearly any human and environmental cost-is disallowed,
a confused hotchpotch of ill-fitting, irrational frameworks must
be invented and bolted together. Any number of surveys have revealed
the extent to which the majority of people have no coherent grasp
of what is happening in the world. (This does not at all indicate,
as many claim, that the mass of people are stupid; only that they
have been, in effect, brainwashed ...).
Noam Chomsky, in the book Necessary Illusions said,
[people must be made to worship the 'revealed truth', unquestioningly:]
"In the modern secular age, this means worship of the
state religion, which in the Western democracies incorporates
the doctrine of submission to the masters of the system of public
subsidy, private profit, called free enterprise. The people must
be kept in ignorance, reduced to jingoist incantations... and
'emotionally potent oversimplifications 'that keep the ignorant
and stupid masses disciplined and content."
Because the Nicaraguan Sandinista regime was more concerned
with implementing social welfare and land reforms to help Nicaraguan
peasants than with serving US corporate interests, and because
this could not be allowed to become 'the threat of a good example'
(Oxfam) to other Third World victims in thrall to Western corporate
needs, and because this truth could not be allowed to pass through
the corporately-run filter system, a whole web of fabrications
and distortions simply had to surround the 'monstrous', 'totalitarian'
Nicaraguan regime bent on global revolution (how else could we
explain our hostility to a regime bent on ameliorating the condition
ofthe poor.). There had to be some explanation, something to fill
the vacuum of understanding. Thus, the Sandinistas had to come
to be seen to have a much worse human rights record than El Salvador
and Guatemala (supportive of US corporate interests), and to be
threatening the US with non-existent MIG jets.
H.L. Mencken, journalist
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all
of them imaginary."
... the level of effort elites generally devote to concealing
their destruction of foreign peoples and to generating hatred
towards different nationalities and colours (with propaganda campaigns
containing all manner of fabricated lies), suggests that such
a society is a real possibility and that the inate compassion,
understanding and peaceableness of the average individual are
tendencies not easily overcome.
... the propaganda system of thought control demands that
you and I live by absurd religious, ethical and philosophical
notions; and that the truth is not compatible with the exploitative
and irrational goals of corporate consumerism and so is filtered
out, not by conscious collusion, but by natural operation of market
President Woodrow Wilson
'Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer
insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation
must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed
against him must be battered down.... Colonies must be obtained
or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be
overlooked or lefe unused.'
Susan George, author
'Food has become: a source of profits, a tool of economic
and political control; a means of insuring effective domination
over the world at large and especially over the "wretched
of the earth".. . Multinational agribusiness wants to grow
cheap and sell dear (meaning mainly to Western markets that can
afford to pay) and totally ignore the needs of poor people who
cannot become 'consumers'.
'Western false consciousness about the Third World is amply
illustrated by Band Aid and other mass-media charity events. The
cloying self-congratulatory tone of the 'generous' stars melds
with the frenzied pointlessness of the supporters' sponsored activities
to produce a rich cocktail of hypocrisy. Purged of some of their
guilt, the participants then return, none the wiser, to lifestyles
and politics (masquerading as non-politics) that create the very
situation which their 'charity' had sought to alleviate.'
The truth beyond Western philanthropy being that:
'Every time weaker nations have attempted to reallocate their
resources and undertake land reform [to feed starving populations],
powerful interests emanating from the rich world and its multilateral
bodies have thwarted their efforts.'
By means of economic strangulation, proxy armies, or outright
invasion, as the peasants of Chile, Nicaragua,Vietnam, E1 Salvador,
Cuba and Haiti among many others know only too well. The reason
for the opposition to local, self-preserving initiatives is simply
that the goal of the Western powers:
'... is not, and never was, to feed today's undernourished
or starving millions, but to perpetuate poverty and dependence
for altogether "valid" political and economic reasons'.
Susan George, author
'Today the State more often than not protects not the right
to food but those who violate the right to food. This is the case
in countries in the First or Third Worlds which are governed on
behalf of banks, corporations or the landholding classes; where
the rights of property always supersede the right to eat.'
The forbidden truth is that we are living by a set of lies
which are necessary for short-term profit, at the expense of human
physical and psychological life and global environmental integrity.We
are living in a system where power ensures that the requirements
of profit take priority over the requirements of living things-including
the need to know that this is the case. Consequently our freedom
extends as far as, and no further than, the satisfaction of these
requirements, with all else being declared neurosis, paranoia,
communism, extremism, the work of the devil, or Neptunian nonsense.
I can only find answers, you can only find answers, the world
can only find answers, when you and I as individuals escape the
pacified herd, escape the system of control around us and in our
heads and recognize the two voices shouting louder even than the
massed might of propaganda - the voices inside our desolated hearts
and outside in the desolated environment.
[In mythological tales] the hero comes to realize that he
does not feel depressed and empty because of personal weakness,
he is not unhappy at work, or in relationships, because he is
not trying hard enough, because he is too fat, or ugly, or stupid,
but because he has been tricked into living the life prescribed
by society at the expense of his own. Upon perceiving this truth
(either consciously or unconsciously), the hero answers this 'call
to adventure' and leaves the social boundaries to disappear into
the heart of the forest (of radical doubt) to search for his or
her own true life. (The word 'hero' should not be imagined to
refer to a superior, perfect person, in the sense in which the
word is generally used, but to the person who is determined to
radically challenge the assumptions and certainties of conformity.The
hero is not a superior person. On the contrary, the hero is any
person prepared to throw off the baggage of social delusion, including
the notion that some people are superior to others.
There is, after all, great security to be found in the herd;
we love to belong, and leaving-if only in spirit-is traumatic.
A wild oscillation may ensue between our desire for truth and
our desire to belong, so that, for a while, we may swing so violently
between the two that we are no longer sure what we believe any
more. It is almost as if the mind cannot immediately accept the
shock of abandoning too rapidly our old cherished beliefs, our
old guides to life; so we grow into our new view of the world
bit by bit.
... We may succeed, intellectually and theoretically, in turning
against the entrenched beliefs of consumerism, but what about
us - what are we going to do about it? Initially, we may well
feel that we are phonies, armchair iconoclasts, prepared to criticize
society, while continuing to work, play and consume in the usual
way. And what a dismal prospect this is - that, perhaps, whilst
we can never again go back to our earlier values, yet we may not
have the courage to go forward.
Where, then, are we? In some limbo, some space between worlds?
In this situation, our lives may seem a hopeless confusion,
a bewildering mixture of doubt, self-doubt and inaction. For all
our lives, our materialist culture has insisted that a particular
version of life is the good life, that we are alive and young
only once, that we must make the best of it - by consuming as
much as we can while we last. We consider our new ideas, our awareness
of the destruction of the very life-support systems on which we
depend; but then we also consider our old awareness of ourselves,
of our dramatically short and troubled existence, and we feel
that we owe it to ourselves to make dhe best of it as defined
by society.We think, perhaps, of our career, our family, our standard
of living, our friends, our security, and ask ourselves if it
is not crazy to think that we should be prepared to radically
change the way we live for the sake of a 'mere idea'. There follows,
perhaps, a process of continuing doubt and re-afffirmation of
our ideas-and we wonder if anything will ever come of it.
This is the lot of those who have become aware of the destructive
nature of the way we live, who no longer find the world view of
consumerism credible or even sane. .Apart from the intrinsic conflict
involved, the difficulty of the situation is often exacerbated
by isolation and by the absence of a clear direction in which
we might proceed.
'This is a society which needs to make man fit in a complicated
and hierarchically organised system of production widh a minimum
of friction. It creates the organisation man, a man widhout conscience
or conviction, but one who is proud of being a cog, even if it
is only a small one, in a big and imposing organisation. He is
not to ask questions, not to think critically, not to have any
passionate interests, for this would impede the smooth functioning
of the organisation. But man is not made to be a thing, he is
not made to shun asking questions. Hence, in spite of 'job security,'
'old-age pensions,' and the satisfaction of belonging to a large
and 'nationally known' outfit, man is disquieted and not happy.
'Governments, whatever their pretensions otherwise, try to
preserve themselves by holding the individual down... Government
itself, indeed, may be reasonably defined as a conspiracy against
him. Its one permanent aim, whatever its form, is to hobble him
sufficiently to maintain itself.
When even a few people gain sufficient information and motivation
to organize and protest, the illusion of popular impotence begins
to be eroded.The economic costs of controlling protests are high,
whilst the very act of confrontation threatens to dissolve the
illusions of freedom and democracy on which the system depends.
Protests of this type can lead to the identification of a 'crisis
of democracy', as occurred during the 1970s when anti-war and
civil rights protesters threatened to become invoIved in the political
arena. Now, as then, politicians insist that peaceful protest
is a threat to democracy.This is certainly true if by democracy
we mean government by the few, for the few. Genuine freedom and
democracy, however, have only ever been won by this type of collective
action and protest.This is why it has always been important for
those who govern us to keep us as isolated as possible, to ensure
that we are imbued with a sense of impotence before our 'superiors'
and 'betters' (the British class system functions as a non-stop
illusion factory in this respect, spinning all manner of fictions
regarding the innate superiority of the wealthiest sections of
The widespread sense of apathy, hopelessness and even despair
among many (particularly young) people today is not at all a reflection
of the realities of what is possible, but rather of the sophistication
of the system of thought control by which those possibilities
have been obscured.
'Although AIDS can be discussed as a means of hitting out
at unpopular minorities, the true epidemic can never be discussed:
the fact that every fourth American now alive will die of cancer.
This catastrophe is well kept from the public by the tobacco companies,
the nuclear power companies and other industries that poison the
earth so that corporate America may enjoy the freedom to make
money without the slightest accountability to those they are killing.'
Fritjof Capra - The Turning Point
'The numerous horror stories of corporate behaviour in theThird
World which have emerged in recent years show convincingly that
respect for people, for nature, and for life are not part ofthe
corporate mentality. On the contrary, large-scale corporate crime
is today the most widespread and least prosecuted criminal activity.'
George Kennan, Head of US State Department Planning Staff,
'.. .we have 50% ofthe world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its
population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object
of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is
to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain
this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national
security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality
and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated
everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive
ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and
world-benefaction... We should cease to talk about vague and-for
the Far East-unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising
of the living standards, and democratisation.'
Michael Parenti - on the brutal truth of US foreign policy
'My goal is to try to get people away from saying,'Isn't it
terrible how this goes on, what a strange foolish creature man
is?' and point out to them that most of us aren't strange or foolish.
We don't want these kinds of things to go on. These things are
the product of a particular kind of social organisation and a
particular use of class power.'
All too often we respond in dependably Pavlovian fashion to
the call for the destruction of some monstrous threat: Iraq, Libya,
Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam (personalized as Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi,
Ortega, Castro and Ho Chi Minh, in order to obscure the fact that
it is actually men, women and children who are destroyed). The
process is simplicity itself: human rights abuses are raised and
pushed to the fore by the government (while those committed by
us and our allies go unnoticed), 'experts' detail the awesome
danger posed, other 'experts' confirm that this or that leader
really is a monster capable of any amount of madness, our leaders
offer to come to our rescue in the name of all that is holy and
decent. Before we know it, we are cheering at the TV screens,
admiring the footage of bombs curving down to their targets, and
marching mindlessly off to war as part of some Just Cause, with
the corpses of Third World people and of the truth-strewn among
... Faced with a consensus especially one endorsed by authority-modern
individuals show an extreme tendency to conform; that is, to think
and do as others do, or as others tell them to do, without question.
It seems that the majority of people today are incapable of challenging
even self-evident nonsense, while others defer to authority to
the point of barbarism.
This modern susceptibility to conformity and obedience to
authority indicates that the truth endorsed by authority is likely
to be accepted as such by a majority of people, who are innately
obedient to authority. This obedience-truth will then become a
consensus truth accepted by many individuals unable to stand alone
against the majority. In this way, the truth promulgated by the
propaganda system-however irrational-stands a good chance of becoming
the consensus, and may come to seem self-evident common sense.
History suggests that there are few, if any, limits to the level
of absurdity that can be reached by such a consensus-belief in
an underground cave full of sadistic devils, in the benevolence
of plainly psychotic dictators, in the passionate devotion of
modern states to freedom and democracy when the entire world is
run (and put at risk) by the profit motive, and so on.
... rationalization [is] the phenomenon whereby we believe
something, not as a result of a rational consideration of the
facts, but because we want to believe it, because it serves some
The point is that no one likes to see their own actions as
monstrous or destructive, we all want to believe we are 'good
guys' and so we all tend to rationalize what we do in terms of
grand ideals- we are doing our duty, controlling the 'bewildered
herd' for their own good, bringing God to the backward races,
fulfilling our 'manifest destiny', building a great benevolent
empire, administering economic medicine that will lead to a bright
future for all, only doing what someone else would have done anyway
so it doesn't matter, or whatever else happens to fit the bill.
The important thing is to declare these things, but not look too
closely at the actual facts of destruction and the real motivation
Through endless repetition the mass media determine what is
normal, and rapidly manipulate the views of the populace towards
the 'accepted' goal...
The cliche of the transformation of young socialist into old
conservative is not a change from idealism to pragmatism, but
from rationality to rationalization.
... the truth of corporate involvement in the devastation
of the Third World cannot be allowed to reach the public for fear
of impeding that exploitation.
The goals of corporate consumerism require that we accept
its values, that we fail to seek better alternatives, that we
reject the possibility of finding better alternatives ('psycho-babble'),
that we fail even to see the existence of a problem to be solved,
that we therefore live according to an entirely inadequate set
of values, that we therefore live in complete confusion, that
we therefore suffer profound and devastating psychological, physical
and environmental disease; that we suffer and, if necessary, die
[Noam] Chomsky's truly great contribution to the struggle
for human freedom is that he has taken what we have been persuaded
to believe is an insane idea, a product only of individual neurosis-the
idea that society is not free and quite possibly not even sane-and
shown it to be empirically, demonstrably true; he has provided
the vital support for the individual to be able to declare him-
and herself sane against the insanity of society, despite a million
voices declaring that it is the occasional doubter who is mad.
... our task is surely to seek to understand, and thereby
extricate ourselves from the mechanisms that prevent us from developing
the capacity for critical thought. Above all, we need to keep
Why does the US President talk of his hope that the 'peace
process' in the Middle East will be guided by the 'wisdom and
compassion of the Almighty', when few people believe in this type
of God any more, when the system he fronts has no regard whatsoever
for Christian ideals, when those managing that system would advise
psychiatric help for anyone who actually believed the observance
of such ideals was a guiding principle of policy? Why are leaders
who speak in this way not roundly denounced for attempting to
deceive the public? Why is the historical and documentary record
not raised to demonstrate the deceit? Why are such banal lies
allowed to become axiomatic truths through the silence of journalists,
religious leaders, teachers and the rest? Why do intellectuals
merely sit and laugh cynically at such lies when they are not
irrelevant, not a joke, when they have a powerful effect on what
people come to believe, when history shows that such deceptions
are a cornerstone of exploitative power?
Why do we never discuss or understand anything in depth? Why
does nobody understand why the United States, rather than the
United Nations, is 'mediating' in the Middle East and Haiti? Why
the West furiously railed against 'the New Hitler' Saddam Hussein's
destruction of the Iraqi Kurds (although only when it served our
purpose), while Yeltsin's assault on the people of Chechnya, with
the barbaric cluster-bombing of civilian populations, is met with
barely a murmur of disapproval, with US Secretary of State Warren
Christopher describing the Russian assault as merely 'ill-conceived
and ill-executed' ? When UN condemnation of Indonesia's invasion
of East Timor was vetoed by the West? When the United States itself
invaded Panama, killing 3,000 civilians to arrest one man?
Why are we so obsessed with keeping up with current events
but not with understanding those events? Why does no one discuss
the fact that it is often literally impossible to make sense of
what is happening on the basis of the reports we see on the news
(certainly the case with regards to Haiti)? Why is this not a
source of outrage in democracies whose life-blood is supposed
to be the free flow of information, when our representatives are
acting and even killing other human beings in our name, but we
have no understanding of what they are doing or why? Is this all
a way of making us feel we are seeing the truth, when all we are
seeing is a stream of useless, meaningless facts?
Why can we not vote on the issues we want to see investigated
in the news, when the fate of places like Haiti, Iraq, Panama,
Grenada and Chechnya show such a marked tendency to be 'disappeared'
from the news? Why can we not vote for the commentators we would
like to see giving their perspective on the news, when Fairness
In Accuracy And Reporting found that of 1,530 guests interviewed
on the prestigious US Nightline public affairs programme, 92%
were white, 89% were male and 80% were professionals, government
officials, or corporate representatives, with the issues covered
'closely aligned with the agenda of the US government'?
Why do governments and companies justify their actions on
the basis of the need to 'create jobs', as if profit was a secondary
issue, as if everyone gained equally, as if the quantity and not
the quality of jobs was the only issue? Why does not everyone
who has ever worked for a corporation, who knows the truth, not
expose such nonsense, such complete reversals of the truth, for
the transparent deceptions they are? Why are jobs 'created' but
never 'destroyed'-only 'lost'? Why are politicians protected from
the public, from all genuinely awkward questions, when it is we
who are their leaders? Why are our political representatives treated
with such reverence and awe in a democracy that is supposed to
place 'the people' in highest regard? Why can we not see that
people like John Major, Bill Clinton and George Bush are just
men, just individual people like you and I (regardless of the
podium they stand on and the cut of their suits) who need to give
account of themselves, who need to convince us that they are worthy
of our attention, let alone our respect?
Why are so many of our artists so bleakly world-weary, so
convinced of the hopelessness and tragedy of life when, each and
every night, we look up to behold a self-evident mystery that
is your mystery, my mystery? Why is the search for truth deemed
neurotic, but the acceptance of superficial platitudes deemed
practical? Why is it considered realistic to dismiss human life
as absurd, but naive to dismiss our social system as absurd? Why
is it considered realistic to deem people innately wicked, but
simple-minded to deem our political and economic system innately
wicked? Is realism what is real, or what is required to be real?
Why is our society still not in love with (or even tolerant
of) that wonderful menagerie of 'asses', 'Neptunians' and assorted
'wild men [and women] on the wings 'who, over the years, have
sought the truth motivated, not by financial or political power,
but by a sincere desire to understand the world? Why can we not
see the obvious parallels between the burning of Giordano Bruno
at the stake, the denouncement of the writings of the great humanist
Spinoza as monstrosities 'forged in hell by a renegade Jew and
the Devil', the dismissal of that braying 'ass' Copernicus before
Luther, and the abuse meted out to Chomsky-that 'liar', 'crackpot',
purveyor of 'absolute rubbish', that 'self-hating Jew'? Why, with
the spectacle of all history before us, do we not automatically
suspect absolutely everyone declared respectable, unbiased and
praiseworthy by those who have power over us?
Why does our society find it unworthy of discussion that we
and our precious, impressionable children are continuously hounded
by advertisers with the same set of interests (profit from mass
consumption) propounding the same essential view of the world
(happiness and status through unrestrained consumption) ? Why
does it not occur to us that this continuous flood of propaganda
might be a threat to our view of reality, might be a threat to
our independence and sanity? Why does that not send even the tiniest
chill up our spines?
Is it because our political and economic systems are rooted
in a great system of necessary lies? And when we find ourselves
so convinced by those lies that our hearts sink to see how irrelevant
our search for truth suddenly seems, then what damage must that
system of lies be doing inside us?
How could we ever hope to find contentment when we are required
to live lives based on profitable illusions? When the most important
issues to which we devote ourselves have become getting that new
car, moving to that new house, getting that extra promotion for
the extra money; when these really have become the central concerns
in our lives, though we don't really know why, or what anything
is really all about-how can we hope to be happy, or sane? How
can we hope to build relationships, to find love, on these foundations?
People talk of the emptiness of life, which may sound nebulous
and other-worldly. But let us put it another way: how can we be
happy when we have a complete lack of understanding as to why
we are doing what we are doing? How can we feel good about life
when it makes no sense to us? Is that what we mean when we call
life meaningless? And if we are not able to interpret that sense
of meaninglessness in terms of failure to understand, because
the system has trained us not to think that way, then is that
why we interpret our sense of meaninglessness in terms of life
not leading to some goal?
We are required to misinterpret our own problems because,
like this book, the alternatives seem to make no sense in the
'real' world that continuously assaults our senses. The world
tells us that 'of course this is the right way to live - there
is no other way', so the problem must lie outside the political
and economic system.
Everyone wants to find answers to life. Everyone needs genuine
relationship with other people, peace of mind, fulfillment, a
sense of community and belonging. Everyone wants to be free from
crippling stress and dullness and boredom. Everyone wants life
to continue on this planet.
Let us, then, put a last question as simply as possible -
how on earth can we ever hope to answer these questions adequately,
if we are not free to consider or answer them in ways that do
not suit the requirements of corporate consumerism?
Control and Propaganda