The remarkable successes of indoctrination under freedom
Fri, 2007-09-07 00:11
#1
N.Beltov
The remarkable successes of indoctrination under freedom
Fri, 2007-09-07 00:11
#2
N.Beltov
Noam Chomsky responds to a question about a review essay by a liberal academic in the US. Chomsky is good for exposing the subordination to authority and the moral depravity of the dominant intellectual culture in our time.
quote:
Chomsky: A little more interesting is Power's tacit endorsement of the Bush doctrine that states that harbor terrorists are no different from terrorist states, and should be treated accordingly: bombed and invaded, and subjected to regime change. There is, of course, not the slightest doubt that the US harbors terrorists ... (here Chomsky covers the well known US sponsored terrorists Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada as well as the ones with offices in Washington, e.g., John Negroponte, etc.)Even keeping to the completely uncontroversial cases, like Bosch, [b]it follows that Power and the NY Times are calling for the bombing of Washington. [/b] But -- oddly -- the Justice Department is not about to indict them, though people are rotting in Guantanamo on far lesser charges. [b]What is interesting and enlightening is that no matter how many times trivialities like this are pointed out -- and it's been many times -- it is entirely incomprehensible within the intellectual culture. That reveals a very impressive level of subordination to authority and indoctrination, well beyond what one would expect in totalitarian states.[/b]
[url=http://blogs.zmag.org/node/3158]Chomsky blog[/url]
Fri, 2007-09-07 00:28
#3
I think our colonial elites may even be worse now.
Fri, 2007-09-07 00:40
#4
N.Beltov
Chomsky provides an invaluable service by pointing out the real depravity in the ideas of official society. And, as far as I know, he doesn't give the government lists of left-wingers, Communists and others for harassment and denunciation like George Orwell did. Good on Noam.
Fri, 2007-09-07 00:46
#5
I'm aware of Chomsky, Beltov, and I was becoming aware of the propogandistic nature of "communications" grads even before then, but I didn't know that about Orwell. Was he pressured to rat on them, or was it just a matter of middle age crisis and green cards?
Fri, 2007-09-07 00:50
#6
N.Beltov
I just read about Orwell over at Bread and Roses the other day. Conservatives mocked the left and claimed Orwell as one of their own when the revelations came out (a few years ago I think).
Personally, I've always thought of him as a Tory Anarchist. Time for a google search I think ...
Fri, 2007-09-07 00:51
#7
And the reason I said our elites maybe worse is because even the Washington Post and NY and LA Times took strong editorial stands against the Bush regime last election, more than our "liberal" media has had the nerve to do yet, including our overrated public broadcasters. That's all.
Fri, 2007-09-07 00:57
#8
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]I just read about Orwell over at Bread and Roses the other day. Conservatives mocked the left and claimed Orwell as one of their own when the revelations came out (a few years ago I think).Personally, I've always thought of him as a Tory Anarchist. Time for a google search I think ...[/b]
I'd be interested in seeing anything more you can find, as that is news to me. Everyone knows he became turned off by the Soviets sometime before 1948, but giving names to the authorities is something else again. I believe even merry olde England's Tories resisted the temptations of outright McCarthyism.
ETa: Not at all consistent with anarchism either, though I must admit I'm not familiar with the Tory kind. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 07 September 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Fri, 2007-09-07 01:14
#9
N.Beltov
Hmm. Don't forget it was Churchill's incendiary speech at Fulbright in the US that precipitated much of the Cold War and McCarthyism with his talk of the "Iron Curtain", etc.
Anyway, here is a link to Orwell's offer of helpful assistance to creating a blacklist in Britain of Communists and "fellow travelers" ...
[url=http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-blacklist.htm]Orwell offered writers' blacklist [/url]
quote:
... it was revealed in 1996 that in 1949, Orwell offered to provide a secret Foreign Office Propaganda Unit linked to the intelligence services with the names of writers who could be trusted to write anti-communist propaganda, and also [b]with the names of writers and journalists whom he regarded as being `crypto-communist' and `fellow-travellers'.[/b] This unit had been set up by the Attlee government in response to the “developing communist threat to the whole fabric of Western civilisation”. Well-known writers, such as Bertrand Russell, Stephen Spender and Arthur Koestler were employed to disseminate misinformation ...
quote:
George Orwell: I could also, if it is of any value, give you a list of journalists and writers who in my opinion are crypto-communists, fellow-travellers or inclined that way and should not be trusted as propagandists. But for that I shall have to send for a notebook which I have at home, and if I do give you such a list it is strictly confidential ...
Lots of people have naive views about what governments do, especially in foreign affairs and such. And Orwell showed such naivete when he went to Republican Spain. So, perhaps it is no surprise that he would have been willing to side with the propaganda campaign of the British government rather than siding with political rivals on the left that he was demonstrably antagonistic towards. But it sure contradicts the anti-establishment narrative about him, doesn't it? I guess he was more Tory than anarchist in this case.
[ 07 September 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Mon, 2007-09-10 22:25
#10
Thanks Beltov. I won't comment on what youre saying Re Orwell's 'naivity' or Churchill the old socialist hater, as they were rather complicated characters and tangential to the point here, but I see what Orwell did was both worse than I thought and a bit better. He offered to 'name names' with no apparent coercion at all, but at the same time was only in Re to a government job doing propaganda for a late 40s reformist labour government. Is rather pathetic. Shows a real mingy side to his character that I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at, any more than with any other famous artist looking for better healed patrons. Never heard a word about this before.
ETA: Not much of an anarchist-leftist even asking for such a job tho, no. High ideals too often don't hold up so well when it comes to peoples own personal decisions. Petty employment concerns aren't good enough IMO for those who expect so much from others. Neither were his anti-Soviet sympathies either, especially in regards to socialists like Bertie Russell.
[ 11 September 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]