Chomsky on Keeping People Passive
Posted September 24th, 2007 by Michael Nystrom
in
Noam Chomsky:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the more critical and dissident views. This gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
Does any of this sound familiar? Read more in the book No Questions Asked: News Coverage Since 9/11
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Debate on the Debate on the...
Just another revolving door in the labyrinth of seemingly smart but empty polemics.Chomsky the linguist-Yes! Chomsky-the political philosopher-No!
Wherever the light shines...
It is foolish to take the words of any thinker uncritically, but I do think that Chomsky is offering a theory here that is worthy of serious consideration.
I long ago came to realize that what I first thought were conspiracies were in fact, the efforts of many people acting in what they believe to be their own best interest and without regard to the law or morality for which they neither cared nor knew (it seems)
The example I think that brings this closest to the surface is the Miranda case (for me, because it was such a revelation to me). True, the officers had every reason to know that they were breaking the alw and violating the constitution, but they thought the gains (convictions) they secured to be of higher value.
It is the responsibility of their superiors to teach them better and the responsibility of the city and county to ensure that this happens. The failure of the police falls to a large group of people, all acting in their own (neglectful of their trust) interest.
So, I've gone off point here a bit but back to Chomsky's theory: if the News and the Congress and the stewards of the public discourse (whoever that may be) see no good reason to expand the dialog that is already happening in the public, are they conscious conspirators or just stupid pawns? Are they evil or just lazy?
I think it easy to make the case that the conversation is stilted in this way, but I think the blame ultimately falls to us, all of us, for tolerating it.
So, we are to blame. Still the quotation is valuable. Chomsky, for everything totalitarian about him, has given us a little light. Thank him for that, and eschew his socialist whining.
Rich
Brendan Behan
.
...used to say that some people's view of the world was that which could be seen between the ears of a horse.
When Chomsky, or anybody, narrows the range of debate and dismisses, out-of-hand, honest inquiry, then that falls within Behan's description.
As far as the dialog with congress goes, that is a mixed-up mess. Most of the congressional members have their own agenda, issues, maybe CFR memberships and of course re-election. It's an old-boys network for the most part and many of them are on the take. How can you talk with anybody like that and get a straight answer? Ron Paul would give one, and the late Henry Gonzalez and maybe a couple of others, but the number is small.
You may have a point about tolerating any kind of lousy behavior on the part of our representatives, or expecting anything approaching honesty. But the masses are, for the most part, gullible and often re-elect somebody because they "like" him or her. How many times was Buddy Chianci elected Mayor of Providence, RI, even though he was a convicted felon? The people loved him regardless. Well duh.
Is this tolerance? Beats me. But most people really don't get involved with, or concerned about, politics. Ron Paul has changed some of that and has inspired activism and that's great. Many are more savvy now and there is a good reason: the future of our Republic is on the line and many are (finally) awakening to that.
I agree with you that the Chomsky line is good and true. My problem is that he doesn't practice what he preaches.
The Facts of Life
The fact of corruption in congress is not new, and you are right in blaming a gullible public for it.
You rightly pointed out that Chomsky himself is a demagogue, but his description of this form of it still has value.
The real value of anything we say here or in any conversation with someone less aware or in need of help understanding how this works to keep people from discussing war, money etc., has to be measured by what the listener does with it. Does he/she become more skeptical and questioning of congress and the media? Does he/she become interested to the point of action?
Perhaps I presented it as if I were talking to people who don't understand it yet. I know the people reading on this site are very aware and all I intended to point out is that the concept, or more precisely, this description (Chomsky's) has value because of its brevity and precision.
I don't intend to pursue Chomsky down the rabbit hole - and I am not recommending that to anyone else.
My only regret about that quotation is that it did not originate with someone with a more objective and rational philosophy - but there's another matter...
RonPaul has awakened a sleeping giant. That was my first impression. Then I realized that there have been a lot of people awake for a long time and now their voices are being heard in the wake of Ron Paul's popularity.
All this is because, as Ron Paul says: 'The message of freedom is popular."
RichYankee
On target
.
Good observations Rich, esp the sleeping giant reference.
There was an article published some months ago, which referred to the millions of disenfranchised, disaffected voters as the "remnant." These are the people who never counted in polls, nor took an active role in political activism. Many, like me, felt the system was too corrupt to bother. So, when Ron Paul appeared on the horizon--perhaps the last decent, honest man in U.S. politics--I woke up and so did many others. This has been tremendously encouraging; people awakening to support Dr. Paul and his message of freedom and hope. It's fantastic.
Also, there was a moment in Ken Burn's The Civil War, which described the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation on Southern Blacks. I don't recall the exact words of the script, but it was something like... for the first time, millions of voices began to utter hoarse cries from long-silenced throats.
This is a comparable moment in our history. It's exciting to be part of it. Man I hope it continues - !
Beware of Noam Chomsky
.
I was a sucker for Noam Chomsky for a long time. Thought he was brilliant and that everybody else was just wrong. No more. When I did some research on Chomsky I realized that yes, he is brilliant, but is dismissive of anybody whose views contradict his.
Michael's quote above is good, but Chomsky doesn't think it applies to him. For example...
Chomsky thinks JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald all by himself and anyone who raises the "more than one gunman" theory is wasting his time.
Even though Condoleezza Rice admitted prior knowldge about 911, Chomsky refuses to believe, or even acknowledge, it. He insists it's all fabrication.
He says the Council on Foreign Relations is a "nothing" organization.
He has nothing to say about the Federal Reserve.
There is more, but it may be enough. Doing a little research on this Professor of linguistics (of which he is a master) will reveal that his true calling is disinformation passed off as scholarship, and putting forth a one world government agenda.
Nice analysis...
of his contradictions. Are not his views impotent without him comprehending that the root of the oligarchy is central banking? I think so.
Also check out this solid analysis of his absurd position on 9/11--the delusion of his views shocked me: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10995
Chomsky and the big picture
I've also read allot of Chomsky and while he is very opinionated in his beliefs he also is looking at a much bigger picture then just the US. He see's these events like 9/11 and CFR as just a small part of a much bigger picture using history as a reference. I agree, CFR is who represents the US in the globalazation but not the only group with something at stake. So his take is right, I do believe but again he is talking globally using history as the guide.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent" -- Thomas Jefferson -
Huh?
.
When Chomsky says the CFR is a "nothing" organization, he is saying that it is not a part of any picture, big or small. To Noam, it's a non-starter.
You are correct when you say it's not the only group with something at stake. Long before the CFR was started (around 1919 or 1921, depending on who you read) there were--and still are--other, major, sinister elitist organizations. Primary among these are The Tavistock Institute, The Royal Institute for International Affairs, the Aspen Institute and the international banking cartel. Of the bankers, the Rothschilds have been the most powerful, though there are families in Venice (Ducati is one) that have astonishing wealth and power and influence.
If you have a minute, go to YouTube and search for The Truth John Coleman. There is a 10-part video series and this guy just lays it out in a way that Chomsky could only dream of doing. To quote Hyman Roth (from the Godfather) Chomsky is "small potatoes."