Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Truth Alone Will Not Set You Free
The ability of the corporate state to pacify the country by extending credit and providing cheap manufactured goods to the masses is gone. The pernicious idea that democracy lies in the choice between competing brands and the freedom to accumulate vast sums of personal wealth at the expense of others has collapsed. The conflation of freedom with the free market has been exposed as a sham. The travails of the poor are rapidly becoming the travails of the middle class, especially as unemployment insurance runs out and people get a taste of Bill Clinton's draconian welfare reform. And class warfare, once buried under the happy illusion that we were all going to enter an age of prosperity with unfettered capitalism, is returning with a vengeance.
Our economic crisis-despite the corporate media circus around the death of Michael Jackson or Gov. Mark Sanford's marital infidelity or the outfits of Sacha Baron Cohen's latest incarnation, Brüno-barrels forward. And this crisis will lead to a period of profound political turmoil and change. Those who care about the plight of the working class and the poor must begin to mobilize quickly or we will lose our last opportunity to save our embattled democracy. The most important struggle will be to wrest the organs of communication from corporations that use mass media to demonize movements of social change and empower proto-fascist movements such as the Christian right.
American culture-or cultures, for we once had distinct regional cultures-was systematically destroyed in the 20th century by corporations. These corporations used mass communication, as well as an understanding of the human subconscious, to turn consumption into an inner compulsion. Old values of thrift, regional identity that had its own iconography, aesthetic expression and history, diverse immigrant traditions, self-sufficiency, a press that was decentralized to provide citizens with a voice in their communities were all destroyed to create mass, corporate culture. New desires and habits were implanted by corporate advertisers to replace the old. Individual frustrations and discontents could be solved, corporate culture assured us, through the wonders of consumerism and cultural homogenization. American culture, or cultures, was replaced with junk culture and junk politics. And now, standing on the ash heap, we survey the ruins. The very slogans of advertising and mass culture have become the idiom of common expression, robbing us of the language to make sense of the destruction. We confuse the manufactured commodity culture with American culture.
How do we recover what was lost? How do we reclaim the culture that was destroyed by corporations? How do we fight back now that the consumer culture has fallen into a state of decay? What can we do to reverse the cannibalization of government and the national economy by the corporations?
All periods of profound change occur in a crisis. It was a crisis that brought us the New Deal, now largely dismantled by the corporate state. It was also a crisis that gave the world Adolf Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic. We can go in either direction. Events move at the speed of light when societies and cultural assumptions break down. There are powerful forces, which have no commitment to the open society, ready to seize the moment to snuff out the last vestiges of democratic egalitarianism. Our bankrupt liberalism, which naively believes that Barack Obama is the antidote to our permanent war economy and Wall Street fraud, will either rise from its coma or be rolled over by an organized corporate elite and their right-wing lap dogs. The corporate domination of the airwaves, of most print publications and an increasing number of Internet sites means we will have to search, and search quickly, for alternative forms of communication to thwart the rise of totalitarian capitalism.
Stuart Ewen, whose books "Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture" and "PR: A Social History of Spin" chronicle how corporate propaganda deformed American culture and pushed populism to the margins of American society, argues that we have a fleeting chance to save the country. I fervently hope he is right. He attacks the ideology of "objectivity and balance" that has corrupted news, saying that it falsely evokes the scales of justice. He describes the curriculum at most journalism schools as "poison."
" ‘Balance and objectivity' creates an idea where both sides are balanced," he said when I spoke to him by phone. "In certain ways it mirrors the two-party system, the notion that if you are going to have a Democrat speak you need to have a Republican speak. It offers the phantom of objectivity. It creates the notion that the universe of discourse is limited to two positions. Issues become black or white. They are not seen as complex with a multitude of factors."
Ewen argues that the forces for social change-look at any lengthy and turgid human rights report-have forgotten that rhetoric is as important as fact. Corporate and government propaganda, aimed to sway emotions, rarely uses facts to sell its positions. And because progressives have lost the gift of rhetoric, which was once a staple of a university education, because they naively believe in the Enlightenment ideal that facts alone can move people toward justice, they are largely helpless.
"Effective communication requires not simply an understanding of the facts, but how those facts will take place in the public mind," Ewen said. "When Gustave Le Bon says it is not the facts in and of themselves which make a point but the way in which the facts take place, the way in which they come to attention, he is right."
The emergence of corporate and government public relations, which drew on the studies of mass psychology by Sigmund Freud and others after World War I, found its bible in Walter Lippmann's book "Public Opinion," a manual for the power elite's shaping of popular sentiments. Lippmann argued that the key to leadership in the modern age would depend on the ability to manipulate "symbols which assemble emotions after they have been detached from their ideas." The public mind could be mastered, he wrote, through an "intensification of feeling and a degradation of significance."
These corporate forces, schooled by Woodrow Wilson's vast Committee for Public Information, which sold World War I to the public, learned how to skillfully mobilize and manipulate the emotional responses of the public. The control of the airwaves and domination through corporate advertising of most publications restricted news to reporting facts, to "objectivity and balance," while the real power to persuade and dominate a public remained under corporate and governmental control.
Ewen argues that pamphleteering, which played a major role in the 17th and 18th centuries in shaping the public mind, recognized that "the human mind is not left brain or right brain, that it is not divided by reason which is good and emotion which is bad."
He argues that the forces of social reform, those organs that support a search for truth and self-criticism, have mistakenly shunned emotion and rhetoric because they have been used so powerfully within modern society to disseminate lies and manipulate public opinion. But this refusal to appeal to emotion means "we gave up the ghost and accepted the idea that human beings are these divided selves, binary systems between emotion and reason, and that emotion gets you into trouble and reason is what leads you forward. This is not true."
The public is bombarded with carefully crafted images meant to confuse propaganda with ideology and knowledge with how we feel. Human rights and labor groups, investigative journalists, consumer watchdog organizations and advocacy agencies have, in the face of this manipulation, inundated the public sphere with reports and facts. But facts alone, Ewen says, make little difference. And as we search for alternative ways to communicate in a time of crisis we must also communicate in new forms. We must appeal to emotion as well as to reason. The power of this appeal to emotion is evidenced in the photographs of Jacob Riis, a New York journalist, who with a team of assistants at the end of the 19th century initiated urban-reform photography. His stark portraits of the filth and squalor of urban slums awakened the conscience of a nation. The photographer Lewis Hine, at the turn of the 20th century, and Walker Evans during the Great Depression did the same thing for the working class, along with writers such as Upton Sinclair and James Agee. It is a recovery of this style, one that turns the abstraction of fact into a human flesh and one that is not afraid of emotion and passion, which will permit us to counter the force of corporate propaganda.
We may know that fossil fuels are destroying our ecosystem. We may be able to cite the statistics. But the oil and natural gas industry continues its flagrant rape of the planet. It is able to do this because of the money it uses to control legislation and a massive advertising campaign that paints the oil and natural gas industry as part of the solution. A group called EnergyTomorrow.org, for example, has been running a series of television ads. One ad features an attractive, middle-aged woman in a black pantsuit-an actor named Brooke Alexander who once worked as the host of "WorldBeat" on CNN and for Fox News. Alexander walks around a blue screen studio that becomes digital renditions of American life. She argues, before each image, that oil and natural gas are critical to providing not only energy needs but health care and jobs.
"It is almost like they are taking the most optimistic visions of what the stimulus package could do and saying this is what the development of oil and natural gas will bring about," Ewen said. "If you go to the Web site there is a lot of sophisticated stuff you can play around with. As each ad closes you see in the lower right-hand corner in very small letters API, the American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying group for ExxonMobil and all the other big oil companies. For the average viewer there is nothing in the ad to indicate this is being produced by the oil industry."
The modern world, as Kafka predicted, has become a world where the irrational has become rational, where lies become true. And facts alone will be powerless to thwart the mendacity spun out through billions of dollars in corporate advertising, lobbying and control of traditional sources of information. We will have to descend into the world of the forgotten, to write, photograph, paint, sing, act, blog, video and film with anger and honesty that have been blunted by the parameters of traditional journalism. The lines between artists, social activists and journalists have to be erased. These lines diminish the power of reform, justice and an understanding of the truth. And it is for this purpose that these lines are there.
"As a writer part of what you are aiming for is to present things in ways that will resonate with people, which will give voice to feelings and concerns, feelings that may not be fully verbalized," Ewen said. "You can't do that simply by providing them with data. One of the major problems of the present is that those structures designed to promote a progressive agenda are antediluvian."
Corporate ideology, embodied in neoconservatism, has seeped into the attitudes of most self-described liberals. It champions unfettered capitalism and globalization as eternal. This is the classic tactic that power elites use to maintain themselves. The loss of historical memory, which "balanced and objective" journalism promotes, has only contributed to this fantasy. But the fantasy, despite the desperate raiding of taxpayer funds to keep the corporate system alive, is now coming undone. The lie is being exposed. And the corporate state is running scared.
"It is very important for people like us to think about ways to present the issues, whether we are talking about the banking crisis, health care or housing and homelessness," Ewen said. "We have to think about presenting these issues in ways that are two steps ahead of the media rather than two steps behind. That is not something we should view as an impossible task. It is a very possible task. There is evidence of how possible that task is, especially if you look at the development of the underground press in the 1960s. The underground press, which started cropping up all over the country, was not a marginal phenomenon. It leeched into the society. It developed an approach to news and communication that was 10 steps ahead of the mainstream media. The proof is that even as it declined, so many structures that were innovated by the underground press, things like The Whole Earth Catalogue, began to affect and inform the stylistic presentation of mainstream media."
"I am not a prophet," Ewen said. "All I can do is look at historical precedence and figure out the extent we can learn from it. This is not about looking backwards. If you can't see the past you can't see the future. If you can't see the relationship between the present and the past you can't understand where the present might go. Who controls the past controls the present, who controls the present controls the future, as George Orwell said. This is a succinct explanation of the ways in which power functions."
"Read ‘The Gettysburg Address,' " Ewen said. "Read Frederick Douglass' autobiography or his newspaper. Read ‘The Communist Manifesto.' Read Darwin's ‘Descent of Man.' All of these things are filled with an understanding that communicating ideas and producing forms of public communication that empower people, rather than disempowering people, relies on an integrated understanding of who the public is and what it might be. We have a lot to learn from the history of rhetoric. We need to think about where we are going. We need to think about what 21st century pamphleteering might be. We need to think about the ways in which the rediscovery of rhetoric-not lying, but rhetoric in its more conventional sense-can affect what we do. We need to look at those historical antecedents where interventions happened that stepped ahead of the news. And to some extent this is happening. We have the freest and most open public sphere since the village square."
The battle ahead will be fought outside the journalistic mainstream, he said. The old forms of journalism are dying or have sold their soul to corporate manipulation and celebrity culture. We must now wed fact to rhetoric. We must appeal to reason and emotion. We must not be afraid to openly take sides, to speak, photograph or write on behalf of the disempowered. And, Ewen believes, we have a chance in the coming crisis to succeed.
"Pessimism is never useful," he said. "Realism is useful, understanding the forces that are at play. To quote Antonio Gramsci, ‘pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.' "
- Posted in




171 Comments so far
Show AllIt is getting so that Chris is the only Cat worth reading on this site anymore with most of the other 'so called' progressives married to corporate nexus power.
Nicely stated:
"Corporate ideology, embodied in neoconservatism, has seeped into the attitudes of most self-described liberals. It champions unfettered capitalism and globalization as eternal. This is the classic tactic that power elites use to maintain themselves. The loss of historical memory, which "balanced and objective" journalism promotes, has only contributed to this fantasy. But the fantasy, despite the desperate raiding of taxpayer funds to keep the corporate system alive, is now coming undone. The lie is being exposed. And the corporate state is running scared."
As to the last sentence, we can only help to push it off the edge, where it can hit free fall to its finally resting place, forever!
Actually, the par. you quoted above is the one that needs a corection in this otherwise fine article. It is NEOLIBERALISM, not "neoconservatism" (a pecular USAn phenomenon), that corporations embody, and which champions capitalism and globalization as eternal. Hedges article was about the importance of effective rehetoric. We USAns need to start by getting out of our insularity and speak the language of resistance used in the rest of the world.
We can start by teaching rhetoric - the purposeful use of language - to our children.
If you study the history of education back to the ancient Greeks, you'll see that rhetoric was considered to be the most important of all subjects.
q
Jeevee
Rhetoric that sticks to Truth? and to minimal use of words?
I admire the work of Chris Hedges.
But I just do not believe that all those myths he mentions in the first few sentences have suddenly disappeared for the great majority of Americans.
As for cultural destruction for the benefit of a very small number at the expensive of an entire civilization, I watched that happen in less than twenty years in China.
...
Like many Americans I spent a moment this weekend contemplating the death of a 50 year old American Icon, who we saw on t.v. on almost a continuous basis, with his distinct look and sound, which he used to sell billions of dollars.
I'm not speaking of Michael Jackson, the King of Pop.
I'm speaking of Billy Mays, infomercial deity, the King of Kaboom.
Billy was THE top pitchman, he could sell ANYTHING.
Whether you needed it or not, when Billy started his mesmerizing oration you were buying.
Then I started thinking. Billy Mays and Barack Obama have almost the same job.
It's true.
Obama's job is to sell us wars, bank bailouts and health insurance policies which we need even less than three industrial-sized tubs of oxy-clean.
But that's precisely why Barack was hired by the producers of these products...He has the gift of gab, a silver tongue.
He could close the sale.
Could McCain or Hillary have sold you a $12 trillion bank bailout amid a depression? You've gotta be kidding.
God bless Billy Mays...He would've made a helluva President. May he rest in peace.
And thank you for always offering a money-back guarantee. You were a man of integrity!
Sioux
CYGNUS: Interesting satire from an interesting mind. Thank you for posting it. (I didn't know he passed over.)
Thanks. It's odd because I had been thinking about writing a post comparing Obama to Billy Mays for a couple weeks.
Sioux Rose
CYGNUS: I call that expression of congruence a "shell route collision" (based on the routes electrons travel while orbiting the atom's nucleus). I had one, too. I was considering finishing my dental work in Hondurus, and boom! A coup. One wonders with so much spinning out of control in the politics of our world, a politics of spiritual dementia, if the center will continue to hold. So much is coming apart, held up by smoke, mirrors, and a media that has lots of Barnums yelling into endless electronic microphones.
S I O U X,
The insight of quantum mechanics no longer deals with as you say " the routes electrons travel while orbiting the atom's nucleus ", as it's all about mixed probabilities of finding them ( if one does look, the math collapses to real data ).
There is more to learn, when we no longer discuss those classical conventionally visualized circular orbits -- as nature's secrets provides us now with more inspiring lessons of being.
Modern Physical Chemistry does continue to profitably use the shape of probabilistic electron orbitals ( s d f p ), to explain the bonding properties ( valence electronegativity ) of atoms and molecule. These spherical ( s ) and various degrees of symmetrical lobes get much more complicated for elements with more protons / electrons.
What you mention about spinning routes of electron orbits is based on the initial ( much earlier ) Niles Bohr model of the atom ( e.g. Hydrogen's proton being swept around by an electron ), which still maintains usefulness to conceptualize and simplify the vastly more complex quantum states and Pauli exclusionary rules.
I absolutely love the FRITJOF CAPRA Movie _ " M i n d w a l k " _
( http://www.amazon.com/Mindwalk-VHS-Liv-Ullmann/dp/6302670306 ),
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindwalk )
"In this widely acclaimed film, set on the impressive island-abbey of Mont Saint Michel in France, Liv Ullmann, Sam Waterston, and John Heard portray very dissimilar vacationers caught up in a spontaneous and life-affirming sweep of self-expression and new ideas."
MIndwalk delves into the philosophic and physical basis of perception and our world -- and highly regard it for all who wish to experience the taste of the physics of how my own body's electron orbitals at this very minute are probabilistically distributed throughout existence -- some of which are "sharing" electron orbitals of each person reading this !
Also, do you remember the "Tao of Physics " ?
( http://www.fritjofcapra.net/mindwalk.html )
The transcendent and mutual existence of our sharing of electrons between physical entities, like ourselves, is a wonderful counter point to those that superficially collapse existence into only that which science could understand or measure -- perhaps a century ago.
This movie is a grand and powerfully evocative discourse into 'what is truth', and everyone has much to gain my watching it.
N.
Sioux Rose
TAT: Hmm. Maybe I need a new metaphor! Very interesting deconstruction, or should I say higher wave elaboration? The film sounds like one I would like. I love Liv Ullman, read her autobiography, and tend to prefer foreign films over most of what American studios (hing: bang! bang!) produce.
I am making this short as I am still trying to catch up with yesterday's threads. So many comments! It almost feels like a task alloted to Sisyphus!
From the article:
Lippmann argued that the key to leadership in the modern age would depend on the ability to manipulate "symbols which assemble emotions after they have been detached from their ideas." The public mind could be mastered, he wrote, through an "intensification of feeling and a degradation of significance."
And to me the most obvious instance of this is found in innumerable efforts of the corporatists to make in the public mind the connection "Corporatism = Freedom." For the people to live, maybe that old term "Freedom" must die. It has been too corrupted and twisted to serve any positive purpose.
The left and guys like Chris have to learn how to say these things in 2 paragraphs or less. The rest of us are to busy trying to find enough to eat to have much time top read das Capital or the Comm. manifesto or their windy prose. Sorry, Chris but brevity is a virture.
One never gives up the quest for furthering one's intelligence, knowledge, and ability to communicate. Brevity is NOT a virtue. It is an excuse. Corporate "America" has orchestrated a culture of intellectual laziness. You go Chris Hedges. Reading Hedges mercifully supercedes the elementary school 5th grade reading level of most newspapers and the 8th grade reading level of the NY Times. How can anyone say "these things in 2 paragraphs or less"? They cannot.
As for time to read "Das Kapital" or the "Communist Manifesto", or whatever, it's very simple, and easy. Buy a book, perhaps, a Chris Hedges book. Get a string. Open the book at the middle. Tie a string around the middle and around the binding of the book with a loop. Hang it up at the front of your throne (commode). Every time you sit down, parallel process by reading a few pages. You'll be surprised how quickly you read that book and become exposed to new perspectives and ideas. You just might make the back of your thighs numb (falling asleep) while awakening the mind. Do this for a while and reading Hedges becomes routine and simple.
Maybe, u have enough time to read these long winding articles friend. So, how about u read them all and then give us the 2 paragraph summary. Brevity is indeed a virtue when it comes to writing. Why? Because other wise u lose about 90% of your readers.
Couldn't agree more. Part and parcel of making an emotional impact is making it TO THE POINT.
I would suggest that if Hedges loses readers because of the length of his articles then the readers don't merit Hedges' insight. I'd also suggest that Hedges does quite well financially with the support of his readers which indicates that his audience is well-versed in the art of reading. Like I wrote above, each of us has about the same TIME to sit on the commode. Each of us can be reading while we are otherwise busy. READ as if your life depends upon it, because, it does. I'm not about to summarize Hedgres', nor anyone else's articles for anyone. And oh, instead of criticizing Hedges for the length of his articles, and his English language skills, and blogging about him, you could be READING him.
You're confusing your audiences. Hedges makes great points, and an article such as this one with so much punch is ok for the CD audience. But the larger point is that the same exact point would be entirely missed on mainstream readers in its current "long" form. And that is actually Hedges point...writers like himself, and other thought leaders on the left need to pack more punch into their writings for the mainstream. That means more appeals to emotion and much less actual verbiage.
Sioux Rose
JOZEF: I agree about the quality of Hedges' writing. Notice that every time CD posts one of his deeply nuanced articles, usually over 100 comments follow. Apart from Nader, I have seldom witnessed this same "reliable track record" with respect to other columnists published/posted on C.D.
if you have time to read on the pan you're taking too long and should perhaps consider changing your diet.
Hedges is an intelligent writer, if you want short, concise raw visceral emotional rant you can just read some of the comments (although some are very long). No matter how brilliant, nitpickers will find something marginal to criticize; Hedges is one of the very best in his field, period, full stop.
Think it is too long?; why don't you provide a one paragraph synopsis, instead of whine about how long it is and too many big words.
This article is one of the best I have seeen posted on CD in days, much better than the usual narrow-minded partisan re-hash of old news and apologists for reactionary Democratic party policies.
I couldn't agree more - Hedges is great, especially his book American Fascists. My frustration is that he'll never make it out of CD-type/Truthdig type venues unless he takes his own advice and makes his online writing much more concise.
Don't worry. You'll have plenty of time to educate yourself after you have no job or house to try and save. Could be you will wish you had spent less time on the couch with the remote in your hand, and spent more time R E A D I N G. I realize that most folks are so busy trying to stay afloat that they (think they) don't have the time to do the research required to be active citizens, but that's been the game all along. If you don't stop, decide, and act to retake your own mind then you have willingly become a casualty of war. Twenty years ago I made the choice to educate myself, and stop playing that game. I knew that, if I wanted to be truly free, I would have to spend at least as much time working for myself on a daily basis as I spent working for someone else. That meant WORK. It meant EFFORT. It meant going without sleep for long periods - days on end. It meant my family would have to go without that new iPod or a new car. It meant that I would have more to give them than material objects. It meant that I could actually teach my children the sort of American History that is hidden by the public school systems. It meant I could teach them creative skills that most people don't even realize they are capable of. It meant being able to show them that they are capable of far more effort and creativity than most Americans believe. Keep hanging on to the current system and you'll wake up broke, and with your hands empty.
kogwonton,
I was wondering if you get the same sorts of social feedback from superficial social acquaintances that our family does? Do they wonder at your ability to be relatively debt free, the high quality of your relationship with your children, the confidence and accomplishment and enthusiasm your children exhibit compared to peers? How about your family members' abilities to self-express self-interest while upholding the other's right to self-express self-interest in a manner that is respectful to all parties concerned?
You're right, it is a lot of hard work but when I think of the bond of my family, the times I found out people knew who we were, when I didn't know them, because they told us they observed and admired us in the community in action, I realize it's worth it. Sometimes we've paid materially and in a "social status" way ( especially the children at school) for trying to hold on to our integrity and wondered,"Is it really worth it?" during struggle times. But of course, then we answer our question with "would it matter?" I agree, reading,comprehension, reasoning and self-monitoring to make sure we're being the people we'd like our children to turn out to be, are crucial to good outcomes for the family in the times to come.
Seaglass,
You seen to be suffering from a sort of disorder that seems to be a product of television and the internet - a tendency for the eyes to glaze over if one must read read more than two paragraphs at once.
Sorry, but to properly elucudate any idea that has value at all requires more than a couple paragraphs. Any idea that can be elicidated in two paragraphs is probably dangerously simple-minded.
Mr. Hedges brief essay above is already a consise summary about a topic that really requires a book. I suggest you force youself to read it.
And on my job as an engineer, I must read and understand, end-to end, long technical papers, or someone might get killed by the coal waste dams whose designs I review every day. So I really have no patience with this "it-makes-my-brain-hurt" argument for sheer laziness.
Seaglass,
I was going to post a similar comment to PJD's on your behalf. It's OK if you need to pause to digest the information-dense presentations Chris Hedges writes. I do.Sometimes, it takes several times through to grasp the significance of his material. I also make sure I discuss it with others, either here in the posts or with neighbors. This serves two purposes. One, I gain deeper insight with the give and take of comments about the pieces here on CD. My own thinking becomes clarified by others' filters frequently. Two, in teaching/sharing with others, one re-learns and reinforces values of engagement, solidarity and concern.
Jeevee
CHEERS
Apparently no one here knows much about Marx.
Das Kapital is a thick and ponderous read, but the Communist Manifesto is just a little pamphlet-sized piece, takes no more than a half-hour to read, and is a very easy and capivating to read.
Yeah, brevity is important.
But Hedges has provided some gems of essential truth. Don't be lazy, understand what he is saying. It too is important.
Well said, phasor.
Boy do I ever agree with you on that point. I have 7 or 8 websites that I read on a daily basis. These sites each can have a dozen or so articles, so there is a lot to read everyday . I have to be honest with everyone when I see an article this long that isn't written by someone like Chris there is a goo chance I will skip it. And I'm sure I am not alone.
In my opinion people who keep their writings crisp and concise will reach a much larger audience.
Even if they are lengthy, Hedge's articles have quality; they say a lot. That makes them interesting. Some people do meander on without saying much. So far, not Hedges.
As for time constraints, I'd rather read one article by Chris Hedges than a whole bunch by a lot of other people. That's a matter of prioritizing.
From the article:
The most important struggle will be to wrest the organs of communication from corporations that use mass media to demonize movements of social change and empower proto-fascist movements such as the Christian right.
I certainly hope that Hedges is not insinuating that the corporatists would have difficulty co-opting other social movements as well as they have co-opted the fundamentalist Christian movement. Most people are not that well-informed about political and economic matters, regardless of what social movements they support, and so virtually any social movement can be co-opted by the corporatists, with the exception of those few that are 180 degrees opposed to corporatism, such as socialist and communist movements. Just as a good sailor can make some use of almost any wind that is not directly opposed to the desired direction of the vessel, the clever corporatist can make use of any movement that is not directly opposed to corporatism.
"who controls the past controls the present, who controls the present controls the future. This is the succinct way in which power functions."
If the corporate media can present to the public a history that only benefits the elite then the elite causes the left to argue issues starting from a point that is opposite of what the public has been "taught". The public does not have another view of history because it is not in the interest of those in power.
As for combining intellect and emotion (which we should start doing) go to www.cognitivepolicyworks.com which will explain how the conservatives have used emotion to win elections even in the face of massive amounts of "facts" that have been given to the voting public.
I believe the Orwell quote, if that's what you're referencing, is: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
If you're not referencing the Orwell quote...then nevermind. (with apologies to ms. Latella.)
Tirebiter, I'm almost certain, has the Orwell 1984 quotation correct.
Words do matter. I'm surprized a writer as thoughtful as Chris Hedges, especially while extolling the virtues of powerful rhetoric, would have butchered his primary source material. But what you see is what you get.
Weird, isn't it, that 1984 itself was actually a quarter century ago, and 2001: A Space Odessey remains a long way off into the future?
Bill from Saginaw
Yes, Hedges does seem to misquote Orwell - and misses the most important point - that the past is something that is always constructed in the present.
Yes, Hedges does seem to misquote Orwell - and misses the most important point - that the past is something that is always constructed in the present.
Hedges was quoting Ewan who was misquoting Orwell.
Tirebiter, I believe you're right. I was using Hedges version. Actually I prefer Orwell's quote which causes a person to think about what he means which is why I gave my two cents worth on what the quote(s) meant to me. Thank you for noticing and bringing to us the correct quote.
Regardless of the exact quote, wouldn't it be great if we could somehow give high school American history classes the full range of interpretations from far right to far left and let the students debate and infer for themselves? He who controls the past...
Sioux Rose
AREMAGEN: I think your point is particularly significant. A few years ago a well-known astrologer, Buzz Meyers, spoke of a "new kind of air pollution" before his untimely death. He was referencing the likely impacts of the deception planet, Neptune, moving through Aquarius, the highest of the Zodiac's 3 air signs, and the one designated as the Zenith of Truth. What's become clear to me is that it is TRUTH that has become polluted through so much disinformation spewed through all sorts of air-transmitted communication venues. And as you noted, the average mind skin deep in it all is becoming not only clueless, but UNABLE to discern the genuine from the sea of counterfeits. Neither Bernays nor Orwell would have ever imagined such a tainted and pervasive atmosphere.
Gosh, I sure wish I could explain my thoughts as well as you do. Thanks for the lesson Captain Comet. See you next time you fly by the planet.
Sioux Rose
Hey, Captain Comet has a ring to it. Is that a character out of a comic series or your own original take? I like it. Gracias. I've certainly been called much worse!
aremagen,
Thanks for the Cognitivepolicyworks site.
I think our postings are a good way to hone our cognitive writing skills and why so many times the comments are more concise with facts and feeling than the articles.
I like to condense the "who controls the past , present and future" quote. It makes since in any order so I boil it down to
Now is Everywhere.
Good article too.
Though few know his name and work, Edward Bernays, founding father of modern public relations/professional lying, is someone who played a central role in shaping the (dis)information systems now used to manipulate the minds and emotions and decisions of us all, worldwide. Bernays was a cousin of Sigmund Freud and wrote three seminal books, Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Propaganda (1928) and The Engineering of Consent (1947). The Nazi propaganda masters were avid students of Bernays ideas as are the advertising and PR practioners today, though they often shy away from Bernays open language. Bernays wrote that "The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process." and of what he called the "necessary manipulation of the mass public mind." Today governments and corporations spend tens of billions annually innundating the human social environment with their spin, images, and propaganda. And the advertising industry boasts that the average USer is "impacted" (their term) by near 1,000 "messages" a day via TV/radio, internet, billboards, print and even the signs above or in men's urinals. That doesn't include all the corporate and government PR spin spewed out as "news". Stuart Ewan met and interviewed Bernays as he neared age 100, still sharp of mind. Bernays dictum was that the really professional PR person worked as an unseen hand and was never publically visible, pointing out that he himself had had no direct contact with mass media via interview in 50 years. To understand the ocean of spin, lies, and deceptions and the central ideas of mind manipulation which lie at its center, it is good to read Bernays short books as well as the works of Stuart Ewan which Hedges cites. George Orwell too saw the nightmare end result of total propaganda systems and the deliberate destruction of meaning in words and language in his images of Big Brother and 1984. To sustain some degree of social/political sanity and balance in the sea of spun information/propaganda we all need to keep our BS detectors on total alert.
Bernays was Freud's nephew. As Bernays' theories have more staying power, I would not be surprised if the sum total of his effect, indirect as well as direct, on human events surpasses that of his more famous uncle, if it has not already.
I've been seduced and manipulated into buying lots of crap, perhaps it's because I have a weak mind, but I like to think that is not the case. I was once tag-teamed at a time-share sales event and barely got out with my money. The tricky psychology used on me was a sight to behold and I truly liked the two salespeople who worked me over ever so nicely. Oh say can you see by the dawn's early light, freedom, righteousness and the almighty dollar, together giving us Heaven on Earth and just as Jesus Christ himself anointed the moneychangers, we too shall live forever in that warm, basking light of malls without end, amen, amen.
These corporate forces, schooled by Woodrow Wilson's vast Committee for Public Information, which sold World War I to the public, learned how to skillfully mobilize and manipulate the emotional responses of the public.
Thank you again for another wonderful article and for reminding us that the last snot-nosed, punk president before George Wanker Bush was Woodrow Wilson (whom Obysmal is resembling more and more by the day).