*edit, October 7, 2018 – I added a link to a later post I wrote called “Thinking About Thinking.” It can be found at the bottom of this post. “Thinking About Thinking” is about counterrevolution, which is something that this post looks at.
“Keep your senses, be watchful! Your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone.” – 1 Peter 5:8
*edit, November 13, 2017 – I’m going to tack on to this post a quote from Chomsky’s essay, which is to be found in his book titled “Masters Of Mankind – essays and lectures, 1969-2013.” There’s a link to part of that essay – in which Barrington Moore is quoted – in my quoted online response below. But with the addition of a few more words, the reference is probably clearer. The predominant voice of America, the collective false prophet of the Bible book of Revelation (Revelation 13:11-18;19:20), is hostile and terrifying. It’s anti-God and anti-life. It’s anti-light.
An excerpt from the above linked-to (CounterPunch via Axis Of Logic) article by Mike Whitney follows:
==== == =
The editors at the Wall Street Journal have settled on a plan for ending the crisis in North Korea. Starve them to death.
I’m not kidding. In an article titled “Options for Removing Kim Jong In [sic]” the WSJ’s editorial board suggests that the US use “all of its tools to topple the North Korean regime” including, of course, vital food imports which keep women and children from facing an agonizing death by starvation.
= == ====
An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
If a social debate is based on fuzzy ideas accumulated from something read somewhere, sometime, an academically published view is the antithesis of it, based on rigorous research, citations and knowledge. Before being published, it is peer-reviewed, or tested for accuracy and integrity by someone with subject matter expertise.
This process is at the heart of a controversy roiling the academic community after the Third World Quarterly, a reputable British journal on global politics, published a piece earlier this month titled “The case for colonialism” by Bruce Gilley, a Princeton University Ph.D and Portland State University professor…
In his article, Gilley says colonialism has been unjustly vilified, that it was legitimate and its “civilizing mission” was in fact beneficial. He also writes that it is time to re-colonize parts of the world and create “new Western colonies from scratch” because developing countries are failing at self-governance and anti-colonial ideology was harmful to native populations.
My online response to the top of post linked-to article follows. I will convert the title of my previous blog post, as well as the title of Chomsky’s quoted article, below, into links for the reader’s convenience:
“How an article defending colonialism was ever published is a mystery roiling academia” by Shree Paradkar:
As with any monstrous commentary, such as that offered by the Wall Street Journal, in which WSJ editors call for starving North Koreans to death, or academics calling for more colonialism, it’s mysterious – to those without a moral foundation. (I’m a Christian and my moral foundation is most definitely fortified by guidance from the Christian Bible, which I don’t claim is perfect.) Those without a moral foundation behold the lawlessness of the world’s political and other leaders, noting that those leaders are smart, educated, know a thing or two and know right from wrong and yet still choose to be evil often enough and they conclude, logically, that good must sometimes be bad. As Jesus Christ said, “If the light that is in you is in reality darkness, then how great that darkness is.” (Those who know better, who choose to sin, are reprehensible, which means deserving of greater opprobrium than ignorant sinners, or lawbreakers if the word ‘sin’ troubles you.)
The above logic must be understood as being relative to the individual’s inferior ethical stance. To those who are sane, who have not self-modifed (which we are free to do but not without consequences, which, note, include eventual utter stupidity and perverseness) into believers in violence, deceit and inequality, there is nothing logical or right or decent about calling for the starvation (collective punishment) of North Koreans for not thinking the way they want them to. There is nothing logical or decent about academics who write papers defending colonialism and calling for more of it.
I’m reminded of a writer who Noam Chomsky talks about, named Barrington Moore. Moore talks about the “predominant voice of America at home and abroad,” which is violent. It’s the voice of the mob boss who instructs his underlings to make a deal with those who he is targetting that they can’t refuse.
“A Genuine Movement for Social Change” by Noam Chomsky:
The Toronto Star is a fake friend of the people and not in the least bit progressive, for which reason Shree Paradkar’s smear of those who have not succumbed to the establishment’s Big Pharma propaganda campaign to make informed consent a sin is unsurprising.
See my previous blog post titled “Destroying Consent.”
Enter “Toronto Star” into the search field of my blog and you will get a number of returns that are posts dealing with the perfidy of the Toronto Star. Here’s one example:
From chapter 1, “Knowledge and Power: Intellectuals and the Welfare-Warfare State,” of Noam Chomsky’s “Masters Of Mankind,” the following:
“War is the health of the State,” wrote Randolph Bourne in a classic essay as America entered the First World War…
Bourne emphasizes the ideological consequences of national mobilization: the “irresistible forces for uniformity” that induced obedience to the State and subservience to the needs of the “significant classes.” To this we may add the material benefits of mobilization for war, particularly evident in World War II and the Cold War as government intervention in the economy brought the depression to a close and guaranteed the “healthy functioning” of an economy geared, quite extensively, to the social goals of destruction and waste…
The role of the technical intelligentsia in decision-making is predominant in those parts of the economy that are “in the service of the war technique” (or such substitutes as the space race) and that are closely linked to government, which underwrites their security and growth. It is little wonder, then, that the technical intelligentsia is, typically, committed to what Barrington Moore calls “the predatory solution of token reform at home and counterrevolutionary imperialism abroad.” Elsewhere, Moore offers the following summary of the “predominant voice of America at home and abroad” – and ideology that expresses the needs of the American socioeconomic elite, that is propounded with various gradations of subtelty by many American intellectuals, and that gains substantial adherence on the part of the majority that has obtained “some share in affluent society”:
You may protest in words as much as you like. There is but one condition attached to the freedom we would very much like to encourage: your protests may be as loud as possible as long as they remain ineffective. Though we regret your sufferings very much and would like to do something about them – indeed we have studied them very carefully and have already spoken to your rulers and immediate superiors about these matters – any attempt by you to remove your oppressors by force is a threat to civilized society and the democratic process. Such threats we cannot and shall not tolerate. As you resort to force, we will, if need be, wipe you from the face of the earth by the measured response that rains down flame from the skies.
A society in which this is the predominant voice can be maintained only through some form of national mobilization, which may range in its extent from, at the minimum, a commitment of substantial resources to a credible threat of force and violence. Given the realities of international politics, this commitment can be maintained in the United States only by a form of national psychosis of the sort given voice, for example, by the present secretary of defense, who sees us “locked in a real war, joined in mortal combat on the battlefield, each contender maneuvering for advantage” – a war against an enemy who appears in many guises: Kremlin bureaucrat, Asian peasant, Latin American student, and, no doubt, “urban guerilla” at home. Far saner voices can be heard expressing a perception that is not totally dissimilar. Perhaps success can be attained in the national endeavor announced by this predominant voice. In Moore’s informed judgment, the system “has considerable flexibility and room for maneuver, including strategic retreat.” In any event, this much is fairly sure. Success can be achieved only at the cost of severe demoralization, which will make life as meaningless for those who share in the affluent society as it is hopeless for the peasant in Guatemala. Perhaps “war is the health of the state” – but only in the sense in which an economy is “healthy” when a rising GDP includes the cost of napalm and missiles and riot-controlled devices, jails and detention camps, placing a man on the moon, and so on.
What is meant by national mobilization? I think it means everything that is designed to manufacture people’s consent for a 1% agenda. It means propaganda, which includes indoctrination in the captured (technocratic) educational system. It refers to its effectiveness, with citizens so bamboozled that individuals who might be inclined to critical thinking have to be on guard against negative reactions from those around them, including employers, family and friends. The light of the nation is dimmed to almost complete blackness. I call it ruin, which is what the Bible calls it. Others, like Chris Hedges, call it intellectual and moral suicide. And the more it spreads, the harder it gets for light to shine. Try speaking out for human rights in Israel today. I just finished reading John Dinges’s “The Condor Years,” and while I think John Dinges does damage control for the American Empire, the book is not valueless. It struck me how, following the Condor years (’76-’80), when military governments were giving way to civilian governments and civil society pressures caused a cracking in both the Condor network and its individual member states, the amnesty laws that the fascists put in place to protect themselves in case they ever lost control of the countries that they were ruining, were being ignored, circumvented and so forth. It ranged from country to country. Paraguay didn’t have such laws, whereas Uruguay’s amnesty laws protecting fascist killers were solid and impervious to challenge, partly because Uruguayans themselves wanted it that way. If true, then Uruguay would be an example of a ruined – mentally and spiritually – people. Since Dinges wrote his book, the shackles of fascism that looked like they were to be tossed away, have begun to return. Which just goes to show that this human, anti-God system of things, in which imperfect man is God, has to be ended. In this system of things, in which we are imperfect, a leader can be good one day and change his mind the next. In the new world to come, we will still possess that free moral agency – God doesn’t want robots as worshippers – but the difference is that then, the individual who self-modifies, jettisoning his godly qualities (love of justice, truth, compassion) for an embrace of darkness, summed up as ‘riches for the strongest’, in which inequality, deceit and violence are values, won’t be able to influence the wider society. That system of things will be evil-proof. If it weren’t, then there’d be no God of love, for people would be forever held hostage to imperfect humans who up and decided to self-modify and then terrorize, and ruin, others.
In the above linked-to essay by Noam Chomsky, he talks about technical managers and rulers, coming out of the “technostructure.” He’s merely referring to technocratic society, which John Ralston Saul talks about in “The Unconscious Civilization.” Saul (who I have serious problems with) explains that technocracy, as in technocratic society, has nothing to do with technology (at least directly). The meaning of the root words yields something like: the skill of power. (Picture everyone on the planet stuck in their specialists’ cubicles, controlling the flow of information that goes through them, speaking and writing in jargon that mystifies – and dumbs down society – and economically protects them from the unemployed who might like their credentialled jobs and you get the idea.) Anyway, The way I understand it is that elites are exploitative. And in their bid to keep the world the way that they have fashioned it and to keep their power and privilege within it, they have found ways to manage the people. Notably, the captured educational system serves elite interests. Schools don’t turn out well-rounded citizens who make wise choices at election time (supposing that we didn’t have captured electoral systems and therefore we did have choice in the electoral marketplace) and wise choices that result in pressures to move society in a safe, sane direction. Students are viewed by the 1% and its tools through a utilitarian lens. They are specialized into exactly the kind of people who will operate the machinery of Corporatocracy upon which elite power and privilege depends. Which means that they are specialized into stupidity.