A Model for the Advocacy of Terror

...and the active creation of a double-standard in the public mind...

Hypothesis - The advocacy of terror is actively pursued by the U.S. government and the mass media, though not without being manipulated so that the end product comes out looking very different from the original act.

Analysis - How is this done? It is an active process that underlies the relationship between the official line and the media, wherein a double-standard is created whose divisions justify and simultaneously disguise U.S. actions. The model below describes the process…

Rubric for the creation of a double-standard

scenario?	a ‘terrorist act’	a ‘terrorist act’
instigator?	U.S./U.S. client-state	a perceived ‘enemy’
interpretation?	spreading democracy; pursuing the ‘national interest’	terrorism
typical U.S. media response?	ignore the effects on the local population; highlight those facts that advance the U.S. cause; severity of actions and consequences downplayed; background causes leading up to action covered (only insofar as it creates legitimacy)	press swarms to vilify ‘the enemy’; effects on local population examined in detail; possible causes leading up to ‘terrorist act’ ignored (might implicate the U.S.); severity of action exaggerated
effects?	legitimizes U.S. action; further regimentation of the public mind	justification for retaliation legitimized; further regimentation of the public mind
result?	one side of the double-standard created	the other side of the double-standard created

Implications - Combining the official interpretation with the media response results in the regimentation of the public mind, such that a double-standard is created for what is in fact fundamentally the same thing-an act of terrorism. This might cause us to rethink the idea of the ‘free press’, and instead see it more in terms of its actual function, which is to legitimize the actions of those whose interests it serves. Indeed, it might even cause us to rethink history itself…

~ Suvian Quilmann

~ Vietnam and 'the left' ~

Scenario

   During the Vietnam War, the peace-movement supported the Communists, who were in fact fighting for their own freedom, though of course not on terms acceptable to the U.S. The support provided by ‘the left’ for what they saw as the legitimate pursuit of freedom was used by the mainstream media to two ends: 1) to push ‘the left’ even further to the left on the political spectrum, thereby de-legitimizing them, and 2) to simultaneously make the U.S. ‘cause’ seem all the more just. How did the media do this?

Interpretation

   Answering this question necessarily requires passing judgment on the media itself, what you believe its functions to be, and whose interest you believe it serves, for example. So I’ll start by saying that the Jeffersonian ideal attributed to the press, that of serving as a counterbalance to the government’s actions, ⁽¹⁾ is just that, an ideal. Chomsky has debunked this myth in his classic work, Manufacturing Consent, in which he shows that the media are driven by factors more immediate and pressing than the pursuit of an ideal, namely profit, which has a profound effect on what the media do and how they do it. The media are an all-important part of the process in the regimentation of the public mind, a task that becomes more and more necessary the freer a society becomes.

   In looking at this particular scenario, one interpretation is that by advocating support for the Communists, the media could use this is a way to change the concept of ‘the left’ held in the public mind. Without looking at the realities of U.S. involvement in Vietnam (a topic not readily dealt with in the mainstream media), the average American would likely have trouble understanding why someone would want to support ‘the enemy’. That takes too much effort. Much easier is to jump to the conclusion that those who support the enemy must be unpatriotic, un-American, at which point it becomes an issue of nationalism, that dangerous territory wherein passions flare and reason goes up in smoke. In addition, presenting the situation in such a light serves to further de-legitimize the whole concept held in the public mind of ‘the left’ itself, making it all the easier to dismiss their perspectives as extreme and unworthy of consideration, in effect pushing them over the edge and outside the range of acceptable opinion on the topic.

   At the same time, there is a corollary effect which took place. De-legitimizing the left had the simultaneous effect of legitimizing acceptable opinion on the issue, bringing into sharper focus the idea that the U.S. cause in Vietnam was a just one. Though doves and hawks may have disagreed about the extent of military force used and the sacrifices that American soldiers were called on to make, the underlying assumption was that despite the disagreements on particulars, the fundamental U.S. approach was correct, that according to the rhetoric of its foreign policy, the U.S. had an obligation to defend the free world from the spread of Communism, a view which still holds to this day.

   This scenario is Chomskyian in that the actions of those on the left, despite whether or not one believes that their cause was just, served to strengthen the party line. And it was the mainstream media that made such a reversal possible…

   In sum, this scenario lends credence to the idea that it is the media that provides the dominant framework for the discussion of issues made public in this country, thus contributing to the regimentation of the public mind, in which ‘free’ thought and freedom of expression must be contained within acceptable boundaries, a necessary condition of ‘democracy’ as defined by those in whose interest the media serves…

~ Suvian Quilmann

(1) see Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, chapter 12, “Force and Opinion”.

~On Self-Awareness~

   Gore Vidal has written, “What I am considered to be and what I am are two different things.” Extending this idea, it becomes possible to say, “What I think I am and what I actually am are two different things.” The path to self-awareness is lined with obstacles, making it all the more difficult to, in Socrates’ words, “know thyself.” For example, the nature of the very closeness we have with ourselves, that 24-7-365 relationship, may lull us into creating fuzzy spots on the mirror of self-reflection. We may know that we have a not-so-desirable trait about ourselves, but really not know how to change it. Thus, we let it slide, and over time, it becomes a gloss. Letting that kind of apathy slip into the process of self-reflection results in a skewed perspective, and over time, those parts of ourselves that we gloss over become more and more fuzzy, growing, if you will, like cataracts on old eyes. Eventually, we reach a point where we can no longer see them…

   The point? From a Zen-like perspective, don’t get too caught up in your own conception of yourself, because that conception is like a map which is only a representation of the territory, your ‘true’ self.⁽¹⁾There will always be a discrepancy between the two, and it is to live in self-delusion to think otherwise. Living in such a condition is a necessary consequence of being endowed with ‘ego’; if you realize that, you then have a cloth with which to clean the mirror…the mirror of your own self-reflection.

~ Suvian Quilmann

(1) “The map is not the territory.” ~ Alfred Korzybski

Reflections on “Democracy"

   In reading Chomsky of late ⁽¹⁾, I have come across something that somehow gives me some peace of mind regarding the current state of affairs that we find ourselves in. It’s not as if, somewhere along the way, the concept of ‘democracy’ was somehow violated, starting in motion a chain of events that has led up to its current version, in which democratic principles are under increasing attack from, on the one hand, the effects of global capitalism and the implicit third-worldization that becomes an increasing reality for each country that becomes a part of the system (oh yes, including the U.S. too…) and, on the other hand, the current war on terror, which has seen, either as an intentional cause, or, a necessary effect, depending on your interpretation, the withering away of civil liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights.

   For some reason, I have this romantic notion of democracy having existed at one time in a ‘pure’ form, unadulterated by generation after generation of politics in action. And that time for me was the founding of our nation, a time when there was a clean slate upon which to build the fundamental principles of government, to define its role in the lives of the citizenry. Why do I hold such a notion? Probably through education, and the regimentation of the public mind that occurs through the media, for example. We are trained into casting a nostalgic and patriotic eye upon that era of American history, to see it in a warm glow of pride and hubris-the nobility of the founding fathers, as it were. But what did the founding fathers inscribe onto that clean slate, in actuality? It is my hypothesis that the precedents for the current state of democracy that we find ourselves in at present were laid by the founding fathers themselves. No major ‘violations’ of its principles have occurred along the way (with the possible exception of the granting of personal rights to corporations ⁽²⁾ ); rather, the principles of democracy, as laid out by the founding fathers, have been followed all along…

   So in that sense, the current state of affairs has less shock value for me now, because the principles of democracy laid down by our founding fathers are still being followed to this day. Possible lesson? The function of history should not be for the creation of an ideal or romantic image of something which never existed in the first place....

   The necessary question then becomes, well, what does ‘democracy’ mean? Obviously, there is some kind of discrepancy between what ‘we the people’ believe it means, and what it means to those with the power, position, and influence (i.e., money) to govern the country. Again, the Chomskyian methodology comes to mind here, that of examining the difference between ‘doctrine’ and ‘reality’. Even for an idea so sacred and fundamental to American identity, a discrepancy seems to exist. 1) What is that discrepancy? (The answer will require historical investigation…) and 2) Why is it maintained? (Requires a look into the nature of power…) and 3) How is it maintained? (Requires a look into PR, the secular priesthood, educational standards….)

~ Suvian Quilmann


1) Ideas for this essay were inspired by Chomsky’s article, Market Democracy in a Neoliberal Order: Doctrines and Reality, a lecture presented at the University of Cape Town in May of 1997.

2) See David Korten’s When Corporations Rule the World, p. 65-66. Korten tells us that in 1886, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the precedent was established for corporations to be granted personal rights, including the full protection of the Bill of Rights.

A "Chomskyian" scenario?...
____________________________

A Chomskyian scenario or situation is one in which the principles of Chomsky's ideas apply and are descriptive of the way in which the forces at work play themselves out...typically in favor of those in power and to the detriment of those who are not...and typically involving some degree of cognitive dissonance for those involved (because of the discrepancies between doctrine and reality)...

Examples include:

• The Clinton Doctrine - U.S. foreign policy goals after winning the Cold War focused primarily on opening newly available markets to global capitalism. (e.g. NAFTA, Haiti) (this interpretion differs from the official version, which defended America's right to interventionism, dressed in a modern context and spoken with a Southern accent)


• The Domino Effect - The difference between its official and its internal versions...(see post on this topic...)


• The meaning of the word "democracy" - what it means to those in power and to the common people; see for example, the "crisis of democracy", or investigate its origins at the time of the founding fathers, or investigate its relationship with neoliberal economic principles...doing so reveals a discrepancy between how the public has come to understand the term and what it actually means in practice.

These are just a few examples of “Chomskyian” scenarios. His work is full of them, and I believe his ideas represent the pinnacle of critical thinking, and as such, deserve to be much more a part of American mainstream thought than they are at present…indeed, a Chomskyian notion in and of itself…

~ Suvian Quilmann

~ On the Chomskyian Method ~

________________________________

…and the principles underlying his investigations…

   In looking at any influential writer, it is not enough just to like or dislike someone's work. If their work deserves consideration, as Chomsky's does, bar none, it is important to find the underlying principles that give it its substance and merit. In examining any case or situation which deserves consideration (largely because the truth is buried under layers and layers of obfuscation), Chomsky has a method by which he investigates the madness. The principles of that methodology are laid out below:

1. Examine the “strongest case” given as an example of the efficacy of U.S. action…

2. Examine places where U.S. influence is greatest, while interference with those actions is minimal…Was the U.S. "national interest" achieved? What was the effect on the local population?

3. Examine “doctrine” versus "reality"... what are the discrepancies?

Some examples of cases/situations where Chomsky has applied this methodology:

• the idea of a “critical media”
• foreign policy doctrines throughout American history (particularly since the Wilson era)
• the realities of neoliberalism and market economies
• the role of intellectuals
• the function of the business/corporate-sponsored press
• the war in Indochina
• NAFTA
• democracy in Latin America (1980's)
• the Cuban approach
• the Iraq War
  
• and many, many more...
  

   These three principles provide an extremely useful tool for the critical analysis and investigation of power in society. Let us endeavor to apply this "Chomskyian method" to all aspects of our life where power comes into play...you may be persecuted, but you will be free...

~ Suvian Quilmann