Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

From Ingsoc & Newspeak to Amcap, Amerigood, & Marketspeak

Expand Messages
  • Dan Clore
    News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo ZNet | U.S. From Ingsoc And Newspeak To Amcap, Amerigood, And Marketspeak by
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 3, 2005
      News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

      ZNet | U.S.
      From Ingsoc And Newspeak To Amcap, Amerigood, And Marketspeak
      by Edward S. Herman
      June 02, 2005

      (This is a chapter in a just published book, edited by
      Abbott Gleason, Jack Goldsmith and Martha G. Nussbaum, On
      Nineteen Eighty-Four: Orwell and Our Future, Princeton
      University Press, 2005, based on a conference on Orwell in 1999)

      Although 1984 was a Cold War document that dramatized the
      threat of the Soviet enemy, and has always been used mainly
      to serve Cold War political ends, it also contained the
      germs of a powerful critique of U.S. and Western practice.
      Orwell himself suggested such applications in his essay on
      "Politics and the English Language" and even more explicitly
      in a neglected Preface to Animal Farm. [1] But doublespeak
      and thought control are far more important in the West than
      Orwell indicated, often in subtle forms but sometimes as
      crudely as in 1984, and virtually every 1984 illustration of
      Ingsoc, Newspeak and Doublethink have numerous counterparts
      in what we may call Amcap, Amerigood, and Marketspeak. The
      Doublethink formulas "War Is Peace" and a "Ministry of
      Peace" were highlights of Newspeak. But even before Orwell
      published 1984, the U.S. "Department of War" had been
      renamed the "Department of Defense," reflecting the
      Amcap-Amerigood view that our military actions and war
      preparations are always defensive, reasonable responses to
      somebody else's provocations, and ultimately in the interest
      of peace.

      Furthermore, Americans have been much more effective
      dispensers of propaganda, doublespeak, and disinformation
      than the managers of Ingsoc, in either 1984 or in the real
      worldSoviet Union. The power of information control in this
      country was displayed during World War I in the work of the
      Creel commission, and in its aftermath the United States
      pioneered in the development of public relations and
      advertising. Both of these industries have long been
      mobilized in the service of politics. During the 1994
      election campaign in the United States, the Republican
      "Contract With America" was formed with the aid of a
      consultant who first polled the public to find out which
      words resonated with them, and then incorporated those words
      into the Contract without regard to the Contract's
      substance. This yielded, for example, a "Job Creation and
      Wage Enhancement" title for proposed actions that would
      reduce the capital gains tax.

      Consider also the fact that in this country, as the element
      of rehabilitation of imprisoned criminals has diminished,
      the name of their places of incarceration has been changed
      from "jails" and "prisons" to "corrections facilities." Or
      that civilians killed by U.S. missiles or bombs in
      Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, or earlier inIndochina, are
      always unintended "collateral damage," and are therefore
      morally acceptable, although there is always an official
      disinterest in such numbers, and sometimes even an effort
      made to keep this toll under wraps. Or that the 2002 war in
      Afghanistan was briefly called "Infinite Justice," altered
      to "Enduring Freedom" after complaints that only God offers
      infinite justice. Amcap represents a significant advance
      over Ingsoc.

      The Role and Mechanisms of Thought Control

      In fact, a good case can be made that propaganda is a more
      important means of social control in open societies like the
      United States than in closed societies like the late Soviet
      Union. In the former, the protection of inequalities of
      wealth and power, which frequently exceed those in
      totalitarian societies, cannot rest on the use of force, and
      as political scientist Harold Lasswell explained back in
      1933, this compels the dominant elite to manage the ignorant
      multitude "largely through propaganda." [2] Similarly, in
      his 1922 classic, Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann argued
      that "the common interests [sometimes called the "national
      interest"] very largely elude public opinion entirely, and
      can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal
      interests reach beyond the locality," "responsible" men who
      must "manufacture consent" among the thoughtless masses. [3]

      The claim that such collective action is impossible in a
      free society, and that it implies some form of conspiracy,
      is mistaken. This claim is refuted both by the record of
      collective action, discussed and illustrated briefly below,
      as well as by an examination of how Amcap is implemented.
      Amcap works in part because it is the responsible men (and
      women) who own and run newspapers, TV stations and networks,
      and the other power centers in society. They manage national
      affairs, and "crises in democracy" are identified by the
      fact that, as in the infamous 1960s, important sectors of
      the usually apathetic general population organize and press
      hard for recognition of their needs. The power of this
      responsible elite is also reflected in society's ideological
      assumptions and ways of thinking about issues, as this elite
      manages the flow of advertising and the work of public
      relations firms and thinktanks, as well as controlling
      access to the mass media. It takes only a small extension of
      Beckerian analysis -- which insists on economic motives
      explaining virtually anything -- to understand how a
      powerful demand for particular lines of economic and
      political thought might well elicit an appropriate supply
      response, which will be a "responsible" economics and
      politics that serves the "national interest."

      This system of thought control is not centrally managed,
      although sometimes the government orchestrates a particular
      propaganda campaign. It operates mainly by individual and
      market choices, with the frequent collective service to the
      national interest arising from common interests and
      internalized beliefs. The responsible men (and women) often
      disagree on tactics, but not on premises, ends, and the core
      ideology of a free market system. What gives this system of
      thought control its power and advantage over Ingsoc is that
      its members truly believe in Amcap, and their passion in its
      exposition and defense is sincere. In their patriotic ardor
      they put forth, accept, and internalize untruths and
      doublethink as impressive as anything portrayed in 1984. But
      at the same time they allow controversy to rage freely,
      although within bounds, so that there is the appearance of
      fully open debate when it is in fact sharply constrained.
      And if the responsibles agree that the "national interest"
      calls for a military budget of $400 billion, this is not
      even subject to any debate whatever, even though studies of
      public opinion have regularly shown that the "Proles" would
      like that budget sharply cut. [4]

      Occasionally the powerful do use the police and armed
      forces, and sometimes covert programs of disinformation and
      disruption--as in the CIA's Operation Chaos and the FBI's
      Cointelpro programs--to keep oppositional movements under
      control. [5] More often still are propaganda campaigns to
      sell policy to the general population. In 1983 -- only one
      year before 1984 -- the Reagan administration organized a
      so-called Office of Public Diplomacy to sell its war against
      Nicaragua to the media and general public. Run by a CIA
      specialist in psychological warfare, it was explicitly
      designed to demonize the leftwing Sandinista government of
      Nicaragua by tactics that included the spread of
      disinformation. An office to engage in covert "public
      diplomacy" with the American people, its specific program
      titled "Operation Truth," sounds like something straight out
      of 1984. But it was successful, as the media rarely if ever
      mentioned or criticized the OPD or Operation Truth, and they
      accommodated to its program. [6]

      One manifestation of this accommodation provides us with an
      almost perfect illustration of doublethink in action. The
      Reagan administration wanted to build public support for the
      government of El Salvador, so it sponsored elections there
      in 1982 and 1984, in which it featured the high voter
      turnout and long lines of smiling voters, and played down
      the legal requirement to vote, the destruction of the two
      independent newspapers, the ongoing state terror, and the
      inability of the left to enter candidates. In the very same
      time frame, the Sandinista government of Nicaragua held an
      election, but here the Reagan administration wished to deny
      that government legitimacy, so it used a different set of
      criteria to judge that election. Here it ignored the high
      turnout and smiling voters (and the absence of a legal
      requirement to vote) and focused on the harassment of La
      Prensa and the voluntary refusal to participate by one
      oppositional candidate (who was on the CIA payroll). In a
      miracle of doublethink, forgetting a set of electoral
      criteria "and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw
      it back from oblivion" (1984, 163), [7] the New York Times
      and its confreres followed the Reagan agenda and called the
      Nicaraguan election a "sham" on the basis of criteria they
      had completely ignored in finding the Salvadoran elections
      heart-warming moves toward democracy. [8]

      Amcap and Amerigood and Their Challenges

      There are two dominant strands of thought in Amcap. One is
      that America is a global paterfamilias that does good and
      pursues benevolent and democratic ends. This has a Newspeak
      corollary that we may call Amerigood.

      The second strand of Amcap thought and ideology is the
      belief in the "miracle of the market" and the view that the
      market can do it all. In this system of thought, and in its
      Newspeak counterpart, Marketspeak, the market is virtually a
      sacred totem, "reform" means a move toward a freer market
      irrespective of conditions or effects, and accolades to and
      proofs of the market's efficiency crowd the intellectual
      marketplace. This system corresponds closely to Orwell's
      "goodthink," a body of orthodox thought immune to evidence,
      and it approximates Orwell's view of the outlook of "the
      ancient Hebrew who knew, without knowing much else, that all
      nations other than his worshipped 'false gods'" (232).

      There has been a major conflict between Amerigood and
      Marketspeak, however, in that market openings and a prized
      "favorable climate of investment" have often been expedited
      by military leaders willing to destroy trade unions, kill
      social democrats and radicals, and ruthlessly terminate
      democracy itself. The United States has very frequently
      supported those serving the market at the expense of human
      rights and democracy. [9] But Amerigood and Marketspeak have
      met this challenge brilliantly, with much greater efficiency
      than Ingsoc and Newspeak ever met the needs of the Soviet
      Union. Resolution by definition. One mode of handling the
      problem in Amerigood is by an internalized belief system in
      which words with negative connotations simply cannot be
      applied to us. Thus this country is never an aggressor,
      terrorist, or sponsor of terrorism, by definition, whatever
      the correspondence of facts to standard definitions. Back in
      May 1983, for five successive days the Soviet radio
      broadcaster Vladimir Danchev castigated the Soviet assault
      on Afghanistan, calling it an "invasion" and urging the
      Afghans to resist. He was lauded as a hero in the U.S.
      media, and his temporary removal from the air was bitterly
      criticized. But in many years of study of the U.S. media
      performance during the Vietnam War I have never found a
      single mainstream journalistic reference to a U.S.
      "invasion" of Vietnam or U.S. "aggression" there, although
      the United States was invited in, like the Soviets in
      Afghanistan, by its own puppet government lacking minimal
      legitimacy. There was no Danchev in the U.S. media. Here, as
      in Ingsoc, where "Big Brother is ungood" was "a self-evident
      absurdity" (235), the notion of the United States committing
      "aggression" was outside the pale of comprehensible thought.

      Resolution by forgetting and remembering according to need.
      The intellectual mechanism of forgetting and remembering
      according to momentary need is also urgently important,
      because in Amerigood this country favors and actively
      promotes democracy abroad, whereas in real world practice it
      supports democracy only very selectively. The pro-democracy
      stance can be emphasized when the United States attacks Cuba
      and passes a "Cuban Democracy Act," but the media do not
      discuss and reflect on the absence of a "Saudi Democracy
      Act" (and the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to
      protect that authoritarian regime) in the same or nearby
      articles. In the case of the steadfast 32 year U.S. support
      of Suharto's military regime, or its support of Marcos's
      dictatorship in the Philippines, it was necessary to forget
      that the United States was devoted to democracy, as long as
      these tyrants delivered a "favorable climate of investment."
      But once they ceased to be viable rulers, suddenly the U.S.
      concern for democracy moved front and center, and this could
      be done without the mainstream media dwelling on the long
      positive support of autocracy, or looking closely at any
      compromising elements in the shift (such as continued
      support for the Indonesian army). In both cases, also, the
      media suddenly discovered that Suharto and Marcos had looted
      their countries (and U.S. aid) on a large scale, a point
      that had somehow escaped their attention while the looters
      were still serving the U.S. "national interest." This is a
      virtual media law, and displays their dependable service in
      forgetting and remembering.

      Resolution by a resort to the "long run". Some "realists"
      and Marketspeak philosophers who believe that "what's good
      for America is good for the world" have a different way of
      reconciling U.S. support of dictators and state terrorists
      with the U.S. devotion to democracy. They argue that the
      support for a Castillo Branco in Brazil or Pinochet in Chile
      is pro-democracy because the freer markets they introduce
      will serve democracy in the long run. In Marketspeak there
      is in fact a strong tendency to make "freedom" synomymous
      with freedom of markets rather than political (or any other
      kind of) freedom. This tendency, plus the complaisance and
      even enthusiasm at the termination of democracy in the short
      run, suggests that elite interest in a "favorable climate of
      investment" may be stronger than any devotion to democracy.
      The realists' case also suffers from its use of an argument
      long projected on to Big Brother: namely, that ugly means
      are justified by a supposedly benign end and do not
      themselves contaminate and even contradict that end.

      Resolution by "disappearing" people. In the world of Ingsoc
      individuals become "unpeople" and simply disappear. In Amcap
      we have a comparable phenomenon whereby entire populations
      become expendable for political reasons, effectively
      "disappear" from the mainstream media, and can be massacred
      or starved without political cost. When the United States
      fights abroad, U.S. deaths are politically costly and must
      be avoided. From the Vietnam War era onward this has
      resulted in the increased use of capital intensive warfare,
      that reduces U.S. casualties but increases those of enemy
      soldiers and their civilian populations. But those
      casualties have no domestic political cost, and official and
      media reporting of such losses is exceedingly sparse if not
      absent altogether. This permits large scale killing of
      target forces and civilians who have been rendered "unpeople."

      It also permits entire populations to be held hostage and
      starved to achieve some political objective. When back in
      1996 former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replied to
      a question on the costs and benefits of the estimated death
      of half a million Iraqi children as a result of sanctions by
      saying that this "was worth it," [10] her calculus rested in
      part on the fact that with the help of the mainstream media
      the Iraqi children were "unpeople" whose deaths involved no
      political costs to U.S. leaders.

      This process of dehumanization is also evident in the
      treatment of client state terror and mass killings. When Pol
      Pot killed large numbers in Cambodia between 1975 and 1978,
      official and media attention and indignation were great.
      When in the same years Indonesia invaded East Timor, killing
      an even larger fraction of the population than did Pol Pot,
      media attention was minimal and fell to zero in the New York
      Times as Indonesian terror reached its peak in 1977 and
      1978. Indonesia was a U.S. client state providing a
      favorable climate of investment, and the mainstream media
      treatment of the East Timorese as an unpeople was closely
      coordinated with U.S. policy. [11]

      Even more dramatic, when the priest Jerzy Popieluszko was
      murdered by the police of Communist Poland in 1984, U.S.
      official and media attention and indignation were intense.
      In fact, media coverage of the Popieluszko murder was
      greater than its coverage of the murder of 100 religious
      victims inLatin America in the 1970s and 1980s taken
      together, even though eight of these victims were U.S.
      citizens. [12] Popieluszko was a "worthy" victim, as he was
      killed by an enemy state and propaganda points could be
      scored against the enemy; the 100 religious in Latin America
      were killed in U.S. client states, and were therefore
      "unworthy" because attention to their victimization would
      have been inconvenient to U.S. policy ends. This channeling
      of benevolence toward Polish victims (and victims of Pol
      Pot) and away from victims in our own backyard (and in East
      Timor) made it possible for the leaders of the National
      Security States (and Indonesia) to kill large numbers with
      quiet support from the United States, and without disturbing
      the ideology of Amerigood. No agreements with demons
      possible. As one other illustration of an Ingsoc analogue in
      Amcap, in Ingsoc, "any past or future agreement with him
      [the demonized enemy] was impossible. . . . The Party said
      that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He,
      Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with
      Eurasia so short a time as four years ago." (29) In Amcap
      things are done more subtly. We simply pretend that our high
      moral stance in fighting the demon represents continuous
      policy, and the mainstream media cooperate by not discussing
      the subject.

      After Pol Pot was overthrown by the Vietnamese in December
      1978, the United States quietly supported him for more than
      a decade, giving him aid directly and indirectly, approving
      his retention of Cambodia's seat in the UN, and even
      bargaining to include him in the election process of the
      1990s. The U.S. media kept this support for the demon under
      the rug. The U.S. invaded Panama and captured Noriega in
      1989, allegedly because of his involvement in the drug
      trade, but actually because he failed to meet U.S. demands
      for support in the war aginst Nicaragua. Noriega had been
      involved in the drug trade for more than a decade previously
      without causing any withdrawal ofU.S. support. The
      mainstream media did not discuss the earlier agreement with
      the demon.

      Saddam Hussein became "another Hitler" on August 2, 1990,
      when he invaded Kuwait. All through the prior decade he had
      been given steady U.S. support in his war against Iran and
      after. He had received billions in loans, access to weapons,
      intelligence information on Iranian military deploy-ments,
      and he was not ostracized because of his use of chemical
      weapons against Iran and his own Kurds. Following August 2,
      1990, when he became an enemy, it would be difficult to find
      in the mainstream media any reference to the fact that this
      demon "had been in alliance with the U.S. as short a time
      ago as August 1, 1990.

      The Taliban government in Afghanistan moved beyond the pale
      in 1998, following the bombing of two U.S. embassies in
      Africa by cadres affiliated with Osama Bin Laden, who made
      his headquarters in Afghanistan. Then, following the deadly
      World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings on September 11,
      2001, by terrorists allegedly linked to Bin Laden, the Bush
      administration issued an ultimatum to the Taliban to deliver
      Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda cadres to this country or suffer
      the consequences. The Taliban not complying, U.S. forces
      attacked Afghanistan, deposed the Taliban, and installed a
      replacement government. Following 9/11, the Taliban
      government was declared to be monstrous and intolerable,
      even apart from its sheltering Bin Laden, and this was the
      general view in the mainstream media. But here again, it
      would be hard to find mainstream news reports or commentary
      recounting the fact that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda had been
      organized and supported by the United States and its allies
      Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in the 1980s to fight Soviet
      forces in Afghanistan, and that the United States had backed
      the Taliban's assumption of power in 1996 because it brought
      "stability" and might make possible the construction of an
      oil pipeline through Afghanistan. [13]

      Marketspeak

      As in the case of Ingsoc, Marketspeak serves to consolidate
      the power of the dominant elite. In Ingsoc, the claim that
      Big Brother could do it all served Party domination, Party
      economic advantage, and helped contain the incomes of the
      Proles. Marketspeak does the same for the dominant elite
      inAmerica. Ingsoc helped assure "that economic inequality
      has been made permanent" (157), and Marketspeak has done the
      same here, even facilitating its substantial increase in
      recent decades.

      In fact, in an interesting turnabout, the supposedly
      permanent condition of the victims of Ingsoc has proven to
      be impermanent (i.e., the Soviet Union was dissolved and its
      component parts have been struggling since 1989 to enter the
      world of Amcap and Marketspeak), whereas the victims of
      Amcap and Marketspeak in both the former Soviet Union and
      the West have been placed in the condition where, as Mrs.
      Thatcher so happily pronounced, "there is no alternative."
      The power of capital and finance to dominate elections, to
      limit policy options by the threat of their enhanced
      mobility, and their domination of the means of
      communication, has seemingly ended challenges to the policy
      dictates of capital. Under the regime of Ingsoc "there is no
      way in which discontent can become articulate" (158). Under
      the regime of Amcap and Marketspeak as well there is no way
      discontent can materialize in meaningful political choices
      or programs; rather, they will be channeled into bursts of
      anger and scapegoating of "government" and other convenient
      targets.

      Under the regime of Ingsoc, the Proles were kept down by
      "heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty
      quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and above
      all gambling." (56) Orwell mentioned television as a
      valuable diversionary instrument for keeping the Proles in
      line. The transformation of U.S. commercial broadcasting
      into an essentially entertainment vehicle, with a heavy
      emphasis on films, football, and other sports, and its
      virtual annihilation of any public service and public sphere
      role, is Amcap's and Marketspeak's clear improvement over
      the primitive workings of Ingsoc. The growth of lotteries
      and casinos, partly driven by capital's pressure on
      governments to seek funding outside of taxes, also improves
      on Ingsoc's methods of providing Prole diversion and
      depoliticization.

      Under the regime of Amcap and Marketspeak, the Proles are
      kept down not only by physical work and diversions, but also
      by insecurity. In 1995, Fed Chairman Allan Greenspan
      explained to congress that the inflation threat was minimal
      because of a generalized worker insecurity, which he
      presented as a bonanza, although such insecurity would seem
      to be in itself a serious welfare detriment, on the
      assumption that the condition of the Proles was an important
      policy goal. His instrumental view of the Proles can also be
      seen in economic theory, where the "natural rate of
      unemployment" ties inflation (the bad) very closely too
      excessive wage demands on the part of the Proles.

      This view of Prole wage increases as a threat to the
      national interest is a throwback to mercantilist attitudes
      and doctrine, where high wages were deemed bad "because they
      would reduce England's competing power by raising production
      costs," in the words of the historian of mercantilism, Edgar
      S. Furniss. [14] He notes that in this class-biased view of
      the national interest "the dominant class . . . attempt[ed]
      to bind the burdens upon the shoulders of those groups whose
      political power is too slight to defend them from
      exploitation and will find justification for its policies in
      the plea of national necessity." In this mercantilist and
      Marketspeak view of the Proles, as a cost and instrument
      rather than a group whose well-being is the policy
      objective, the Proles, like citizens of an enemy state,
      become "unpersons."

      The accommodation of economic science to the demands of
      Amcap and Marketspeak have been extensive, and in many of
      these cases the intellectual abuses and somersaults carried
      out to salvage Marketspeak are similar to those used to
      defend Ingsoc. As one example, during each merger wave from
      1897-1903 onward, Marketspeak economists have found the
      movement to be based on efficiency considerations, and
      downgraded the importance of other bases of merger activity
      and any negative effects on competition. They have struggled
      valiantly to prove that the market works well in providing
      net public benefits here as elswhere.

      In recent years Marketspeak economists have done this by
      measuring the efficiency of mergers on the basis of stock
      price movements before and at the time of the merger, not
      post-merger results, although stock price measures suffer
      from problems of timing, contamination by influences other
      than efficiency, and are at best indirect. In one classic of
      this genre, Michael Jensen and Robert Ruback, as an
      afterthought, did look at post-merger financial results,
      which turned out to show "systematic reductions in the stock
      price of bidding firms following the event." [15] They
      concluded that such results "are unsettling because they are
      inconsistent with market efficiency and suggest that changes
      in stock prices during takeovers overestimte the future
      efficiency gains from mergers." But as Marketspeak says that
      free market behavior enhances efficiency, the authors did
      not allow those "systematic" findings to alter their
      conclusions.

      Conclusion: A Promising Amcap Future

      Ingsoc has given way to a potent replacement in Amcap, and
      Amcap has actually taken on more vitality with the death of
      Ingsoc. The ideologists of Amcap have proclaimed an "end of
      history," with freedom and liberal democracy triumphant and
      doublethink and thought control presumably ended with the
      close of the system of tyranny. But such claims have little
      basis in reality. History has not "ended," and since the
      death of the Soviet Union, wars, political and economic
      instability, ethnic cleansing, the global polarization of
      incomes, and environmental distress and threats, seem to
      have increased in frequency and/or intensity. Freedom and
      liberal democracy are increasingly constrained by national
      and global power structures that sharply limit any actions
      helpful to the Proles.

      In the increasingly inegalitarian system that prevails,
      Amcap, Amerigood and Marketspeak are flourishing and have a
      more important role to play than ever. They have been doing
      their job -- "largely the defense of the indefensible" as
      Orwell put it—with a sophistication and effectiveness that
      Ingsoc could never command. Their innovations in language
      are continuous, filling all emerging propaganda gaps. At
      home, a law encroaching on civil liberties is called a
      "Patriot Act;" laws that free the weak and poor from their
      "entitlements" by pushing them into the labor market are
      referred to as "reform" and "empowerment," and they are said
      to reflect "tough love" of the suffering Proles. In military
      and foreign policy, a government agency openly designed to
      disseminate disinformation is entitled "Office of Strategic
      Influence;" [16] missiles are "Peacekeepers," and military
      alliances are "Partnerships for Peace." The appeasement of
      amenable state terrorists (Mobutu, Suharto, the governments
      of apartheid South Africa) is called "constructive
      engagement"; civilian deaths from the "humanitarian bombing"
      of "rogue states" is "collateral damage."

      The progress and prospects of Amcap are impressive. This
      immensely powerful system of thought control should get the
      credit and recognition that it deserves.

      Footnotes:

      1. The "50th Anniversary Edition" of Animal Farm (New York:
      Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1995), includes this Preface as
      Appendix 1.
      2. Harold Lasswell, "Propaganda," in Encyclopedia of the
      Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan, 1933).
      3. Walter Lippman, Public Opinion (New York: Harcourt, Brace
      and Company, 1922), pp. 31-32, 248, 310.
      4. See Steven Kull, "Americans on Defense Spending: A Study
      of Public Attitudes," Report on Findings, Program on
      International Policy Attitudes, School of Public Affairs,
      University of Maryland, June 19, 1996.
      5. Nelson Blackstock, Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret War on
      Political Freedom (New York: Vintage, 1975); Frank Donner,
      The Age of Surveillance (New York: Vintage, 1981)
      6. For an account of OPD and Operation Truth, see Peter
      Kornbluh, Nicaragua: The Price of Intervention (Washington,
      D.C.: Institute for Policy Studies, 1987), chapter 4.
      7. Otherwise unattributed page numbers in the text are to
      George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Signet Book, 1950).
      8. For details, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky,
      Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass
      Media (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988 and 2002), chapter 3.
      9. For details, Edward S. Herman, The Real Terror Network
      (Boston: South End Press, 1982), esp. chapter 3; Herman.
      "The United States Versus Human Rights in the Third World,"
      Harvard Human Rights Journal, Spring 1991; William Blum,
      Rogue State (Monroe, Me.: Common Courage Press, 2000).
      10. Albright's statement was made in answer to a question by
      Leslie Stahl on the CBS program "60 Minutes,"May 12, 1996.
      11. For details, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, The
      Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (Boston: South
      End Press, 1979), chapter 3; Edward S. Herman and David
      Peterson, "How The New York Times Protects Indonesian Terror
      In East Timor," Z Magazine, July/August, 1999.
      12. For a full account, Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing
      Consent, chapter 2.
      13. Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and
      Fundamentalism in Central Asia (New Haven: Yale University
      Press, 2000); Michael T. Klare, "Bush's Master Oil Plan,"
      Alternet.Org, April 23,2002.
      14. Edgar S. Furniss, The Position of the Laborer in a
      System of Nationalism (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
      1920). pp. 201, 203.
      15. Michael Jensen and Richard Ruback, "The Market For
      Corporate Control: The Scientific Evidence," Journal of
      Financial Economics, vol. 5, 1983, p. 30.
      16. This organization was quickly closed down after
      receiving considerable negative publicity. However, the
      contract for services to be carried out on behalf of the
      Office of Strategic Influence was not cancelled.

      --
      Dan Clore

      Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
      http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
      Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
      http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
      News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

      As the Government of the United States of America is not, in
      any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in
      itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
      tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never
      entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
      Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
      pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce
      an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
      countries.
      -- The Treaty of Tripoli, entered into by the USA under
      George Washington
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.