|
Opinion
Multimedia Manuel for Leaders of the New World
Order
By Tom Crumpacker
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Download a .pdf file for printing.
Adobe Acrobat Reader required.
Click here to download a free copy.
O now is the time for your love, my dear,
And the time for your companee.
Now when the light of reason fails,
And fires burn in the sea . . .—18th century Scottish ballad
Theory of Commercial Oligarchy
October 17, 2005—We maintain per Hobbes, Strauss and other political philosophers that human nature is essentially aggressive.
It follows that political order can be achieved only by a powerful nationalist state unified by an external threat, which can
impose moral order on the masses. Nationalism and religion are essential to moral order. Without the cohesion created by outside danger such as terror and war, societies disintegrate into disorder, or at
least into smaller, less powerful communities.
Accordingly, large nation-states must divide themselves hierarchically into elite leaders and masses of followers.
The right of superiors to govern derives from the inherent nature of our open, unregulated economic system—sometimes called
laissez faire capitalism—the essential dynamic of which is that those who have much get more and those who have little get less. The pursuit of self-interest by individuals maximizes the well-being of
all. The resulting competition between them separates the strong from the weak, the intelligent from the dull.
Since in commercial societies wealth and property are the sources of power, the media manipulation of followers by their
leaders is justified, indeed necessary. It's true that we leaders are the primary beneficiaries of this arrangement, but many of the benefits also trickle down to those less fortunate, at least in the
developed countries. In any event, if not we who through our status and ability have rightfully earned the power to make the public decisions for others, who else could undertake the noble obligation to
take care of our less able compatriots?
There exist two types of reality—objective and subjective. Everyone knows the real world we see actually exists out there for
each of us. But not all realize that we each also create it for ourselves. Through our learning, experience and imagination we have developed a faith in ourselves as leaders, which we express publicly as
divinely inspired. It's our personal perspective: the lens through which we see the world, make our judgments and help construct the reality of our followers. As demonstrated in the invaluable work of
Dr. Josef Goebbels over 70 years ago, the key to our authority lies in our ability through our mass media and politicians to create the appearance of reality, by which individual and group outlooks can
be modified or reinforced. But when the virtual reality we help them create for themselves contradicts their actual, observable reality, our manipulations are exposed by reason and logic and we suffer
setbacks.
Practice of Commercial Oligarchy
We make the important public decisions privately, without record thereof and preferably in secret, so that the background,
persons and factors involved cannot be traced or understood. The justification, if necessary, is national security. This argument can rarely if ever be overcome by reason or logic since only we involved
leaders know what the undisclosed information is. However, our publics do need to think they are participating via "representatives" in the important decisions we make for them because the essential
condition of our ability to transform objective reality is public satisfaction, or at least absence of extreme dissatisfaction.
Media discussions of public issues are therefore crucial, but the purpose thereof, rather than to reach decision, is to gain
our followers' acquiescence in our decisions. Since we fund the increasingly centralized mass media and our increasingly "mainstream" politicians (whose primary goals are to retain their
offices, which bring them power and wealth), we have acquired the ability to use them to transform our publics' perspectives.
Accordingly, the media debate which produces the necessary acquiescence normally occurs after we have made the decision. Of
course, we do not permit access to our mass media to anyone who has not demonstrated his loyalty to our project. Although they purport to represent the public interest, our politicians, due to our
restricting media access, campaign funding, gerrymandering, lobbying, revolving doors, bribery and extortion are in fact representing our powerful, private interests.
Television is our primary and best persuasion tool because it's the vehicle which most of our followers use to acquire their
information. Its main purpose is to sell our products, which it does by commercials interspersed with entertainment, including news. We call it communication, but we know it instead involves our
followers passively watching and listening to those of us who help them recreate their realities.
As Emmanuel Goldstein demonstrated 20 years ago, through our control over production of information we can easily change the
past. We count on our followers' faulty memories when we withdraw a matter from mass media coverage, because it's their only information source and too many facts exist out there for them to meaningfully
retain. We deal publicly in generalities, demonize our enemies and treat nations (rogues that some of them are) as though they were persons whose behavior can be modified by the same methods we use on
individuals. We interview only members of the public whose opinion benefits us, the publication of which implies that it represents the correct view. Otherwise why would it be published?
We are not obliged to answer public questions directly; rather we use them as "lead ins" to our arguments. When we
introduce new information in the public realm, it's normally by leak or anonymous interview. Since sources are protected, there's no way to verify such information and it can be changed where necessary.
Our politicians' continuous media-driven campaigns of self-promotion have recently been appearing as masquerades. This trend must be reversed by slightly closing the reality gap, but the essentials must
be retained.
Our publics are best off learning about other areas of the world from us rather than directly. Where a media company such as
CNN or BBC serves several countries, it presents different news, appropriate to each. Unsuitable information from Third World mass media like Al Jazeera are is excluded. We are closing borders and
erecting barriers through our new enforcement, visa requirements, travel and immigration restrictions because American ways of doing things, if not superior to foreign, are at least adequate for our
followers and cause us fewer problems.
Language of Commercial Oligarchy
In recent years, the disappearance of a common English language has made our task easier. Individuals develop their
understandings of words based on their learning, which often varies considerably. In the past, the meaning of some words changed slowly over centuries. In the 20th Century with the advent of mass
societies informed by mass media, it became apparent that meanings could be altered relatively quickly by those of us who produce the information. Words used in political discourse can be altered so as
to promote political projects and change realities.
We're developing a new code language manual that all New World Order (NOW) leaders should become familiar with, but a few
examples can be mentioned here. One of our favorite words is "entrepreneur," meaning he who risks his wealth for profit rather than he who uses others to obtain it. Rather than progressive change,
"reform" means change that promotes our project. "Freedom" means absence of restriction on pursuit of self-interest rather than what results from pursuing the common good. It's the freedom of the big
fish to eat the little fish. "Government" means the authority that takes our money to promote its own purposes, rather than the public interest. "Public interest" means our interest because some of our
profits trickle down to the public.
In the past "terrorism" meant the use of violence by an individual, group or state to create fear in pursuit of a
political goal. It has been with us from the beginning, from Cain to Caesar, Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler, from the walls of Jericho to Hiroshima, from napalming Vietnam to "shock and awe"
bombing of Baghdad. We leaders never define terrorism, preferring to concentrate only on its vague connotations of anarchy and brutality. It's the enemy we required after the Cold War to retain our
national cohesion. We say publicly that its elimination is difficult, may last a long time, but in the end we will eradicate it.
But our private idea of terrorism refers to local uprisings in the Third World, where there are enormous resources and
billions of potential workers-consumers to be made use of. We have therefore undermined the UN peacekeeping function and our powerful weaponry-military-intelligence apparatus has become the police force
for the developed world in order to secure its commercial exploitation of the undeveloped (we call this process "globalization"). We label terrorist any Third World liberation struggle, whether against
economic domination or seeking political autonomy. We never label terrorist any uprising against our enemies (which we usually finance, arm and train), such as Osama bin Laden against the Russians,
Saddam Hussein against Iran, and the people we harbor in Florida to destabilize Cuba. Our concept of sovereignty is absolute for the First World but conditional for the Third, where preventative bombing,
invasion and regime change are always options.
In the past "war" had a clear meaning: it was the declared, violent conflict between nation-states. Individual
soldiers were not considered criminals, rather when taken prisoner they were held in custody until the war ended (a few years at most) with the protections of the Geneva Convention. On the other hand
suspected criminals were entitled to have their guilt proved in our justice systems by due process of law and were sentenced to definite terms.
In the 20th century war acquired an additional, metaphoric meaning, i.e., war on poverty, drugs, illnesses. Metaphoric war
was not really expected to end, rather the word was used to connote long-term struggle. When we declared war on terrorism, most thought we meant metaphoric war, but when we began bombing, invading and
changing Third World countries, it became evident our war was both real and metaphoric. It allows us to hold thousands (so far) of "suspects" without trial in concentration camps in Cuba and
around the world. It's the "permanent war" we need to keep us in power.
In the past "democracy" meant government by the people. The core of the idea was the possibility of collective
decision making about collective action for a common good. Where everyone had the opportunity through true representation to participate in decisions for the whole, people accepted and implemented the
decisions. In the modern era, public participation in societal decision-making would be disastrous to our project. Therefore democracy is now our code word for unlimited, unregulated ("free market")
capitalism. When we speak publicly of democracy we're speaking of the kind of commercial oligarchies which prevail today in the developed world, especially the US, where the politicians represent our
powerful, private interests rather than the public. We say this produces freedom for everyone, but since wealth is power, there's a lot more freedom for big business and we leaders who profit from it.
With our kind of freedom as with our kind of wealth, those who have much get more; those who have little get less.
Drahcir Yenehc, Vice President
Leaders of the New World Order
Recommended reading:
Dr. Josef Goebbels, "The Goebbels Diaries" (Hamish Hamilton, 1948).
Emmanuel Goldstein, "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchic Collectivism" George Orwell, "1984" (London, 1948),
pp. 165–185.
Tom Crumpacker is a member of the Miami Coalition to End the US Embargo of Cuba.
|
