The smart way to keep people passive and obedient

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

– Noam Chomsky

Comments

[Sheila Casey]

I agree. Tis a puzzlement how Chomsky can seem to know so much and practice it so little. But I liked the quote.

[Project Humanbeingsfirst.org]

Hi - this is an excellent point; if only the one opining it practiced the same.

1) The spectrum of discourse on 911 is as narrowband as one can imagine; defined entirely by the White House and the Pentagon, retaining the core axiom: invasion from abroad. To this day, my dear Professor and mentor, Noam Chomsky, dismisses any notion that it was not Bin Laden. Where did he come by that information that it was Bin Laden? Even the government's own FBI does not indict Bin Laden for the crime of 911. So how does Chomsky know? Why of course, from the White House and the Pentagon, just like the mainstream news. So it is blowback for chomsky. That's the permissible range of discourse on 911. Made him much cash writing his booklet "911" (see for instance, the money he made from his books rehashing the crimes of empire that are already fait accomplu, in the report from Hoover institute, titled "Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist").

2) Vote "lesser of two evils". Why should one? Because that keeps the fake WWF wrestling match going. See an alternate view, and minimially, at least ponder, why a high-moral scholar would not advocate a position that is not morally compromising, and choosing lesser of two evils still sticks one with an evil, bounding the discussion precisely to the narrow spectrum of available choice conveniently provided by the system itself: "Not-Voting is a 'YES' vote to Reject a Corrupt System which thrives on the facade of Elections and Democracy!"

3) Israel-Palestine: the discourse must start and end with the two-state solution. Why? Because that is what is practical. What's wrong with one-state, the logical and rational, not to mention fair and equitable solution? "Impractical". So then, if a scholar is deciding practical vs. impractical to take positions, how is he any different than a politician? See "The endless trail of red herrings".

When a scholar, "arguably the most important intellectual alive" in the entire Western Hemisphere, writes a high falutin prose like "Responsibility of Intellectuals" - then fails to live upto it on some of the most critical moments in any scholar's life by fundamentally retaining the same axioms as the official organs of state, just as unquestioned as the rest of the mainstream, it is a puzzlement, to say the least.

This happened once before too, on JFK's assassination. Noam Chomsky is once again famous for having supported the official version of events - the lone gunmen did it.

While it is better to ignore others' opinions and evalute reality based on one's own mind, limited or otherwise, it is better one be led to hell by one's own follies than the 'mullahs', some like to have leaders. So, a humble recipe: before following the opinions of scholars, intellectuals, politicians, and horse traders, put them to the litmus test: practice what thee preaches? walks the talk?

One such test, see: "Responsibility of Intellectuals - Redux"

Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org