Chomsky, Chossudovsky, and Controlled Opposition


ideology and the infowar blog.

Chomsky, Chossudovsky, and Controlled Opposition
October 8, 2010

In a recent article for, Michel Chossudovsky cogently describes how the present day oligarchy creates and manipulates its own opposition.

Acknowledging the propaganda model of “manufacturing consent”, posited by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Chossudovsky goes further to fill in more of the picture with the concept of “manufacturing dissent”.  Some of his observations include:

“Under contemporary capitalism, the illusion of democracy must prevail.  It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order.  The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent.”

“To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition, with a view to preventing the development of radical forms of protest, which might shake the very foundations and institutions of global capitalism.  In other words, “manufacturing dissent” acts as a “safety valve”, which protects and sustains the New World Order.”

“The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement.”

“The inner objective is to “manufacture dissent” and establish the boundaries of a “politically correct” opposition.  In turn, many NGOs are infiltrated by informants often acting on behalf of western intelligence agencies.  Moreover, an increasingly large segment of the progressive alternative news media on the internet has become dependent on funding from corporate foundations and charities.”

Chossudovsky goes on to reveal:  “The economic elites –which control major foundations– also oversee the funding of numerous NGOs and civil society organizations, which historically have been involved in the protest movement against the established economic and social order. The programs of many NGOs and people’s movements rely heavily on both public as well as private funding agencies including the Ford, Rockefeller, McCarthy foundations, among others.”

In other words, if a few disruptive thinkers see through the media/educational propaganda façade and succeed in waking the rest of the herd, the elite will take a proactive approach and guide the rebellion into results that benefit them.  Moreover, the truism, money talks, bullshit walks, is readily applied here.

Perceptive, he also points out that funding and maintaining a ‘citizen watch group’ legitimizes the watched group in the public’s mind.  Generous, the mugger can now invite the victim to sit down at the table and, well, you know.., work things out.  Textbook dialectics.

While funding, and other forms of direct interaction with the controlled opposition by the ruling class, are well explained and documented in the article, a question remains.  Can money alone buy a mindset?  Can bribes induce a specific ideological perspective?  The “politically correct” opposition does not begin with a payoff.  It begins at a more pervasive level.  The leaders of a movement can be bought.  The mass followers, however, can only be indoctrinated.

The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work, with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.  Aldous Huxley

Huxley understood the power of indoctrination and propaganda.  For generations, government education (public schools) and the mass media have existed to serve the interests of its final owners – the transnational corporations.  An epistemological cartel serves the scientific dictatorship.  It is vital to the corporate-banker complex to maintain a homogenous market of predictable credit-debt consumers yet, oppositional dichotomies must be ‘shaped and moulded’ to create division and polarization.  Non-issues become issues.  Non-issues often adorn the banners of permitted protests.  Politically correct non-issues provide the illusion for superficial revolutionary change.

The words, “conservative” and “liberal” have lost currency as meaningful political labels.  Where once a Conservative defended the monarchy, he now defends limited government.  Where once a Liberal agitated against monarchy, and for individualism and free enterprise, he now defends the status quo of statism and socialism.  Both words are bandied about and, at best, used as a generality – a catch-all when definitive description is too much of a chore.  Add to the mix, “neoconservative”, and we now have a politician giving campaign speeches about the virtues of limited government and the prudent need to extend the Patriot Act.

The popular cultural dichotomies that the education/media complex have programmed us with, such as, pro-life and pro-choice, Gay and straight, creationist and evolutionist, and so on, are superfluous to the fiat money debt-slave Ponzi scheme, i.e., the foundation of the New World Order.  Guns or butter?  It doesn’t matter.  Government entitlements for both increases social debt and private bankster profits.  Wedge issues are employed to keep us busy in our common slavery.  Successful political gains won by either side are heralded as “revolutionary”.  Change happens, yet nothing changes.  Seats are rearranged in the prison cafeteria.  It’s the “safety valve”.

Lest Focus on the Family Christians or pro-choice atheists might forget the other and seriously question global empire, both can stay contented world citizens and, at the same time, enjoy the elation of righteous partisanship.  The fake drama of successive Democrat and Republican electoral victories salves the reality of the bipartisan agenda to serve the globalist paymasters.

Conveniently, non-issue dichotomies serve as devices to sabotage incipient populist rebellion.  We have witnessed the devolution of the Tea Party.  Beginning as an anti-tyranny movement, it had strong common appeal to values shared by rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans.  Now, it is nothing more than a faction within of the neocon GOP.  Orwellian War-on-Terror hype and Islamophobia have seemingly neutralized any populist challenge to the banker war-for-profit agenda.  The duopoly dictatorship has absorbed the threat to its existence and remains intact.  One day, historians may summarize the upcoming November, 2010, elections as a contest between career politicians and their opponents, exploiting Tea Party anger, hoping to begin careers.

Amid the clamor against Obama style Big Govt totalitarianism, the voices for anti-globalization and restoration of the Constitution must stay consistent, clear and nonpartisan.  The obsession to support any Republican, who sermonizes about “limited government”, should be examined:  Does he mean limited government for the people, or does he mean limited control for Wall Street and the transnational banker cartel?  Follow the money.  The insurance industry is contributing more to Republican candidates than to Democrat candidates:

.., having backed the Obama health care legislation because it forced 30 million Americans to buy insurance or face fines, the insurance industry wants a Republican-controlled Congress to write more business-friendly rules for the new coverage, so that it can offer cut-rate, high-profit plans to this new captive market.  Patrick Martin

The November elections will bring to the table freedom issues on a scale unprecedented in recent history.  We cannot, however, compromise principles merely to see victory for a “libertarian” candidate.  Real revolutionary change rarely occurs by ballot.  Most often, it occurs when the people, en masse, decide to make their own destiny.

[1] Manufacturing Dissent”, M. Chossudovsky: the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites.  The People’s Movement has been Hijacked, by Michel Chossudovsky.  Full article here:
[2] ibid: “Manufacturing consent”. [It] implies manipulating and shaping public opinion. It establishes conformity and acceptance to authority and social hierarchy. It seeks compliance to an established social order. “Manufacturing consent” describes the submission of public opinion to the mainstream media narrative, to its lies and fabrications.  Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, 1988.
Aldous Huxley, – Brave New World Revisited, 116:
Scientific Dictatorship: and
[3] Focus on the Family: Colorado Springs based evangelical Christian organization:
[4] Corporate Cash Floods US Congessional Elections, P. Martin:


3 thoughts on “Chomsky, Chossudovsky, and Controlled Opposition”

  1. A comment worth archiving. The only bit that elicits misgivings in my mind, if one has an inclination for picking at nits, is this:

    “Where once a Liberal agitated against monarchy, and for individualism and free enterprise, he now defends the status quo of statism and socialism.”

    This is all you need to read to know you are reading something that was written by an American. In other words, with that, you know that the analysis very much remains in consonance with an uncritical acceptance of capitalism as such, with for profit production and exchange, despite the radical lingo which in a different context really does signal a radical critique, but spoken as here by someone who equates “statism” (whatever the fuck that is) with “socialism, signals a misappropriation redefining categories and words in such a way as to neuter their original radical import and payload.

    There are no words or phrases coined by true radicals that American spinmeisters cannot master, co-opt and debase, so as to leave property relations and profit seeking as such beyond the limits of dissent and critical thinking. A real tour de force, actually. As the piece engages in the very thing it pretends to take to task.

    I might come back to this piece again to take it apart, bit by bit. But you have to hand it to the Americans. No one even comes close to them in the department of bullshit and obfuscation.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. As a Brit who has seen the rise of Corporatism in replacing capitalism and also the complete acceptance of capitalism as the only available option, I also find the piece orientated from an out of kilter base conception. Obviously biased in favour of poor foundations, it is rather narrow minded to the point of almost being miopic in it’s foundations, but I thought it interesting in a removed and distorted kind of way. I’m not surprised you were unable to conform to it’s basic tenets of acceptance, such an approach is dismissive of alternative or even critical thinking beyond a given that really does not exist tangentially in a wider sense. No thinking outside the box or beyond what they ken.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Sorry about the above response. At 3 am my brain is only semi functional. My first observation was much earlier than yours.
        I’m still trying to wrap my head around “contemporary capitalism” as opposed to what? “Non contemporary capitalism”?
        Then there’s this small section:“The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement.” andd the next few paragraphs flesh out the thinking and genuine observations. Of particular note mainly because of Avaaz which George Soros funds and the arguments raging within socialist circles regarding the compliance of the Stop The War Coalition, not to mention HRW and AI who have been not so much coopted by subtle infiltration, but are now openly supportive of the opposite of what they were supposedly founded to protect against.So I much appreciated his reference to “Moreover, the truism, money talks, bullshit walks, is readily applied here.”
        For me in the UK the Conservatives represent Selfservatives, whilst the Liberals are betwixt and between with very little to offer except as a weak alternative to the former mentioned and certainly not anti monarchy. Only the Labour Party, as it was 50 years ago, ever represented any aspect of socialism, never anti monarchy(always mindful of the loyalty most British subjects were to the monarchy) and only subtle in their support for Marxist ideology since, even by then, we had been manipulated to view Stalin’s politics and ideology as “tyranny” and any socialist tendencies as “communism” or the McCarthyite label of “Reds Under The Beds” and thus to be averred.
        I also appreciate the “Wedge issues are employed to keep us busy in our common slavery. Successful political gains won by either side are heralded as “revolutionary”.” as it applies to the issues previously outlined and the current controversy surrounding centrist Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. All else being proffered for debate is manufactured to distract from ideological discourse and economical strategy analysis. The Labour Party, originally describing itself as a socialist democratic organisation, has morphed into a right wing, pro capitalist, elitist monopoly of the alternative to Tory(Conservatives)extremism, but is in reality a mere pale reflection of the Tories themselves, hence the label Tory Lite or Blue Labour(red being Labour’s true colour). Not only is the Labour Party dominated by these elitist, materialistic, self serving war mongering privateers, but they too, have managed to infiltrate the unions, the ruling party body(the National Executive Committee) but also the Jewish Labour movement(this last is debatable, because it has been shown that Mossad has been dipping it’s fingers where they really shouldn’t oughta be and the extremist pro Israeli and Zionist lobby have always been lurking ready to take the rug out from anyone (including their fellow Jews) who talks the wrong words). Corbyn probably has approximately 40-50 left leaning or centrist politicians behind him, while the Blairites have circa 140 – all dyed in the wool, I’m alright Jack, pull the ladder up, lining their pockets, career politicians without integrity or scruples advancing the “neo” New Labour ideology, which is far removed from being representative of the majority Party Members. These neoLabourites, even went to the Liberal Democrats, to try and wrest the Labour name(and all the funding from the Party Members and Union subscriptions who opted in to the Labour Party) when they failed to oust Corbyn with rigged ballots and propaganda smears. The “Liberal” Democrats, who are themselves a motley crew of halfway to Conservative thinkers, deferred the offer made by New Labour, because they perceived them as too far right!
        So “The words, “conservative” and “liberal” have lost currency as meaningful political labels.” is a nail on the head observation, as is the term “socialist” with so many pseudo lefties purporting to represent the socialist ideology and agenda. One statement I fully concurred with, was the last entry on this article, that of “Real revolutionary change rarely occurs by ballot. Most often, it occurs when the people, en masse, decide to make their own destiny.”
        Sadly, so much of the population is either vapid or lazily apathetic, or worse still, have adopted the attitude of “I’m alright Jack” as long as there are people worse off than them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s