Category: propagande


charity

zizek en dessins

Venezuela is about to get hit really hard. I’m not sure what we can do or even how, but we need to support the Venezuelan ZM Chapter and and the entire country. We have to expose this illegal war thats brewing as TZM and show people their is a way to end these brutal war cycles.

The United States in collusion with Columbia is about to launch a pre-emptive attack on Venezuela. Colombia recently gave Venezuela a 30 day ultimatum to “stop supporting terrorist actions”. Hugo Chavez ( the president of Venezuela) has received intelligence that US is planning to go to war with Venezuela and will use Columba as the catalyst, and in turn Chavez ordered his troops to the highest state of combat readiness.

Chavez has been on the top Washington’s hit-list for a long time. His talk about democracy in Latin America is too dangerous to keep him around along with other undesirable qualities. The CIA during the Bush administration tried taking him out by staging a coup in 2002, but failed. And in Feb. 2010, the U.S. National Directorate of Intelligence (NDI) classified Venezuela as “Anti-U.S. Leader” in the annual threat assessment, and this was right after Chavez threatened to cut the US from its oil in the near future.

Also its critical to know that ever since Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa decided to terminate Washington’s use to Ecuador’s Mantra military base, (the last one open to the US in S. America) US and Colombia concluded a secret deal to permit the US to use seven military bases in Colombia in July 2009
The official purpose is to counter narcotrafficking and terrorism, “but senior Colombian military and civilian officials familiar with negotiations told The Associated Press that the idea is to make Colombia a regional hub for Pentagon operations,” AP reported. Allowing the United States to have swift control over possible threats. There are reports that the agreement provides Colombia with privileged access to US military supplies. Colombia had already become the leading recipient of US military aid (apart from Israel-Egypt, a separate category).

AP also cited an April 1999 document of the U.S. Air Mobility Command, which proposes that the Palanquero base in Colombia could become a “cooperative security location” (CSL) from which “mobility operations could be executed.” It quite transparent that this was setup for US attacks against Venezuela.

And within the past couple weeks, the Costan Rican government authorized 46 US war ships & 7,000 marines into their maritime and land territory under the guise of “fighting drug trafficking” but obviously the real intent is of this mobilization is for a pre-emptive attack on Venezuela.

Chavez is too dangerous for US interests. He is disrupting the their hegemony on the oil. He has long been a vehement critic of western oppression. He has to go. Columbia has supplied no evidence for terrorist operations in Venezuela because there is no evidence. What they mean by terrorist is the disenfranchised of Latin America who are disrupting their interests. The US has been beating this war drum louder and louder leading up to this 30 day warning for Venezuela. A 10 year old could deduce that this is the US doing and the US has made it quite clear that they are quite serious about silencing Chavez. The US is supplying Columbia with the weapons while mounting marines and battle ships.

Spread the word!

sonic youth

Sonic Youth

What do you do if you’re young, you’ve got no money, and you want some kind of social life that actually involves human to human interaction? You can’t go to pubs, restaurants, clubs or the cinema without money. Parks close after dark. You can go to a friend’s house if the parents allow it but it’s hardly neutral ground and in any case you can’t meet a whole group that way.

There are places in this country which are so dull, so devoid of sheltered places to meet, so lifelessly unlit after dark, that many young refugees from the parental TV sofa end up hanging around outside the local supermarket. This is not because they have a love of supermarkets.  They’re certainly not going to buy anything. The neon light attracts them like moths, because the alternative to hanging around in a lit area is hanging around in a dark one. And if you’re young and you do that, chances are you’ll get arrested on suspicion of being a mugger or a rapist. Either that, or what’s infinitely worse, you could get mugged or raped by the genuine article.

So the answer to the question, what you do with no money and a desire to be sociable, is hang around in a shop doorway admiring cornflake box pyramids and BOGOF promotions. That is, until the proprietor calls the police and you get moved on or pulled in.

For, not surprisingly, the supermarket owner is not keen on seeing a bunch of hoodies loitering about in his shop doorway, since he knows it to be a scientific fact that two or more adolescents when combined together exhibit a strong repulsive force on passing trade. Even one hoodie is enough to make senior citizens scurry nervously away from the premises, he reasons, while three is definitely a police matter and five a civil emergency.

This is not very conducive to good relations with the society that has forced this lifestyle on you as a young person. The more you exert your ‘right’ to a social life the more likely you are to end up with a police record. Unfortunately it’s your own fault for not being a rich kid with a car and a fat allowance.

As this problem is deeply annoying for everyone involved, one might expect it to be solved by local authorities providing suitable meeting shelters, but that would be far too simple. Instead, displaying a genius for discriminatory technology that only capitalism could possibly come up with, there is the Mosquito. The Mosquito is a recently invented device which exploits the mildly interesting fact that the human audio range deteriorates with age. The philanthropic inventor realised that by zeroing in on high frequencies that only under 25s can usually hear, he could devise a hugely irritating sonic weapon that would be unheard by most shop users but would drive any adolescents  crazy, presumably as well as any passing dogs.

It’s not quiet either, with a maximum output potential of 108 decibels, according to the manufacturer. This is a rock-band-in-your-living-room noise level. An airliner’s jet engines at one nautical mile before landing deliver around 106 dB while a helicopter 100 feet above your head gives 100 dB. Decibels are an expression of ratios, not a straightforward arithmetic scale, so the Mosquito is, for instance, 16 times louder than a domestic 70 dB vacuum cleaner and 8 times louder than a typical 85 dB household smoke alarm.

3,000 have already been sold in Britain for installation outside Spar shops and the like, while controversy has mounted over human rights and safety questions. No testing for health risks took place before the Ig Nobel prize winner went on sale, and some councils have reacted by banning it, although the government in 2008 declared that it had no intention of imposing any ban.

Those over 25 with no kids and no particular concerns about letting off jet-engines near babies might want to worry nonetheless that the Mosquito has another frequency setting, this time one which we can all hear. This is the shape of things to come, as the technology of non-lethal weaponry becomes ever more sophisticated. Military-grade 150 dB sonic weapon LRAD has already been used as ‘crowd-control’ against desperate civilians after the Katrina hurricane disaster, as well as in warzones and against Somali pirates, and is the weapon of choice on luxury liners (‘Cruise lines turn to sonic weapon’, BBC Online, 8 Nov 2005).

As every capitalist knows, what’s great about non-lethal weapons is that you can use them whenever you like on the great unwashed without (much) fear of legal difficulty.  Pretty soon landowners will be able to save a fortune on guarding their estates by installing weapons that make trespassers throw up, soil themselves, go blind or feel as if they’re on fire. With new ‘Phasr’ dazzling laser-guns already being tested by police and other military products like the Active Denial System (a microwave pain ray) likely to follow suit, the social unrest widely anticipated due to savage government cutbacks may well stimulate a huge growth market in such weaponry.

Meanwhile, the young people congregating outside supermarkets with the ear-defenders under their hoodies might be wondering why society hates them so much. But really, society doesn’t hate young people in particular. Capitalist society just hates anybody who doesn’t have any money, which in general terms is most of us. Young people grasp situations quickly, as evidenced by the fact that some of them are now downloading the Mosquito frequency as a ‘silent’ ringtone so they don’t have to turn their phone off in school. But what they really need to grasp is that capitalism is their class enemy, and that isn’t going to change as they get older.

from the socialist party of great britain

HUMAN NATURE

The Western Socialist
Vol. 31 – No. 237
No. 1, 1964
page 20

HUMAN NATURE

It is the opinion of a lot of people that Socialism will never come, because human nature won’t stand for it.

Capitalism to them is the only possible system of society. It is the healthy product of man’s biological maturity. It is perfection unqualified.

It will be conceded of course that this state of grace was reached with some assistance. Left to itself nature will impel man to eat when hungry, sleep when tired, pursue the female of his choice and generally do things that bring him comfort and pleasure. But it would never cause him to engage daily at the sound of a whistle in unpleasant physical exertion, or to travel several thousand miles to murder people; and no other creature, not even a jackass, will stand hungry before a pile of fodder and walk away still hungry. These things need guidance.

To the preacher human behavior is either good or bad and he devotes his time to furthering behavior that is good. In his view it is bad for a worker to take from his employer to feed his hungry children — that is stealing; but it is not bad for the employer to take from hungry children — that is legitimate enterprise. The preacher must be stern about this and his determination is strengthened in the knowledge that should he falter and give wrong guidance his pulpit will be taken over by one more worthy.

The guidance of human behavior begins at an early age. The child is sent to school and church and educated and taught right from wrong. He is taught reading and writing and the national anthem. He learns to add figures and to be proud that he was born where he was born. He marvels at the vastness of the universe and learns about private property. He becomes aware of history’s cultural legacy and that he must not covet his neighbor’s chattels. He is taught that it is wrong to steal or kill except in the cause of righteousness.

And as the years move on and the child approaches adulthood and leaves school and becomes lax in church attendance, his behavior is still given careful thought and guidance. There are days of national rejoicing when he is told again that he is free. There are days of national thanksgiving when his labors are buried in praise for the bounty of God. There are days of national mourning when a giant slaughter becomes a sacred crusade. And between these days of special mention there is unending care by the press, the radio, television and other means of, molding the minds of men, to ensure that only proper thoughts are thought, only proper things are done. No voice is unheard, no act unpraised, that defends the wealth of the wealthy and the poverty of the poor.

So it comes about that we live today in the only possible system of society, the ultimate outcome of man’s natural urge to lie, cheat, steal, oppress, destroy and murder.

That is why Socialism will never come. Human nature won’t stand for it.

J. M.

LA LUTTE DES CLASSES

PARTI SOCIALISTE DU CANADA JUIN 2009
PAGE 2
LA LUTTE DES
CLASSES

En nous lisant, vous verrez sûrement souvent des termes tels que « classe travailleuse » ou « classe capitaliste ». Peut-être voudriez-vous donc un petit éclaircissement sur notre vision de ce qu’est qu’une classe. Pour nous, ce qui définit une classe, c’est sa relation avec les moyens de production (les machines, les usines, les moyens de communication et de transport, les terres). Sous le capitalisme, la classe capitaliste  comprend ceux qui possèdent les moyens de production, tandis que les travailleurs sont ceux qui doivent travailler pour les premiers, c’est-à-dire leur vendre leur force de travail contre un salaire. Quand vous travaillez, vous produisez une certaine valeur et cette valeur est toujours supérieure au salaire offert pour votre force de travail.

S’appropriant le fruit du travail de ses employés, un capitaliste le vend en fait un certain profit grâce à la différence entre le montant gagné et le montant avec lequel il doit acheter la force de travail des employés. Vous pouvez donc voir qu’il existe un antagonisme entre ces deux classes, l’une cherchant à faire de plus en plus de profits aux dépens de l’autre, par exemple en gardant les salaires bas, mais aussi en ayant la plus longue journée de travail possible, en offrant aux travailleurs des conditions de travail minimisant les dépenses des propriétaires sans égard pour le confort et la sécurité des travailleurs, et j’en passe. Cette situation d’exploitation et d’intérêts opposés mène à la lutte des classes, qui, sous le capitalisme, se manifeste par des grèves, par exemple.

Marx a reconnu que dans l’histoire, les gens ont organisé de différentes manières la production des biens et des services dont ils avaient besoin. L’histoire a vu une  succession de modes de production, et chacune de ces étapes avait des classes qui lui étaient propres. Ces classes ayant des intérêts économiques opposés, elles sont entrées en lutte. L’apothéose de la lutte des classes, quand elle est possible, est une révolution grâce à laquelle une classe opprimée prend le pouvoir et établit son propre mode de production. À la fin de l’ère féodale, les bourgeois virent comme une entrave insupportable à leur activité commerciale le mode de production féodal. Ils le combattirent donc pour établir le mode de production capitaliste. Éventuellement, ils firent de tous les autres des travailleurs salariés et étendirent le capitalisme jusqu’aux confins de la planète. Ainsi, ils ont créé une classe mondiale aux intérêts opposés aux leurs.

C’est maintenant notre tour de mener à bien la lutte des classes. La vaste majorité de la population mondiale se retrouve dans une situation dans laquelle elle doit se révolter contre la société actuelle. La solution est de se rassembler pour établir un nouveau mode de production, qui remplacerait la propriété privée et la propriété d’État par la propriété commune de tous. Notre but, en tant que classe, est de mettre fin à la division de la société en classes.

Mais peut-être ne vous sentez-vous pas concerné par la lutte des classes. Après tout, il y a aujourd’hui des travailleurs qui mènent une vie très confortable. Cependant, ce n’est pas histoire de pauvres contre riches. Pensez-y : en tant que travailleur, êtes-vous vraiment avantagé par le capitalisme? Rien ne vous protège des caprices du capital : vous pouvez toujours perdre votre emploi. Vous vivez dans un système économique qui revient toujours  en crise. Vous vivez dans une société où les ressources et les capacités productives de l’humanité servent à augmenter au maximum le profit plutôt qu’à répondre aux besoins. Pourquoi continuer à supporter le capitalisme? Choisissons plutôt le socialisme!

Twenty years after the UN adopted a treaty guaranteeing children’s rights, one billion are still deprived of food, shelter, and clean water, and nearly two hundred million are chronically malnourished, UNICEF reported on November 19th. The report, issued on the eve of the twentieth anniversary of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, said that more children are attending school and fewer are dying (Metro News, 20/Nov/09). UNICEF executive director, Ann Veneman said, “ … the challenge for the next twenty years is to build on the progress achieved, working together to reach those children who are still being denied their rights to survival, development, protection, and participation.”
Looking at the numbers, one may well ask, ‘what progress?’
One hundred and ninety three countries have ratified the treaty, so why are one billion still living in dire poverty? If the agreement is legally binding on all the countries who have ratified it, and only the US and Somalia have not, then shouldn’t we have seen more progress in twenty years? There is no reason to doubt the good intentions of UNICEF, but it will obviously need more than good intentions.
This is just another example of a reform not working, not fulfilling its promise. It doesn’t matter whether a reform is proposed by local, national or international governments, if it tries to make capitalism solve the problem, it will fail. Why? Because the problems are created by capitalism, are natural consequences of its normal operation. Capitalism is a system designed to produce surplus value, profit, that goes into the pockets of the investors, without regard to how, when, or where that is done, and it is very successful at doing that. Food, housing, medical care, clean water, etc., are only produced if there is a reasonable expectation of profit, and, if not, production does not occur, or, in some cases, unsold surpluses are destroyed. Thus anyone without the ability to pay must do without, even the necessities. That’s the way the system is. No amount of reforms, band-aid, or food-aid, is going to change that. Only COMMON OWNERSHIP of the production and distribution of wealth, where we all have control, can bring the obvious common sense reality of looking after our children properly.

what is freedom

What is freedom?

Kind of a dumb question isn’t it?

Everybody knows what freedom is.

It’s obvious – isn’t it?

But even the simplest words and concepts are corrupted in today’s world (remember the peacekeeper missile?). Maybe we should think about the meaning of freedom.

“Freedom” by itself doesn’t really have much meaning.  Its importance, and meaning, comes when we consider freedom from what, and freedom to do what.

Freedom from can’t include a great variety of “freedoms”, ranging from the merciful release from some private burden, to the abolition of a political restraint.

Nevertheless, “freedom from” remains negative and limited to eliminating a particular “evil”.  This, freedom from, is the most popular use of the word “freedom”, and the argument is often made the fact that piling or would these removal of restraint on top of each other – expending areas of freedom – must eventually lead to total and therefore positive social liberty.

Certainly most people would agree that freedom from hunger and insecurity are important, but people in prison, more or less, have this freedom from.  Clearly, the terms of our “freedom” need to be considered and examined.

The context in which “freedom” takes some positive meaning is freedom to.  Each of us could think of many things that we would like to be free to do, but what it adds up to is freedom to choose.

A society can only be truly free if everyone has the freedom to choose.

The Las defined our freedoms.  And Canada the law defines it’s the “freedom of speech”.  It defines the freedom to own property, and the other freedoms to which we are accustomed.  It even defines equality.

As an act of France said,” the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, too beg in the street, and to steal bread”.

As well as defining freedoms, the map also restricts them.  For example, the freedom to eat is limited by your ability to buy food If you need food, but cannot afford it, the law denies you the freedom to eatThis denial is evident in Canada today when children go to school hungry because their parents cannot afford to feed them.

The highly prized “freedom of speech” is also restricted.  In Canada the invocation of the War Measures Act not long ago was only the most obvious example.  During the gulf war even the media admitted that they were restricted in what they could report and what information they could get.

A common saying is that society can approve “liberty but not license”.  The Oxford English dictionary defines “license” as “excessive liberty”, so the saying actually means that you may have liberty, but not too much.

Who decides how much liberty is too much?

Presumably that is decided by the governments.  Is it therefore the electorate (you) that decides on these limits?  Do the politicians seriously listen to you, and do what you want, or do they just mouth platitudes and excuses?

The limits on liberty, or freedom, are the limits that “work” on society as it currently exists.  Society and its laws provide all the freedom from and freedom to that we want, as long as these freedoms do not impinge upon the “normal” functioning of society.

Everything, of course, has boundaries.  One might want the freedom to walk to the moon, but because it is impossible to do so, this “freedom” is limited – by the laws of physics in this case.

The existence of society, in any form, also places boundaries on “freedom”.

Libertarians want the freedom for an individual to do anything they can do. Some libertarians allow that the exercise of freedom mustn’t harm others, but this restriction is usually limited to direct physical attack, not the social result or indirect results of one’s actions.

This freedom to do anything at all is the kind of “freedom” that allows the powerful to exploit the weak – because they can. Mutilating an other person’s freedom is not freedom.

Freedom is relative, always, to the fact that we exist only as social creatures.

In simple everyday experience, every relationship or contract made is a limitation on what might be called “absolute freedom”. Your friends will not remain your friends if you continually ride roughshod over them to satisfy your “absolute freedom”.

When you join an organisation, including society as a whole, you tie yourself to the obligations that are part of that organisation, including the recognition of rules and majority decisions.

Freedom allows that relationship and contracts are entered, and obligations accepted, but by one’s conscious choice. We will always have obligations, but “freedom” means we have real choices.

Some argue that we all do have real choices, but in many cases our lives are controlled by circumstances over which we have little or no real control. For example, poor children (in far greater % then rich children) end up as poor adults, not by choice, but by circumstance.

The “freedom to vote for the candidate of your choice” allows Canada to claim that it is democratic and free. But again reality disproves this illusion. We get to vote for the candidate from a wide political spectrum. So we are told. But the liberals, NPD, conservatives, greens, communists, reform party, and the rest of them are all very effective supporters of the current system of society – the system that causes the problems.

Some of them claim to oppose this system, but after they get elected they seem to forget their principles and are incapable of fulfilling their promises to improve society.

Except for cosmetic differences they are all the same – no choice.

If freedom is to exist, then real choices must be available to all!

Society today does not give us freedom in this sense. A poor or ill-educated person has considerably fewer choices than the rich person as to where he will live, or what work she will do. Financial worries, insecurity, and hostile circumstances of all kinds are obstructions to freedom.

These obstructions are built in this society and try as we might, they will never go away (except maybe by replacing them by other obstructions).

This is the nature of the production-for-profit society of capitalism. We can never be free under capitalism.

Freedom is the natural and immediate result of the establishment of socialism. Not just an abstract judicial “freedom”, but real freedom. The economic basis of socialism – production for use – means free access by everyone to the material wealth of society. That will give each of us the freedom to choose the sort of life we want.

The socialist party claims that the current mode of production in society (production for profit) is incompatible with freedom. The socialist party also believes that a scientific understanding of society, past and present, is required to build a society that can meet the needs of humanity.

Freedom is one of those needs.

Published on Monday, June 29, 2009 by TruthDig.com

The Truth Alone Will Not Set You Free

by Chris Hedges

The ability of the corporate state to pacify the country by extending credit and providing cheap manufactured goods to the masses is gone. The pernicious idea that democracy lies in the choice between competing brands and the freedom to accumulate vast sums of personal wealth at the expense of others has collapsed. The conflation of freedom with the free market has been exposed as a sham. The travails of the poor are rapidly becoming the travails of the middle class, especially as unemployment insurance runs out and people get a taste of Bill Clinton’s draconian welfare reform. And class warfare, once buried under the happy illusion that we were all going to enter an age of prosperity with unfettered capitalism, is returning with a vengeance.

Our economic crisis-despite the corporate media circus around the death of Michael Jackson or Gov. Mark Sanford’s marital infidelity or the outfits of Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest incarnation, Brüno-barrels forward. And this crisis will lead to a period of profound political turmoil and change. Those who care about the plight of the working class and the poor must begin to mobilize quickly or we will lose our last opportunity to save our embattled democracy. The most important struggle will be to wrest the organs of communication from corporations that use mass media to demonize movements of social change and empower proto-fascist movements such as the Christian right.

American culture-or cultures, for we once had distinct regional cultures-was systematically destroyed in the 20th century by corporations. These corporations used mass communication, as well as an understanding of the human subconscious, to turn consumption into an inner compulsion. Old values of thrift, regional identity that had its own iconography, aesthetic expression and history, diverse immigrant traditions, self-sufficiency, a press that was decentralized to provide citizens with a voice in their communities were all destroyed to create mass, corporate culture. New desires and habits were implanted by corporate advertisers to replace the old. Individual frustrations and discontents could be solved, corporate culture assured us, through the wonders of consumerism and cultural homogenization. American culture, or cultures, was replaced with junk culture and junk politics. And now, standing on the ash heap, we survey the ruins. The very slogans of advertising and mass culture have become the idiom of common expression, robbing us of the language to make sense of the destruction. We confuse the manufactured commodity culture with American culture.

How do we recover what was lost? How do we reclaim the culture that was destroyed by corporations? How do we fight back now that the consumer culture has fallen into a state of decay? What can we do to reverse the cannibalization of government and the national economy by the corporations?

All periods of profound change occur in a crisis. It was a crisis that brought us the New Deal, now largely dismantled by the corporate state. It was also a crisis that gave the world Adolf Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic. We can go in either direction. Events move at the speed of light when societies and cultural assumptions break down. There are powerful forces, which have no commitment to the open society, ready to seize the moment to snuff out the last vestiges of democratic egalitarianism. Our bankrupt liberalism, which naively believes that Barack Obama is the antidote to our permanent war economy and Wall Street fraud, will either rise from its coma or be rolled over by an organized corporate elite and their right-wing lap dogs. The corporate domination of the airwaves, of most print publications and an increasing number of Internet sites means we will have to search, and search quickly, for alternative forms of communication to thwart the rise of totalitarian capitalism.

Stuart Ewen, whose books “Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture” and “PR: A Social History of Spin” chronicle how corporate propaganda deformed American culture and pushed populism to the margins of American society, argues that we have a fleeting chance to save the country. I fervently hope he is right. He attacks the ideology of “objectivity and balance” that has corrupted news, saying that it falsely evokes the scales of justice. He describes the curriculum at most journalism schools as “poison.”

“ ‘Balance and objectivity’ creates an idea where both sides are balanced,” he said when I spoke to him by phone. “In certain ways it mirrors the two-party system, the notion that if you are going to have a Democrat speak you need to have a Republican speak. It offers the phantom of objectivity. It creates the notion that the universe of discourse is limited to two positions. Issues become black or white. They are not seen as complex with a multitude of factors.”

Ewen argues that the forces for social change-look at any lengthy and turgid human rights report-have forgotten that rhetoric is as important as fact. Corporate and government propaganda, aimed to sway emotions, rarely uses facts to sell its positions. And because progressives have lost the gift of rhetoric, which was once a staple of a university education, because they naively believe in the Enlightenment ideal that facts alone can move people toward justice, they are largely helpless.

“Effective communication requires not simply an understanding of the facts, but how those facts will take place in the public mind,” Ewen said. “When Gustave Le Bon says it is not the facts in and of themselves which make a point but the way in which the facts take place, the way in which they come to attention, he is right.”

The emergence of corporate and government public relations, which drew on the studies of mass psychology by Sigmund Freud and others after World War I, found its bible in Walter Lippmann’s book “Public Opinion,” a manual for the power elite’s shaping of popular sentiments. Lippmann argued that the key to leadership in the modern age would depend on the ability to manipulate “symbols which assemble emotions after they have been detached from their ideas.” The public mind could be mastered, he wrote, through an “intensification of feeling and a degradation of significance.”

These corporate forces, schooled by Woodrow Wilson’s vast Committee for Public Information, which sold World War I to the public, learned how to skillfully mobilize and manipulate the emotional responses of the public. The control of the airwaves and domination through corporate advertising of most publications restricted news to reporting facts, to “objectivity and balance,” while the real power to persuade and dominate a public remained under corporate and governmental control.

Ewen argues that pamphleteering, which played a major role in the 17th and 18th centuries in shaping the public mind, recognized that “the human mind is not left brain or right brain, that it is not divided by reason which is good and emotion which is bad.”

He argues that the forces of social reform, those organs that support a search for truth and self-criticism, have mistakenly shunned emotion and rhetoric because they have been used so powerfully within modern society to disseminate lies and manipulate public opinion. But this refusal to appeal to emotion means “we gave up the ghost and accepted the idea that human beings are these divided selves, binary systems between emotion and reason, and that emotion gets you into trouble and reason is what leads you forward. This is not true.”

The public is bombarded with carefully crafted images meant to confuse propaganda with ideology and knowledge with how we feel. Human rights and labor groups, investigative journalists, consumer watchdog organizations and advocacy agencies have, in the face of this manipulation, inundated the public sphere with reports and facts. But facts alone, Ewen says, make little difference. And as we search for alternative ways to communicate in a time of crisis we must also communicate in new forms. We must appeal to emotion as well as to reason. The power of this appeal to emotion is evidenced in the photographs of Jacob Riis, a New York journalist, who with a team of assistants at the end of the 19th century initiated urban-reform photography. His stark portraits of the filth and squalor of urban slums awakened the conscience of a nation. The photographer Lewis Hine, at the turn of the 20th century, and Walker Evans during the Great Depression did the same thing for the working class, along with writers such as Upton Sinclair and James Agee. It is a recovery of this style, one that turns the abstraction of fact into a human flesh and one that is not afraid of emotion and passion, which will permit us to counter the force of corporate propaganda.

We may know that fossil fuels are destroying our ecosystem. We may be able to cite the statistics. But the oil and natural gas industry continues its flagrant rape of the planet. It is able to do this because of the money it uses to control legislation and a massive advertising campaign that paints the oil and natural gas industry as part of the solution. A group called EnergyTomorrow.org, for example, has been running a series of television ads. One ad features an attractive, middle-aged woman in a black pantsuit-an actor named Brooke Alexander who once worked as the host of “WorldBeat” on CNN and for Fox News. Alexander walks around a blue screen studio that becomes digital renditions of American life. She argues, before each image, that oil and natural gas are critical to providing not only energy needs but health care and jobs.

“It is almost like they are taking the most optimistic visions of what the stimulus package could do and saying this is what the development of oil and natural gas will bring about,” Ewen said. “If you go to the Web site there is a lot of sophisticated stuff you can play around with. As each ad closes you see in the lower right-hand corner in very small letters API, the American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying group for ExxonMobil and all the other big oil companies. For the average viewer there is nothing in the ad to indicate this is being produced by the oil industry.”

The modern world, as Kafka predicted, has become a world where the irrational has become rational, where lies become true. And facts alone will be powerless to thwart the mendacity spun out through billions of dollars in corporate advertising, lobbying and control of traditional sources of information. We will have to descend into the world of the forgotten, to write, photograph, paint, sing, act, blog, video and film with anger and honesty that have been blunted by the parameters of traditional journalism. The lines between artists, social activists and journalists have to be erased. These lines diminish the power of reform, justice and an understanding of the truth. And it is for this purpose that these lines are there.

“As a writer part of what you are aiming for is to present things in ways that will resonate with people, which will give voice to feelings and concerns, feelings that may not be fully verbalized,” Ewen said. “You can’t do that simply by providing them with data. One of the major problems of the present is that those structures designed to promote a progressive agenda are antediluvian.”

Corporate ideology, embodied in neoconservatism, has seeped into the attitudes of most self-described liberals. It champions unfettered capitalism and globalization as eternal. This is the classic tactic that power elites use to maintain themselves. The loss of historical memory, which “balanced and objective” journalism promotes, has only contributed to this fantasy. But the fantasy, despite the desperate raiding of taxpayer funds to keep the corporate system alive, is now coming undone. The lie is being exposed. And the corporate state is running scared.

“It is very important for people like us to think about ways to present the issues, whether we are talking about the banking crisis, health care or housing and homelessness,” Ewen said. “We have to think about presenting these issues in ways that are two steps ahead of the media rather than two steps behind. That is not something we should view as an impossible task. It is a very possible task. There is evidence of how possible that task is, especially if you look at the development of the underground press in the 1960s. The underground press, which started cropping up all over the country, was not a marginal phenomenon. It leeched into the society. It developed an approach to news and communication that was 10 steps ahead of the mainstream media. The proof is that even as it declined, so many structures that were innovated by the underground press, things like The Whole Earth Catalogue, began to affect and inform the stylistic presentation of mainstream media.”

“I am not a prophet,” Ewen said. “All I can do is look at historical precedence and figure out the extent we can learn from it. This is not about looking backwards. If you can’t see the past you can’t see the future. If you can’t see the relationship between the present and the past you can’t understand where the present might go. Who controls the past controls the present, who controls the present controls the future, as George Orwell said. This is a succinct explanation of the ways in which power functions.”

“Read ‘The Gettysburg Address,’ ” Ewen said. “Read Frederick Douglass’ autobiography or his newspaper. Read ‘The Communist Manifesto.’ Read Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man.’ All of these things are filled with an understanding that communicating ideas and producing forms of public communication that empower people, rather than disempowering people, relies on an integrated understanding of who the public is and what it might be. We have a lot to learn from the history of rhetoric. We need to think about where we are going. We need to think about what 21st century pamphleteering might be. We need to think about the ways in which the rediscovery of rhetoric-not lying, but rhetoric in its more conventional sense-can affect what we do. We need to look at those historical antecedents where interventions happened that stepped ahead of the news. And to some extent this is happening. We have the freest and most open public sphere since the village square.”

The battle ahead will be fought outside the journalistic mainstream, he said. The old forms of journalism are dying or have sold their soul to corporate manipulation and celebrity culture. We must now wed fact to rhetoric. We must appeal to reason and emotion. We must not be afraid to openly take sides, to speak, photograph or write on behalf of the disempowered. And, Ewen believes, we have a chance in the coming crisis to succeed.

“Pessimism is never useful,” he said. “Realism is useful, understanding the forces that are at play. To quote Antonio Gramsci, ‘pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.’ ”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.