We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

“There Are Reasons for Optimism” – Chomsky on Brazil, Fascism, US Politics

Click here to access post in Defend Democracy Press in which John Nichols, mostly known as an editor at The Nation, interviews Noam Chomsky.

Because I have expressed my views in articles I have posted in the past, both positive (see this and this) and negative (see this, this, and this), regarding Noam Chomsky's role on the political left in US politics, I won't add much to the critique in this post except to argue that his legacy's influence as a left gatekeeper lives on in the thinking of John Nichols and apparently in the people at Defend Democracy Press

Chomsky's early life apparently had an indelible effect on his understanding of fascism. It appears that he doesn't recognize the upgraded version of fascism as fascism, but this is acceptable only if one takes a superficial of the concept. The central theme of fascism is control (of others, domination). The earlier version focused mainly on physical methods of intimidation and arbitrary authoritarian legal procedures that was typical of the Nazi's Third Reich. In contrast, the upgraded version relies heavily, but not exclusively, on methods of pervasive mind control, that is, through the use of comprehensive indoctrination, propaganda, fake news, false flags, etc, by agents of the US/Anglo/Zionist Empire. The difference is largely one of methods.

One of Chomsky's remarks in the interview elicited my close attention: his answer to the question "Was it clear to you that a greater war [WWII] was coming?" His mention of the "State Department" as one of the sites where discussions were commonly talked about regarding the coming war particularly drew my attention. While recently reading As He Saw It by Elliott Roosevelt (1946), he quoted his father's disparaging remarks about the State Department that suggested he didn't trust them based on his experience with members of this government department. This evoked a rather vague memory that I've gathered a number of years ago from readings that referred to the State Department as being militantly right-wing.

I have argued elsewhere in this blog that a largely secret resurgence of fascist-sympathetic capitalists came "out of the woodwork" (def.) following the article "American Century" published by Henry Luce of Time magazine in February, 1941. I have a hunch that they mostly ensconced themselves in this government department. The famous CIA director, Allen Dulles, was one of them. [If anyone reading this blog has sources which reveal any information about this, please let me know via email (goatmeal36@yahoo.com)]. I've also read some remarks in Bruce Cumings' The Origins of the Korean War (2 volumes) which stated that various figures in the State Department actively supported containment and rollback policies against Soviet Union and its satellites shortly after WWII.