excerpts from the book
by Noam Chomsky
Seven Stories Press
The United States pioneered the public relations industry.
Its commitment was "to control the public mind, " as
its leaders put it. They learned a lot from the successes of the
Creel Commission and the successes in creating the Red Scare and
its aftermath. The public relations industry underwent a huge
expansion at that time. It succeeded for some time in creating
almost total subordination of the public to business rule through
the 1920s. This was so extreme that Congressional committees began
to investigate it as we moved into the 1930s. That's where a lot
of our information about it comes from.
Public relations is a huge industry. They're spending by now
something on the order of a billion dollars a year. All along
its commitment was to controlling the public mind. In the 1930s,
big problems arose again, as they had during the First World War.
There was a huge depression and substantial labor organizing.
In fact, in 1935 labor won its first major legislative victory,
namely, the right to organize, with the Wagner Act. That raised
two serious problems. For one thing, democracy was misfunctioning.
The bewildered herd was actually winning legislative victories,
and it's not supposed to work that way. The other problem was
that it was becoming possible for people to organize. People have
to be atomized and segregated and alone. They're not supposed
to organize, because then they might be something beyond spectators
of action. They might actually be participants if many people
with limited resources could get together to enter the political
arena. That's really threatening. A major response was taken on
the part of business to ensure that this would be the last legislative
victory for labor and that it would be the beginning of the end
of this democratic deviation of popular organization. It worked.
That was the last legislative victory for labor. From that point
on-although the number of people in the unions increased for a
while during the World War II, after which it started dropping-the
capacity to act through the unions began to steadily drop. It
wasn't by accident. We're now talking about the business community,
which spends lots and lots of money, attention, and thought into
how to deal with these problems through the public relations industry
and other organizations, like the National Association of Manufacturers
and the Business Roundtable, and so on. They immediately set to
work to try to find a way to counter these democratic deviations.
The first trial was one year later, in 1937. There was a major
strike, the Steel strike in western Pennsylvania at Johnstown.
Business tried out a new technique of labor destruction, which
worked very well. Not through goon squads and breaking knees.
That wasn't working very well any more, but through the more subtle
and effective means of propaganda. The idea was to figure out
ways to turn the public against the strikers, to present the strikers
as disruptive, harmful to the public and against the common interests.
The common interests are those of "us," the businessman,
the worker, the housewife. That's all "us. " We want
to be together and have things like harmony and Americanism and
working together. Then there's those bad strikers out there who
are disruptive and causing trouble and breaking harmony and violating
Americanism. We've got to stop them so we can all live together.
The corporate executive and the guy who cleans the floors all
have the same interests. We can all work together and work for
Americanism in harmony, liking each other.
That was essentially the message. A huge amount of effort
was put into presenting it. This is, after all, the business community,
so they control the media and have massive resources. And it worked,
very effectively. It was later called the "Mohawk Valley
formula" and applied over and over again to break strikes.
They were called "scientific methods of strike-breaking,"
and worked very effectively by mobilizing community opinion in
favor of vapid, empty concepts like Americanism. Who can be against
that? Or harmony. Who can be against that? Or, as in the Persian
Gulf War, "Support our troops." Who can be against that?
Or yellow ribbons. Who can be against that? Anything that's totally
In fact, what does it mean if somebody asks you, Do you support
the people in Iowa? Can you say, Yes, I support them, or No, I
don't support them? It's not even a question. It doesn't mean
anything. That's the point. The point of public relations slogans
like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything.
They mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa. Of
course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our
policy? But you don't want people to think about that issue. That's
the whole point of good propaganda.
You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against,
and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because
it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts
your attention from a question that does mean something. Do you
support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk
about. So you-have people arguing about support for the troops?
"Of course I don't not support them." Then you've won.
That's like Americanism and harmony. We're all together, empty
slogans, let's join in, let's make sure we don't have these bad
people around to disrupt our harmony with their talk about class
struggle, rights and that sort of business.]
That's all very effective. It runs right up to today. And
of course it is carefully thought out. The people in the public
relations industry aren't there for the fun of it. They're doing
work. They're trying to instill the right values. In fact, they
have a conception of what democracy ought to be: It ought to be
a system in which the specialized class is trained to work in
the service of the masters, the people who own the society. The
rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization,
because organization just causes trouble. They ought to be sitting
alone in front of the TV and having drilled into their heads the
message, which says, the only value in life is to have more commodities
or live like that rich middle class family you're watching and
to have nice values like harmony and Americanism. That's all there
is in life. You may think in your own head that there's got to
be something more in life than this, but since you're watching
the tube alone you assume, I must be crazy, because that's all
that's going on over there. And since there is no organization
permitted-that's absolutely crucial-you never have a way of finding
out whether you are crazy, and you just assume it, because it's
the natural thing to assume.
So that's the ideal. Great efforts are made m trying to achieve
that ideal. Obviously, there is a certain conception behind it.
The conception of democracy is the one that I mentioned. The bewildered
herd is a problem we've got to prevent their roar and trampling.
We've got to distract them. They should be watching the Superbowl
or sitcoms or violent movies. Every once in a while you call on
them to chant meaningless slogans like "Support our troops."
You've got to keep them pretty scared, because unless they're
properly scared and frightened of all kinds of devils that are
going to destroy them from outside or inside or somewhere, they
may start to think, which is very dangerous, because they're not
competent to think. Therefore it's important I to distract them
and marginalize them.
That's one conception of democracy. In fact, going back to
the business community, the last legal victory for labor really
was 1935, the Wagner Act. After the war came, the unions declined
as did a very rich working class culture that was associated with
the unions. That was destroyed. We moved to a business-run society
at a remarkable level. This is the only state-capitalist industrial
society which doesn't have even the normal social contract that
you find in comparable societies. Outside of South Africa, I guess,
this is the only industrial society that doesn't have national
health care. There's no general commitment to even minimal standards
of survival for the parts of the population who can't follow those
rules and gain things for themselves individually. Unions are
virtually nonexistent. Other forms of popular structure are virtually
nonexistent. There are no political parties or organizations.
It's a long way toward the ideal, at least structurally. The media
are a corporate monopoly.
They have the same point of view. The two parties are two
factions of the business party. Most of the population doesn't
even bother voting because it looks meaningless. They're marginalized
and properly distracted. At least that's the goal. The leading
figure in the public relations industry, Edward Bernays, actually
came out of the Creel Commission. He was part of it, learned his
lessons there and went on to develop what he called the "engineering
of consent," which he described as "the essence of democracy."
The people who are able to engineer consent are the ones who have
the resources and the power to do it-the business community-and
that's who you work for.
It is ... necessary to whip up the population in support of
foreign adventures. Usually the population is pacifist, just like
they were during the First World War. The public sees no reason
to get involved in foreign adventures, killing, and torture. So
you have to whip them up. And to whip them up you have to frighten
The Reagan programs were overwhelmingly unpopular. Voters
in the 1984 "Reagan landslide," by about three to two,
hoped that his policies would not be enacted. If you take particular
programs, like armaments, cutting back on social spending, etc.,
almost every one of them was overwhelmingly opposed by the public.
But as long as people are marginalized and distracted and have
no way to organize or articulate their sentiments, or even know
that others have these sentiments, people who said that they prefer
social spending to military spending, who gave that answer on
polls, as people overwhelmingly did, assumed that they were the
only people with that crazy idea in their heads. They never heard
it from anywhere else. Nobody's supposed to think that. Therefore,
if you do think it and you answer it in a poll, you just assume
that you're sort of weird. Since there's no way to get together
with other people who share or reinforce that view and help you
articulate it, you feel like an oddity, an oddball. So you just
stay on the side and you don't pay any attention to what's going
on. You look at something else, like the Superbowl.
Parade of Enemies
... There are growing domestic social and economic problems,
in fact, maybe catastrophes. Nobody in power has any intention
of doing anything about them. If you look at the domestic programs
of the administrations of the past ten years - I include here
the Democratic opposition - there's really no serious proposal
about what to do about the severe problems of health, education,
homelessness, joblessness, crime, soaring criminal populations,
jails, deterioration in the inner cities- the whole raft of problems.
You all know about them, and they're all getting worse. Just in
the two years that George Bush has been in office three million
more children crossed the poverty line, the debt is zooming, educational
standards are declining, real wages are now back to the level
of about the late 1950s for much of the population, and nobody's
doing anything about it. In such circumstances you've got to divert
the bewildered herd, because if they start noticing this they
may not like it, since they're the ones suffering from it. Just
having them watch the Superbowl and the sitcoms may not be enough.
You have to whip them up into fear of enemies. In the 1930s Hitler
whipped them into fear of the Jews and gypsies. You had to crush
them to defend yourselves. We have our ways, too. Over the last
ten years, every year or two, some major monster is constructed
that we have to defend ourselves against. There used to be one
that was always readily available: The Russians. You could always
defend yourself against the Russians. But they're losing their
attractiveness as an enemy, and it's getting harder and harder
to use that one, so some new ones have to be conjured up. In fact,
people have quite unfairly criticized George Bush for being unable
to express or articulate what's really driving us now. That's
very unfair. Prior to about the mid- 1 980s, when you were asleep
you would just play the record: the Russians are coming. But he
lost that one and he's got to make up new ones, just like the
Reaganite public relations apparatus did in the 1980s. So it was
international terrorists and narco-traffickers and crazed Arabs
and Saddam Hussein, the new Hitler, was going to conquer the world.
They've got to keep coming up one after another. You frighten
the population, terrorize them, intimidate them so that they're
too afraid to travel and cower in fear. Then you have a magnificent
victory over Grenada, Panama, or some other defenseless third
world army that you can pulverize before you ever bother to look
at them-which is just what happened. That gives relief. We were
saved at the last minute. That's one of the ways in which you
can keep the bewildered herd from paying attention to what's really
going on around them, keep them diverted and controlled. The next
one that's coming along, most likely, will be Cuba. That's going
to require a continuation of the illegal economic warfare, possibly
a revival of the extraordinary international terrorism. The most
major international terrorism organized yet has been the Kennedy
administration's Operation Mongoose, then the things that followed
along, against Cuba. There's been nothing remotely comparable
to it except perhaps the war against Nicaragua, if you call that
terrorism. The World Court classified it as something more like
aggression. There's always an ideological offensive that builds
up a chimerical monster, then campaigns to have it crushed. You
can't go in if they can fight back. That's much too dangerous.
But if you are sure that they will be crushed, maybe we'll knock
that one off and heave another sigh of relief.
... In May 1986, the memoirs of the released Cuban prisoner,
Armando Valladares, came out. They quickly became a media sensation.
I'll give you a couple of quotes. The media described his revelations
as "the definitive account of the vast system of torture
and prison by which Castro punishes and obliterates political
opposition." It was "an inspiring and unforgettable
account" of the "bestial prisons," inhuman torture,
[and] record of state violence [under] yet another of this century's
mass murderers, who we learn, at last, from this book "has
created a new despotism that has institutionalized torture as
a mechanism of social control" in "the hell that was
the Cuba that [Valladares] lived in. " That's the Washington
Post and New York Times in repeated reviews. Castro was described
as "a dictatorial goon." His atrocities were revealed
in this book so conclusively that "only the most light-headed
and cold-blooded Western intellectual will come to the tyrant's
defense," said the Washington Post. Remember, this is the
account of what happened to one man. Let's say it's all true.
Let's raise no questions about what happened to the one man who
says he was tortured. At a White House ceremony marking Human
Rights Day, he was singled out by Ronald Reagan for his courage
in enduring the horrors and sadism of this bloody Cuban tyrant.
He was then appointed the U.S. representative at the U.N. Human
Rights Commission, where he has been able to perform signal services
defending the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments against charges
that they conduct atrocities so massive that they make anything
he suffered look pretty minor. That's the way things stand.
That was May 1986. It was interesting, and it tells you something
about the manufacture of consent. The same month, the surviving
members of the Human Rights Group of El Salvador - the leaders
had been killed - were arrested and tortured, including Herbert
Anaya, who was the director. They were sent to a prison - La Esperanza
(hope) Prison. While they were in prison they continued their
human rights work. They were lawyers, they continued taking affidavits.
There were 432 prisoners in that prison. They got signed affidavits
from 430 of them in which they described, under oath, the torture
that they had received: electrical torture and other atrocities,
including, in one case, torture by a North American U.S. major
in uniform, who is described in some detail. This is an unusually
explicit and comprehensive testimony, probably unique in its detail
about what's going on in a torture chamber. This 160-page report
of the prisoners' sworn testimony was sneaked out of prison, along
with a videotape which was taken showing people testifying in
prison about their torture. It was distributed by the Marin County
Interfaith Task Force. The national press refused to cover it.
The TV stations refused to run it. There was an article in the
local Marin County newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner, and
I think that's all. No one else would touch it. This was a time
when there was more than a few "light-headed and cold-blooded
Western intellectuals" who were singing the praises of Jose
Napoleon Duarte and of Ronald Reagan. Anaya was not the subject
of any tributes. He didn't get on Human Rights Day. He wasn't
appointed to anything. He was released in a prisoner exchange
and then assassinated, apparently by the U.S.-backed security
forces. Very little information about that ever appeared. The
media never asked whether exposure of the atrocities-instead of
sitting on them and silencing them-might have saved his life.
This tells you something about the way a well-functioning
system of consent manufacturing works. In comparison with the
revelations of Herbert Anaya in El Salvador, Valladares's memoirs
are not even a pea next to the mountain. But you've got your job
to do. That takes us toward the next war. I expect, we're going
to hear more and more of this, until the next operation takes
A few remarks about the last one. Let's turn finally to that.
Let me begin with this University of Massachusetts study that
I mentioned before. It has some interesting conclusions. In the
study people were asked whether they thought that the United States
should intervene with force to reverse illegal occupation or serious
human rights abuses. By about two to one, people in the United
States thought we should. We should use force in the case of illegal
occupation of land and severe human rights abuses. If the United
States was to follow that advice, we would bomb El Salvador, Guatemala,
Indonesia, Damascus, Tel Aviv, Capetown, Turkey, Washington, and
a whole list of other states. These are all cases of illegal occupation
and aggression and severe human rights abuses. If you know the
facts about that range of examples, you'll know very well that
Saddam Hussein's aggression and atrocities fall well within the
range. They're not the most extreme. Why doesn't anybody come
to that conclusion? The reason is that nobody knows. In a well-functioning
propaganda system, nobody would know what I'm talking about when
I list that range of examples. If you bother to look, you find
that those examples are quite appropriate.
Take one that was ominously close to being perceived during
the Gulf War. In February, right in the middle of the bombing
campaign, the government of Lebanon requested Israel to observe
U.N. Security Council Resolution 425, which called on it to withdraw
immediately and unconditionally from Lebanon. That resolution
dates from March 1978. There have since been two subsequent resolutions
calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israel
from Lebanon. Of course it doesn't observe them because the United
States backs it in maintaining that occupation. Meanwhile southern
Lebanon is terrorized. There are big torture-chambers with horrifying
things going on. It's used as a base for attacking other parts
of Lebanon. Since 1978, Lebanon was invaded, the city of Beirut
was bombed, about 20,000 people were killed, about 80 percent
of them civilians, hospitals were destroyed, and more terror,
looting, and robbery was inflicted. All fine, the United States
backed it. That's just one case. You didn't see anything in the
media about it or any discussion about whether Israel and the
United States should observe U.N. Security Council Resolution
425 or any of the other resolutions, nor did anyone call for the
bombing of Tel Aviv, although by the principles upheld by two-thirds
of the population, we should. After all, that's illegal occupation
and severe human rights abuses. That's just one case. There are
much worse ones. The Indonesian invasion of East Timor knocked
off about 200,000 people. They all look minor by that one. That
was strongly backed by the United States and is still going on
with major United States diplomatic and military support. We can
go on and on.
... It's whether we want to live in a free society or whether
we want to live under what amounts to a form of self-imposed totalitarianism,
with the bewildered herd marginalized, directed elsewhere, terrified,
screaming patriotic slogans, fearing for their lives and admiring
with awe the leader who saved them from destruction, while the
educated masses goose-step on command and repeat the slogans they're
supposed to repeat and the society deteriorates at home. We end
up serving as a mercenary enforcer state, hoping that others are
going to pay us to smash up the world. Those are the choices.
That's the choice that you have to face. The answer to those questions
is very jmuch in the hands of people like you and me.
Control and Propaganda