A Hardline Look at the Fourth Level Of Lost - 2008-02-13
thinbluemime
believe it's true?
Charlotte: How many different languages are there?"
The Tunisian Newspaper yells out in bold print, "815 - Found". And the
dialog between Charlotte and her companion indicate that every newspaper
on the planet has repeated the same headline and the same.... LIE.
From the Find 815 ARG, it is known that the discovery of Flight 815 in the
Sundra Trench was a staged wreck, and designed to make any further
investigation of the crash, go away.
Charlotte S. Lewis first appears on Lost episode "Confirmed Dead". The
newspaper she sees, "Le Journal de Tunisie" with the headline that reads
(in French) 815: Retrouve!
http://www.lostdude.com/lostpics/Lost.S04.E02.720p.084.jpg
At the top right of the newspaper is another headline that can easily be
passed over:
"Le lavage de cerveaux en liberté", which when translated by google reads
"The brainwashing release".
Curiously, this headline, "Le lavage de cerveaux en liberté", is a REAL
article title from August 2007, by Noam Chomsky that appeared in the REAL
French newspaper "Le Monde Diplomatique". The English translation of the
article is reprinted at the bottom of this post.
I do not want to discuss the implications of the article date upon the
Lost mythology here, in this post. I know it is intriging, but start
another post for that. In this posting I want to confine the discussion
only to the implications of the 4th level of Lost.
Like the lie in the prop Tunisian newspaper, printed to conceal the truth,
the article by Chomsky explores the deceptive powers of the media, in the
real world.
Resources:
http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Confirmed_Dead
http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Charlotte_Lewis
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2007/08/CHOMSKY/14992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
http://mondediplo.com/2007/08/02democracy
--
http://www.lostdude.com
-----------------------
There’s an alternative world... if only we can find it
Democracy’s invisible line
The US writer Noam Chomsky talks about the mechanisms behind modern
communication, an essential instrument of government in democratic
countries – as important to our governments as propaganda is to a
dictatorship.
By Noam Chomsky and Daniel Mermet
DM: Let’s start with the media issue. In the May 2005 referendum on the
European constitution, most newspapers in France supported a yes vote, yet
55% of the electorate voted no. This suggests there is a limit to how far
the media can manipulate public opinion. Do you think voters were also
saying no to the media?
NC: It’s a complex subject, but the little in-depth research carried out
in this field suggests that, in fact, the media exert greater influence
over the most highly educated fraction of the population. Mass public
opinion seems less influenced by the line adopted by the media.
Take the eventuality of a war against Iran. Three-quarters of Americans
think the United States should stop its military threats and concentrate
on reaching agreement by diplomatic means. Surveys carried out by western
pollsters suggest that public opinion in Iran and the US is also moving
closer on some aspects of the nuclear issue. The vast majority of the
population of both countries think that the area from Israel to Iran
should be completely clear of nuclear weapons, including those held by US
forces operating in the region. But you would have to search long and hard
to find this kind of information in the media.
The main political parties in either country do not defend this view
either. If Iran and the US were true democracies, in which the majority
really decided public policy, they would undoubtedly have already solved
the current nuclear disagreement. And there are other similar instances.
Look at the US federal budget. Most Americans want less military spending
and more welfare expenditure, credits for the United Nations, and economic
and international humanitarian aid. They also want to cancel the tax
reductions decided by President George Bush for the benefit of the biggest
taxpayers.
On all these topics, White House policy is completely at odds with what
public opinion wants. But the media rarely publish the polls that
highlight this persistent public opposition. Not only are citizens
excluded from political power, they are also kept in a state of ignorance
as to the true state of public opinion. There is growing international
concern about the massive US double deficit affecting trade and the
budget. But both are closely linked to a third deficit, the democratic
deficit that is constantly growing, not only in the US but all over the
western world.
DM: When a leading journalist or TV news presenter is asked whether they
are subject to pressure or censorship, they say they are completely free
to express their own opinions. So how does thought control work in a
democratic society? We know how it works in dictatorships.
NC: As you say, journalists immediately reply: “No one has been exerting
any pressure on me. I write what I want.” And it’s true. But if they
defended positions contrary to the dominant norm, someone else would soon
be writing editorials in their place. Obviously it is not a hard-and-fast
rule: the US press sometimes publishes even my work, and the US is not a
totalitarian country. But anyone who fails to fulfil certain minimum
requirements does not stand a chance of becoming an established
commentator.
It is one of the big differences between the propaganda system of a
totalitarian state and the way democratic societies go about things.
Exaggerating slightly, in totalitarian countries the state decides the
official line and everyone must then comply. Democratic societies operate
differently. The line is never presented as such, merely implied. This
involves brainwashing people who are still at liberty. Even the passionate
debates in the main media stay within the bounds of commonly accepted,
implicit rules, which sideline a large number of contrary views. The
system of control in democratic societies is extremely effective. We do
not notice the line any more than we notice the air we breathe. We
sometimes even imagine we are seeing a lively debate. The system of
control is much more powerful than in totalitarian systems.
Look at Germany in the early 1930s. We tend to forget that it was the most
advanced country in Europe, taking the lead in art, science, technology,
literature and philosophy. Then, in no time at all, it suffered a complete
reversal of fortune and became the most barbaric, murderous state in human
history. All that was achieved by using fear: fear of the Bolsheviks, the
Jews, the Americans, the Gypsies – everyone who, according to the Nazis,
was threatening the core values of European culture and the direct
descendants of Greek civilisation (as the philosopher Martin Heidegger
wrote in 1935). However, most of the German media who inundated the
population with these messages were using marketing techniques developed
by US advertising agents.
The same method is always used to impose an ideology. Violence is not
enough to dominate people: some other justification is required. When one
person wields power over another – whether they are a dictator, a
colonist, a bureaucrat, a spouse or a boss – they need an ideology
justifying their action. And it is always the same: their domination is
exerted for the good of the underdog. Those in power always present
themselves as being altruistic, disinterested and generous.
In the 1930s the rules for Nazi propaganda involved using simple words and
repeating them in association with emotions and phobia. When Hitler
invaded the Sudetenland in 1938 he cited the noblest, most charitable
motives: the need for a humanitarian intervention to prevent the ethnic
cleansing of German speakers. Henceforward everyone would be living under
Germany’s protective wing, with the support of the world’s most
artistically and culturally advanced country.
When it comes to propaganda (though in a sense nothing has changed since
the days of Athens) there have been some minor improvements. The
instruments available now are much more refined, in particular –
surprising as it may seem – in the countries with the greatest civil
liberties, Britain and the US. The contemporary public relations industry
was born there in the 1920s, an activity we may also refer to as opinion
forming or propaganda.
Both countries had made such progress in democratic rights (women’s
suffrage, freedom of speech) that state violence was no longer sufficient
to contain the desire for liberty. So those in power sought other ways of
manufacturing consent. The PR industry produces, in the true sense of the
term, concept, acceptance and submission. It controls people’s minds and
ideas. It is a major advance on totalitarian rule, as it is much more
agreeable to be subjected to advertising than to torture.
In the US, freedom of speech is protected to an extent that I think is
unheard of in any other country. This is quite a recent change. Since the
1960s the Supreme Court has set very high standards for freedom of speech,
in keeping with a basic principle established by the 18th century
Enlightenment. The court upholds the principle of free speech, the only
limitation being participation in a criminal act. If I walk into a shop to
commit a robbery with an accomplice holding a gun and I say “Shoot”, my
words are not protected by the constitution. Otherwise there has to be a
really serious motive to call into question freedom of speech. The Supreme
Court has even upheld this principle for the benefit of members of the Ku
Klux Klan.
In France and Britain, and I believe the rest of Europe, the definition of
freedom of speech is more restrictive. In my view the essential point is
whether the state is entitled to determine historical truth and to punish
those who contest such truth. If we allow the state to exert such powers
we are accepting Stalinist methods. French intellectuals have difficulty
admitting that they are inclined to do just that. Yet when we refuse such
behaviour there should be no exceptions. The state should have no means of
punishing anyone who claims that the sun rotates around the earth. There
is a very elementary side to the principle of freedom of speech: either we
defend it in the case of opinions we find hateful, or we do not defend it
at all. Even Hitler and Stalin acknowledged the right to freedom of speech
of those who were defending their point of view.
I find it distressing to have to discuss such issues two centuries after
Voltaire who, as we all know, said: “I shall defend my opinions till I
die, but I will give up my life so that you may defend yours.” It would be
a great disservice to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust to adopt
one of the basic doctrines of their murderers.
DM: In one of your books you quote Milton Friedman as saying that
“profit-making is the essence of democracy”.
NC: Profit and democracy are so contrary that there is no scope for
comment. The aim of democracy is to leave people free to decide how they
live and to make any political choices concerning them. Making a profit is
a disease in our society, based on specific organisations. A decent,
ethical society would pay only marginal attention to profits. Take my
university department [at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology]: a
few scientists work very hard to earn lots of money, but they are
considered a little odd and slightly deranged, almost pathological cases.
Most of the academic community is more concerned about trying to break new
ground, out of intellectual interest and for the general good.
DM: In a recent tribute, Jean Ziegler wrote: “There have been three forms
of totalitarian rule: Stalinism, Nazism and now Tina [the acronym from
British prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s statement, “There is no
alternative” – that is, to economic liberalism and global free-market
capitalism].” Do you think they can be compared?
NC: I don’t think they should be placed on the same footing. Fighting Tina
means confronting a system of intellectual control that cannot be compared
with concentration camps or the gulag. US policies provoke massive
opposition all over the world. In Latin America, Argentina and Venezuela
have thrown out the International Monetary Fund. Washington can no longer
stage military takeovers in Latin America as it did 20 or 30 years ago.
The whole continent now rejects the neo-liberal economic programme
forcibly imposed on it by the US in the 1980s and 1990s. There are signs
of the same opposition to the global market all over the world.
The Global Justice Movement, which attracts a great deal of media
attention at each World Social Forum (WSF), is hard at work all year. It
is a new departure and perhaps the start of a real International. But its
main objective is to prove that there is an alternative. What better
example of a different form of global exchange than the WSF itself.
Hostile media organisations refer to anyone opposed to the neo-liberal
global market as antis, whereas in fact they are campaigning for another
form of global market, for the people.
We can easily observe the contrast between the two parties because their
meetings coincide. We have the World Economic Forum, in Davos, which is
striving to promote global economic integration but in the exclusive
interests of financiers, banks and pension funds. These organisations
happen to control the media too. They defend their conception of global
integration, which is there to serve investors. The dominant media
consider that this form of integration is the only one to qualify as
globalisation. Davos is a good example of how ideological propaganda works
in democratic societies. It is so effective that even WSF participants
sometimes accept the ill-intentioned “anti” label. I spoke at the Forum in
Porto Alegre and took part in the Via Campesina conference. They represent
the majority of the world’s population.
DM: Critics tend to lump you together with the anarchists and libertarian
socialists. What would be the role of the state in a real democracy?
NC: We are living here and now, not in some imaginary universe. And here
and now there are tyrannical organisations – big corporations. They are
the closest thing to a totalitarian institution. They are, to all intents
and purposes, quite unaccountable to the general public or society as a
whole. They behave like predators, preying on other smaller companies.
People have only one means of defending themselves and that is the state.
Nor is it a very effective shield because it is often closely linked to
the predators. But there is a far from negligible difference. General
Electric is accountable to no one, whereas the state must occasionally
explain its actions to the public.
Once democracy has been enlarged far enough for citizens to control the
means of production and trade, and they take part in the overall running
and management of the environment in which they live, then the state will
gradually be able to disappear. It will be replaced by voluntary
associations at our place of work and where we live.
DM: You mean soviets?
NC: The first things that Lenin and Trotsky destroyed, immediately after
the October revolution, were the soviets, the workers’ councils and all
the democratic bodies. In this respect Lenin and Trotsky were the worst
enemies of socialism in the 20th century. But as orthodox Marxists they
thought that a backward country such as Russia was incapable of achieving
socialism immediately, and must first be forcibly industrialised.
In 1989, when the communist system collapsed, I thought this event was,
paradoxically, a victory for socialism. My conception of socialism
requires, at least, democratic control of production, trade and other
aspects of human existence.
However the two main propaganda systems agreed to maintain that the
tyrannical system set up by Lenin and Trotsky, subsequently turned into a
political monstrosity by Stalin, was socialism. Western leaders could not
fail to be enchanted by this outrageous use of the term, which enabled
them to cast aspersions on the real thing for decades. With comparable
enthusiasm, but working in the opposite direction, the Soviet propaganda
system tried to exploit the sympathy and commitment that the true
socialist ideal inspired among the working masses.
DM: Isn’t it the case that all forms of autonomous organisation based on
anarchist principles have ultimately collapsed?
NC: There are no set anarchist principles, no libertarian creed to which
we must all swear allegiance. Anarchism – at least as I understand it – is
a movement that tries to identify organisations exerting authority and
domination, to ask them to justify their actions and, if they are unable
to do so, as often happens, to try to supersede them.
Far from collapsing, anarchism and libertarian thought are flourishing.
They have given rise to real progress in many fields. Forms of oppression
and injustice that were once barely recognised, less still disputed, are
no longer allowed. That in itself is a success, a step forward for all
humankind, certainly not a failure.
rob...@bestweb.net
> "Le lavage de cerveaux en liberté", which when translated by google reads
> "The brainwashing release".
Should be "The washing of necks in liberty".
thinbluemime
> "Le lavage de cerveaux en liberté"
http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr
"Le lavage de cerveaux en liberté"
"the washing of brains in freedom"
Weird thing is, I don't see anything near either of our translations in
the English version of Chomsky's article:
http://mondediplo.com/2007/08/02democracy
But I love the English tagline in relation to a metaphoric Lost:
"There’s an alternative world... if only we can find it"
I wonder.....will we ever get back? <wink>