If
you believe, and wish to continue to believe, that the U.S. is a
force for democracy in the world, a nation with a free press and
vigorous debate on critical issues, this book is not for you. That
fantasy will stand if you accept the definition of democracy of those
who run the country, that is, an elite continuing to run things for
their benefit with the rest of us scrambling to survive, occasionally
ratifying their decisions by choosing from among the candidates they
supply for public office. The belief becomes fairy tale if you
question this story and insist that democracy means what the
dictionary says it means - “A government in which supreme power is
vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly
through a system of representation.” Who is the extremist? Those
who promote the first definition or those who embrace the second?
There
is no doubt where Chomsky stands on this question and his book argues
on every page, with devastating effect, that the U.S. is an oligarchy
and one of the greatest purveyors of violence on the planet. He
argues that the 1%-owned media attempts to shape opinion, keeping
discussion within the bounds of “polite discourse”, carefully
avoiding the transgression of wandering outside the range embraced
among the elite, the only “people” that really count, unless you
include, of course, corporate persons... but that goes without saying
since it is the 1% who own the corporations.
The
author uses the 80s Iran-Contra scandal and U.S. policy in Central
America to elucidate this point of view, with by-the-way excursions
onto other terrain such as South Africa and Israel. There is hardly a
page without an incisive, finely crafted quote. In a paragraph
describing the real and repugnant intent and strategy of U.S. policy
toward Nicaragua, taken from official documents, differing perhaps
only in degree from what one might expect from a Mafia Don, Chomsky
goes on to explain why officials and media turn a blind eye: “But
to understand such matters, it is necessary to escape the confines of
the ideological system and to question the sanctity and nobility of
U.S. intentions. That is excluded, as an intolerable departure from
civilized norms.” And in describing U.S. violation of the Vietnam
peace agreement it had just signed in Paris: “The factual record
evidently lacks ideological serviceability so it has been replaced by
a mythical reconstruction crafted to satisfy doctrinal requirements.
Whatever the facts, the record must show that it is the Communist
enemy that cannot be trusted.”
Iran-Contra
Oliver
North is emblematic of that period under Reagan when, as Chomsky
says, a crack appeared in the establishment facade. The opening
though was quickly covered up, mildly embarrassing at worst, and soon
faded into history, along with the pardons. Chief investigator for
the committee? Thomas Polgar an active member of the Association of
Former Intelligence Officers. Chairing the committee? Senator Inouye,
who received extensive funding by PACs linked to the Israeli lobby.
Those not hypnotized by the charade could glimpse some interesting
items; careful avoidence of the Contra drug connection and Israel's
role in funneling arms to Iran and training and arming fascist forces
in Central America, a favor to Washington to get around congressional
restrictions. Chomsky points out that Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, the
much idolized symbol of compassion and peace, remained silent,
keeping I suppose to his mantra, “Speak no ill of Israel.”
Central
America and the Contras
Contra
drug smuggling, essentially creating the crack epidemic, as unmasked
by Gary Webb in his series for the San Jose Mercury News (but more or
less retracted when the editor/publishers couldn't stand the heat)
was another item partially exposed, but only for those willing to
look beyond the blinders of received wisdom. Reagan's terrorists, who
he called the moral equivalent
of our founding fathers,
were drug smuggling killers searching out “soft” targets in
Nicaragua and banking CIA largess. Of course it was the footsoldiers
doing the rampaging while the leadership did the lecture circuit and
hung out in San Francisco night spots.
During
the former dictator and U.S. ally (or puppet) Somoza's long reign,
whom the Sandinistas finally overthrew, one heard nary a peep in the
U.S. media, congress or administration on the brutality directed
toward and oppressive poverty of the average citizen of Nicaragua.
Everything was fine so long as U.S. corporate interests were being
served. But when a government came into power interested in
addressing the plight of the ordinary citizen, suddenly there was
great concern, and cries of Communism!
Marxist totalitarianism threatening our
very existence. Actually there is some truth in this latter claim.
Many of our “forefathers” practiced the abomination called
slavery. And if you translate “our” in that sentence into the 1%
then yes, there was reason to fear the threat of a good example... a
nation that served the needs of its people rather than U.S.
corporations and the wealthy might prove popular. Other countries
might get ideas were this “subversion” allowed to flourish. Even
people in the U.S. might get ideas. Too dangerous to tolerate. Thus
the U.S. sometimes installed and certainly supported unscrupulous
guardians, a tiny elite benefitting from their association with and
service to the Boss
in the north. In exchange for serious repression of any and all
questioning of that arrangement, military training and materials were
lavishly bestowed. Torture 101. Start a union? A Death squad visit
should discourage that. Discuss these questions in the press? Death
squad at the door. Knock knock.
Media
Complicity
An
insidious double-standard was applied consistently by U.S. mainstream
media in Central American reporting. Nicaragua had elections judged
fair by international observers, thus a democratically elected
government, the Sandinistas. Yet, Nicaragua was routinely referred to
as a Marxist dictatorship. Its “sins” were extremely minor in
comparison to the brutal oppression and death squad activism of El
Salvador and near genocide in Guatemala, these latter conditions
barely mentioned and their compliant governments generously, and
disingenuously, described as “fledging democracies.” Nicaragua
temporarily closed a newspaper which was openly supportive of the
terrorist attacks against teachers, postal workers and other “soft”
targets conducted by the Contras, invariably described as the
“democratic resistence”. U.S. media were outraged while ignoring
the chief means of censorship in U.S. partners-in-crime, El Salvador
and Guatemala, journalist homicide. In regard to the Iran/Contra
investigation, mainstream media took their cues from the committee,
venturing no where near the forbidden zones. Gary Webb was an
exception to prove the rule as he was drummed out of the profession,
an effective example to those tempted to wander, and to eventual
suicide (if it was suicide).
The
content of Culture of
Terrorism
is now history, replaced by current versions of a coopted democracy,
shaped, as always, to entrench the unfettered privilege of an elite.
Among that 1% is a range of opinion that traverses the political
terrain from moderate right to an ideology difficult to distinguish
from feudalism, this latter group now enthusiastically congregating
around the Trump administration, flirting with fascism. In some
psychological circles it is estimated that 4% of the male population
are sociopaths. They're not all particularly smart but those who are
can be assumed, given their advantage of ruthlessness, to rise to
positions where they can inflict upon the rest of us their
conscienceless narcissism.
