Comparison between Servando Gonzalez’s 'Psychological Warfare and the New World Order', Edward Bernays’ 'Propaganda', and Naomi Klein’s 'The Shock Doctrine'

 

Comparative Analysis Table

Aspect	Psychological Warfare and the New World Order (Gonzalez)	Propaganda (Bernays)	The Shock Doctrine (Klein)
Main Focus	Psychological operations on the American public by global elites	Role of propaganda in shaping public opinion and democracy	Use of crisis (disasters, war) to impose neoliberal reforms
Thesis	American society is under constant psychological attack from a hidden elite (esp. CFR) using mass media and psy-ops	Propaganda is a necessary and legitimate tool of democratic societies to guide the public	Disasters are exploited (“shock”) to advance capitalist, free-market reforms that would otherwise face public resistance
Tone	Conspiratorial, anti-globalist, investigative	Analytical, insider-perspective, unapologetic	Journalistic, critical, left-leaning
Key Concepts	Psychological warfare, media manipulation, New World Order, CFR	Engineering consent, “invisible government,” PR as democracy’s tool	Disaster capitalism, economic shock therapy, privatization of public services
Targets of Critique	Council on Foreign Relations, intelligence agencies, media corporations	The masses (for being irrational) and public discourse (for needing elite control)	Neoliberal economists, U.S. government, IMF, World Bank, corporate profiteers
Suggested Solution	Intellectual resistance, awareness of elite manipulation, independent research	Professionalization of public relations to guide public opinion for the "greater good"	Grassroots activism, holding corporations/governments accountable, resistance to privatization
Methodology	Argument-based, supported by historical claims and associative reasoning	Based on Bernays’ career in PR and theory of mass psychology	Investigative journalism, historical case studies (Chile, Iraq, Katrina, etc.)
Criticism	Overly conspiratorial; weak empirical basis	Ethically troubling endorsement of manipulation; elitist	Selective interpretation of events; ideological bias

---

Narrative Comparison

Servando Gonzalez

• Portrays the public as victims of an invisible war waged by a network of elites.

• Asserts that democratic systems are a façade used to lull citizens into passive acceptance.

• Relies heavily on the CFR as a central villain and ties together many theories under a singular conspiracy framework.

Edward Bernays

• As one of the founders of modern public relations, Bernays doesn’t condemn propaganda—he celebrates it.

• Argues that due to the irrational nature of the masses, elites must manage democracy through strategic communication and image management.

• His work, while now seen as controversial, helped establish propaganda as an accepted business and political tool in the 20th century.

Naomi Klein

• Views modern capitalism not as hidden or conspiratorial, but as opportunistic and exploitative during moments of public disorientation.

• Argues that “shock” tactics (wars, natural disasters, financial crises) are used to push through unpopular economic reforms while citizens are too stunned to resist.

• Her critique focuses on institutional power rather than secret societies or elite cabals.

---

Key Takeaways

• All three works acknowledge that public opinion is shaped deliberately—but they diverge on who is doing it, how, and to what end.

• Gonzalez and Bernays both emphasize manipulation, but while Gonzalez condemns it as covert warfare, Bernays views it as necessary for social order.

• Klein, unlike Gonzalez, grounds her arguments in documented political and economic events, positioning her critique within the field of investigative journalism rather than conspiracy.