Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
2011: A Brave New Dystopia
The two greatest visions of a future dystopia were George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavement. Orwell saw the second.
We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, cheap mass-produced goods, boundless credit, political theater and amusement. While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished. Now that credit is drying up, good jobs for the working class are gone forever and mass-produced goods are unaffordable, we find ourselves transported from “Brave New World” to “1984.” The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy. It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley’s feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy. We are moving from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled.
Orwell warned of a world where books were banned. Huxley warned of a world where no one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear. Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasure. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitored and dissent was brutally punished. Huxley warned of a state where a population, preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about truth or information. Orwell saw us frightened into submission. Huxley saw us seduced into submission. But Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell. Huxley understood the process by which we would be complicit in our own enslavement. Orwell understood the enslavement. Now that the corporate coup is over, we stand naked and defenseless. We are beginning to understand, as Karl Marx knew, that unfettered and unregulated capitalism is a brutal and revolutionary force that exploits human beings and the natural world until exhaustion or collapse.
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake,” Orwell wrote in “1984.” “We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin uses the term “inverted totalitarianism” in his book “Democracy Incorporated” to describe our political system. It is a term that would make sense to Huxley. In inverted totalitarianism, the sophisticated technologies of corporate control, intimidation and mass manipulation, which far surpass those employed by previous totalitarian states, are effectively masked by the glitter, noise and abundance of a consumer society. Political participation and civil liberties are gradually surrendered. The corporation state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the tawdry materialism of a consumer society, devours us from the inside out. It owes no allegiance to us or the nation. It feasts upon our carcass.
The corporate state does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader. It is defined by the anonymity and facelessness of the corporation. Corporations, who hire attractive spokespeople like Barack Obama, control the uses of science, technology, education and mass communication. They control the messages in movies and television. And, as in “Brave New World,” they use these tools of communication to bolster tyranny. Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, “block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression.”
The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. The culture, under the tutelage of these corporate courtiers, becomes, as Huxley noted, a world of cheerful conformity, as well as an endless and finally fatal optimism. We busy ourselves buying products that promise to change our lives, make us more beautiful, confident or successful as we are steadily stripped of rights, money and influence. All messages we receive through these systems of communication, whether on the nightly news or talk shows like “Oprah,” promise a brighter, happier tomorrow. And this, as Wolin points out, is “the same ideology that invites corporate executives to exaggerate profits and conceal losses, but always with a sunny face.” We have been entranced, as Wolin writes, by “continuous technological advances” that “encourage elaborate fantasies of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, actions measured in nanoseconds: a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose denizens are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge.”
Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury and stolen billions from small shareholders who had set aside money for retirement or college. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus and protection from warrantless wiretapping, have been taken away. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks.
Attitudes and temperament have been cleverly engineered by the corporate state, as with Huxley’s pliant characters in “Brave New World.” The book’s protagonist, Bernard Marx, turns in frustration to his girlfriend Lenina:
“Don’t you wish you were free, Lenina?” he asks.
“I don’t know that you mean. I am free, free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody’s happy nowadays.”
He laughed, “Yes, ‘Everybody’s happy nowadays.’ We have been giving the children that at five. But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else’s way.”
“I don’t know what you mean,” she repeated.
The façade is crumbling. And as more and more people realize that they have been used and robbed, we will move swiftly from Huxley’s “Brave New World” to Orwell’s “1984.” The public, at some point, will have to face some very unpleasant truths. The good-paying jobs are not coming back. The largest deficits in human history mean that we are trapped in a debt peonage system that will be used by the corporate state to eradicate the last vestiges of social protection for citizens, including Social Security. The state has devolved from a capitalist democracy to neo-feudalism. And when these truths become apparent, anger will replace the corporate-imposed cheerful conformity. The bleakness of our post-industrial pockets, where some 40 million Americans live in a state of poverty and tens of millions in a category called “near poverty,” coupled with the lack of credit to save families from foreclosures, bank repossessions and bankruptcy from medical bills, means that inverted totalitarianism will no longer work.
We increasingly live in Orwell’s Oceania, not Huxley’s The World State. Osama bin Laden plays the role assumed by Emmanuel Goldstein in “1984.” Goldstein, in the novel, is the public face of terror. His evil machinations and clandestine acts of violence dominate the nightly news. Goldstein’s image appears each day on Oceania’s television screens as part of the nation’s “Two Minutes of Hate” daily ritual. And without the intervention of the state, Goldstein, like bin Laden, will kill you. All excesses are justified in the titanic fight against evil personified.
The psychological torture of Pvt. Bradley Manning—who has now been imprisoned for seven months without being convicted of any crime—mirrors the breaking of the dissident Winston Smith at the end of “1984.” Manning is being held as a “maximum custody detainee” in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia. He spends 23 of every 24 hours alone. He is denied exercise. He cannot have a pillow or sheets for his bed. Army doctors have been plying him with antidepressants. The cruder forms of torture of the Gestapo have been replaced with refined Orwellian techniques, largely developed by government psychologists, to turn dissidents like Manning into vegetables. We break souls as well as bodies. It is more effective. Now we can all be taken to Orwell’s dreaded Room 101 to become compliant and harmless. These “special administrative measures” are regularly imposed on our dissidents, including Syed Fahad Hashmi, who was imprisoned under similar conditions for three years before going to trial. The techniques have psychologically maimed thousands of detainees in our black sites around the globe. They are the staple form of control in our maximum security prisons where the corporate state makes war on our most politically astute underclass—African-Americans. It all presages the shift from Huxley to Orwell.
“Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling,” Winston Smith’s torturer tells him in “1984.” “Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”
The noose is tightening. The era of amusement is being replaced by the era of repression. Tens of millions of citizens have had their e-mails and phone records turned over to the government. We are the most monitored and spied-on citizenry in human history. Many of us have our daily routine caught on dozens of security cameras. Our proclivities and habits are recorded on the Internet. Our profiles are electronically generated. Our bodies are patted down at airports and filmed by scanners. And public service announcements, car inspection stickers, and public transportation posters constantly urge us to report suspicious activity. The enemy is everywhere.
Those who do not comply with the dictates of the war on terror, a war which, as Orwell noted, is endless, are brutally silenced. The draconian security measures used to cripple protests at the G-20 gatherings in Pittsburgh and Toronto were wildly disproportionate for the level of street activity. But they sent a clear message—DO NOT TRY THIS. The FBI’s targeting of antiwar and Palestinian activists, which in late September saw agents raid homes in Minneapolis and Chicago, is a harbinger of what is to come for all who dare defy the state’s official Newspeak. The agents—our Thought Police—seized phones, computers, documents and other personal belongings. Subpoenas to appear before a grand jury have since been served on 26 people. The subpoenas cite federal law prohibiting “providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.” Terror, even for those who have nothing to do with terror, becomes the blunt instrument used by Big Brother to protect us from ourselves.
“Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?” Orwell wrote. “It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself.”




514 Comments so far
Show AllJust after I finish listening to security expert Joshua Wright lay out on NPR how our "ISPs Look To Make Money With Mined Data", and how the concept of personal privacy is most likely already dead or will be soon, I read this from Hedges.
Wotta World!
I just had the exact same experience!
A disturbing synchronicity.
Eighty one years between the meeting at Seneca Falls and the amendment that 'gave' women the vote. None of the women who began the work survived to see success. In her last years, Susan B. Anthony encouraged other women to keep on with the task because "We cannot fail."
It is time to stop looking at failed models of protest that rise up and go under every generation, and instead consider the generations-long process of truly determined human beings. What do we really need to gain a platform that puts us on at least an even footing with the psychopaths that now control our lives? We will need to understand the system, and use it against itself whenever possible. We will need money, which, not being psychopaths ourselves, it will take us time to accrue. It would help to reach out in an international movement and not be surprised if, as with the franchise, the US is the last nation to change
The road is long, but it stretches out before us whether we take it as determined human beings or as corporate fodder.
Perhaps the designers of today's corporate/police state used, wittingly or unwittingly, Orwell and Huxley as sources for their design?
I read both Huxley and Orwell 40+ years ago, & I think I should re-read. Neil Postman also gave me inspiration to think.
Living in Australia now for 30 years I have been wondering if we do not echo the US a little too well. A lot of what Hedges says is true here.
Having reread both 1984 and Brave New World recently, I came to the same conclusion as Hedges. If I’m paranoid, it’s good to have company.
By the way, I’m surprised Hedges plagiarized Neil Postman in his third paragraph.
I wrote a Master's Thesis on Brave New World. I referenced Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. Is that the Postman work you are referencing?
Yes, exactly, and I'm surprised Postman wasn't given attribution. Some of the sentences are outright word for word from Amusing Ourselves to Death's introduction, I'm pretty sure; the entire first half of the paragraph is at least plagiarized in idea.
You should go to Truthdig, where you will find contact information for Hedges, and notify him of it. I'd do it but I'm not familiar with Postman. Hedges is too good to face a plagiarism rap. I am independently familiar with the concept of media, entertainment and thought control.
I last read Brave New World back when I was 13 or something. Definitely time for a re-read.
But even though I know better, I reading has declined enormously, since I started using the internet for news and information, including writing comments like this.
I tried to find Hedges' email on Truthdig. Couldn't find it. If anyone could provide me with contact info I'd be glad to write to him.
Try this:
hedgesscoop@aol.com
Just sent my message out.
plagiarism is the last thing you need to worry about.
there's NOTHING under the sun that is so original as for anyone including postman to be able to claim as theirs.
Well, I agree, but it was a bit sleazy. There's no way it was unintentional. What would be so hard about referencing Postman so that people could look him up?
Well from my way of thinking certain truths that ring true do are not OWNED by anyone.
A person with a good memory might recall words verbatim and repeat them some 20 years later and never think they were not their own.
To be blunt I personally have little use for the notion of the notion of the "copyright" of ideas and truth unless one seeks to profit off them or KNOWINGLY claims them as his or her own when knowing otherwise.
If someone else repeats this 50 years in the future, so be it. :)
The other day there was an article by Mr Hedges who I totally respect where he used a line by Bob Dylan without putting it in quotes
"You hide behind walls, you hide behind desks, I just want you to know I can see through your masks." or some such thing when describing the soul lessness of our Masters of War and arms merchants. I think it was an innocent omission. but just wanted to point that out. I think Mr Hedges is more interested in getting at the truth and conveying his unique message out and uses others material liberally to do that. We all copy each other in one way or another. Just my 2 cents. i think though in the future he should be a bit more careful is all being such the brilliant original writer that he is.
I agree Eliabeth. Giving attribution is the easiest thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. It is never good to steal another's work and pass it off as your own, if in fact this is what Hedges had done.
In our ownership society plagiarism is more and more emphasized for the sake of protecting private property rights. Writing in schools and colleges nowadays mostly focuses on properly quoting and citing sources.
Yes, I was bothered as well that Chris Hedges did not pay tribute to Neil Postman's book, "Amusing Ourselvers to Death", published about 25 years ago, that says essentially what Hedges is saying.
I found this email for Chris Hedges and hopefully it is still in use.
hedgesscoop@aol.com
Thank you, shipleye.
---
For comparison purposes only:
Neil Postman - Amusing Ourselves to Death:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble puppy.
Chris Hedges - 2011: A Brave New Dystopia
Orwell warned of a world where books were banned. Huxley warned of a world where no one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear. Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasure. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitored and dissent was brutally punished. Huxley warned of a state where a population, preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about truth or information. Orwell saw us frightened into submission. Huxley saw us seduced into submission.
Hmm...
So, it looks like the case for plagarism is no longer so clear. When the problem presents itself plainly and obviously before us, it is simple probability that two writers of of US-English are going to derscribe a problem using very similar words and phrases. One might say that Mr. Hedges lifted the "novel" use of comparing and contrasiting 1984 and Brave New World, but these two novels dominate the English speaking world with regard to speculitive futurism, so what others could he have used? And, the compare/contrast is a common device in any writers toolkit.
And, no doubt I just plagarized whoever-it-was who coined the use of "toolkit" in the manner I used it.
As far as the comment regarding Hedges "hide behind walls and hide behind desks" in an earlier comment. Surely, there are lines so famous that attribution is not necessary. Maybe my age is showing, but surely, of everyone knows that Bob Dylan wrote the lines he quoted, so attribution, in wha is after all a popular essay, not a footnoteds scholarly paper, would be insulting the intelligence of his audience.
So with regard to Plagarism I go with a "not guilty" for now.
Well, let me put my English instructor hat on. Hmmm.
Actually, when I first read the article I thought some of it was identical, but it's not. Yet it's easy to see why one would think so, because the meaning is virtually identical and Postman's prose is striking and memorable, and Hedges uses the same device to empower his piece. That is, the sustained repetition of alternating sentences beginning with "Orwell feared" and "Huxley feared" is what makes Postman's passage striking, and Hedges copies it, replacing "feared" with "warned" (sorta like my students do faux paraphrases by replacing a few words with stuff they pulled out of the thesaurus). So he's using the same content and the same stylistic device (notice he doesn't use it anywhere else in the article, and it is not characteristic of his style). Technically, it is plagiarism. If you don't buy the stylistic angle, there's still that problem that the content--the comparison between the two dystopias--is not only the same, but the intellectual conversation it started was initiated by Postman, I'm pretty sure. If I'd tried that in graduate school, I'd have flunked. (Which is not to say that plagiarism of theories is not rampant in academia.)
Why didn't Hedges just quote Postman rather than mimic him, thus introducing readers to Postman, who is worth reading?
But anyway, I admire Hedges and thought it a good article, particularly because I'd been having the same thoughts Hedges expressed these last months. And no, I'm not going to accuse Hedges of stealing my thoughts during that one moment I'd taken off my tin hat.
I wish I'd never brought it up. It's hopeless, though--I’m your typical foot-in-mouth, on-the-cusp Sagittarian.
Geez, Louise. Where is Trotsky when we need him...?
Me thinks someone should get back to raising children or SOMETHING productive!
I don't think you'd have said that if my posted name were Thor.
I don't go for protecting heroes at any cost. In the world of publishing, plagiarism is the most egregious theft. Sorry if you guys hate me, but it's still true.
Hate is such a strong word, as is didact for that matter. That a single comment in a Hedges article causes you to crusade against supposed plagiarism seems to be the gist of the criticisms against your position. Can you not find a more political based commentary considering that this is not a literature course in high school but a political forum?
How about the gist of that article?
As for the gist of the article, I said twice that I had been thinking the same thing--first the orgy porgy, then the gloves come off. I said I thought it a strong article. I also reflected on how our current state of paranoia toward each other has been coming on for some decades.
"Crusade" is a rather strong term as well. What bothers me about people's responses is the fawning. Hedges is a strong writer and thinker, but not a god. He's bound by the same principles as any other writer. I did the little analysis because some people here don't seem to understand what plagiarism is. Either that, or they're so starry-eyed over Hedges that they can't stand to think he'd have possibly erred, a most dangerous attitude. If it's ok to lift someone's ideas and steal that person's stylistic thunder at the same time, then what recourse does a writer have when he's been ripped off? Writing is a craft, and deserves to be treated with respect. And ethics.
The attitude here reminds me of the case of Arthur Silber, who has written some amazing pieces on his blogs. He was asking for donations. He's old and sick and does whine a lot about that and his poverty, but a response from one of his readers was "why doesn't he get a job?" Isn't writing worth anything? Oh well, I guess not. Less well-known, unpaid writers should stack cans in a grocery store to pay their rent, even if they're old and ill, and write on the side so more well-known, paid writers can rip them off with impunity.
Arghangel's snide comment "that someone should get back to raising children" is repulsive. What, am I supposed to raise the children to not step on those guys' toes when they're doing really important things like thinking political thoughts? The personal is the political, I say, albeit, perhaps, didactically.
You must be a newbie.
Hedges has been crucified here time and again. For his opinions, for his passions and for reasons not altogether clear. I place you in that last category and , yet again, remind you that Hedges has a rather long and distinguished journalism career, taking him to dangerous places numerous times in fact. That one remark in one article reminds you of someone elses statement seems a silly thing to provoke a series of seemingly endless, and increasingly tiresome, remarks.
Most of us come here for political commentary, can you provide some?
"Paranoia is having all the facts."
William S. Burroughs
It also strikes deep. Into your heart in can creep. It starts when you're always afraid. Step out of line the man come and take you a way. Stop, children, what's that sound. Everybody look what's goin' down.
“Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”
WHY?
This really is illogical and senseless and has no point. Especially because any person saying this to another is incapable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity, just hollowness.
That's it! Our master bullies are nothing but frightened insecure cowards. Go figure.
So, do we keep them in fear of us and resisting us by threatening them any way we can, or do we try to befriend them to lead them our of their fears? Fear of love being their #1 fear of course.
Beware the wrath of Elizabeth H.......
...sigh
I love Hedges, but all I'm left with is impotent rage. Where is the way forward?
I'm with you. If I may list a few forces aligned against Hedges' view: First, the United States is not the world. There are enclaves--vast areas, really--where corporate values do not reign. Second, within developed nations a strong opposition to corporate behavior is developing. It is farther advanced in Europe than in the United States, but it is present and it is growing everywhere. Third, the internet and cell phones provide ways of communication that empower ordinary people. Wikileaks is just the beginning. The cell phones that captured Iranian atrocities towards dissenters told the world what is really going on. Fourth, the population has leveled off in many places and will, within thirty years or so, reach a replacement level. That means economies will not grow. Fifth, localism--buying local--is a value that is gaining more traction with more people. Except for government/corporate leaders, trade agreements like NAFTA have no future. Politicians will have to take that into consideration. Sixth, the many wars the US is involved in fighting are not popular with the American people--even with military families. That dissonance between political leadership and popular feeling has yet to play itself out. Hedges always sees the negative, never the positive. Does he really think that such an unwieldy, unsustainable corporate model can maintain power for long? The USSR did not last and neither will the corporate model. Already it has started to unravel with the latest economic crash. It won't be long before the whole edifice comes crashing down.
"Does he really think that such an unwieldy, unsustainable corporate model can maintain power for long? "
I dunno my friend. Near as I can tell the plutocrats are aiming for a return to some form of feudalism. Once that clicks into place it may stay there for quite a while. That form of government lasted for over a thousand years...many generations.
Remember they are gradually putting into place control mechanisms (holding camps, militarized police-federal and local, no civil rights because of the "terror" threat) that have been proven to be very effective in the past.
Coupled with the ability to keep the populace distracted with scapegoats and pretty, shiny things it looks like they're preparing for the long haul. And there's always the good german syndrome which I see operating everywhere around me.
If you're waiting/hoping for this system to collapse of its own weight you may be in for a long wait.
back in 1967 I nearly got my 19-year-old butt kicked for suggesting, referencing the draft, that we still lived in feudal times.
Hedges, with his religious background, can sound like an anchorite fulminating against Sodom and Gomorrah. He has fused the egalitarian Christ with Marx in his political vision. The corporate state is not just a destroyer of the working class, it is an enemy of the human soul.
An admittedly bleak vision but Hedges desperately hopes to shake us from our slumber. Good luck with that.
Unfortunately, for most American Christians, Jesus has became a hybrid of a Marine drill sergeant and a corporate CEO. This seems especially rampant among the Protestant sects-- but consider the array of essentially fascist Catholics on the Supreme Court: Roberts, Scalia, Alito & Thomas. This crew is typically joined in their most reactionary and corporatist decisions by Kennedy--another Catholic. Sotomayor, the newest Catholic, is more 'centrist'--as the pundits like to say.
With the retirement of Stevens, you currently have 3 Jews and 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court. Historically, this is a remarkable development since the Supreme Court has long been a preserve of white Protestant males. However, loyalty to corporatist ideology is more significant than religious affiliation today.
And the majority are loyal to the corporate state, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights--as so grotesquely exemplified in the recent Citizens United ruling.
The church of Rome - which evolved into 'the Catholic church' - was the precursor to fascism. Just as feudalism did not spring up fully evolved, fascism also slowly developed into its present form over a long period of time. And it really IS horrifying to consider how long 'Christianity' has ruled over so many people's lives - to the detriment of all of society. Just consider the global repercussions of this insidious and heinous ideology over the past several centuries - and that on top of the conquest of Europe under the Roman legions.
It's been a long run, and it doesn't look like it's over yet - not by a long shot. Death and destruction have been the hallmarks of this monstrousity, evolving like a virulent virus over the millenia. Never in the annals of human history has so much damage been done to so many by so few - the turning-point seems to be have been when 'one god' was invented to serve the interests of a few ambitious tribal warlords (who later became 'Jews') hell-bent on ruling their little pond, but never satisfied or satiated because of their endless quest for ever more power. My father's 'final solution' always gave me qualms, but I can't help but accept his pragmatism, at least in this case. I also can't help but wonder if this isn't where I would become the enemy that I seek to destroy (or disarm) by imitating the very violence employed to disenfranchis us. It is indeed a moral paradox.
Wasn't it creepy when Bush and Cheney were courting the pope before we invaded Iraq???
?Remember they are gradually putting into place control mechanisms (holding camps, militarized police-federal and local, no civil rights because of the "terror" threat) that have been proven to be very effective in the past."
All of these controls require tremendous levels of population cooperation.
Well, here's one example of that cooperation. A CBS poll showed that 81% of those asked said that they agreed with the use of the TSA scanners at our airports. Hundreds more scanners are on order and I would guess that they will eventually be accepted with little more than a shrug.
And resources, which seems to be a little short lately. CA is already releasing people early from their holding facilities.
No, the USSR did not last. It crashed into oligarchy.
I wish I had your optimism. It seems too obvious to me that we have been herded toward a way of thinking that virtually guarantees paranoia over community, control over freedom. Thinking back to my younger days, it is alarming how insidiously fear infiltrated our culture in areas far removed from politics.
When I was a child, we ran out the door with our parents saying, “be home for dinner,” and then after dinner, “come home when the streetlights come on.” We were left to our own devices, exploring the woods and fields and streams. This does not happen anymore, not where I raised my daughter anyway, and I ached that she was unable to go out and explore the world with her friends, as opposed to well-meaning parent figures smothering them 24/7. There are awful people out there, people say. The world has changed.
When I was a child, everybody who needed to hitch-hiked. Now, few do so, and few would pick up a hitch-hiker. There are awful people out there, people say. The world has changed.
Certainly bad things happened to children wandering around unsupervised, and we got into some rather wicked mischief. Certainly bad things happened to hitch-hikers and those who picked them up. But much has been lost in our increasing distrust. Children’s play is no longer spontaneous or under their control, and more and more often without creativity, as they increasingly amuse themselves with TV and video games—after all, with most all the adults working, there’s hardly time to endlessly engage the little critters.
Instead of taking the very good chance that that guy with his thumb stuck out just needs a ride, visions of serial killers dance in our heads. Anyone without a car must be some crazy freak, right?
I remember back in the 1980s when a number of day-care workers were arrested on the allegation that they were engaging the tykes in Satanic rituals, really a high point in paranoia.
I wonder how much this level if distrust has translated into a feeling that “if no one can be trusted, I might as well be untrustworthy myself.” How else to explain the fact that most employees of most companies can point to times when they were ordered to do something unethical and even illegal, and did so rather than be fired. It’s all normal. We can expect that our hospital bills will be larded with “errors,” that our insurance companies will do their best to deny us coverage, that the banks will cook up additional fees. On and on in all facets of society. We’re no longer outraged. This, we’re told, is human nature. Be afraid, very afraid. And grab what you can by whatever means because if you don’t, somebody else will.
In such a world we have the perfect makings for a society of torment, a society of hatred and fear, a society that accepts torture and makes hardly a fuss when the cops get a bit too trigger happy.
Great post, EH.
Happy New Year, one and all.
Bill from Saginaw
Excellent commentary and so very true. Distrust is among the stongest tools in the imperial toolbox. Its societal manifestations and divisive corollaries are many.
Distrust? Isn't that just another word for 'fear'? Fear of the Other?
Yes.
I second that: Great post, EH. I don't know if this level of paranoia is entirely a natural evolution or has been manipulated by plutocratic forces. What is certain is it is very useful for plutocrats. Also certain, to me at least, is They killed JFK, RFK, MLK, and probably Malcolm X too, and doubtless many others who tried to work for peace and steer us away from a permanent war state.
People need to stop placing their trust in governments. Our government cannot make us safe; indeed, it is manipulating our fear.