Darryl Shannon said:
> OK, Gord.
Sorry but I miss the reference to Gord's post. Having joined this list by
recommendation, I feel a bit like an intruder and have written several
replies to what I considered to be extreme right wing fascist views,
(democracy in South America!) but have scrapped them because I thought them
too divorced from the general consensus of this list. I am not interested in
arguing for the sake of proving myself right, nor do I receive any pleasure
from reading usenet exchanges that degenerate into abuse. However I do enjoy
reading and participating in discussions because I find I usually learn
something. There have been no discussions on this list whether one should
read a book starting at the beginning and reading sequentially to the end
rather than starting from the last page and reading backwards to the
beginning i.e. some things we take for granted and because we have no doubts
about their veracity, we do not discuss them; we discuss those things we
believe in but unless we are preaching, we usually discuss those matters
where we have some uncertainty in our beliefs or gaps in our knowledge. The
purpose of "doublethink" as coined by Orwell is "Reality Control"; to
attribute veracity to the actions of those that rule in such a way that to
question them becomes unthinkable. If the list thinks I am but a troll,
please tell me and I shall leave.
> One of the prominent themes of 1984 is that the people are unable to
> recognize reality. So I always get testy when people compare our
> global civilization with the tyranny of 1984, since it seems to me a
> symptom of what the book was warning about.
The original preface of 1984 related the content to the doublespeak of the
British Press, owned and controlled by the rulers of the imperialist British
Empire. Since WW2, Britain's position of dominance has been usurped by the
US.
> If we can't tell whether
> we are living in tyranny or not we've already lost.
> So I get worried when people think we are tyrannized, since it shows
> that they are unable to distinguish between freedom and slavery. And
> we know where that leads...
Those who internalise the ideologies of their masters, (whether they be
communists or fascists), are not tyrannised to the same degree as those who
hold alternative views as they share in the proceeds from tyranny. 4,000
Iraqi children die every month as an aftermath of the Gulf turkey shoot,
that's more than half a million so far. The western world benefits through
US and trans-national companies' control of the world's largest oil
reserves.
There are no shortages of examples of countries where multi-nationals are
exploiting the natives and their environment under the guise of promoting
"free trade" enriching themselves and those in governments who pave the way
widening the gap between rich and poor.
US imperialism in other countries has been justified on the basis of
preventing the spread of communism and promoting freedom and democracy. In
order to promote "freedom" and "democracy", the US has overthrown
democratically elected leaders and installed obedient dictators (Chile,
Vietnam, Indonesia, The Philippines, many South American countries or allied
itself with existing dictators, (Iraq) who are bribed with US aid and arms.
Such dictatorships are free to exploit or murder their populations as they
wish as long as they allow trans-national corporations to take the majority
of the spoils. After the Shah of Iran did a runner and Iran was no longer
one of the west's puppets in the Middle East, the west supported Iraq in
it's war with Iran and supplied the weapons including the biological weapons
used to gas it's northern Kurds. Whilst Iraq was enriching western arms
manufacturers and doing the west a favour by making war against the Shi-ite
Muslim neighbours; Iran, there was no censure of Hussien's atrocities
against
the Kurds in northern Iraq or the Shi-ite muslims in southern Iraq. The
majority of the Iraqi population are Shi-ite Muslims. Does the US really
want these people free to democratically elect their own leaders who would
be more sympathetic to Iran rather than the west as was Hussein?
Is the US promoting freedom and democracy or even concerned with human
rights in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or does such doublespeak only apply when
client states object to IMF restrictions on their self determination?
Now that Russia is a kleptocracy, the threat of communist expansion is seen
as silly as McCarthyism. New justifications for imperialist aggression and
population control have had to be invented.
In Colombia, the excuse is supposedly drugs and the media dutifully spoons
out the propaganda linking the supply of drugs to the anti-government
factions with scant attention to the murderous activities of the army or
privately owned militia or that the biggest drug catch to date from Colombia
was from a Columbian Airforce plane. Anyone remember the Nicaraguan Contras
and the involvement of the CIA in the crack cocaine epidemic of the '80's?
Former DEA agents have testified how their investigations were thwarted by
the CIA and the CIA website itself, whilst not admitting that it was
actively involved, acknowledges that it ignored drug trafficking because the
traffickers were their *allies* in their attempt to bring down the
government.
As an example of foreign policy doublespeak, here is a quiz.
Which of the following is:
(a) a terrorist,
(b) a moderate centrist,
(c) "our kind of guy" (according to M Albright),
(d) the defender of freedom and democracy?
(i) a teenage palestinian throwing stones,
(ii) a Salvadoran president who has presided over the deaths of 75,000 of
his own people but welcomes foreign "investment",
(iii) an Indonesian dictator who has killed a million of his own people and
quarter of a million East Timorese but welcomes foreign "investment",
(iv) an American president who invades Panama before killing a quarter of a
million Iraqis and who spent 300 billion annually on his war machine and who
now wants back in the action through his near illiterate, probably
alcoholic, pro "life" but pro capital punishment, fruit of his loins.
SNIP Korea e.g..
> The point I'm trying to make is that the rule of law/constitutional
> government, capitalism/decentralized economics, and
> democracy/government accountability are NOT just cultural artifacts
> that we can pick and choose from like dress or cuisine or whether we
> watch baseball or football.
Agreed. But there is no world wide rule of law or government unless you
acknowledge the UN as such. The UN is treated with disdain by "rogue
states", especially the US, with it's power of veto over security council
resolutions. The proposed international criminal court has not been ratified
by about six nations who probably have the most to fear from such a court.
These nations include China, Libya, Iraq and the US.
Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza since 1967 is illegal
under the Geneva convention. The UN general assembly rulings of 1948
determining the split of Palestine and resolutions condemning Israel's
expansionist policies since are usually passed with voting in the vicinity
of 150 to 5 with the US and a few aid seekers making up the five.
Israel has invaded it's neighbour(s) as did Iraq. So isn't the US picking
and choosing "rule of law/constitutional government"?
And the supporting propaganda permeates society with museums dedicated to
the memory of the Holocaust and Hollywood productions such as Schindler's
List. Where are the museums dedicated to the genocide of the Indians? What
is the proportion of Hollywood productions portraying the Indians as
murderous savages rather than a noble resistance movement? Have there been
any Hollywood productions promoting the slaughter of the Jews favourably?
(Please note my intention is to consider how those atrocities are portrayed
in terms of doublespeak rather than a comparison of those atrocities.)
Your first paragraph spoke of "global civilisation" but I interpret the
above as relating to an individual country.
And capitalism is far better in theory than practice. Such a small
percentage of the population owns so much, (IIRC .5% and 85% in the US). And
control of a public corporation requires at most 51% ownership. The families
that have acquired ownership of hundreds of billions control assets far in
excess of their ownership. The DuPonts made their billions from having an
exclusive contract to supply gunpowder to the government in WW!. Through the
use of trusts and foundations and their influence over politicians in regard
to their operations, they avoid income tax and estate duties whilst
accumulating further wealth and avoiding competition whilst maintaining
control. Trans-national
corporations are hierarchic, authoritarian and increasingly totalitarian
organisations more similar to communist power structures than the original
concept of free market economics. They are recidivist in regard to
restrictive trade practises, labour law, etc. Advertising and PR are further
examples of reality control where indistinguishable products are branded so
that emotional connotations are attached to mundane goods to sell warm fuzzy
feelings or symbols of status rather than the product itself.
Democracy used to mean the rule of the people by the people wherein all
people had equal political rights. I think it would take more imagination
than I have to apply the term to the US system which would more accurately
be described as a plutocracy.
What I admire most about America is the principle of freedom of speech.
However with the mass media being mainly controlled by four major
corporations relying on their profitability from the advertising dollars of
other corporations, with journalism being mainly the distribution of
corporate or government PR material in relation to political or corporate
matters, there is little publicity given to alternative viewpoints. Despite
the World Bank president's doubts about his organisation's accomplishments,
the message of the Seattle and subsequent protests received virtually no
constructive analysis in the mainstream media. Instead, the participants
were demonised and their views marginalised to such an extent that the NY
times had to print retractions of it's fictionalised articles. To protect
the undemocratic not-accountable-to-the-public members of the WTO, the FBI
infiltrates protest movements and the police rough them up in the streets.
However, corporations, or non-profit organisations funded by corporations to
promote their ideology, have the right of free speech to fund political
advertising (i.e. propaganda) campaigns. Would Napoleon the pig approve?
(:>)
Because Perot's ratings blossomed after his participation in the
presidential debates, the organisers of the debates, (a joint committee of
Republicans and Democrats), changed the rules to prevent Nader from
participating and even refused him entry to the debates. Free speech in such
a political system is similar to a roadside lemonade stand competing with
Coke or Pepsi
> These are the essentials of freedom.
{ the rule of law/constitutional government, capitalism/decentralized
economics, and democracy/government accountability }
Agreed. But I am biased having not known any other system. And I find it
disconcerting that Cuba, despite being isolated and subject to 40 years of
sporadic terrorism from the world's richest country, has a higher literacy
rate, free health care for all and more doctors per head of population than
the US
> If
> you can think of a better way to organize ourselves, I'd like to hear
> it.
Your original point on the theme of 1984 was whether we recognise reality or
not. To answer that, we have to consider how accurately your "essentials" in
practice follow the theory. For the systems to be effective, there has to be
a balance of power with institutional transparency and independence of the
different elements of power.
Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US and it's allies are clearly
dominant in world power. Foreign policies are completely shrouded in
doublespeak. Multi-national corporations have attained a disproportionate
amount of power because of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of so
few.
Within the US, democracy is a myth, government accountability is an oxymoron
and the rule of law is determined by judges appointed by politicians who
depend on corporate money for their election. If you believe that
politicians possess great integrity then everything is fine. But there is
the concept that power corrupts(:>).
Perhaps JFK had some integrity, perhaps not. But there is little doubt in my
mind regarding the integrity of Clinton or Bush.
> The reason that I'm wedded to these principles is that every free
> country has them, and every unfree country lacks them. These are
> empirical rules, not theoretical rules. It may seem as if there are
> better ways to do things, and I'm sure there are. But what are those
> ways? And how can we determine this without throwing out what we know
> works in favor of something else?
>
> After living through the 20th century, I would hope that we can finally
> put the idea of Utopia behind us. The idea that we can design a
> perfect society, if only people will follow the correct rules. So I
> see utopian thinking actively dangerous and misguided.
Internationally, we should eventually have a world government based on your
essentials but there would have to be some degree of socialism because I
don't want to have to pay a toll everytime I walk on the privately owned
footpath outside my house nor have to have my credit card number memorised
in case I have been burgled and need to phone the police(:>)
Nationally, we can advance further towards a utopia by introducing real
democracy, independent judiciary, etc, etc, banning advertising, killing all
dissenters(:>).
> All these grand
> plans for humanity have been failed spectacularly, and we're left with
> what we have. And what we have right now is pretty damn good, compared
> to what 99% of human history has been like.
>From your closing sentence, I feel safe to assume that you are not an East
Timorese or a Kurd in Turkey short on relatives, nor a Palestinian in a
Bantustan style compound, nor an Asian sweat shop worker and that you
haven't been denied a vote in Florida because you have served a jail
sentence in another state for a minor drug offence or stopped for driving
while black in New Jersey.
Throughout history the weak have been oppressed by the strong. The strong
and their supporters have always had it "pretty damn good".
Lets ignore the fact that the Haitian worker toils long hours for miserable
wages and barely survives. Instead lets focus on access to techno-junk, the
detritus of capitalist over-production, and pronounce the ordinary people of
this planet in this day and age where capitalism has triumphed across the
globe, better off than kings because Louis XIV didn't have a set of plastic
ducks "flying" across his bathroom wall.(:>)
What I have right now is pretty damn good but In comparison to the other six
billion on the planet, I am way up there in the top billion in terms of easy
life as are probably all on this list. I thank my parents for being white
and middle class.
Bob.
Co-incidentally, I am currently reading "Beyond Hypocrisy" subtitled
"Decoding The News In An Age Of Propoganda including the Doublespeak
Dictionary for the 1990's" by Edward S. Herman from which came my version of
the quiz above.
