> HH: The only  feasible long term approach to advanced
technology in terrorist hands probably is:

> (a) Establish world government
> (b) Disarm everyone
> (c) Permit access to technology development information,
tools and materials only under license and regular
inspections.

You may have missed the only real solution, which does
involve technology - in the sense of being forced into every
individual... to be explained.

This theme of dealing with deep-rooted pernicious terrorism
has actually been explored quite often in film, "Brazil"
"1984", "The minority Report" and "A Clockwork Orange"
including the **real** solution to the problem of terrorism
(or 'ultraviolence' for its own sake), if you are a
Kubrick/Burgess fan.

Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" is the a cult classic -  a surreal
nightmare, demented and bizarre, but it can has a quirky
charm, set amidst constant terrorist explosions, so that you
can't decide whether or not you are supposed to be
frightened or sympathetic... especially given the
behind-the-scenes level of torture, used to ferret out the
dissidents. Of course, by the time the nightmare is
revealed, we know that it is even scarier because it was
masqueraded as a friendly facade, but the reality is far
more unpleasant for what has really happened in this
alternative universe, as in the opening scenes of the
Matrix.

Or we can take mind-control to another level, like what is
experienced by publishing tycoon David Aames in "Vanilla
Sky"... who, like Sam Lowry, your work-a-day "Brazilian"
(and "Neo") wants to get out of the terrible nightmare, but
none can bring himself to wake up with out some help.
Lowry/Aames dream about a certain girl in elaborate and
breath taking dream sequences, Cruise-over-Cruz, so to
speak... and the dreams have a story-line of their own,
which take most viewers away from the real plot, but what is
ever "real" and what is imagined? And, futhermore, does this
delusion usually come at state expense?

Orwell's 1984, but it is more of a grim post-apocalyptic, co
ntrol-utopia nightmare vision, and there is no doubt about
the issue of state-expense and level of control. But I think
the solution in all cases is related to an evolutionary
"improvement" of state-sponsored imposed mind-control. We
may be living at the only juncture in human history where
some degree of true freedom is temporarily available, and if
we loose it, that will be due to the "excuse" (real or
imagined) of terrorism.

Stalin, the master of brutal control, remarked that religion
is the opiate of the masses, but implied that no drug was
enough... and that was largely correct for several thousand
years, until his imposed brutalism supplanted religion as a
control method. Which can, in other circumstances, also be
supplanted by **Television** the Prozac of the masses - at
least in certain cultures where prosperity is overflowing -
and TV took over as the drug-of-choice in many places, for a
while, but it is too diluted for the task of mind-control
when it goes up against either ingrained poverty... or lese
the dark side of religion, distorted for political purposes.

Terrorism pretty much depends on religious-like zeal being
implanted in young impressionable minds, or else extreme
poverty, and to counter that, you must employ something of
equal or greater strength. The torture/mind control images
in "Brazil" and "A Clockwork Orange" are so shocking, that
the deterrence effect of them alone would seem to be enough,
but I think that ultimately even brutality is not enough and
it will demand a higher level of mind-control than either
torture or religion or the strongest of drugs even.

I'm surprised Horace and Jed did not focus on what will
probably be the only real control-level answer to terror in
our fast-approaching future. It has been explored also in
film, going back to "The Manchurian Candidate" and a long
legacy of follow-on film, ah yes, the ultimate solution -
the brain implant ... but I don't want to spoil the fun of
revealing the more modern details for anyone who hasn't seen
and understood the ultimate solution to terrorism.

Jones



Reply via email to