Most of the science scare stories we read about are statistically based. Usually referring to the reason for some disease or other, the system works like this: A scientist who wants to highlight a problem meets a politician who wants a particular reason for the problem to be exposed, and the statistics are created to link the two things together. Hence, fat + digestion = obesity. End of story. Exercise, happiness or genetics are sidelined, with the statistics used for a single cause answer.
We can see here that, really, statistics + politics = bull. Related factors are sidelined into a statistical analysis of the population aimed towards proving a single cause, and having scientific validity behind it. Because of this, we all believe it. But in reality, it is not science behind the statistic, but a need, by certain people, to manipulate the way we behave.
This outs the true purpose of statistics. It has nothing to do with science, nothing, even, to do with information. It is all to do with that good old-fashioned habit of social engineering. Indeed, the very basis of statistical analysis shows the whole subject to be more than manipulative and controlling.
Statistics can be used, in its basic form, to produce a norm which expresses the standard of a group. For instance, take average height, worked out from statistics. If you have
a group of ten people, five of whom are six foot while the other five are five foot, you have an average height of five foot six. This, then, is the norm. But as no one in the group is five foot six, the whole idea of norm becomes an absurdity and a lie. It has created an ideal normal person in that grouping who simply doesn’t exist. But it has also created something else.
It has created the stereotype. And as is clearly obvious by the use of stereotyping in society, its sole purpose is to coerce others, for good or bad, to conform to the stereotypical image. And whether selling the latest fashion, or the foulest political ideology, stereotyping is the way to express the norm or to marginalise.
In times past, stereotyping was a crude, easily identified affair. But today, thanks to statistics, we conform to stereotypes all the time, not even realising that we’re being controlled.
TOTAL ISN'T TOTAL
Modern western governments are leaving democracy behind and heading towards totalitarianism. Most people dismiss this as nonsense – after all, we have never had so many freedoms as we have today.
In one sense, this is true. Today you can be gay, an ethnic minority, or have any lifestyle you choose and be satisfied that, whilst prejudice still exists, the law is more or less on your side.
But this is to misunderstand what totalitarianism is.
We think of it in Nazi or Stalinist terms, with everything regulated and no freedom to be had. But the reality is, as long as you stick to certain ‘values’, dictators leave you alone.
This has to be the case or society will simply stop. Hence, even in a totalitarian state, much of ordinary life goes on without the authorities sticking their nose in and carting you off to the nearest Gulag.
Hence, to understand why we’re heading for totalitarianism today, you have to look, not at the freedoms that do not get in the way of the system, but the ‘values’ you have to hold to be ‘within’ the system.
When you do this, a different understanding arises.
Today’s ‘system’ is what I would call fundamentalist capitalism. Hence, you can be whatever you want, as long as you have a hefty mortgage, fat pension plan, new car, designer clothes, plenty of holidays, and indulge in every fad that’s offered.
And anything that disagrees with this ‘system’ is marginalized, watered-down, or ignored. And in that sense, good reader, we are heading towards a single system, which, by nature, is totalitarian.
DARK TIMES
We like to think we live at the apex of social evolution. Today, we have supposed freedoms to be who we want to be, living in a liberal society that glories the individual and human rights above all else. Yet, every society that has ever been has applauded itself as the apex of advancement; and universal human rights and individuality have a habit of encroaching on other’s human rights and individuality. Is our freedom really here, or do we live in a state of anarchy where individualism is simply an excuse to ruin things for others?
These are important considerations. For rather than suggesting we live in a free society, we really exist in the worst possible of worlds. Our present society lacks order. But if a proper society needs anything, it is orderliness. Such order used to be used to support the strong. It would be the apex of social living to provide an order to support the weak.
Liberals would say this is precisely what they have done, putting down majority views in favour of minorities. But is this really so? I would argue not. Rather, minorities are allowed to be visible in the media in sensational form. The icons seem to rule rather than the average member of a minority. And a sensationalised form is more likely to make a majority believe the sensational is the norm – and eventually turn against it.
This is not liberation, but a licence for anarchy in the hands of those who wish to make a statement. It is a stitch-up designed only for the sensational, for the fanatical. And the only way to protect against such fanaticism is to have a co-ordinated society with a definite majority ethos, which allows minorities to thrive under its flag. It is the challenge of society to make such a world free for any minority which demands the right to live as they like. We can, however, only live how we like under a system of consent, and realisation of duties to others, whatever their persuasion. Liberals thus become a contradiction. Their liberalism is really imprisonment for all but the strong.
The society this liberal contradiction has produced is not a society at all. It is simply a melting pot of individuals, bent on their own self-interest, and ripping down all elements of an over-culture which they see as repressive. In truth, it is not repressive at all; it was simply an attempt to keep conflicting interests in perspective. But how will this ‘free’ society the liberal created be remembered?
We remember past ages by their art, splendour and permanence. But where is our art? It has been wiped out by a new form of conceptual art, where a dirty bed or pile of bricks, and an animal split in half, can be seen as ‘art’.
Where is our splendour? It is vilified, liberal ideals centreing rather on the bad elements on life, such as rampant abuse, offering excuses to the criminal or censuring anyone with optimism as a deluded fool. Where is our permanence? It is decimated in a sea of individuality, where history is the history of a person, where permanent exhibitions of a culture are seen as repressive authoritarianism.
We remember past ages by their philosophy. But where is our philosophy? It is shunned as unnecessary intellectualism. How can we have people more bright than others in a culture of human rights? Hence, philosophy is disallowed in a sea of personal opinion, each as valid whether backed up by knowledge or not. Rather than philosophy, dumbing down is the ethos, with nobody more intelligent than anyone else. And in such a sea of ignorance, we cannot be allowed to be brighter than the thickest.
We remember past ages, but will anyone remember ours? Will anything of this society be left for our descendants to understand? Our art is temporary, our view of history is temporary, our society is faddish, with nothing lasting for long. So how much of this will be remembered by our descendants?
In actual fact, we will be remembered as a chilling time indeed. Our present history books record such a time that seemed to leave nothing for our descendants to remember. It was that period from the fall of Rome to the advent of the Middle Ages. And we called it a Dark Age.
TOTAL THOUGHTS
I’ve been thinking lately about totalitarianism – you know, when a few take over the many and there’s nothing you can do about it. There’s a feeling nowadays that the west is heading in this direction. Is it true?
I think it’s a possibility. And my reasoning lies in what actually lies behind totalitarianism. Most of us who think about it think it’s due to a political interpretation of a part
icular philosophy. In one sense, this is correct. But I’m more interested, here, in the psychology of the person who takes it up.
The bully writ large.
That’s the key, I’m sure. Totalitarianism is just the schoolyard bully on a big scale. And the one thing we know about the bully is that he’s an inadequate who has to prove his self-esteem all the time.
The foot soldiers of a totalitarian state are obvious bullies and thugs. But there is another type of person who exists in the totalitarian state from the leader down to the local ‘commissars.’
These guys actually exist all the time. They are the unbending local ‘official’, or the manager who won’t give an inch. In the UK we call them ‘jobsworths’, ‘cos deviating from the rules is ‘more than my job’s worth.’
Little men rule.
That’s the other key. These petty officials also need to exercise their self-esteem; and I’m convinced it’s these guys who see an outlet for their self-esteem when a totalitarian system comes along.
And when I look at the intellectually stagnant governing class of the west today, I see nothing but little men. And there lies a possible answer to declining freedoms in the west, and the slow and subtle rise of totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism is, you see, licence for the inadequate.
LIBERTARIANS BE DAMNED
Libertarians just don’t know how to have fun. They should know. After all, being a libertarian is all about freeing oneself in order to indulge in happiness. That’s why all the taboos have been taken away; why moral codes are shunned; why life has become an amoral free for all. But libertarians just don’t know how to have fun.
Let’s look at the evidence. In their relentless assault on old values, they have placed political correctness as the new amoral arbiter. What is allowed is what passes its test of the inane. Hence, harmless jokes are seen as offensive, and harmless fun is decreed bad as it could lead to injury or lack of self worth in those who do not thrive.
Once upon a time, those who didn’t seem to thrive found their niche in life, regardless. Now, they are allowed to stew and feel their self worth is taken away. Often, it was the unfairness of life that forced people to thrive. Now, they don’t have to. They just stew and cry ‘victim’. So much for the libertarian being about happiness.
Liberty, you see, is boring. When Eve got the apple, she realised the most important thing about having fun. It is always better behind closed doors. Libertarians shun such an idea. Fun should be in your face, regardless of what people think, because they have the right to do as they please. Hence, exhibitionism becomes the order of happiness. Sexuality is on open display, with nothing left to the imagination. Yet the vital element of sex appeal is the hint of what is under that dress. It creates expectation – a thing a libertarian would no longer understand.
This element of being behind a closed door, or the enticement of sexuality covered up, was an essential element of what allowed life to be exciting. For true fun does not come from a particular act. The fun comes from the sense of secret rebellion in doing the act. And to allow it to be a rebellion, it has to be something that is seen as wrong. And that can only occur with a social sense of morality.
This is the beauty of the taboo. We all know we shouldn’t, but we always did; and 19th century Victorian London had more morals than any other city, and also more brothels than anywhere else in the world.
The libertarians have destroyed the beauty – the fun – of living. For living is to secretly rebel against morality and taboo. Take that taboo away, and we’re free only to be endlessly liberal without the buzz. And without the buzz, life becomes banal. And the only thing we have to rebel against is life itself.
ATLANTIS OR UTOPIA
Atlantis, that mystical island with its Royal City, its advanced, moral culture, simply sank into the sea when the inhabitants became corrupt and angered the gods. But did Atlantis exist?
First mentioned by ancient Greek philosopher Plato, this fantastic island entered modern consciousness with 19th century US Congressman Ignatius Donnelly and mystic Madame Helena Blavatsky. Today, it lies at the centre of the search for a lost civilisation. The existence of such a civilisation is too vast a subject to deal with here. But the reason Atlantis continues to fascinate us is an important mystery in itself.
Some academics feel the subject is dangerous, with Hitler himself glorying in Atlantian mythology. But maybe the Nazi episode epitomises the reason Atlantis continues to fascinate. Contrary to popular belief, the myth does not have a continual fascination throughout history from Plato’s time. Rather, there are specific periods of interest in the sunken island. In the early 17th century interest came from the allegorical poem by Francis Bacon called ‘The New Atlantis’. It concerned a visit to the imaginary island of Bensalem, and an analysis of the society there.
A century before, Sir Thomas More had written ‘Utopia’ about an imaginary island where everything was perfect. Laws, morals, politics, the very fabric of life, was on a level the European could only dream of. Bacon and More were just two of a whole host of writers including St Augustine with his ‘The City of God’, and H G Wells with ‘In the Days of the Comet’, all of whom wrote of an imaginary perfect state. But why?
Because at the time each of the above was written, society was on the change, and futurists attempted to map a society which, this time, would be perfect. Donnelly, the father of modern Atlantology, also fits this pattern, as a Congressman at the time modern America was being forged. And the same is true of Blavatsky, the seminal figure in the growing movement of alternative spirituality. And so, too, with Hitler. But who was the first person known to dream of a perfect society based around a political philosophy?
Plato! Atlantis was merely an imaginative attempt to show a perfect society stemming from ‘The Republic’, his thesis for the perfectly run state. And his dream is resurrected every time man’s society can be seen to be changing. Atlantis is at the centre of our hopes for a better future. It is forever an allegory of Utopia. And in the dream, we can here see it shattered. For the meaning of Utopia is ‘nowhere.’
PICASSO RISING
The 18th century Enlightenment confirmed mankind as a thinking, reasoning machine. At least, that is what we are told. But perhaps we simply swapped one form of thinking for another. For instance, the success of the Enlightenment was the success of science. Through science, man learnt that he could sort out his problems himself without relying on God.
This was achieved by the realisation that the world was adaptable to scientific law. And once such a law was established – such as universal gravitation – the universe obeyed the law ad infinitum.
Through such reasoning, man’s laws were soon transferred from the scientific realm to the socio-political; for if the world behaved in uniform fashion, surely laws could be established to guarantee the same from mankind. However, in the intellectual’s absolute belief that he was right, could it be that, rather than making man think for the first time, he actually destroyed a mode of thinking that had lasted man for millenia?
Previous to the Enlightenment, the supernatural tended to rule, coming from a world parallel to the physical, and guiding man on his perilous path through life. Today, we dismiss this attitude as superstition. But whilst there were many abuses of this system in terms of hierarchy, at the grass roots level what was the supernatural all about?
In essence, we can best see the supernatural as a form of storytelling, the spirituality it produced bonding man to his fellow man and environment. Through a system of taboo and ritual, man realised constraints which allowed his society and environment to function.
In return for this, man achieved a sense of belonging and direction. We can see why the liberal would not like this world, for it reduces individualism. But this world did contain one vital ingredient that was left behind by enlightened thought and scientific methodology. In the tales pre-Enlightenment people told each other, the practicalities of commonsense were passed on from pers
on to person. In the Old Wives’ Tale, etc, commonsense ruled the grass roots intellect. And many possible traumas of life were avoided.
Science never liked commonsense, and obviously did not like the pre-Enlightenment world where it belonged. Commonsense often got in the way of scientific theory. For although commonsense may dictate a certain action be taken, if science cannot find data to prove the hypothesis, then commonsense has to be ignored until data can be accumulated. This almost robotic attitude was similarly passed into socio-political scientific law.
The people, however, thought different. As in the times of Christendom – when European hierarchy was Christian and the people remained pagan – commonsense remained on the street whilst enlightened intellectuals began to build their ivory towers. And commonsense remained until, at last, liberal enlightened idiots found a practical way to banish commonsense from the streets and impose a top to bottom enlightened ethic that could really do the job.
The secret was to wrap noble sentiments into a package which conned the people that it was good for them. For instance, it is right not to be racist or homophobic or sexist; it is right to want to be as safe as possible at work, at play and in the home; it is right that we should have fundamental human rights which guarantee our freedom from authority and abuse. But by use of such noble sentiments, a politically authorised triple force of political correctness, Health and Safety legislation and human rights lawyers formed a triple commissariat to grasp commonsense from the people and place it in the hands of authority.
Today we live in a world ruled by the politicisation of commonsense. Believing that before the Enlightenment we didn’t really think, the new liberalism has decided that without their guidance, we cannot be allowed to think at all. With authority becoming the nanny and jailer of society, only their dictats can be classed as commonsense, us poor, unintelligent masses unable to grasp essential points which could allow our lives to be better. Only through their politicisations can life really be better and fulfilling.
I, Essayist Page 3
