Hatreds
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
What unfortunately escapes most people is that it is not only the historical results which must be remembered, but perhaps more importantly, the historical means. That the question "could it happen again?" should have been asked by the History Channel is ironic, for it is happening again, in several forms.
The witch trials of the medieval, renaissance and colonial periods; the Holocaust; the Soviet pogroms; the "red scare" of McCarthyism; the anti-military and race riots of the sixties; the domestic terrorism of the seventies, eighties, and nineties; Asian, African and European ethnic and religious cleansings: All of these used a similar strategy.
The strategy of hate, of fear, of bypassing the thinking mind with an emotional storm that hits like a punch to the gut. Hear and react. A spinal-reflex, knee-jerk reaction that turns a society of civilized individuals into a howling mob, in the midst of which no members could recognize themselves nor justify their actions, had they any chance to think.
That is the ultimate tool of this strategy. Don't let them think. Rationality is the enemy. Emotion is the ally, the lowest common denominator.
Perhaps first codified in 1841 by Charles Mackay in his book "Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," this same appeal to emotion, to the unthinking beast, has been used throughout history for social, political and religious purposes. In the twentieth century, it was further codified and again put to horrendous use.
Hitler used this concept to launch himself into power, and the world into bloodshed. His plan was clearly outlined in his book "Mein Kampf." Goebbels included ritual celebrations and entertainment, providing uplifting experiences to counterbalance the necessary atmosphere of vengeance and anger, and keep the people's emotions from becoming desensitized through overstimulation.
Bypass the mind, for not all are intelligent enough to understand a rational appeal, and any appeal to rationality brings questions about the value of the proposal from those who are. Hit the emotional buttons, get people *feeling* without thought, without questions, and they can be led or driven at whim, in any direction, for any purpose.
Any fact can be colored, weighted, shaded with meaning by choice of words, turn of phrase, or tone of voice. Keep the emotions fully engaged, and the rational mind will be trampled in the stampede -- sometimes literally, and that in itself is a "good thing." Those who can break free of the emotional reaction, who question the shaded "facts," are the ones who might turn the herd. Therefore, they must be shown as the enemy. Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge, perhaps used this subversion of the intellect most effectively, turning intellect itself, as expressed by education, into the enemy -- into THEM.
Everyone can understand the emotional appeal. It's exciting -- never mind the facts! It makes the blood pump faster, makes us feel closer, more united, secure even in the face of horror, because we're all in it together.
Well, all of us except THEM. There's always a THEM. There has to be. Otherwise, what would we be united against? Even if it's a concept, there are those OTHERS who cling to it, practice it, perpetuate its abominations. THEY are responsible for our misfortunes. They must be, for we would never have done this to ourselves.
And that THEM is all-important, for there must be a scapegoat, some group which can be shown as the root of all evil. An outside force must be blamed for all the troubles, for the people must never imagine that they, themselves, are to blame. That will start the deadly cycle of introspection and self-reliance that is the doom of the manipulator's power.
Individual thought and initiative MUST be subsumed under the unbrella of the unifying goal. Those who are not with us are against us. Those who will not serve the cause willingly must be broken to the yoke, "for the good of all."
Of course, "the good of all" only includes US. We are the all; our goals and desires are all that matter. Anyone who disagrees with us must be punished -- for their own good, of course -- to break them free of their evil ways and allow them to join, or at least serve, the enlightened and deserving few.
Now, where have we heard this, recently? In the dogmatic drumbeat of damnation from religious fundamentalists. The ever-more-sensationalized cries of racism, sexism, ageism. The pernicious calls for discrimination in favor of sexual preference, disability, ethnic origin, religion, economic status. And the flip sides of those coins, that certain people must be banned from doing certain things, because "everyone knows" that they are not as capable, industrious, intelligent, trustworthy, moral, dedicated, or otherwise fundamentally as *good* as those making the accusations.
The politics of extremism, of sensationalism, of any "-ism" hold much more general appeal than any rational debate of the pros and cons of the respective positions. Which was more popular, "Firing Line" or "Jerry Springer?" Easy question -- which was more sensationalist, more appealing to the emotions.
As every marketing agent, special-interest speaker, and politician knows, it is the emotions that sway the crowd to follow someone's lead. And what more powerfully "proves" the correctness of one side's views than to have them encoded into law? Providing the means to punish those who do not or will not conform, and leaving them defenseless before the tide of mob opinion.
Hate speech laws, religion-based definitions of marriage, mandated racial and gender percentages, government control of private property defining allowable types and usages, budgets balanced on the backs of future generations, foreign policy tailored for video clips and sound bites on the evening news: All these are the results of "mandates from the people." From people whipped into a rabid mob and divorced from thought or reason.
Any who give reasons against these moves are vilified, discredited as elitists, racists, militants . . . evil. For the labeling of the enemy, reducing them to a stereotype, something not-human, faceless, the non-person, is the lock-step march of the totalitarian mindset.
It is hard to hate another person. It is very easy to hate a label. To hate THEM.
Yes, so very easy. For a herd beast. For a unthinking, unreasoning animal. Go on. Hate. Obey the siren call of raw emotion. Wallow in the bloody mire and notice only that it feels warm, that you belong to US.
Ignore that man behind the curtain -- the elitist, racist, militant thug who has turned you into a mindless slave who exists only to do his bidding.
Ignore him. Because if you notice him, you'll become one of THEM.
George Santayana
What unfortunately escapes most people is that it is not only the historical results which must be remembered, but perhaps more importantly, the historical means. That the question "could it happen again?" should have been asked by the History Channel is ironic, for it is happening again, in several forms.
The witch trials of the medieval, renaissance and colonial periods; the Holocaust; the Soviet pogroms; the "red scare" of McCarthyism; the anti-military and race riots of the sixties; the domestic terrorism of the seventies, eighties, and nineties; Asian, African and European ethnic and religious cleansings: All of these used a similar strategy.
The strategy of hate, of fear, of bypassing the thinking mind with an emotional storm that hits like a punch to the gut. Hear and react. A spinal-reflex, knee-jerk reaction that turns a society of civilized individuals into a howling mob, in the midst of which no members could recognize themselves nor justify their actions, had they any chance to think.
That is the ultimate tool of this strategy. Don't let them think. Rationality is the enemy. Emotion is the ally, the lowest common denominator.
Perhaps first codified in 1841 by Charles Mackay in his book "Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," this same appeal to emotion, to the unthinking beast, has been used throughout history for social, political and religious purposes. In the twentieth century, it was further codified and again put to horrendous use.
Hitler used this concept to launch himself into power, and the world into bloodshed. His plan was clearly outlined in his book "Mein Kampf." Goebbels included ritual celebrations and entertainment, providing uplifting experiences to counterbalance the necessary atmosphere of vengeance and anger, and keep the people's emotions from becoming desensitized through overstimulation.
Bypass the mind, for not all are intelligent enough to understand a rational appeal, and any appeal to rationality brings questions about the value of the proposal from those who are. Hit the emotional buttons, get people *feeling* without thought, without questions, and they can be led or driven at whim, in any direction, for any purpose.
Any fact can be colored, weighted, shaded with meaning by choice of words, turn of phrase, or tone of voice. Keep the emotions fully engaged, and the rational mind will be trampled in the stampede -- sometimes literally, and that in itself is a "good thing." Those who can break free of the emotional reaction, who question the shaded "facts," are the ones who might turn the herd. Therefore, they must be shown as the enemy. Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge, perhaps used this subversion of the intellect most effectively, turning intellect itself, as expressed by education, into the enemy -- into THEM.
Everyone can understand the emotional appeal. It's exciting -- never mind the facts! It makes the blood pump faster, makes us feel closer, more united, secure even in the face of horror, because we're all in it together.
Well, all of us except THEM. There's always a THEM. There has to be. Otherwise, what would we be united against? Even if it's a concept, there are those OTHERS who cling to it, practice it, perpetuate its abominations. THEY are responsible for our misfortunes. They must be, for we would never have done this to ourselves.
And that THEM is all-important, for there must be a scapegoat, some group which can be shown as the root of all evil. An outside force must be blamed for all the troubles, for the people must never imagine that they, themselves, are to blame. That will start the deadly cycle of introspection and self-reliance that is the doom of the manipulator's power.
Individual thought and initiative MUST be subsumed under the unbrella of the unifying goal. Those who are not with us are against us. Those who will not serve the cause willingly must be broken to the yoke, "for the good of all."
Of course, "the good of all" only includes US. We are the all; our goals and desires are all that matter. Anyone who disagrees with us must be punished -- for their own good, of course -- to break them free of their evil ways and allow them to join, or at least serve, the enlightened and deserving few.
Now, where have we heard this, recently? In the dogmatic drumbeat of damnation from religious fundamentalists. The ever-more-sensationalized cries of racism, sexism, ageism. The pernicious calls for discrimination in favor of sexual preference, disability, ethnic origin, religion, economic status. And the flip sides of those coins, that certain people must be banned from doing certain things, because "everyone knows" that they are not as capable, industrious, intelligent, trustworthy, moral, dedicated, or otherwise fundamentally as *good* as those making the accusations.
The politics of extremism, of sensationalism, of any "-ism" hold much more general appeal than any rational debate of the pros and cons of the respective positions. Which was more popular, "Firing Line" or "Jerry Springer?" Easy question -- which was more sensationalist, more appealing to the emotions.
As every marketing agent, special-interest speaker, and politician knows, it is the emotions that sway the crowd to follow someone's lead. And what more powerfully "proves" the correctness of one side's views than to have them encoded into law? Providing the means to punish those who do not or will not conform, and leaving them defenseless before the tide of mob opinion.
Hate speech laws, religion-based definitions of marriage, mandated racial and gender percentages, government control of private property defining allowable types and usages, budgets balanced on the backs of future generations, foreign policy tailored for video clips and sound bites on the evening news: All these are the results of "mandates from the people." From people whipped into a rabid mob and divorced from thought or reason.
Any who give reasons against these moves are vilified, discredited as elitists, racists, militants . . . evil. For the labeling of the enemy, reducing them to a stereotype, something not-human, faceless, the non-person, is the lock-step march of the totalitarian mindset.
It is hard to hate another person. It is very easy to hate a label. To hate THEM.
Yes, so very easy. For a herd beast. For a unthinking, unreasoning animal. Go on. Hate. Obey the siren call of raw emotion. Wallow in the bloody mire and notice only that it feels warm, that you belong to US.
Ignore that man behind the curtain -- the elitist, racist, militant thug who has turned you into a mindless slave who exists only to do his bidding.
Ignore him. Because if you notice him, you'll become one of THEM.
posted by Silverdrake at 17:23
0 comments
