Saturday, June 09, 2007

1984's Oceania in 2007

I've often said that totalitarianism and authoritarianism are fully in line with the history and ideals of the USA. The reason Americans don't see this is because of certain other history and ideals of the USA. The history of propaganda and brainwashing.

The USA is an Orwellian nation so just about every single word in Americans' political vocabulary has been twisted and redefined in a way that makes the USA look better. Political words, as Americans know them, are out of line with their meanings as understood by the rest of the human species. They are useless for meaningful communication and only serve to glorify the USA.

So for instance, in the English language 'authoritarianism' means obedience to others' will. In the American language it means something quite different. It means collectivism. Thus, private property which is everywhere regarded as a deeply authoritarian and indeed totalitarian concept, doesn't raise an eyebrow in the USA. Meanwhile, collective endeavours like single-payer healthcare or mass transit or firearms regulations are regarded as "authoritarian" in the USA.

Going on, freedom (redefined as power), democracy (plutocracy), patriotism (fascism), liberty (egotism), free speech (apathy), human rights (civil rights). That last is an interesting one. As everyone should know, and a few people do know, the USA is one of a very small number of nations on this planet that refuses to even so much as recognize human rights. Americans buy into an obsolete and discredited 17th century theory of "natural" rights which none of the rest of the world believes. So-called "natural" rights are gibberish whose "justification" is a primitive State of Nature (ie, anti-civilization).

Furthermore, the American word "liberal" has no analoguous word in the English language. Everywhere else, classical liberals, neo-liberals, and just plain old liberals are right-wingers. Liberalism is an inherently right-wing ideology. As a result, American "liberalism" corresponds to no word in the real political landscape ... except for the term anti-fascism. So if Americans spoke English they would have to admit that their country has been on the brink of fascism continuously for many decades.

Another good example is the USA's being the only country hypocritical enough to use "free speech" as a code word for "end of conversation". How many times do people ritualistically say "I disagree with what you say but will defend with my life your right to say it" when they really mean "I don't give a fuck about what you say, it's never going to change my mind"?

The USA's attitude towards human rights far surpasses hypocrisy. It's a blank stare of non-recognition. Americans don't even comprehend the notion of universal human rights. And when they are told the human rights, they object that "those things aren't human rights!"

The Americans' use of NewSpeak instead of English is itself evidence of a deeply authoritarian culture. Admittedly, it's impossible to say this within NewSpeak errr American so we have to use English! So in the English language, it is fair to say that the USA is a deeply authoritarian culture and has been so since the Great Awakenings which have turned Americans into a nation of total control freaks. The current fad towards overt despotism was begun more than a century ago, not a few decades.

2 comments:

9ner said...

(since a good part of it was written days ago, there's some overlapping in commentary).

Of course we know what conservatism is: is the doctrine of a bygone (golden) era that nobody actually lived in. In this epoch, that were no homosexualism, no group sex, no love for your neighbour, no helping the poor, no rights for
the woman, no everything. I suppose that the climax of this era is mid-fifties. It's a kind of a worldwide phenomena, but the US leaded the
pack, for the very first time.

Of course there were scapegoats.

The man (macho) of this era is supposed to be a god-fearing one, also with plenty of nationalist impulse, overrespectful about authority (also authoritarianism); a stoic family supporter, preferably one that doesn't
show its emotions or empathy at all. Empathy, emotions, caring about the neighbour or a more general picture is all too-feminine concerns. Family is a feminine task; supporting financially the family is a manly one.

Thus, the fear of (also bible-thumpering) conservatives towards empathy. It is a property of fascism, also, if one cares enough to think about it.

So we have the mockery of various words (a whole vocabulary) towards "if you lack arguments, call opponents sissies". That's what the travesty about the word "Liberal" is all about. Liberalism means, in every latin-
-derived language Classical Liberalism, which leads (appaling enough) exactly towards rightwingism. All this slander dialogue is used towards discrediting opponents as homosexuals while in discourse.

However, Liberal is a latin term for "being free about something"; in the applied sense, it could be freedom of anything. It's more used though towards libertinous individuals.

So, for modern debates, "liberals" means "sexual liberals", or, "you're willing and have no problem on engaging bizarre or unnaproved sexual conduct". It's more appalling that leftists (or their centrist/moderate
rightwing neighbours, Democrats) accept this title with certain pride, as in "we are, and we're proud of it". It's called framing the debate.

It is a conscious effort. All conscious effort in calling opponents gays (or, by the way, calling women "feminists"/"feminazis", also implying homosexualism), since racism isn't allowed or tolerated by large parts
of the population (or, in certain countries, outlawed). Imagine it: if you're not with us, you're a latino. Or you should be black. Or is
a black-fucker, or so on. However, if you don't agree with me, you're surely a liberal. A pinko one. Terrorist-hugging one.

By discrediting opponents as "immoral" (notice that they really fear "ammoral" persons while they're doing it, since they don't have dialetics against them), neo/cons are playing at their own field.

The faster misappropriation of terms happens the broader is the win in discourse: pro-life (unless your life means before being born, since after that the society shouldn't care about you), support the troops (meaning that the troops are only the high-hierarchy ones, as generals, since the other ones are
just pawns), foreign policy (as if a nation has rights towards other!), pre-emptive war (as if there's something as pre-emptive aggression...), leadership of free world (since no real country has real, enough freedom,
since having complete freedom undermines the concept of 'nation' or 'society').

Of course the left (or seemingly opposite movements that are disguised as leftwing) adopts terms too, in the same manner, creating false dichotomies wherever reality seems more blurry or inconvenient. Since societal facts doesn't scientifically apply everywhere because of relativism), they have to fake support for things like multiculturalism (another doublethink, if you ask me) for the sake of exploiting immigrant's cheap labour.

No real change is done, and in a fruitless search for the golden era (being located in the future or the past), both conservatives and "liberals" fight in a non-aggression war. In this non-conflict, they make bipartisan systems
all around the world to give an impression of ideological conflict, wherein there's none. And it's not even mercantilism, it's purely corporatism and different brands of the same fascism, called "democracy" (another heavily
misused term).

Elections, while previously were a matter of thinking and a way of solving society's crisis, is viewed as a huge hedonistic party. Wherein you should take sides, since "democracy" is like this. Too bad it's the same system,
everywhere.

That's why I kinda disagree that Liberalism in America officially means "anti-fascism, but still rightwingism". It only means "feel-good fascism". It's cult of personality, wherein that personality is the ever-coming future.
That conveniently never arrives.

And why things are gearing up in this direction of groupthink-with-different -colored-shirts? Simple. Because we have some necessities to fulfill: people should be employed, industries have to continue running, real state has
to be sold, cars have to be made (and destroyed under 5 years of use, since new cars have to be made). We have a mortgage to pay. Everybody is in debt, for life, and it's impossible to stop the civilization wheel.

Doesn't matter that's impossible to keep it running, though.

ferhr said...

"leaded the pack" is good... damn, is "led the pack". Sorry.