Your Future as a Terrorist
The Homeland Security apparatus has garnered quite a bit of attention lately for a paper that identified anti-abortionists, anti-immigrationists, and war veterans as terrorist suspects. (I thought “profiling” was forbidden, but in that matter, as so often these days, it would seem that some people are more equal than others.)
Some Republican politicians are playing at outrage and demanding an investigation. Let’s not get too carried away by the uproar, for two reasons. First, Republican opposition to any left-wing action is always a feeble and temporary prelude to surrender. That is a law of the universe—like gravity.
Secondly, there is nothing at all new about this stuff. It has been commonplace in classrooms, the media, the bureaucracy, and law enforcement training for years and years—certainly since the 1970s. It is new to Homeland Security only because Homeland Security is new. The Republicans pretend (short-term) concern to take advantage of grassroots outrage and of a chance to tag Obama. They do not represent serious opposition to this Marcusianism, or, if you prefer, Cultural Marxism, that has widely penetrated American establishment (and popular) attitudes. It is routine Communist procedure to identify class enemies for elimination. This had become standard discourse in many U.S. institutions long before the latest example became public.
Our rulers are not really very concerned about Muslim terrorists, as should be obvious. That violence poses no serious threat to Power. Its victims are likely to be only expendable plain folk like you and me. The rulers perceive, quite rightly, the real danger to their power: Americans who think thoughts that can undermine the moral legitimacy and unthinking obedience that sustain their prestige, wealth, and power. Besides, negative portrayal of members of “the religion of peace,” who tend to be dark and alien, would be met with immediate bad fallout as a violation of Diversity. Dissident real Americans, unorganised, unrepresented, and far more dangerous if once motivated to opposition, are much more opportune targets for government suppression. What else, after all, did the murder of innocents by federal mercenaries at Mount Carmel and Ruby Ridge amount to but the extermination of "right-wing domestic terrorists" ?
Note that the thrust of this type of thing, which has become almost commonplace in American society, is to mark out dangerous classes of people for their thoughts and associations. Those who reject mental postures that have been declared to be those held by all respectable people are a caste apart. (However, phony everyone knows the respectable opinions to be, it is a sign of evil intention to question them.) This casts aside the whole painfully developed regime of Anglo-American liberty, a major pillar of which is judgment for acts, not for thoughts or identity. The people who have promulgated the offending directive obviously have no idea what liberty is; nor do they care in the least for a free society. The independent-thinking individual used to be an American icon. No more.
Anyone who is serious about the direction of this country ought to admit that the stance of the Homeland Security apparatus rests upon the staggeringly powerful force of conformity that is a major component of the American national character. Our two greatest foreign observers—Tocqueville in the 19th century and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th—were both struck by the herd tendencies of American thought and the rareness of individuality, the near universal craving for respectability within the mass. Unless one grasps this sad truth, he is disabled in understanding current events. Central government targeting of domestic dissidents could not be floated without an expectation of widespread approval. It rests upon the certainty that a substantial part of the populace will countenance the suppression of ideas and persons that violate what has been declared to be respectable.
Exhibit. The anti-immigration journal www.vdare.com has brought attention to the case of a Sudanese immigrant in the Salt Lake City area who deliberately drove into a group of a dozen or more children with malice aforethought. There were numerous injuries but providentially no fatalities—this time. The local officials and media have, as usual, tried to obfuscate the significance of the event. There was much protest on a website devoted to local commentary. Some of this protest was after a while deemed "racist" and wiped out.
Our interest here is in one of the posted comments on the offending postings. One citizen offered this comment: "I can understand and in fact share the outrage against an individual who has committed a horrendous act of violence. However, I find the blatant racist comments equally offensive." Attempted mass murder of children troubles this citizen no more than bad thoughts do. Can anyone deny that this person is representative of the mind of millions, perhaps tens of millions, of Americans? Can anyone doubt that a country rife with such people, so lacking in common sense and normal human feelings, has a doubtful rating on survivability?
This person is the prisoner of an abstraction that has been promulgated as the true and proper American way of thinking. There is nothing new about this because American history is replete with the phenomenon: Free Soil, Melting Pot, War to End Wars, Great Society, Global Democracy. The only thing that is new is the particular content—Diversity.
Such muddled and evil thinking is often ascribed to "white guilt." Such people, it is said, are motivated by a desire to compensate for the injustices inflicted on minorities in the brutal past. Guilt is a painful feeling that one has committed a transgression. This person is not experiencing guilt—he is enjoying an empowerment to punish other people for their transgressions. He suffers from Puritanism, which was injected into this continent on Massachusetts Bay in the 17th century, has been diffusing its poison ever since, and is now incestuously mated with its evil cousin—revolutionary ideology imported from Europe in the early 20th century. In the course of American history Indians, Southerners, Filipinos, Catholics, Jews, German and Jap fascists, the Red Menace, and now selected "Terrorists," have been at various times appointed as the Nonpersons, enemies of the true and righteous. This time, Dear Reader, the enemy is you and me.
Entries(RSS)
Republican opposition to any left-wing action is always a feeble and temporary prelude to surrender. That is a law of the universe—like gravity.
It is routine Communist procedure to identify class enemies for elimination. This had become standard discourse in many U.S. institutions long before the latest example became public.
the real danger to their power: Americans who think thoughts that can undermine the moral legitimacy and unthinking obedience that sustain their prestige, wealth, and power.
Our two greatest foreign observers—Tocqueville in the 19th century and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th—
Puritanism, which was injected into this continent on Massachusetts Bay in the 17th century, has been diffusing its poison ever since, and is now incestuously mated with its evil cousin—revolutionary ideology imported from Europe in the early 20th century.
Thank you, Dr. Wilson. I wish with envy that I could have written any one of the above observations, yet you offered all five truths as easily as offering the five fingers on your hand for a warm handshake. You are a dangerous asset in these times -- a gentleman with true courage.
The scope and substance of this essay eclipse many previous Wilson essays of late that have offered little by way of scope or substance. Bravo!!
"First, Republican opposition to any left-wing action is always a feeble and temporary prelude to surrender. "
That's a very truthful observation. I would add that the republican opposition mentioned is also always feigned and expressed in a transparently phony outburst of noise by morally retarded "conservative" politicians.
Henry Mencken, if he lived in this era, would enjoy skewering the current crop of imbeciles who infest Congress these days. They can be hilarious, in a rather disgusting way, even though they are dangerous to our lives and liberties.
Mr. Roberts @ 3
Your words:
"They can be hilarious, in a rather disgusting way, even though they are dangerous to our lives and liberties."
The first time I saw clowns as a child and ever since, I sensed and continue to sense something evil about them. This applies to Congressmen as well.
Although Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" has been referred to as a "worsened word" because it has allegedly been overused, it does fit the men of these times - Obama, his cabinet and the congressional leadership of both parties.
Both parties are pseudo Marxist anyway. Our political system is a sick joke. One party screws us over while the other one feigns opposition. DHS is the least of our worries, the Hate Speech Bill is going to shut just about anyone that is anti Marxist down for good. I think I need to start looking at going to Uruguay to teach English or something.
More than one John Brown of Ossowatomie have "died to set Abstraction free.". Now it is free and Man is everywhere in chains. Surely Dr. Wilson, the Puritan strain is not solely responsible for our national conformism! So many others have so mightily contributed.
Terrific article, Dr. Wilson. It cuts straight to the heart of our predicament. I would only add that this disease must now be imported abroad, with bombs if necessary. We are drunk with our own delusional greatness. I doubt the world will weep with our passing. The 'land of freedom' is really the very antithesis of freedom.
'imported' above should have read 'exported'.
"Republican opposition to any left-wing action is always a feeble and temporary prelude to surrender. That is a law of the universe—like gravity."
That's awesome. I made that my Facebook status.
Anyone who is serious about the direction of this country ought to admit that the stance of the Homeland Security apparatus rests upon the staggeringly powerful force of conformity that is a major component of the American national character. Our two greatest foreign observers—Tocqueville in the 19th century and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th—were both struck by the herd tendencies of American thought and the rareness of individuality, the near universal craving for respectability within the mass.
One can find a prime example of American herd mentality at any airport.
"Our two greatest foreign observers—Tocqueville in the 19th century and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th—were both struck by the herd tendencies of American thought and the rareness of individuality, the near universal craving for respectability within the mass. Unless one grasps this sad truth, he is disabled in understanding current events. Central government targeting of domestic dissidents could not be floated without an expectation of widespread approval. It rests upon the certainty that a substantial part of the populace will countenance the suppression of ideas and persons that violate what has been declared to be respectable." It seems one of the methods the Central government uses to create the herd tendency in persons (the always politically correct person) in America is the public school and the failure of parents to protest this form of brainwashing. Of course, they are only a generation of the lobotomized, themselves. Thanks, Dr. Wilson, for an excellent observation.
Excellent article Dr. Wilson.
"Our two greatest foreign observers—Tocqueville in the 19th century and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th—were both struck by the herd tendencies of American thought and the rareness of individuality, the near universal craving for respectability within the mass."
I seems to me when a person embraces abstract freedom the inner ego says "yes!". When one of these people hear that they can do as they please by leftist minority rights people... they also say "yes, now I can say yes to my perverted desires" The "I" again wins. The ego also enjoys being a hero... by being told by the so called minorities that they are saving the oppressed. Again the ego wins. I do believe that cultural Marxism relies on all of these things becoming true. In a society that is based on greed and convenience the ego is well used to being appeased. To a point that it is seen to be the real self. Once the herd is dulled down to believe this is the truth it will support each other in their confusion in order to sustain the ego.
"The first time I saw clowns as a child and ever since, I sensed and continue to sense something evil about them. This applies to Congressmen as well."
As did I, Mr. Peters. To me, there was nothing untoward in Stephen King's use of a clown as the outward face of a demon in his horror fiction. As to Congressmen, they have the total selfishness of small children and are so obviously amoral that I marvel at the enthusiasm that TV addicted voters exhibit for them.
Exhibiting herd tendencies and craving respectability may just lead to the belief:
1. that a handful of centralized media conglomerates who run thousands of papers, tv channels, radio channels, internet sites, billboards represent a "free" press
2. that media conglomerates seek to report the facts and decipher truths rather than deciminate government propoganda and product advertising
3. that just because we are able to choose amongst individuals from two groups with two different names that there is actually a choice given at the ballot box
4. that only large government organizations should fund and execute the pedagogical duties not too long ago taken on by households and neighborhoods
5. that only individuals instructed in psychology and group dynamics at colleges of education can possibly teach subject matters that not long ago were taught by rural teen-agers
6. that, even though highly respected scientists might hold a variety of opinions, the layperson tv-watcher "knows" the truth about many complex topics such as "global warming" better than all of them
7. that, even though a fetus may still be breathing after being removed from a womb, it is not really "alive"
8. that those who steadfastly hold to scriptural truths and Tradition and venerate icons of the sainted are out of date dogmatist nutjobs who must be set straight by preachers who administer the "truth" via Powerpoint presentations to large masses gathered in warehouses
9. that the nutjobs cannot understand what the Bible really means because they read it in some crazy languages like Greek
10. that there is a difference between torture and "rough interrogation techniques"
11. that the law is a luxury that we cannot afford "in a time of war"
12. that crazies who read non-English Bibles in front of icons and bring all fetuses to "full term" so that they can be educated in places other than government centers so that they may reason issues for themselves regardless of what the tv says, and might cast ballots for someone outside of the "party system", precisely because they were not vetted by the official media may well be terrorists who should be spied on, "roughly interrogated", and incarcerated indefinately
@14 Well stated.
Dr. Wilson's article points out the reason America will not need a full scale totalitarian society like the Soviet Union, China or Nazi Germany. Our tyranny will be a "soft" tyranny because the government knows it doesn't have to use force on us to make us into slobbering zombies. It just has to propagandize through the public schools, media, etc. the things that make one "cool," "in," "respectable," or whatever the current jargon is. No True Blue American wants to be odd. Why all the reference to "the majority of Americans support..." or the abuse heaped on someone "outside the mainstream?" Who cares what the majority of Americans support if it is wrong? A majority of idiots is still idiotic even if it is a majority. I consider myself a man of the Right, but way outside the American "mainstream." I have no problem with that and no desire to join the club. We pride ourselves on our "individualism," but the only true individualists are the traditional Christians among us who answer to a different call than the latest Gallup poll. When I did my student teaching back in the early seventies (US History), I remember a discussion the class had on the desirability of having school uniforms. Of course, all the kids opposed it. They all wanted to be free to be themselves and not be conformists as they supposed school uniforms would make them. Each and every one of them, I kid you not, were wearing blue jeans, some kind of T-shirt, and tennis shoes. Down with conformity! Up with individualism! I'm afraid we have become a Kool Aid country.
Correction. I should have said, "Each and every one of them WAS wearing..." I told you I taught US History, not English.
@17: "I remember a discussion the class had on the desirability of having school uniforms. Of course, all the kids opposed it. They all wanted to be free to be themselves and not be conformists as they supposed school uniforms would make them. Each and every one of them, I kid you not, were wearing blue jeans, some kind of T-shirt, and tennis shoes. Down with conformity! Up with individualism! I’m afraid we have become a Kool Aid country."
About fifteen years ago, driving to work at a Catholic school, where the children all wore crisp, clean uniforms, I noticed a gaggle of public school kids standing on the corner of an intersection waiting for the bus. It struck me for the first time (and thereafter), that they were all dressed in the latest trend, whatever it was at the time. They looked sloppy or immodest, but they all looked alike and each of them probably thought they expressed individualism. They looked like little barbarians; dignity did reign among them. Ironic!
Mr. Meng @ 18
Your words:
"They looked sloppy or immodest, but they all looked alike and each of them probably thought they expressed individualism. They looked like little barbarians; dignity did reign among them. Ironic!"
I once taught, for a year, in a middle school, the 7th grade. The subject, the most unwelcome member of the classes next to me, the teacher, was Louisiana history, six sections thereof.
One of the "leaders" of the class was a local thug and gang member, yet in the seventh grade, but supposed to be in the 9th grade. According to the school counselor, he had already fathered at least six children by six different girls. Apparently getting pregnant by him was a status symbol. He was "a right of passage" for many girls in the community, so it would seem.
With that information on background, I decided to attempt to coopt him to my group of two: the subject and me. The attempt failed. However, the attempt consisted of first asking him if he "were his own man." His answer was, "Yeh, dude!" I then said, "You appearance says otherwise!" "Huh?" or something like it was his response. I then explained to him that he was wearing the uniform of Madison Avenue, specifically tailored to "his community" and exhibiting the robotic demeanor which Hollywood had scripted for "his community." I told him that there was nothing genuine about him. He was merely the face of fad!
I, of course, would like to think that I at least befuddled him. Oh, foolish ego! Had I spit into a raging volcano, it would have at least responded with a whispering hiss as my spit turned to vapor. Volcanoes are part of the natural order. The "people of the Zetigeist" are not.
'and exhibiting the robotic demeanor which Hollywood had scripted for “his community".
I think entire volumes could be written about this aspect of 'personality' - or lack thereof - among the young of today.
There seems to be a self-conciousness that drives many of them to behave so robotically. The do it intentionally, training themselves through imitation. While this phenomenon may have been around to lesser degrees since the beginning of time, it seems to be the defining element of the young today, being driven by modern 'media' and pop-'culture' to conform in a way that previous generations never had to conform, at least not to such a degree.
Tocqueville thought that America was conformist in his own time. He should come back and see it now.
Dr. Wilson, I only got to this piece today. Thanks, and well done. I echo the sentiments of many of the commenters in acknowledging your tremendous observations and simply elegant writing style.
This article is being forwarded through my grapevine.
To paraphrase someone else's quote, we truly live in a time where wise men must say obvious things.
You cannot expect the majority of people to be anything but passive followers. This has always been the case throughout history and will always be so. A tiny portion of the population actually understand what liberty is and will crave it at any cost. This minority are the nemesis of the corrupt and evil who rule. No stone will be left unturned to seek them out for identification and eventual suppression or elimination. Desperate people engage in desperate behaviors.