[THS] Decoding The Language Of Social Control

[Peter Webster]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24966.htm

Decoding The Language Of Social Control

(Democracy Is Communism and Must Be Destroyed)

By Manuel Garcia Jr.
“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” —
Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, 1981.

“It’s not the government’s money, it’s the people’s money.” — George W. Bush,
stump speeches, 2000.

“I don’t want to pay for somebody else’s... ” “problems” (welfare), “kids” (public
schools), “medical” (health care).

Character Is Fate (Heraclitus/Novalis)

March 11, 2010 "Dissident Voice" -- The social programming language of capitalist
authoritarianism seeks to activate personal greed, intellectual insecurity and visceral
racism as motivators of guided popular political reaction. The Pavlovian logic to this
scheme of social manipulation is that all human beings are possessive, gullible and
fearful.

Don’t think this last generalization too extreme. Rare are the people who are as
unconcerned about their survival and possessions as were Diogenes of Sinope, the
Greek “cynic” philosopher of the 4th century BC, and Ryokan Taigu (1758-1831), the
hermit Zen monk poet and calligrapher. Similarly, rare are the people, without
organic brain disorders, who do not have some fear of being made fools of when
matching wits with more polished, more educated, more experienced, more
charismatic or simply a luckier class of people. Lastly, we are all racists. As highly
evolved monkeys, we instinctively identify with our monkey troop of people with
similar appearance, existential outlook, language, culture, place of origin, the
economic neighborhood we imagine we deserve a place in, and the socio-political
fantasy we have been imprinted with and trained to take as the thread of history that
expresses us.

As we become more self-aware, more experienced and better educated, we can see
through many of the racist concepts and attitudes of the past. But it is self-deception
to imagine that we have ever individually “gone beyond racism” in our visceral
responses to the instants of daily life that erupt before us, or that we will never have
a sudden emotion, thought or fear that is completely above the muck of primordial
racist reaction. It is intellectual pride, and false, to assume we can consciously will
ourselves to transcend the psychological reactions of our paleo-mammalian brains.
Instead, it is psychologically much healthier to realize that our common human
nature assures that any behavior humanly possible, remains humanly possible for
each of us as well.

C. G. Jung made this point about Nazism, that those people least likely to act like
Nazis and Nazi collaborators were those who knew they had no special immunity to
Nazi psychology (not assuming they were too “intellectual”, “moral”, or “religious” to
be swayed), but instead actively countered its influences to their behavior. A similar
attitude operating out of the cerebral cortex is needed to manage the unthinking
motivations arising out of our deeper-set limbic system, our reptilian brain. Racism is
a burst of raw emotional energy whose emergence is to be detected and redirected
intelligently, while within the individual.

People whose self-awareness, of the type described, are weak and under-developed
and can be manipulated more easily. “There’s a sucker born every minute”
(pre-1898, attribution uncertain). People who are keenly aware of this psychology,
and devoid of moral principles, like the fictional Elmer Gantry and the all-too-real
Joseph Goebbels, can manage the herding of a mass of people to give up their
power — in every sense of the word — to a driving elite. The few rule the many by
persuasion. The levers of direction are the popular flaws of character.

We The People

In theory, the many governments (federal, state and local) in the United States of
America are democracies: assemblies of elected representatives of populations of
citizens, and officials appointed by the elected representatives to execute specific
tasks in the public interest. In this model, government is the apparatus designed to
implement the popular consensus about the management of the shared material
existence of the citizenry.

Identifying and prioritizing the specifics of the popular will are supposedly
accomplished by the concentrating and winnowing effects of competitive
electioneering and parliamentary debate. The regulation of markets and trade, the
upkeep of public infrastructure, the provision of emergency services against natural
disasters, and the prudent maintenance of defense forces are all examples of publicly
shared concerns governments are created to manage. The education of children till
they reach adulthood, intellectual maturity and a self-sustaining professional
competence, as well as the health care of the citizenry are enduring publicly shared
concerns that are ideally suited for management by functionally dedicated
government apparatuses.

When Ronald Reagan said “government is not the solution to our problem;
government is the problem,” he was saying that we, the people, were the problem
since our government is the democratic abstraction of our shared existence. So if we
are “the problem,” then whose problem is this? Why would “our” President disown
the apparatus of our common will, whose implementation he had been entrusted to
lead? Certainly, one could understand “our” President saying that there were
problems in the government apparatus limiting its responsiveness to our needs, and
effectiveness in achieving our goals: “my purpose as your President is solving the
problems our government has in meeting all its obligations to the public.” Note
however, this last quote is fictional.

On the 20th of January, 1981, the new President of the United States was telling us
that “we the people” were in somebody’s way, a somebody who actually was
represented by the power and authority he now held, and which he intended to use
to destroy the deposed government that was “us.” A coup. In the light of subsequent
history, a reasonable characterization. Twenty-nine years and one day after Ronald
Reagan came to power, the U.S. Supreme Court made it plain, by issuing its Dred
Scott decision of the 21st century, elevating corporate rights above those of individual
flesh-and-blood human beings. Now, every legally recognized person — real or
corporate — is equally entitled to spend as much as they have to influence political
debate. Clearly, because political access is so precious, it must be metered out on the
basis of wealth.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under
bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” (Anatole France: Jacques Anatole
Francois Thibault 1844-1924)

“It is true that liberty is precious, so precious that it must be rationed.” (Attributed to
Lenin: Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov 1870-1924)

Yes, we, the people, are certainly in somebody’s way, unless our consumption, labor
or demise lards a corporate bottom line. Think of yourself as a unit in a statistical
ensemble of metabolic form virtual property, an advanced concept of slavery that
transcends the 13th Amendment and the unitary static materialist concept of the
lump-of-flesh slave; a human herd whose collective activity in a spectrum of markets
exudes profitability like the methane clouds that flatulate up from bovine
concentrations. The free market system strikes a match to the gas, charges you for
the heat and leaves you with the ashes, if not a scorched rump. We are herded by
the owners of the markets we are counted in.

One example is health care; our medical needs are not the prime concern, but
instead preserving the profits of the parasitic medical financing business carried on
by the insurance industry, which is interposed between medical providers and
patients. So our medical market owners, the insurance industry, must herd us to its
best advantage, not ours. When we, the people, try to fashion a public health care
system that does meet our needs, by cutting out the middleman (the essence of
good business practice), we immediately find that “government is the problem.” In
fact, democracy is the problem. If democracy is not strictly rationed, the whole herd
might stampede and any number of markets tossed over and sunk, like the bales of
tea dropped into Boston Harbor on December 16, 1773.

It’s All About The Money

When George W. Bush said “It’s not the government’s money, it’s the people’s
money” during his campaign speeches in 2000, he was broadcasting coded
programming language designed to activate resentment over personal inadequacies
and have the resulting shame-based anger projected onto a victim population. The
purpose of such social programming is to train the indoctrinated population to
maintain its unthinking visceral obedience to the directing ideology, and so provide
political support to an oligarchy that simply exploits its trained masses shamelessly.

When you hear people say “I don’t want to pay for somebody else’s
” “problems”
(welfare), “kids” (public schools), “medical” (health care), you hear the internalized
programming. With blissful obliviousness these political automatons will allow their
economy to wither, and dispatch their tax dollars to fund the gold-plated war-waste
of the Pentagon system and the many outrageous corporate subsidies (“bonuses”)
that remain protected by the “tax cuts” that are so liberal to corporate wealth, so
measly for the suckers, but do bump those “welfare cheats” off the dole most
satisfactorily to both the duped and the malevolent.

The great con-job here is in training a large population into accepting that property
has more rights than people. Since under democracy there is always the threat that
popular consensus could place some restrictions on “property” (the “right” of money
to do as it pleases), then property — as it is understood today: wealth protected by
the legalistic über-persona of corporate structure — must destroy democracy.
Democracy is communism.

A History Of Social Control

How did the corporate ideology social programmers manage to peel back a million
years of human evolution to produce the “Tea Party” sideshows where people act at
their limbic level, like monkey troops howling over the invasion of their banana
groves? Let’s skip through history to piece together an answer.

The European white man used a divide-and-rule strategy to control the native
populations of the many countries he colonized in the Western Hemisphere, Asia,
Africa, the Pacific and the Middle East. Tribal rivalries stoked by the white overlords
could keep the natives distracted from coordinating a united opposition to
colonialism. Selected native groups and individuals could be educated and trained to
become the local managers and enforcers of the white man’s rule. They internalized
the white man’s culture up to a point, sufficient they hoped to “elevate” them out of
native society and into some respectable place in the white man’s social hierarchy,
and along with that add to their wealth and prestige. These were the compradors,
native-born agents of colonial interests in Asia, and the native troops deployed by
white colonial management to control the native masses. Successors in the role of
native collaborators with white social control are the racial and ethnic tokens
deployed by U.S. corporate and political management today; some are quite
polished, prominent, and well-paid.

The management of today’s masses in the United States evolved out of the
mechanisms for managing the natives that began with Christopher Columbus and the
European Conquest of the Americas. Native and slave management in early colonial
times evolved into race management after the Civil War, and then to the economic
and social class management of the present day. The entire mentality of social
control is that of colonialism.

The most significant Civil Rights legislation since the end of the Civil War was enacted
during the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic Party):

    * The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (extended voting rights and outlawed racial
segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general
public),
    * The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (outlawed discriminatory voting practices
that had caused the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans),
    * The Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the “Fair Housing Act” prohibited discrimination
concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing).

The combined tensions of desperation by white racists at losing overt social control,
and the pent up rage of blacks over the slow pace of authentic relief of oppression
and the opening of economic opportunities, erupted into many urban riots during the
1960s. Very prominent ones were: the Watts Riots of 1965 in Los Angeles; the 1967
riots in Newark and Detroit; and the 125 cities that erupted into riot during April and
May of 1968 in response to the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4th.

In 1968, Richard M. Nixon (Republican Party) used a “Southern Strategy”, a “law and
order” play on Southern white racist resentment, to win the presidential election.
Johnson likely assumed that Civil Rights legislation would bring a flood of black votes
to the Democrats nationally, and perhaps compensate somewhat for the certain loss
of Southern white racist votes; but, blacks are only about 12% of the population, and
Nixon counted on there being more than 12% white racist resentment within the
75% white population — both in the South and nationally. He won by a landslide.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan tapped into the submerged bigotry that exists coast-to-
coast, to call forth the resentful inner white Southerner (the inner Confederate)
within much of the national electorate, and win the presidency. Reagan’s managers
had learned from Nixon, and devised an expanded form of the Southern Strategy.

During George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign (as well as his two terms in
office) economic class and “race” code words were euphemisms for each other. The
decoded programming message was: poor and unworthy people, like wasteful and
lazy blacks, and dirty and ignorant Mexican (Latino) immigrants are taking “your”
(deserving inner whites’) money by creating social welfare burdens that “your”
government is now forced to pay, because of bad “give-away” legislation foisted on it
by wrong-headed liberals (white snobs and non-white agitators). Your undeserved
(because of your inner whiteness) increasing poverty is directly attributable to the
drain on taxes by these unworthy, non-white-centered, strange-language
populations. In voting for George W. Bush (and obeying his managing oligarchy),
you put money “back” into the pockets of people like you, who deserve it.

All the language publicly broadcast by “conservatives” is pure lying to induce visceral
obedience to the corporatist oligarchy’s political control, and allow it to continue
bleeding the public like a swarm of elephant-sized ticks. Following are generalized
decodings of the core instructions and their imprinted reflection.

The Hypnotic Message (“watch the watch
”):

You lack
 stuff (money, brains, looks, youth, education, a nice location, a desirable
mate, successful children), so you resent paying for others who get it free; others
who are inferior, threatening, strange, unclean, unwholesome, wasteful, disrespectful
of your importance (as a real American), and of your precedence in “our” traditional
system of social rank. You resent these others polluting and degrading the system
you expect to provide for you, to profit you, to honor you, to hold still and not
progress beyond your capacity to understand, and to preserve the order of social
rewards so no unworthy others pass you by and push you back.

You must fight back, don’t let them have free things which your work has paid for,
don’t let them have advantages that makes it easier for them to advance ahead of
you, and makes it harder for you to maintain your superiority without learning
anything new, without becoming smarter or richer on your own. Don’t let these
others have advantages that crowd the places you expect to occupy as you move on
in life; crowd them with more unwholesome unworthy competitors, whose increasing
number threaten to diminish your standing, and end your way of life.

The Internalized Message:

I lack stuff, and it is these unclean others who have degraded the system that
previously would have moved me up faster and more comfortably. So I want to
exclude these others, keep them from crossing “our” borders, and taking our
advantages without paying as much as I did; even worse, creating problems my tax
dollars have to pay for and which wouldn’t even happen if those people weren’t here,
so I would have more of my own wealth. I have to stand up for the people like me
who run for office and are willing to get the government to take care of the real
Americans, who deserve the benefits that they paid for, and their parents and
grandparents paid for; that will push out the unclean ones and ensure there are no
extra moochers sapping our wealth, and bringing me down. Because I lack stuff, I
don’t want to pay for other people to have stuff, and because I don’t want the
government to take more of my money, I’m voting for the people who want to cut
down the government, and cut down taxes. I’m voting to stop the give-aways,
because the politicians who will do that care about me, a real American who makes a
real contribution to the country, and deserves not to have it pissed away on wasteful
others.

And so are fools serenaded into the abattoir.

Manuel Garcia, Jr. is a retired physicist, and is available for hire as a presidential
speech writer at steep rates. His e-mail address is: mango at idiom.com. Read other
articles by Manuel, or visit Manuel's website.