...In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, terms like 'Total Information Awareness' and Terrorism Information Awareness' sprang up, and governments, (most notably the US and British) established a 'cult of information', or 'cult of awareness' allegedly for the purpose of gathering information on "terrorism". This philosophy and it's importance is promoted and implemented from the top level both in government and corporate circles to the extent that civil liberties that were thought to be foundational to the concept of 'Democracy' have been virtually eradicated.
Since 9/11 the Bush government has bombarded the population with fear-based propaganda in the attempt to promote, or rather instill the concept of a "cult of awareness" into the minds of the populace, the goal being to create an environment or atmosphere wherein the population will be convinced that it is in their own interest or that of the country (and thus their 'patriotic duty') to funnel information about their fellow citizens upwards to their 'leaders.' Neighbours are encouraged to keep a watch on each other and report "suspicious behavior", with the list of just what defines "suspicious behavior" being supplied by the office of Homeland Security. Furthermore we have been told many times that mere disgruntled citizens may well constitute the 'enemy in our midst'.
The masses are told that the benefits of compliance with the requirements of the cult of information lie in the fact that we will be safer; more secure in our beds at night. In short, the cult of information is essentially a cult of fear. Fear must first be instilled in the minds of the masses to inspire them to feed this upward flowing stream of information to their leaders - designed to facilitate the extirpation of any contrary source of information - and fear is a principle that humans seem somehow pre-designed and preprogrammed to wholeheartedly embrace.
What this boils down to is this: if you control the knowledge that people have, you control the people. As such, it is not hard to see that if governments understand knowledge as power, and they seek to retain power, they must seek to control the flow of information the aim of which must be to limit knowledge.
If you control the spread of information you can control what people think. If you control what people think, you are, effectively, controlling their minds. And we come around in a circle to what is truly Cultic.
From this point of view, logically, any group that threatens the government monopoly on information and power, and therefore their control of the people, is perceived as a threat that must be dealt with.
As Richard Dolan has written:
"Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game."
As noted above, the allegation that 'mind control' is used on cult members is often made when labeling any group as a "cult." However, there can be many forms of 'mind control' - including the largely censored mass media coverage of the Iraq war or the Israeli treatment of Palestinians - although these deceptions are not generally understood as mind control. And if we are to rely on the criteria on which assertions of 'cult' are based, that is observation of the results of 'mind control', i.e. members joining 'communes' giving up possessions, extreme devotion and allegiance to a leader, and in a few cases giving up their lives by way of apparent suicide, we certainly find reasonable justification for labeling the current US administration as a cult for persuading hundreds of thousands of Americans to give up their possessions and join the commune of the US military out of extreme devotion to a proven liar, George W. Bush, resulting in what could be termed apparent suicide in Iraq.
So what happens when a cult runs out of steam? What happens when the Empire can't pay its Praetorians?
Chomsky (the original is available for a limited time):
...For the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance. Iranian influence in the "crescent" challenges US control. By an accident of geography, the world's major oil resources are in largely Shia areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington's worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US.
Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy Security Grid based in China. Iran could be a lynchpin. If the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously undermined the US position of power in the world.
To Washington, Tehran's principal offence has been its defiance, going back to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the hostage crisis at the US embassy. In retribution, Washington turned to support Saddam Hussein's aggression against Iran, which left hundreds of thousands dead. Then came murderous sanctions and, under Bush, rejection of Iranian diplomatic efforts.
Last July, Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion since 1978. As before, US support was a critical factor, the pretexts quickly collapse on inspection, and the consequences for the people of Lebanon are severe. Among the reasons for the US-Israel invasion is that Hizbullah's rockets could be a deterrent to a US-Israeli attack on Iran. Despite the sabre-rattling it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran. Public opinion in the US and around the world is overwhelmingly opposed. It appears that the US military and intelligence community is also opposed. Iran cannot defend itself against US attack, but it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting even more havoc in Iraq. Some issue warnings that are far more grave, among them the British military historian Corelli Barnett, who writes that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch world war three".
Then again, a predator becomes even more dangerous, and less predictable, when wounded. In desperation to salvage something, the administration might risk even greater disasters. The Bush administration has created an unimaginable catastrophe in Iraq. It has been unable to establish a reliable client state within, and cannot withdraw without facing the possible loss of control of the Middle East's energy resources...
That wiff of desperation is enough to make the Cheneyburton Corporation seriously suggest
using nukes on Iran- starting a pre-emptive nuclear war- in order to regain control of the situation for the Company....Question: If Control’s control is absolute, why does Control need to control?
Answer: Control… needs time.
Question: Is Control controlled by its need to control?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Why does Control need humans, as you call them?
Answer: Wait… wait! Time, a landing field. Death needs time like a junkie needs junk.
Question: And what does Death need time for?
Answer: The answer is sooo simple. Death needs time for what it kills to grow in...
No comments:
Post a Comment