A Theoretical Strategy Proposal in Two Aspects

Here I propose a two-part strategy in our rhetorical onslaught of the neocon agenda. I will use Fox News as a fulcrum.

Aspect 1: See the present in historical terms.
Aspect 2: Focus on individuals, not groups.

Aspect 1

Fox News is a strange phenomenon. It’s not “state press” in the traditional sense, but it is in a more complex, modern sense. There is a certain inevitability to its existence as a propaganda organ of the neoconservative agenda, which, in itself, is an equally strange yet inevitable phenomenon. It is always difficult to compare contemporaneous forces with the historical record, because we see the present for what it is, while we see history for what it merely appears to be. In other words, the present never looks like the past, because of our inability to see both time frames with the same pair of eyes. The past tends to be amplified in importance, while the present is trivialized as so many daily minutiae. With each history book written, with every document declassified decades or even scores of years after the fact, the past looms larger and larger. So odd it is that the farther away we get from a historical time frame, the bigger it appears. And how poignant it is that the more recent a thing is, the less important it seems. Is it possible we fundamentally fail to “see” what is happening before our very eyes? I would say the answer is yes. Some call it myopia.

Therefore, it might be worthwhile to posit that our ongoing critique of Fox News is worth even greater force on our part. I think we should be taking some kind of quantum leap of perception into the present. Our psyches seems to exist in the past, while our criticisms tend to exist solely in the present. We need to marry those two elements. We need to dig deep into the recesses of our social underpinnings, dig out whatever feelings we harbor towards Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire, the Egyptian Pharaohs, and apply that same “historical” feeling to the present.

Therefore, it would perhaps be a wise gambit to begin to refer to Fox News in the same way the historians of the future will. We should amplify our alarmism. We should denounce Fox News as a Joseph Goebbels-type institution. We should not fear to extend our denunciation to PNAC, to every news outlet that insists on embracing the myopic justificationism of our present atrocities. We mustn’t shrink from explaining, to anyone who is able to listen, that, while the employees of Fox News may or may not know what they are doing to humanity, they nonetheless are 100% complicit in our likely premature demise.

Certainly we could opt instead to take the road of explaining it all as “sociological forces”. That would make sense on a cognitive level. But what then, is the agent of change? What remains?

Aspect 2

The answer is accountability. Too many people feel their innocence, while in fact they are guilty. Too many people know they are right, when in fact they are wrong. The thing that allows them to do this is the blending of the individual into the mass. It is the merging of the human sole into the corporation, the governing body, the organization, the movement. It is the surrender of the individual to the group.

We must reclaim our own individuality, and never shirk pointing out individuals who may be guilty. We must not let them hide behind the cloaks of their parent body. We must see the trees for the forest. That is where you get people. You shine a light on one person at a time. You embarrass them. You make a sacrificial lamb out of them.

Therefore, I propose that we spend less time blaming Fox News, the Bush Administration, the Republicans, General Electric, the terrorists, the conspiracy theorists, the Neocons, the New World Order, the masses, the organizations, the sociological forces. There is no accountability in groups.

Instead, we should blame each and every person on the Fox News programming board, each and every person in the Bush Administration, and so on down the line. We have to take a “sniping” approach. We have to pick off their reputations, one individual at a time.

Only then will we transcend the present, so that we can heal it.

I hope I’ve spoken clearly here.

11 thoughts on “A Theoretical Strategy Proposal in Two Aspects”

  1. You have spoken clearly, yes, and I concur… however, I think that sole individualism as well is component of the destruction of a sound society. In this individualistic nation that lies on a capitalist base the individual is a cell subsisting on it’s own. Each cell carrying out it’s own function with out a nuclei if you will and thus an empty vessel functioning solely for itself. My argument being, that although each individual should be enlightened to their destructive powers, the grand system itself must be attacked by collective agency of the masses… oh yes, this is a socialist speaking, if you could not tell. But, groups are vastly important in rendering the status quo of the elite governing few.

  2. I think the natural tendency of humanity is to assimilate. It is very natural to seek a collective mind and a higher earthly authority (such as a government.) That is why it is so important to devote every last cognitive brain cell towards reclaiming individuality at all times and in all circumstances. The natural tendency towards assimilation will balance out the equation.

  3. Oh…and when I say “individualism” I don’t mean “selfishness”, as it is so often contorted to mean. I simply mean the will and the desire and the ability to think on one’s own, without taking someone else’s opinion as yours. It is the desire to let go of the guiding hand, and walk on one’s own. It is the desire to stop listening to what someone else sees, and instead to rub your eyes, blink a few times, and try to see everything as if for the first time. It is to try to render all five senses virgin – as if every moment is a blank slate. And then to retreat into one’s self, and digest the data in an original way. Quite often, when we do this, will find that we naturally agree on a number of things: that life is sacred, that the earth ought to be protected, that helping people is good, that self-reliance is ideal, that beauty and art are to be revered and critically evaluated as a means of preserving cultural memory, and so on. The key is to arrive at certain conclusions on one’s own, rather than take the edict of the Party, the design of the Corporation, the aim of the Majority, at face value.

    I’m still working out this theory though. Not sure. Still open to suggestions and corrections. And that’s just the thing. To think on one’s own does not necessarily involve blindly rejecting the views of others. All too often, I see people claming that they are individualistic, merely because they have the ablity to arbitrarily disagree with someone else. That is just as dependent and non-individualistic as automatic agreement. In both instances, the opinion of the individual hinges solely on either the swallowing of, or the rejection of, the opinion of the Masses. To be a rebel for its own sake is in fact yang to the yin of conformism.

    And so on and so forth.

  4. Another thing: I think individuality is an act of humility. It takes a certain openmindedness to see things on one’s own. It means avoiding bias at all costs. That’s because bias is actually a conformist phenomenon. Bias is the residue of sheeplike adherence to the professed principles of the herd. Bias is a cognitive pollutant that comes from without, not from within.

  5. fuck, I don’t think I have a retort – drat. I like your take on the nessecity of the individual to be mindful of their own thoughts constantly as it is the natural tendency of people to mimic and join groups as social animals. And I think I jump all too often to claim the individualist society as a greedy one – I think there is still something to that? Don’t you? I would love it if individuals in our society could go for the greater good – but I am not sure what it will take for that change to occur here – man, sorry for the lack of cohesiveness.

  6. Nah, you cohered just fine.

    I think that it is to the benefit of the truly greedy power elite that people equate individuality with selfishness. It’s better to demonize individuality as selfish, greedy, non-productive, or otherwise at cross-purposes with the greater good. Since, which is easier: to use mind control on a group of persons who all think the same; or to have to devise separate propaganda campaigns for every individual?

    But yes, there is something to wanting to assimilate people as a cohesive culture. For example, within a culture, the language is more-or-less uniform. Manners at the dinner table are more-or-less standardized. The expectation that one must not punch someone for no reason, take someone’s belongings without permission, and so on, is valid and should be obeyed.

    What is NOT a valid expectation is that someone should support the president, avow allegiance to a particular political party, profess a belief in a large set of pre-packaged beliefs, and so on. This expectation is anti-individual, anti-thinking, anti-family values, and anti-human. It is pro-government, pro-dictatorship, pro-ignorance, and so on.

    It’s not a matter of freedom. Of course everyone wants freedom. On the other hand, I saw a recent documentary in which a woman said “we should give up our liberties for our freedoms”. That is a marked case of doublethink, since freedom and liberty are the same thing.

    This is evidence that certain words have been corrupted beyond repair, and must be discarded. Among them: freedom, liberty, government, patriot, security, news, pressure, peace, Christian, American, communist, socialist, capitalist…the list goes on. Propaganda machines have rent these words to ribbons, as if they were toilet paper. They no longer carry any water.

    But you can see that the masses use those words constantly. They are no better than mantras, or programming tools. We are trained, in a distinctly Pavlovian manner, to react in a certain way when we hear these types of words. For example, when I say the word terrorist, what kind of person do most Americans think of? The answer is obviously bearded muslims with turbans. Which is neither fair nor accurate in the least. The word has nothing to do with its old meaning.

    Where am I going with this. What point am I trying to prove. I’m not sure. But I think the word “individualism” is one of those words that has been destroyed. So, maybe I shouldn’t have used it. It’s tough to explain oneself these days, what with language always getting fucked like a plastic blow-up doll. And that’s just the problem. People should be treating language like a lady, and they’re not. Hell, I’m probably guilty myself.

    So I don’t know. Maybe there is no need to draw a line between individuality and utilitarianism. Maybe that distinction doesn’t exist outside of language. Just a theory though.

  7. The last bog of yours was very interesting to me, due to beinga former card carrying socialist – as the organization would always demand that the group utilize propagana as a means to further the goals of the party. Therein the use of propaganda to launch ideas for gathering individuals to the group, the bad taste filled my mouth and I had to deviate from their group and ultimately leave. If there is no individual within the group (although they claimed there to be) then the ideology of the group are controlling. I have trouble with this as on the one hand I liked many of their belief’s, but however found when there was an idea that strayed, if you couldn’t argue it well enough against the group it was null and void – that is a scary concept to me, to be drowned out. I think I am confusing myself more as I write this, but I think there is something bigger I am looking for and I think it solely relates to your last post. Ack.

  8. Can’t respond too long, I gotta run, but…I love socialism, and I also love communism. But the fascists have usually infiltrated and killed it off. The group spirit usually gets co-opted and manipulated by someone who understands group mind. So…socialism is an excellent tool. Its underlying principles are to be striven for…a la Marx…but…yeah. And yes, it’s a scary idea, to be drowned out by the mass.

    Oh, and I love capitalism too…but again, the fascists take over and co-opt it and call it theirs. And then they change it. The thing that passes for capitalism these days is nothing of the sort.

    So basically, it’s the many versus the few, and those few are very powerful. There’s gotta be another paradigm for destroying the fascists. One that hasn’t been put to use.

    I don’t know though.

  9. musclemouth, I’ve seen you in the comment sections and lo and behold, here is your site. Your post was quite smart (and lo and behold, I could follow it!) and I can feel what you’re saying. I say ‘feel’, because what I am reading (and think am recognizing) is the desire to express an understanding of something (part 1 perhaps transference of an historical understanding to a present situation?) which is almost close to an epiphany you’d like to impart and explain. You explained it well I think. And the ‘feeling’ behind it, came across. You think deeper than the average joe and that is who needs to be awakened to ‘think a bit further’/deeper. If only we had a selective power outage of tv’s, the average joe might start to read more and think (what a concept). That or make babies..(oh no!!)hehe.
    Speaking of which, I hear mine..gotta run! (I’ll be back)
    Ingrid

  10. Yo Ingrid! Thanks for stoppinig by. Good to have a Texas connection.

    Yeah, I’m still working on it…you go that right for sure. Your comment actually got me thinking about what we mean when we say “average joe”…for example, does he exist? How large a segment of the population is the average joe? And how did he get so average? And what is average? The thing I’m trying to work out is whether he is average in the quantitative sense (averages, means, medians) or in a more qualitative sense. If the latter, what are those qualities?

    My running conclusion for now is that the average joe is actually a very small segment of the population known as neocons, and those neocons spread their message to highly receptive individuals, known as sheep, who then enslave themselves to someone else’s (the neocons’) message and agenda.

Questions? Comments? Rants?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s