PDA

View Full Version : A Timeless Dream


Cattraknoff
03-18-2008, 04:51 AM
continuation of the ideas in my blog: http://www.politicsonfire.com/blog.php?b=14


In the minds of the people exists a vision, a dream. Undoubtedly since the first people were enslaved, the first dreams of justice took shape. The first thoughts of freedom, of the way things should be. These are dreams which a great many cling to. These ideals were the founding notions for many of the greatest nations to exist in history. From the earliest democracies in Greece, to the Republic of Rome, to the United States today, all these shared this vision.

However this vision was not all that was shared. Each of these nations, though its people undoubtedly strongly believed in these ideals, had a ruling class which worked to undermine everything their laws were designed to protect. The Greek democracies were often conquered, and even when they weren't the lower classes had little say in the way things were run. It was a great idea then, and remains so, but the people were not ready to make it work. The failure of the Greeks' attempt was inevitable, but it was a beginning; it was among the first small hopes humanity was given.

Next came Rome, one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen. It was however, as is important to note, not an empire at its founding. It was a republic, based on this very dream. Since the Roman people overthrew their King around ~600 BC, they operated as a Republic, intended to promote freedom, equality, and justice. However the remnants of the ruling nobility (Or Patrician class, as they called them) retained a stranglehold on power in the city. They were the first to corrupt politics, as they believed it was their right to have power. They drove out the Kings after all, they were among the few educated, and they were the largest source of military commanders. All this supposedly gave them the right to undermine their democracy, all this gave them the right to work for their own interests first and foremost, because they were the betters of all, as they would tell it.

The Roman republic died in its entirety with the arrival of Augustus Caesar, and Julius Caesar before him. However even before Rome was made an empire in name, democracy was long since dead. Power was monopolized, the lives of the plebs (lower classes) were not given much thought. The will of the people was ignored, because there was little incentive to listen. Though the dream that was Rome lives on still, this attempt at implementing it was again a failure.

Finally comes the American dream, the modern vision which most democracies today are based upon. Though the dream itself came from Rome, and Greece, this latest implementation had proven to be successful, for a time. Indeed, the old nobilities were gotten rid of, and though the American republic is largely based upon the Roman one, many of the flaws that destroyed Rome were not present in America. The people of the west as a result of America's rise to power had been given a chance at finally seeing justice. They were given hope for a better future, one full of promise, one wherein people might indeed be equals, at least in their basic rights.

However this hope has been crushed, though the people have not yet realized it. The ruling classes of old have reemerged with a vengeance, with more power than ever before. The absolute monopolization of wealth that occurred as a result of rampant and unchecked capitalism has annihilated all chance of making the dream a reality. Indeed, nobles have returned in the form of corporate leaders. They influence the government using their wealth, they bribe prominent party officials, or entire political parties. They have gained an iron grip on most media outlets now, controlling the spread of most information. As each new form of delivering news and information was made available, they worked to take control of each. Not a monopoly mind you, but a few corporations to give the illusion that it was still free and fair. Today as it stands 97% of television channels are owned by three American corporations. Radio broadcasting is only allowed with special permit, whereas in the past there were countless independent radio broadcasters, people were able to be heard. Newspapers initially cost ~$10000 American to begin producing, but corporations gaining control moved that figure well into the millions, effectively taking the average person out of the equation altogether. The sole thing the people have today is the Internet. Here and only here information can be shared almost without restriction, here the people, big or small, rich or poor, can be heard. However this is going to change. Corporations have a mind to turn the Internet into TVs, into radios and newspapers. They wish to control the flow of information, and are well on their way to implementing this. Many people would and do oppose this, but the simple fact is that as long as all these multi-billion dollar corporations wish to do it (not to mention that it certainly helps the government in controlling the people), it will be brought into effect. Whether justified as a way to cut off terrorists, hackers, or simply to ward off all those “evil” people interfering with their God-given right to profit for absolutely no work of their own.

The death of the free Internet will be the last nail in the coffin of modern democracy. Even without this democracy would die, but eliminating free flow of information makes the process much simpler to the powers that be. The people are easy to manipulate, easy to mislead. Public opinion can be swayed with a few crafty and oh-so-clever words. Major news outlets are certainly being used to do this now. Indeed, nearly every news article (those about anything of importance, at any rate) are made in hopes that you will come to the opinion that the government wishes you to have. Not on an individual basis mind you, but after reading countless news articles, or watching many TV news programs, they have an overall idea that they wish you to get from it. They wish you to believe that terrorists are likely to kill you if you don't follow them blindly. They also, believe it or not, would like you to believe that oil was indeed the real “secret” reason why Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded.

They would also have you abandon your common sense and logical thought. They would have you believe the utter farce that is multiculturalism. They wish you to be afraid of Islam, but at the same time you must tolerate them. You must be accepting of the fact that they're allowed to beat and/or kill their (multiple) wives for disobedience. You must accept that they're told to deceive, harm and kill you if you won't become a Muslim. You must accept that they will oppress and kill you if given the chance. Not the average Muslim, mind you. But their holy book indeed states that they should do this, and their extreme and power-hungry leaders promote these parts of the Qu'Ran above all else.

They also want you to believe that it is perfectly okay to have a lawsuit for practically anything, even when it's your own fault. They want you to care solely about your own advancement, your own wealth, without regard to the effects it has. They want you to know that you don't have to be responsible for your own stupidity, not really. In fact, in the modern world, stupidity is prized above nearly any other quality. It's an odd society that rewards idiocy and a lack of common sense, but nonetheless that is what ours has become. The death of logical thought is not overly recent. In fact, logical thought has never been taken up in earnest by the masses of any society in history. The effects of which speak for themselves. The invitation of tyranny in most societies, the suppression of rational thought and morals in “God's” name, and the utter failures of democracy each and every time the implementation of it has been attempted. The people have not been ready for democracy, they have not been ready for freedom itself. The people have neglected their brains, forsaken thought itself, because it's made to seem the easier path. And what would western societies be without the incredible laziness they're famous for?

If only the people would learn from their mistakes. If only they would look objectively and seriously at the lessons of history. Democracy has failed not because it can't work, not because of an overly-idealistic nature (as is present in communism), but because the people have not cared enough to make it work. The people have chosen the path of laziness, they've chosen the easy route, because rational and logical thought is apparently so damned difficult. The simple fact is this: It is quite easy, and you become better at it the more you use your brain. The way to become intelligent is to think, freely and without prejudice. The way to become a fool is to let yourself be brainwashed twelve hours a day by all of the grand mass-media outlets, drugs, celebrity worship and countless other banes to your intellect. Indeed, watching TV in itself is not a problem, nor is even a bit of recreational drug use (alcohol is a drug as well, mind you). The trouble is when these are used to the point wherein you scarcely use your own brain, you're seldom grounded in reality, and often when you are, you must always remember the prejudices which have been drilled into your since infancy. You must always remember all the things which restrict your thought, all the things which rob you of your wits.

(continued below. Go to hell character limit!)

Cattraknoff
03-18-2008, 04:52 AM
Humanity has two options, and only one path may be followed by the entire populace (disregarding the ruling class). It's either-or, with no middle-ground. Firstly they can go on as they are, partying, watching their sitcoms and soap operas, giving little thought to the world around them. Conversely they might decide to better themselves; to develop mentally, physically and spiritually. They might decide that they are no longer content having their decisions made for them. They might wish to truly be free, in every sense of the word. They might indeed choose to take control of their own fates, to shape their destinies as they see fit.

The outcomes of each option are quite simple: If the former, they shall earn and accept their slavery. They will deserve that fate, as it is their own choice and in their power to change. If the latter, then they, humanity will have something it has never had: Freedom, true equality in law, and the realization of an ancient dream. Humanity will be at last as it should have been, as it should become, and as it must remain, for justice, and for our survival if nothing else.

bjorn
05-10-2008, 06:37 PM
I agree with your analysis on the War on Terror, it has completely undermined the very concept of human rights in the West , it has brutalised us and compromised global security to the extent that our Governments were too busy focussing on fighting wars we cant win in the Middle East and Asia to see the real danger coming , I mean the horrific combination of the planet's rapidly growing population - 9 billion by 2050 - , global warming , global poverty, global recession and global competition for resources that has triggered chaos in the worlds food supply .

We could have fought a war on poverty but we didnt and now we have an unstable world with hunger driving politics in much of it as the economic centre shifts eastwards and we become bit players in an horrific human drama as the demand for food will soon outstrip our ability to produce it and we'll need huge death tolls from natural disasters or wars, losses in the tens of millions just for the earth to breathe.

We are heading for systems overload and the erosion of human rights is not unrelated , the world is further polarising into the haves and have nots and its going to require an extremely brutal form of government, made possible through all pervasive technology , to maintain order for the priviledged few who will also use that technology - genetic and biomimetic - to augment themselves to form a new human sub species, the dominant all powerful man machine.

Unless of course you think the rich and powerful will use new technologies to prolong life and plug processing power and AI directly into the central nervous system of everyone on the planet .Yeah, we need to resist tyranny but take a look at where its really coming from as that screen before you is your enemy. .

Locke
05-11-2008, 07:36 AM
I agree with your analysis on the War on Terror, it has completely undermined the very concept of human rights in the West , it has brutalised us and compromised global security to the extent that our Governments were too busy focussing on fighting wars we cant win in the Middle East and Asia to see the real danger coming , I mean the horrific combination of the planet's rapidly growing population - 9 billion by 2050 - , global warming , global poverty, global recession and global competition for resources that has triggered chaos in the worlds food supply .

We could have fought a war on poverty but we didnt and now we have an unstable world with hunger driving politics in much of it as the economic centre shifts eastwards and we become bit players in an horrific human drama as the demand for food will soon outstrip our ability to produce it and we'll need huge death tolls from natural disasters or wars, losses in the tens of millions just for the earth to breathe.

We are heading for systems overload and the erosion of human rights is not unrelated , the world is further polarising into the haves and have nots and its going to require an extremely brutal form of government, made possible through all pervasive technology , to maintain order for the priviledged few who will also use that technology - genetic and biomimetic - to augment themselves to form a new human sub species, the dominant all powerful man machine.

Unless of course you think the rich and powerful will use new technologies to prolong life and plug processing power and AI directly into the central nervous system of everyone on the planet .Yeah, we need to resist tyranny but take a look at where its really coming from as that screen before you is your enemy. .

One could argue that a true "War on Poverty" would accomplish the rhetorical intention of the War on Terror in a much more effective fashion. It is simply rhetoric, however.

Cattraknoff
05-11-2008, 09:23 PM
I am in the process of reworking all of my previous writings, piecing them together, as well as adding some more. I will post it together in a blog (followed perhaps by another topic). Suffice to say, my views regarding the overall issue I was trying to point out here, have evolved substantially.