|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
POCKET PARADIGMS |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sam Smith
(No verified email address) |
30 Sep 2002
|
|
"Orwell, through his portrayal, seemed to be warning the lower classes that they were being controlled, and that they should fight to be rid of their leaders who were oppressing them, rather than feeling a form of 'fake patriotism' toward them, which allowed the cycle to continue." |
Over the weekend, your editor was reading a ten-year old essay by Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research concerning his conflicts with politically correct liberals. It was written about the same time that I and others of my ilk were being purged from the leadership of Americans for Democratic Action for such heresies as questioning the drug war and, in my case, doubting the connection between liberalism and the new president. Brandt quotes investigative reporter Dan Moldea as saying that the real division in the country at the time was not between left and right but between "the players" and the "non-players." I had said something similar: the real division in the world was between its governments and their people.
And, of course, George Orwell was ahead of us both. His society, comprised of a mass of proles run by an outer and even smaller inner party, has haunted me for some time: the possibility that the only real escape from oppressive power is outside the realm of power's interest. Eric Paul Gros-Dubois of Southern Methodist University puts it this way:
"The last group was the Proles. These people played an interesting role in the life of Oceania. Unlike the Inner and Outer Party members, the Proles were not watched over by the telescreens or spied on in any way. Their lives were simple; they worked, raised families, and did the little things, such as watch sports and go to bars. . . The Proles were the poorest of the groups, but in most regards were the most cheerful and optimistic. The Proles were also the freest of all the groups. Proles could do as they pleased. They could come and go, and talk openly about whatever they felt like without having to worry about the Thought Police. In many regards the lower to lower middle classes were afforded the same privileges, for the same reasons. The higher classes did not put much thought into what these people said, simply because they did not feel that they were important enough to worry about. . .
"He also concluded that the hope for the future was contained within this group. At several points in the book, Winston, the hero, made a point of mentioning that the Proles were the hope for the future and the only ones who could end Big Brother's tyranny, since they were the only group still allowed to have feelings and opinions. Orwell, through Winston, said that the lower classes were the only ones capable of creating change, since they were the only ones who have the vision to do so."
"Orwell also gave a warning to the lower classes. He said that the government controlled them through such devices as the lottery, the spreading of rumors, and the elimination of the troublemakers from amongst them. . . Orwell, through his portrayal, seemed to be warning the lower classes that they were being controlled, and that they should fight to be rid of their leaders who were oppressing them, rather than feeling a form of 'fake patriotism' toward them, which allowed the cycle to continue."
Part of that oppression is similar to that typical of the segregated south: the deliberate maintenance of tensions between lower class blacks and whites in the cause of economic and social hegemony by the inner party. It is worth considering whether most of us are now not being tossed about by the same sort of manipulation, only instead of the trigger being race, it is such social issues as abortion, gun control, prayer in the school and getting rid of Saddam. Even as our economy has tanked over the past two years, even though we are in the longest bear market in 60 years, we are repeatedly encouraged to argue about other things. The players are egging us on.
* Sam reflects further on the events that transpired during the massive human rights violations that occured in Washington last weekend:
THE PROTESTS
THE WEEKEND CONSTITUTED the third worst police riot in recent Washington history. On Friday, using the MPD's own statistics, officers arrested a record one-third of the protesters present, mostly by the illegal preemptive corralling of demonstrators without giving them a lawful order to disperse or allowing them to do so. The 650 arrests were roughly one-half the illegal arrests during the much larger April 2000 demonstration, where the police were also under the command of champion local lawbreaker Charles Ramsey. The biggest mass arrests occurred in May 1971, when 12,000 anti-war demonstrators were arrested using much the same illegal tactics as Ramsey engaged in on Friday.
MEANWHILE IN LONDON, where, according to the count of Mayor Ken Livingstone, four hundred thousand marchers rallied, there were precisely two arrests. Livingstone called it "the largest march for peace I have seen in 30 years."
THE WASHINGTON NEWS MEDIA suggested that the real issue was whether the protests would shut the city down. In fact, the city did work at one-third speed Friday, but not because of the actions of protesters but because police and politicians had so terrified the easily-scared bureaucrats of the region that many of them stayed home. As a matter of observable fact, therefore, the police caused far more harm to the city than did the protests. None of real perpetrators, however, was arrested.
THE BEST KEPT SECRET was that even in quieter times, the city was shut down by the IMF-World Bank meetings, except the cause then was a traffic jam of limousines. Your editor used to enjoy walking past catatonic Cadillacs and Lincolns as the serial rapists of capitalism were stalled in their vehicles. Now, the big boys prefer to ride in buses accompanied by squad cars. |
See also:
http://prorev.com/indexa.htm
|
