The Fooled Generation
My generation can be called the Fooled Generation. Every sentiment that is natural to young people had been steered into precisely the wrong direction when I was young.
The anti-establishment sentiment has been steered into attacks against the Clinton Administration and against "statism" and "socialism." There is no statism in America. Soviet Union had statism; America does not. The real offenders in America are not public, they are private. Groups like the Church of Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses; corrupt networks in law and medicine; corporate criminals - whether overt criminals like Enron or corrupt oil companies that tell people a load of lies in order to keep them hooked on destructive technologies; gangs and the organized crime; and the men who like to rape their children and beat their wives; are the true offenders in this country. The government is elected, official, accountable, checked and balanced. These entities are no such thing. And this allows them to get away with greater abuses than what is allowed the American government.
The radical anti-Western civilization sentiment was also steered into precisely the wrong direction. It was turned into attacks on the Western Romantic literary and intellectual tradition. In this was attacked the greatest artwork and literature that has come out of the Western civilization. Also attacked were the best relationships. My generation through this was denied the experience of its youth.
The feminist sentiment was steered into attacks on beauty and love. A claim was made that such things were patriarchial, degrading to women or destructive toward their self-esteem. There are many reasons why this is wrong. First, women are more naturally gifted with beauty than are men, and denying them the right to beauty destroys an area of their superiority, putting them at a disadvantage. Secondly, there are many things - such as money and intelligence - that can be used to destroy people's self-esteem that are in no way bad themselves. That some people get D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can be wealthy. Anything with appeal to people will see some people using it for wrong. This does not damn what has the appeal; it damns the people who use it for wrong. Further, many of the people who championed beauty and love - both in the West and elsewhere - were women, and not stupid or weak ones either. We see this with everyone from Sappho to Murabai to Elizabeth Barrett Browning to Dorothy Parker to Anna Akhmatova to Ayn Rand. Finally, women being robbed of beauty is more, not less, oppressive to women than women being encouraged to be beautiful. There are plenty of independent-minded people - especially in places like Sweden, where feminism is more advanced than it is in the United States - who willfully choose to be attractive - and not out of any kind of insecurity or patriarchy but out of good taste and as an expression of who they are as women.
The anti-religious sentiment has been steered into an abomination known as skepticisim: Malicious attacks against anyone reporting spiritual experiences or taking part in spiritual practice. According to these people, the bulk of humanity is stupid or insane. I have news for these people. There are many people much smarter than they are, who are neither on drugs nor schizophrenic, who have had real spiritual experiences; and there are many others who have very good reasons for believing what they believe. The skeptics think that they are the only sane and intelligent people on the planet. Some even regard spirituality and religion to be narcissism. I can think of no more narcissistic, arrogant or - yes - stupid stance than their own.
And of course the anti-older people sentiment has been steered into attacks on "the 60s generation" - the generation that started out seeing what was wrong with the world and sought to correct these wrongs.
My generation has been the Fooled Generation. And while many are perfectly comfortable with that state of affairs, I for one am not.
The anti-establishment sentiment has been steered into attacks against the Clinton Administration and against "statism" and "socialism." There is no statism in America. Soviet Union had statism; America does not. The real offenders in America are not public, they are private. Groups like the Church of Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses; corrupt networks in law and medicine; corporate criminals - whether overt criminals like Enron or corrupt oil companies that tell people a load of lies in order to keep them hooked on destructive technologies; gangs and the organized crime; and the men who like to rape their children and beat their wives; are the true offenders in this country. The government is elected, official, accountable, checked and balanced. These entities are no such thing. And this allows them to get away with greater abuses than what is allowed the American government.
The radical anti-Western civilization sentiment was also steered into precisely the wrong direction. It was turned into attacks on the Western Romantic literary and intellectual tradition. In this was attacked the greatest artwork and literature that has come out of the Western civilization. Also attacked were the best relationships. My generation through this was denied the experience of its youth.
The feminist sentiment was steered into attacks on beauty and love. A claim was made that such things were patriarchial, degrading to women or destructive toward their self-esteem. There are many reasons why this is wrong. First, women are more naturally gifted with beauty than are men, and denying them the right to beauty destroys an area of their superiority, putting them at a disadvantage. Secondly, there are many things - such as money and intelligence - that can be used to destroy people's self-esteem that are in no way bad themselves. That some people get D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can be wealthy. Anything with appeal to people will see some people using it for wrong. This does not damn what has the appeal; it damns the people who use it for wrong. Further, many of the people who championed beauty and love - both in the West and elsewhere - were women, and not stupid or weak ones either. We see this with everyone from Sappho to Murabai to Elizabeth Barrett Browning to Dorothy Parker to Anna Akhmatova to Ayn Rand. Finally, women being robbed of beauty is more, not less, oppressive to women than women being encouraged to be beautiful. There are plenty of independent-minded people - especially in places like Sweden, where feminism is more advanced than it is in the United States - who willfully choose to be attractive - and not out of any kind of insecurity or patriarchy but out of good taste and as an expression of who they are as women.
The anti-religious sentiment has been steered into an abomination known as skepticisim: Malicious attacks against anyone reporting spiritual experiences or taking part in spiritual practice. According to these people, the bulk of humanity is stupid or insane. I have news for these people. There are many people much smarter than they are, who are neither on drugs nor schizophrenic, who have had real spiritual experiences; and there are many others who have very good reasons for believing what they believe. The skeptics think that they are the only sane and intelligent people on the planet. Some even regard spirituality and religion to be narcissism. I can think of no more narcissistic, arrogant or - yes - stupid stance than their own.
And of course the anti-older people sentiment has been steered into attacks on "the 60s generation" - the generation that started out seeing what was wrong with the world and sought to correct these wrongs.
My generation has been the Fooled Generation. And while many are perfectly comfortable with that state of affairs, I for one am not.
Comments (27)
You, for one, are not fooled, or you, for one, are not comfortable with being fooled?
Your distinction between generations may not be very accurate.
In the 60’s and 70’s many, many people were fooled. Looking back, some of the things that happened are hard to believe. So I don’t think this is specific to your generation.
But, it does seem to me that if your generation has been fooled then maybe they’ve made a trade-off somewhere along the line. They had opportunities for an education and they have access to far more information than any previous generation. True, some of the information is unreliable or false, but you still have a choice. So that, alongside an education, has to be an advantage.
So why, if it’s true, have so many been fooled?
:yikes:
Fortunately, as St Roger of Daltrey prophesied in 1971, we won't be fooled again!
Comes to mind Putin's Russias actions against Jehovas Witnesses:
WSJ
CNN
Keep on pushing the 'politically correct' line, comrade? Or?
I did see a sheep decide to charge and ram the sheepdog once...obviously a bit of a rebel. :D
I think we have a kind of 'path of least resistance' society, to a large degree..it is fairly easy to see how that can be used to guide people down paths of thought and action, to various ends.
I often think that people like to think of themselves as brave and strong; which is why poppy day is so popular..people think by so called honouring the dead, that that means their 'honour' would have been worth anything to the people that died in past wars.
They make this illogical assumption that by honouring the dead by looking a bit sad and wearing a paper flower, that they must be very honourable people, and therefore strong and brave themselves..
But that doesn't really follow. Not that all the people that attend remembrance day are weak.
I think society is the product of on going emergence, of a take the path of least resistance process generally.....society often only sorts itself out when that attitude no-longer works, as in a world war, hole in the ozone etc...event happens....or on an individual bases, when taking the path of least resistance would lead someone to end up living on the street for example.
Naturally animals that we define 'prey' are going to avoid or at least will keep a safe distance from animals that we define as 'predators'. It's very logical behaviour.
The word sheeple is a bit different than just referring to people being sheep. The word 'sheeple' is typically used by conspiracy theorists to get their own flock of believers to 'embrace' the cause. It is a way to say that all the ordinary people who think the conspiracy simply isn't true are the brain washed ignorant docile people. The 'sheeple will usually be seen following the very evil conspirators with their diabolical agenda. And whereas these nay-sayers to the conspricay theory, like those who believe astronauts went to the Moon, are these sheeple, those few who believe the conspiracy are the ones aware of reality, are the ones that are truly conscious and hence are very special people.
Is this something you wrote in 1995?
Propaganda issued by the 1% - the super-rich - who own everything and control everything? :chin:
Yes. I've always found that bit difficult to believe. Why do people allow themselves (and all around them) to be controlled by this empowered and entitled minority? :chin: I have no idea.
Every generation has been fooled to a degree. That is the nature of hierarchy, and most invite, even endorse that structure. When haven't a small minority controlled society?
Also, you seem to call many counter traditional thoughts as "being fooled", which just seems a bit close-minded to me. Not to mention that you are criticizing small groups within society, none of those groups represent the majority of people, even if they are a bigger than they have been in the past.
Actually the point I’m trying make is that you weren’t fooled, you traded something at the crossroads.
If you mean you didn’t get what you wanted, then that’s another thing altogether.
Because of supply and demand, because of apathy, because of comfort. If your population is content with their life, distracting themselves with substanceless entertainment and just want to crack a cold beer in the evening, you have control over them if you have power over the market. Only when society makes you suffer would you choose to revolt against the status quo. People definitely do revolt when they're in that position.
Just look at how people treat the environment, the climate changes. The data is there, the warnings keep coming and people don't seem to do shit about it. Why? Because they are comfortable in their life and they expect the rich and powerful to fix whatever problems we have. The same rich and powerful that people want and ask to fix things are the same they despise as being the 1%. People are lazy children with apathy, only when their lives take a nosedive will they act out what's needed. So when the world is warmer, bad weather ruins parts of the world and a billion of environmental refugees knocks on colder nations doors; will people really get busy acting on the issues we already know about.
If you're among the 1%, I'd say go for it, act out your power, the 99% won't stop you and they deserve nothing more until they show a will to act against what is wrong. They deserve to be just where they are, hypnotized by daytime TV, slowly fading away from history. As Sartre said, we are doomed to be free and people use that freedom to have a meaningless life, controlled by the 1%.
I can't be anything other than pessimistic when it comes to mass psychology of our contemporary society.
Quoting Brett
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Propaganda from the power elites (politics, finance, education, commerce, religion, etc.) is ubiquitous and generously distributed. The power elites naturally have their own interests in mind when they speak.
Who represents and speaks for the interests of the 99%--the people, the masses, the rank and file, the sheep?
Identifying the "vox populi" is a bit tricky because many of the sheep think the barking of the dogs is actually their own voice. A good share of the flock think the sheep dogs have their best interests in mind. The flock does not realize that the dogs are working for the rancher, and not for them. In the end, the dogs will round them up for the annual fleecing -- or worse. (all this figuratively speaking...)
To the extent that the people identify with the elite, dissenting opinions among the people tend to be viewed with suspicion. An excellent example of this is the very long discussion of how to finance and organize health care--a debate that has been going on in the United States, off and on, since the 1930s. Anyone speaking up for any sort of "socialized medicine" (which means centralized funding of medicine) is subjected to denunciation by the medical and financial elite who are deeply vested in private-for-profit-funding-of-medical-care.
Medicine and medical insurance are very profitable and the owners of the flock of gold-egg laying geese obviously do not want the geese disturbed.
And the 1% will definitely do that, as is their habit.
Quoting Christoffer
Daytime TV? Really?
The control to which the 99% are subjected is far, far more pervasive than daytime TV.
Quoting Christoffer
In a sense, people are doomed to be free, but let's not get carried away with that idea. The revolution required to throw off the power of the 1% in this, the heartland of capitalism, is perhaps beyond possibility.
Besides, people doomed to be free may choose the capitalism of the 1% over socialism. Choosing capitalism over socialism doesn't equal "meaningless life". Some people choose to exercise their freedom in ways that you and I may disapprove of, but that doesn't make their choice "meaningless".
Dissenters can get into a bind here: We say people are free to choose how to live their lives, but then we declare that 99% live meaningless lives if they do not choose to live outside the mass culture. I agree that there is a good deal that is degraded in the mass culture (and in the culture of the 1% too). Then there is the question of whether people even have a choice about living outside the mass culture.
Thinking that people can choose to live outside the mass culture is like thinking fish can choose to live on dry land. It's not a real choice.
The 1% work only for themselves, and maybe a little for those like them. They fix nothing. It's us that fix things, on their instructions. They have the power, and yet it's us who really have the power, as you describe. I agree: it's difficult to understand. :up:
Quoting Bitter Crank
:up:
It's also important to understand that most people if entering the 1%, would act accordingly. The way people detach their morals from what morals the 1% has, is ignorant of the psychology that happens when you are at the top. Only when recognizing that most of us are the same as them, if we ever reached that level, will we be able to criticize correctly about the status quo of capitalism.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It was symbolic rhetoric, not literary, to underline the distractions people choose to have. If you want to make a literal list of all distractions, that would be a really tedious read within an argument.
Quoting Bitter Crank
When people are free to do whatever they want, they often choose comfort over anything else. Why choose to battle for anything if you are content with what you have? And if you want to battle for anything, isn't capitalism and the consumer-focused society just distracting you with irrelevant goals to pursue? So that even if you break free from apathy, you start to aim for goals within the system you were trying to question.
This is why no one actually tries to change capitalism. It becomes a binary choice of socialism or capitalism and the nuances of thought are lost in trivialities and binary perspectives.
Quoting Bitter Crank
And choosing capitalism is what most people do, but not because it's better but because that is what they learned. Scandinavian countries have far more socialism in their political system and they are pretty high up on the global scale for best countries to live in. However, they aren't socialist countries in any Marxist way, they are socialistic democracies, they're essentially a form of social market economy, having socialist functions like free health care, free schools etc. while retaining a free market instead of communistic ideals. It's very hard for core socialism to form in nations that weren't already socialists before, since capitalism is so intertwined in how people not only view society but their own lives as well. Most people's values come from a capitalistic system and few even entertain a thought that is different from it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That is a very good question. As mentioned just now, people's core values are so intertwined with capitalism that the choice to not live in it means being excluded and exiled from everything. So people have the choice of being metaphorically exiled in order to find true meaning (as they see past the system in order to see themselves truly). How can someone feel like they are able to find meaning if everything that had meaning traditionally needs to be left behind?
Does this mean that we aren't really doomed to freedom, but doomed to only feel free within the system that we find most comfortable? And getting rid of that comfort is like removing a part of ourselves. A form of paradox; you have less meaning in the system, but need to remove what is meaningful within that system in order to find a higher meaning in life. I don't think most people would do this within a short lifetime.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
It's essentially Hagel's Master–slave dialectic. The problem with that dialectic is that it only refers to a tyrannical system. That the master has formed a tyranny and the revolution eventually occurs because of it. But if the tyranny is masked in comfort, how can people break free from that comfort, see the tyranny and use their gained knowledge as slaves to form a revolution?
Our modern capitalism is the perfect system to form a power that breaks Hagel's Master–slave dialectic in favor of the master. Even when people know about the master's tyranny, they do nothing.
I think the choice of political systems is a little more than just two! :smile: A critical part of this choice is the balance between society/community and the individual. I.e. how a political ideology treats the community vs. the individual. There are other points than this one, we know, but this is the one that clearly distinguishes American Capitalism (I.e. the currently-pervasive flavour of capitalism) from socialism.
Of course; here's a map I made for another discussion. Not specifically about choices, but as a guideline for how we think about society.
The binary choice I mentioned are more about how people think of it, while the reality as you pointed out, is much more nuanced. Media and politicians have formed the binary and simplistic way of looking at political systems, making it harder for people to actually understand the complexity of our society.