Does the population need keeping paranoid?
Discussion
Something occurred to me yesterday when flicking through a book about the cold war - do governments and political groups strive to keep populations paranoid?
I reckon it must have started way back in the mists of time with religion, but in the context of the twentieth century:
Second World War - population conditioned towards winning the war by remaining paranoid about who could be listening in/rummaging through your bins etc. In that case it actually worked.
Cold War - population kept in a state of paranoia for 45 years by threat of nuclear war. Never happened but there are more - and more powerful - WMDs in existence today than ever before.
Post-Cold War - population encouraged into paranoia by environmentalists, and newspapers warning of terrorists, paedophiles, killer diseases etc - some evidence but mostly unfounded.
If you see the Michael Moore film Bowling For Columbine, Moore blames the volatile nature of America's gun culture on a sense of paranoia instilled by the media and as a knock-on effect a sense of drastic self-preservation at all costs.
I believe that governments and influential lobby groups are exaggerating and sometimes completely fabricating 'truths' to maintain a state of small-minded paranoia because they find it easy to work with and have for centuries.
The most noteable one at the moment is environmentalism. Works brilliantly - get everyone to feel guilty about their every motion and you have them by the short & curlies and can direct them into organising the waste disposal, dishing out thousands of pounds to do anything involving a car and so on.
What do you lot think?
I reckon it must have started way back in the mists of time with religion, but in the context of the twentieth century:
Second World War - population conditioned towards winning the war by remaining paranoid about who could be listening in/rummaging through your bins etc. In that case it actually worked.
Cold War - population kept in a state of paranoia for 45 years by threat of nuclear war. Never happened but there are more - and more powerful - WMDs in existence today than ever before.
Post-Cold War - population encouraged into paranoia by environmentalists, and newspapers warning of terrorists, paedophiles, killer diseases etc - some evidence but mostly unfounded.
If you see the Michael Moore film Bowling For Columbine, Moore blames the volatile nature of America's gun culture on a sense of paranoia instilled by the media and as a knock-on effect a sense of drastic self-preservation at all costs.
I believe that governments and influential lobby groups are exaggerating and sometimes completely fabricating 'truths' to maintain a state of small-minded paranoia because they find it easy to work with and have for centuries.
The most noteable one at the moment is environmentalism. Works brilliantly - get everyone to feel guilty about their every motion and you have them by the short & curlies and can direct them into organising the waste disposal, dishing out thousands of pounds to do anything involving a car and so on.
What do you lot think?
Yup... It all the scaremonger tactics used via the media. "Kid with hoodies", "sars", "terrorism", "WMD's", etc... All very handy tools for any government to use, as they can bring in legislation stating these reasons. Fortunately the 90 day legislation was beaten t'other day, so it doesn't work all the time. If you listen to the governement, agencies, etc, you'd never fo out of your bloody house!
Gabriel: Have you ever heard of Harry Houdini? Well he wasn't like today's magicians who are only interested in television ratings. He was an artist. He could make an elephant disappear in the middle of a theater filled with people, and do you know how he did that? Misdirection.
Stanley: What the
are you talking about?
Gabriel: Misdirection. What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes.
Stanley: What the
are you talking about? Gabriel: Misdirection. What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes.
I definitely agree that it's in the Government's best interests to keep the population paranoid. If you can convince everyone that a terrorist attack is always imminent then it's much easier to take away all their personal freedoms in the name of anti-terrorism. In fact, a worrying number of people seem not only willing but positively desperate to give up their rights based on little more than Government-sponsored media hysteria.
Yes.
And you'll notice that the scare stories have some common characteristics. They're always about something cataclysmic and world ending, meteorites, greenhouse effect, bird flu pandemic, that is very scary......but very unlikely ever to actually happen.
It's rather like telling a child scary stories about a dragon or giant that will eat them if they're naughty.
And you'll notice that the scare stories have some common characteristics. They're always about something cataclysmic and world ending, meteorites, greenhouse effect, bird flu pandemic, that is very scary......but very unlikely ever to actually happen.
It's rather like telling a child scary stories about a dragon or giant that will eat them if they're naughty.
My biggest problem with it is that, with more methods of media available to the sources of paranoia, there seems to be no room for debate.
Put it this way - 'global warming' is used without question by every news presenter in the country. De facto, the blame is placed squarely at the feet of motorists. Bring on an opinionated environmentalist scientist and his opinion about the state of the Earth is treated as unassailable, apocalyptic fact.
And as a result, the token motorist doesn't have a leg to stand on. Anyone who suggests otherwise, or even that climate change is probably perfectly natural and nowhere near as drastic as anyone says it is is treated by the media-led masses with the sort of disdain reserved for Holocaust deniers.
And as a result, hyped opinion becomes 'fact'.
Throughout the twentieth century, we've been told one way or another that we're all going to die and it's all our fault. But now that message reaches every single one of us and is backed up by 'science'. What are the implications of that?
Put it this way - 'global warming' is used without question by every news presenter in the country. De facto, the blame is placed squarely at the feet of motorists. Bring on an opinionated environmentalist scientist and his opinion about the state of the Earth is treated as unassailable, apocalyptic fact.
And as a result, the token motorist doesn't have a leg to stand on. Anyone who suggests otherwise, or even that climate change is probably perfectly natural and nowhere near as drastic as anyone says it is is treated by the media-led masses with the sort of disdain reserved for Holocaust deniers.
And as a result, hyped opinion becomes 'fact'.
Throughout the twentieth century, we've been told one way or another that we're all going to die and it's all our fault. But now that message reaches every single one of us and is backed up by 'science'. What are the implications of that?
silversun said:
In fact, a worrying number of people seem not only willing but positively desperate to give up their rights based on little more than Government-sponsored media hysteria.
You assume that the majority of people actually want freedom, is it not the case that a large part of society want/need to be told what to do.
I absolutely agreed with this idea. A while ago there was a TV series called "The Power of Nightmare", which put this same idea across, although it was somewhat one sided in the subject matter it addressed. Could easily do a similar prog on pandemics and climate change, although I doubt that would be allowed somehow!
andy mac said:
Yup... It all the scaremonger tactics used via the media. "Kid with hoodies", "sars", "terrorism", "WMD's", etc... All very handy tools for any government to use, as they can bring in legislation stating these reasons. Fortunately the 90 day legislation was beaten t'other day, so it doesn't work all the time. If you listen to the governement, agencies, etc, you'd never fo out of your bloody house!
I sort of agree, but I reckon it's mostly the media's doing and it's got more to do with selling newspapers and TV ratings. I think the government just sometimes turns it to their advantage.
timmy30 said:
You assume that the majority of people actually want freedom, is it not the case that a large part of society want/need to be told what to do.
Sure, some people prefer to be told what to do, but I think that a large majority of society prefer not to have the movements curbed and/or monitored by a authority that believes it knows what's best for them. It suits the Government to have everyone scared of finding terrorists under the bed because that way they can impose restrictions on society at large and justify it by saying it's for our own safety.
Plotloss said:
Not seen Bowling for Columbine then?
Who, me? No, I haven't actually but I'd like to. Why?
No, TC
But its basic premise is the culture of control via fear in the US.
Bloody interesting.
I enjoyed it. As much as people slated moore, and his methods, the point was a very good one.
Religion has also used it for yonks, i.e. do something that we say is bad and you'll end up in hell and so on.
The simple principle is that you make someone afraid with a threat of some kind (real or invented) and then offer them the only percieved chance of protection/survival. Its can work on one individual or the an entire population. Parents use on their children all the time without realising to try and control them.
The simple principle is that you make someone afraid with a threat of some kind (real or invented) and then offer them the only percieved chance of protection/survival. Its can work on one individual or the an entire population. Parents use on their children all the time without realising to try and control them.
Noam Chomsky said:
The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff