Some thoughts about the reading of George Orwell's novel "1984", and
others ("I am Me. I am Free" (1996) and "The Biggest Secret" (1999)
from David Icke; "Pawns in the Game" (1958) from William Guy Carr;
"Dialogues in the Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" (1864)
from Maurice Joly; "The Prince" (1513) from Niccol=F2 Machiavelli;
"Hilter won the war" (2003) of Walter Graziano; "Discipline and
Punish" (1975) from Michel Foucault).
Power is based on emotions. (Political power).
The nearest thing to this idea that I have found is the sentence of
Caligula: "It doesn't matter that they hate us, as long as they fear
us". He reveals that his power was based on the fear.
Michel Foucault said: "Speech is power." Of course, because it
generates emotions.
In any organization, an individual of certain rank cannot take charge
of all personally, he or she should delegate, to make a subordinate to
make some things for him or her.
Therefore he or she order him or her to do something. But, how do he
or she make the subordinate to obey him / her?.
I think of three Answers or answer Types.
Answer 1: he or she inspires him / her an emotion that impels (moves)
him / her to obey. Emotion comes from the Latin root motere, to move.
Answer 2: he or she inspires greed to him / her, he / she promises a
recompense to him / her , or he or she claims gratitude to him / her
for a previous gift..
Answer 3: he or she appeals to the ideology, to the honor, to the
duty.
Frequently they combine these answers, like in the Politics that has
been called "of the Stick (punishment) and the Carrot (reward)."
About the ideology, we are also manipulated through the lie, because
we allow it when we don't value the truth above everything else, above
all ideology, when we accept without questioning a "rational"
explanation more ridiculous that what is sought to deny.
We allow it when instead of reasoning, analyzing the information that
emits, we prejudge their source, and, according to whether we like it
or not, we accept or we reject all what it says, but without
reasoning, without filtering their speech, without separating the
truths from the lies in him. If we prejudge a source as "not reliable"
we ignore all what it says, including the truths. If not, we accept
all what it says and we ignore everything else, like in the hypnosis,
we allow to that reliable source to think for us, and to tell us what
to think and what to believe. It is a hypnotic manipulation of the
reality, our reality (subjective), but only if we allow it. It is our
election. It is like magic, an illusion that is real if we choice it
so.
We allow ourselves to be deceived when we don't reason for
ourselves.
To reason is to choose what to believe, it is to look for the truth,
and it should be a permanent attitude. Only when one is choosing what
to believe one is reasoning. When one already chose, one is not
reasoning, one is trusting (from the Latin fides, faith), having
faith, in what one chose before, what one already incorporated to
their mental map of the reality (subjective), their mental jigsaw-
puzzle. A faith that can be so irrational whether it is deposited in a
dogma " scientist " as in one religious. In the point where we are
reasoning, where we are choosing what to believe (in what to have
faith), in that point, the reason is not incompatible with the faith,
but complementary.
We don't reason when we discard too quickly the new information,
without thinking, without asking us the question of gold: And if it
was certain?. When new information doesn't fit in our jigsaw-puzzle
because it contradicts something that we believe, something that we
trust, we should solve the contradiction, either discarding the new
information, or the old one that before we believed true and now we
think that it is not. Not to solve the contradiction would be
Doublethink, it would be to have a divided mind, double or multiple,
maintaining in it a disordered jigsaw-puzzle, or more than one, with
pieces that don't coincide, contradictory ideas in order that one can
appeal to one or the other according to the occasion, the
convenience.
But that it is another topic.
The Answer 2 is related to Demagoguery. "If you want to calm the
hunger of a man for one day, give him a fish (demagoguery, to lead
people, if you want to dominate them, to tame them as if they were
animals). If you want to calm the hunger of a man for all their life,
teach him to fish (pedagogy, to lead the child, to educate him, it
implies compassion, the genuine will of helping him that is absent in
the demagoguery)". It usually includes also the deceit that the
demagogue is the only supplier possible of what the subordinate needs.
Returning about the emotions, I distinguish two types of emotions,
those that unite people and those that separate them (fear, hate,
guilt, shame, all expressions or derivatives of the fear).
The emotions move the world and the incorrect emotions are moving it
in the wrong way, toward the self-destruction.
Traditionally the power has been based on the emotions that separate
(Divide and you will reign).
Power is understood as the capacity to cause suffering.
With that concept of the power you cannot solve the problems, because
you would lose power. Are those problems (war, terrorism, hunger,
misery, unemployment, crime, drugs, contamination, etc.), that
suffering, that makes people to go to their leaders (the same ones
that created those problems) for protection. Those problems are the
source of their power, the suffering generates the emotions of which
that power feeds himself.
So the problems are not solved but rather they are increased with
counterproductive "solutions", until everything explodes in some
crisis of some type (a world war, for example).
It is a vicious circle.
The goal is the total control of the world, a world dictatorship. The
consequence of a power based on the fear is a government based on the
fear, a dictatorship.
Since half century ago they have been developing, secretly, a
technology to track the people, a microchip that would also allow to
control the emotions of the people in those that are implanted, at
least since the Spanish doctor's works, Dr. Jose Manuel Rodriguez
Delgado, in the decade of 1950, inventor of the stimoceiver and author
of the book "Physical Control Of The Mind: Toward to Psychocivilized
Society", editorial Harper & Row, NY, 1969, available, partly, in
http://www.angelfire.com/or/mctrl/delgado.htm.
Nothing that it is good and decent would be allowed in a society like
this, because the positive emotions that it would generate would not
fit in it.
If the power is based on emotions and if was unavoidable that all
civilizations reach in some point of its development a such technology
that allows it such an absolute power that it even allows it to
control the population's emotions, what emotions would be allowed and
which not?.
The answer to that question will depend on its degree of moral and
spiritual evolution, since that determines the use that will be given
to that technology. The technology is a tool, it is not good neither
bad by itself, that depends of who it uses it and for what.
The advances in an area of the knowledge and the human activity depend
on the progress in other areas. We are all interdependent. Everything
is related to everything else, and a backwardness in the moral or
spiritual aspect brakes our development in the other areas (even the
technology) in such a way that it makes to be in danger our own
survival like species, when diminishing our capacity to survive an
eventual (to very long term, unavoidable) planetary catastrophe. But
this is also another topic.
That society, as the one described in 1984, would be the expression of
the bad side of all the things because in it there is not anything
good and true, and it would be based on two main pillars: the fear and
the lie. Both can be combatted efficiently with education.
The suffering is generated by preventing the people to satisfy their
necessities.
In 1984 the war is used to maintain people in the misery, by
destroying the fruit of its work (the war is destructive, obviously),
and the misery is used to maintain the inequality, and the inequality
is used to maintain the power. The power is the ultimate goal of the
governing class, not a means to accomplish something, not even
benefits, because although they have more privileges than the
majority, all they live worse every time, as the time passes.
According to the book (it is reasonable), technical progress stops (as
I already said, that threatens the survival of the human species). It
is only the power for the power, without any other reason.
=46rom 1984 I deduce that people are maintained in the misery so that
they only worry to survive each day and be not interested in more
momentous matters, all they related ones to each other and with our
individual and collective survival: the future, the politics, the
morality, the religion and the spirituality, the wisdom, the art (the
necessity of expression), etc.
They know that before worrying about those high matters, people must
satisfy their more basic necessities, so they make all the effort so
that they are not able to make it.
The necessities of the people can be divided in levels, such that,
before somebody worries about the superior levels, he / she should
have satisfied the inferior ones, at least partly. It is a simple
matter of priorities.
The first level is that of the basic necessities for life (the body),
for the biological survival, to continue breathing: air (obvious),
water, food, clothes, housing, security (to maintain the physical
integrity), etc.
It is hardly in this level that they seek to maintain people, by
trying to make that they cannot satisfy these necessities fully, so
that they hardly survive enough to serve to the governing class, but
not more.
But to survive is not to live. To survive is hardly to breathe. To
live is to enjoy. The World Health Organization simply defines that
state as Health, full psychophysical health.
In fact, I believe that the Buddhists say that to breathe and to enjoy
life should be synonymous, and that the secret of the happiness is to
be satisfied with very little, to the degree of being satisfied just
with to breathe, in a state of grace, of ecstasy, of peaceful
contemplation, marveling in each opportunity, as a little child, with
the beauty of the world, as if this was discovered for the first time,
being happy and grateful just by being alive and emptying the mind of
all desire and emotion (emotions again, in the Spanish language there
is not great difference between the desire definition and that of
emotion). Of course, this requires of a lot of practice and some
minimum conditions (a minimum of food, of water, of clothes, etc.).
But, for most of us, to live requires of satisfying other necessities.
The following level to satisfy are the sexual necessities (the
couple). So we have all type of obstacles to impede that they be
satisfied, as much as it be possible without it was evident. We have
the false morality, the false dogmas of the false religion, etc. If
you think it, you realize what I'm talking about.
By the way, Michel Foucault said: "When that private becomes public,
the public thing becomes private." When the attention is focused in
the private affairs of people, when what everybody oversee are the
private behaviors, the public affairs get lost of view, they stop to
oversee the government, they lose the control on what the Big Brother
is doing.
The third level is that of the affective necessities (the family). So
all the effort is made to separate people, to separate the brothers,
to the friends, to the parents of the children, etc. Negative emotions
are generated. I call them negative to those that separate people
(different forms of the fear: fear itself, hate, guilt, shame, etc.)
and positive to those that unite them (different forms of the love:
romantic, filial, fraternal love, friendship, charity, compassion,
etc.). In fact, we cannot say that an emotion is negative. It has an
useful function: to alert that there is a problem. I call this way
them to distinguish them in function of the people's union or
separation.
The fourth level could be, in my opinion, the necessity to serve (the
community), of helping the neighbor, the vocation of service, the
charity, what corresponds to the chakra of the heart. So that whenever
it is possible they try to deny to the people their place in the
world, to exclude them, to discriminate against them.
The fifth level would be the necessity of expression, of creating art,
of teaching what has been learned, of saying, what corresponds to the
chakra of the throat. So they censure.
The sixth level would be the necessity to learn, of seeing, of
knowing, of being educated, what corresponds to the chakra of the
center of the forehead or of the third eye. So they combat the
education to try to perpetuate the ignorance.
The seventh level would be the necessity to come closer to God, or the
Universal Intelligence, or as you want to call Him, of communion, of
religion, of some spiritual practice, what corresponds to the chakra
of the crown. Etcetera.
These leaders that make an effort so that people cannot satisfy their
necessities are, in fact, psychopaths, since they are unable to feel
compassion for those of their own species, as if they do not consider
themselves part of it. For that reason I think that they are not
totally human in the sense that we give to the term human (that
opposed of inhuman). They can be human on the outside, but not
completely human on the inside. They can have a totally human physical
body, but inside it a divided mind, double or multiple (in 1984
Doublethink), partly not human, a possessed mind (MPD, Multiple
Personality Disorder, or DID Dissociative Identity Disorder, in
definitive, psychopaths). They provide deliberately enormous suffering
to big fringes of the population for money and for power, and at the
same time they are providing them, unconsciously, an educational
experience. The life is a learning process, in fact through many lives
(reincarnation).
One lives to learn and, basically, there are two ways to do it:
understanding what it is being tried to teach us (metaphysics,
compassion, wisdom) or experiencing in flesh and blood the
consequences of not doing it (the suffering that I already mentioned).
It is our election, our free will.
Everything could be better, if there were not people dedicated to harm
to other people for money or for power, or simply to satisfy their own
necessities. However, everything is exactly as it must be so that we
learn of the consequences of our errors.
All that happens in our life, individual or collectively, it is
consequence of our previous decisions. Sometimes that is called karma.
What we sow is what we harvest. What we give comes back to us as a
boomerang, but amplified, multiplied.
These are my thoughts, good or not, but mine. I have the right to have
them, to say them, to share them and to sustain them, although other
people don't like them. Each one chooses what he or she wants to
believe, as well as he / she chooses what wants to think, how he / she
wants to feel and about what he / she wants to be informed or to
learn. And he / she will endure the consequences of their election,
either good or not.
Best regards,
|
