I had a bizarre experience a couple of days ago, which I mentioned in a comment in another thread, but it’s still bothering me, because of the news this morning. I talked to an Iranian woman who was completely oblivious to the fact that the United States was about to attack Iran. She was in such denial.
Last night, Iran asked for two months to give its response to the latest offer. According to Forbes:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that Iran will respond in mid-August to the package of incentives on its nuclear program offered by the West, but President Bush accused Tehran of dragging its feet.
“We are studying the proposals. Hopefully, we will present our views about the package by mid-August,” Ahmadinejad told a crowd in western Iran in a speech broadcast live on state television.
This morning, I see that, predictably, Bush is the press this is not good enough:
Responding to a suggestion by Iran that it would respond to the major powers’ proposals by August 22, Bush said: “It should not take the Iranians that long to analyze what is a reasonable deal. I said weeks, not months.”
Bush was speaking at a news conference in Vienna after a summit with leaders of the European Union which, together with Russia and China, has backed Bush in his drive to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear arsenal.
What do other major nations think? Note how the article feels the need to make a distinction between “Western diplomats” and “Diplomats”:
Western diplomats have said Iran’s hesitation to respond may be a stalling maneuver aimed at buying time to expand its nuclear fuel enrichment program and make it a fait accompli.
Diplomats said the delay was more a sign of debate within a complex Iranian power structure over how to respond. Iran, which has the second largest oil and gas reserves, says its drive to enrich uranium is solely to provide electricity for its economy.
Me, I believe the Diplomats. I don’t think this is an unreasonable request.
What terrifies me about Bush’s behavior is the implication that he already has plans for war, plans which are set to move ahead before that date. And we all know how flexible Bush is…not.
So what do I say to these Iranians? I’ll see a group of them again, today. Do I take them printouts? Ask them to call their relatives and urge them to pressure from within Iran? Ask them to call their Congresspeople and Senators here in California and voice their displeasure?
And what about all the other people who are blithely going about their day, blissfully unaware that we’re about to open war on another front?
How do you get people to take action when they don’t think there’s a problem?
Hi Lisa,
I read in a couple of threads that you saw An Inconvenient Truth. I just saw it last night, and it is very powerful.
I would say that your situation is strikingly similar to the problem addressed by Gore, which is not only that people don’t think there’s a problem, but that it is more convenient to believe that there isn’t one.
I don’t have a lot of advice on how to proceed. I know that this is a pretty common problem with political discourse right now. My only experience with it deals with taking down Republican economics (specifically the ‘tax cuts pay for themselves’ idea) with a friend of mine. I’ve found that it is best to try to work in the facts slowly, and to be understanding and respectful. Eventually, they may start asking some questions that will allow you to lead them down the path.
I don’t think shoving a bunch of stuff in someone’s face is the best way to change minds, because people get defensive. Especially about these kinds of issues.
Yes – gentle is always best. I guess I’m running out of patience because we’re running out of time. And I also realize, there’s only so much any of us can do. But I want to do more.
Maybe I’ll bring them a newspaper and just ask, did you see this? I don’t know. Just thinking out loud. Thanks for your thoughts.
People have private thoughts and are also aware of the thoughts they think the others are thinking. They can believe in both thought systems at different times even if they are contradictory. They base their actions on the ‘mass’ thoughts, because they know they can’t go against the masses. So to effectively reach the masses you have to convince individuals that the others are already convinced. Mass media can lie about that and create new psychological realities by making individuals believe that everybody already believes that… Terrorists in fact stage mass media events to create such new realities (a BushCo specialty). When everybody knows that everybody knows, individuals stop thinking for themselves and this makes these mass-lies very hard to unlock (the Muslim Terrorists did it). Mass-lies can fester for generations(prejudices against people of color). They may create so much rot (‘voting’ Bush into office twice)that they choke on themselves (the US breaks up without civil war, some states join Canada) or go under like a forest fire (civil war,world war).
True. It interests me that not all thought can be controlled, though. For example, the mass media, “scholars”, “scientists”, and others have told Americans ever since the event that Kennedy was killed by Oswald, and only Oswald. I marvel at the way that people have been able to resist all efforts to implant that as something “everyone believes”. The majority of Americans believe Oswald was killed by a domestic conspiracy. Never mind what happened or didn’t happen. Just the fact that people can be told something over and over, and NOT believe it, does give me some hope.
with a certain philosophy they will begin to incorporate some aspects of that theme into their lives. But when we have a monolithic view of the world – church and state clanging the drums together – then it is very difficult to tip the mass.
A lot of people do not believe in marches or strikes, but to a certain extent, where there is little or no ability to reach the media megaphone those can have weight. The civil rights marches of the 60’s are a case in point.
I believe there is one total day of boycotting that one group is planning, but Bush may make his stike before then since I think it is in September when it is planned.
I go out with canvassers for the Missouri Democratic party. It is really too early for folks to think about the election, but I want to get a presence out there and let folks know that there is a least on or two people that care about the world.
I really liked Gore’s interview with Keith Olbermann – Now Gore was talking about religion in a very positive, responsible way. That we should respect what the creator created! See crooks and liars today for the interview!
Lisa, My related observation prompted me to write this recent diary. I have no answer, just the same question as you.
That’s a great, if really depressing, diary!
I really fear that it will take personal injury to them or someone they love for them to wake up to what’s going on in the world. European countries know war, invasion, the changing of the guard, and as such, have become much more politically vigilant. We’re a soft, untested country, for the most part. Now, I hope we don’t have to be hit with bombs and invaders. That’s not my point. But I wish there was a way to get through to people on a visceral level. Maybe films can help. But then, you have to get them into the theater, make them give up American Idol or whatever is keeping them from coming in the door….
You hit the nail on the head with “American Idol” and all that mind novocain. For instance, my coworkers will just in general complain about Bush and his cronies but will fine tune their opinions on Taylor Hicks choice of jacket or where the next Survivor will be located. One older lady said to me “What will we do now that it’s (AI) off for awhile?” Without telling her I didn’t watch it anymore (I watched one season, I found it as soulless as most of the so-called “reality” genre) but planned to read and choose from our cache of DVDs and whatever was on History Channel or Discovery. She kind of paused for a minute and said, “Well, I guess you’re right”. Anything that might expose people to some IDEAS and something other than the cheap crap being played off as entertainment.
Maybe that’s it…one person at a time.
You reminded me of the genius comedian Bill Hicks, who lived all too short a life. In his show “Revelations“, he does a riff on the Kennedy assassination, which leads to a fanciful explanation of why Kennedy’s head goes back to the left, after which he adds:
Genius. And so true. Wasn’t it Chomsky who said something like sports was the great opiate of the masses? Sports, TV – hey, I’m not knocking them. I love a good game and watch TV more than I probably “should” given all I want to do in this life. But to some, that’s IT. That’s all they know. THAT is sad. THAT is something I’d like to have a hand in changing, one person at a time, if necessary.
But now I have! Thanks! I wonder if we’re related (Hicks is Mom’s maiden name)? 🙂
The times I have tried to relate “the opiate of the masses” to someone usually end up with them smirking at me and either thinking or actually saying, “You’re such a snob”! Which of course is one of the top five RightWing Fallacies–Intelligence=Snobbery.
I am much like you, I watch TV, probably more than I should but certainly less than average–we’re big fans of certain shows, especially Sci Fi shows and series like 4400-it and Battlestar Galactica have some of the most chilling parallels to our current political climate you almost have to remind yourself it’s fiction. (Truth is stranger….:-))
I try to look at what I am taking in my brain the same way as what I am taking in for food…You should watch a lot of things that are good for you, and as my mother always says, “desserts” and “junk food” always in moderation!
I had heard that elsewhere – that Battlestar Gallactica was more overtly political than I would have guessed. Maybe it’s time to check it out again.
I only “make” time for two shows on the air – 24, and Grey’s Anatomy. Others I catch if I’m goofing off for the night..! 😉
Here’s the scenario on the NEW “Battlestar Galactica”:
After the human race is nearly wiped out by a Cylon attack, and the last 50,000 survivors are making a desperate escape attempt, Commander Adama wants to rule as a military dictator.
After all, it’s an emergency, right?
But Adama’s son, Apollo, realizes his father is wrong and takes the side of President Roslyn, the Education Secretary who ascended to the Presidency because all other government officials were killed in the Cylon attack.
Roslyn, however, then decides to rule by Presidential decree, rather than hold new elections for the Council of Twelve. Once again, it is Apollo who stands on the side of democracy, and maneuvers Roslyn into agreeing to hold elections.
Both Adama and Roslyn say the same thing: These are extraordinary times, desperate circumstances. We have to give up our freedoms in order to survive.
Apollo says something different: What’s the good of surviving unless our way of life survives, too? If our values and ideals perished in the Cylon attack, then there’s no use in staying alive, because they’ve already won.
Sound familiar?
I was sceptical of “Battlestar Galactica” because I wasn’t a fan of the original. But the new one is very, very good. All of Season One and the first half of Season Two are available now on DVD.
Very cool. I had no idea! No wonder the right hates Hollywood so much.
I’m doing some screenwriting, and hanging out with a bunch of writers – and all those choices are very, very deliberate. I saw a bunch of writers from 24 in front of a big audience trying to downplay that – oh, just coincidence. BS. They know what they’re doing. They’re just smart enough not to boast about it! 😉
Just well written TV, IMO…I checked out more about Bill Hicks, I am surprised I haven’t heard more about him, aside from his being just about 3 weeks older than me, we had quite a few things in common! (I have a bit of a scandalous past-but then a lot of us do!…lol)
what are you taking as indicators that war is imminent with Iran? I think that Bush has been stymied on that front. He has no real allies in Europe, in the Senate, or in the military. Where does he go to rally support? Not saying I have this pegged right, but I’m wondering about your view.
There’ve been a series of motions in that direction. A few months before the Iraq war, a quasi-CIA guy who is not usually credible forwarded me and hundreds of others a document that appeared to be a talking points memo. It was saying how the Iraq war wasn’t about oil, so I trashed it. But I wish now I hadn’t, because it was ALSO saying this isn’t about Iraq, and how Iran was the real prize.
Look at the map:
We put troops in Afghanistan, and now have troops in Iraq. What country is sandwiched in between?
The memo outlined a plan to cut a swath from the Mediterranean all the way to India (and ultimately China). It made a lot of sense, in retrospect, although I don’t believe for a second it wasn’t a lot about oil.
The accusation of Syrian involvement in the assassination of Hariri came at a time when Syria was threatening non-cooperation with US troops regarding the war in Iraq. Coincidence? Or was the assassination blamed on them to pressure them into submission for our large-scale Middle East Plans?
But specifically – here’s what has me worried:
2002
CNN reports that the US has evidence that Iran is building large nuclear sites that could be used for building weapons.
The US response in the article?
April, 2006
Sy Hersh wrote in his famous New Yorker article:
In the same article, Hersh mentions this:
Then I read that Bush was going to launch a test of a (non-nuclear) bunker buster weapon in the Nevada Desert, which to me signalled a clear step closer to an attack on Iran. The test was, fortunately, postponed indefinitely when activists that included, oddly enough, Senator Orrin Hatch, whose Utah constituents feared the bomb would stir up radioactive dust from past nuclear tests on the same site. Personally, I fear the next test site will be Iran itself.
June, 2006
On June 19, Forbes characterized Bush’s latest move with this headline:
In the article, we see this:
This rhetoric is eerily reminscent of the rhetoric that led to war in Iraq. I think there is a lot of international pressure on Bush NOT to take physical action in Iran, to give diplomacy a try. But I feel that Bush, with the bunker busting tests, was shaking a physical fist at Iran. And he is a neither a patient man, nor a diplomat. I think the key factor holding them back is simply that the forces are pretty much used up, and they’d have to pull them out of Iraq to get anything going in Iran. So he’s up a creek.
ALL THAT SAID, however, I feel strongly that there will be an incident, maybe in America, maybe in Israel, that will be blamed, rightly or wrongly, on Iran, and that will be used as the excuse for a massive ‘tactical’ strike against suspected nuclear weapons facilities.
I’d love to be wrong re this. But I wanted to be wrong with Iraq. When Congress handed him the power, I knew we were going to war. I marched, protested online and in person, but it was all a done deal.
I have this horrible feeling that Iran is a done deal, before 2008. That Bush really does see toppling Iran’s non-democratic leadership as his ‘mission from God.’ I think he’s nuts, and that it’s the wrong thing, and will unleash more horror into the world.
I guess we’ll find out in “weeks, not months”….
Sorry, Booman. THIS should have been the diary!! 😉
Well, it seems to me that it would require some kind of large scale attack on US interests for there to be any stomach for a sustained bombing campaign on Iran. Bush and Cheney might want to do it, but they can’t even sell it to Senators Lugar and Warner.
So, we’ll see,
And my WORST fear? That the attack will come as an “October Surprise”, just in time to rally the hawks at election time…. That way they’ll have looked like they were giving diplomacy a hand, but that Iran’s attacks forced them into action.
It’s a fear, not a plan. But I think if we talk about such scenarios, we help keep them from becoming plans.
Lisa – Rather than getting sucked into a speculative debate of whether or not an attack is imminent, this (& other) presentation(s) of the pressures towrds war are important to keep in the forefront. Given what we know of BushCo, it’s dangerous to not take their plans & visions seriously.
While oil & gas are part of the picture, I’d add access & control — pipelines & port access being an even greater element than actual ownership. China, Russia & the Central Asian states are forging a trans-Asian, self-sufficient energy nexus that the US finds highly threatening. Iran is a big partner in those plans, & may well eventually be invited to become a full partner in the Shanghai Co-operation Organization (SCO) that just held its meeting.
Michael Klare (professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books) as well as Resource Wars, The New Landscape of Global Conflict) writes:
That last thought is particularly frightening.
The Indians are trying to stay on the US side (& the nuclear deal we offered them is a huge part of this ‘game’), but they’re torn as they are also involved in a pipeline project with Iran, as well as having a large population that wants to been independent of US influence.
The critcism of BushCo from Brzezinski & Kissinger has focused on how the US is losing out in Central Asia.
(fyi, Parry has a great new Syria/Hariri piece up)
Booman — It’d be more useful to have the pressures against a war with Iran to be laid out military, consequences, et al. Who are the actors , here & abroad? What, if anything, can be done to nudge them along?
Frightening indeed. I think this goes to the heart of the matter. Not simply oil reserves, and I don’t even think it’s simply access. It’s also about breaking OPEC’s control on world oil pricing and therefore, production, because OPEC is not subject (entirely) to American interests. There’s an interdependency, to be sure, but there’s enough independence to threaten American interests.
I’ve been reading a book called The End of Oil, which I highly recommend, and I feel the need to quote from his book to give you a similar thesis. (Note: although this segment endeavors to explain why we’re in Iraq, I believe it also explains why we’ll be in Iran at some point. Iran, too, is an OPEC member.) Quoting author Paul Roberts (all typos would be mine):
Similar thesis, I think. (And thanks re Parry – gotta check the new Hariri piece!)
Very similar, yes. We get hemmed in when we talk about THE cause of a war, because of course, there’s more than one factor in play. The one thing to be counted on though, is that whatever the official rationale given (whether for Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam or WW II), it has but a faint relation to the truth.
OT: Does Roberts get into the topic of Venezuelan heavy crude, & the pricing necessary to make it economically viable? I’ve read elsehwere that it’s viable once the barrel price rises above $50, which it’s topped for some time now, making possible a re-evaluation of reserve capacities.
Did you say the other day that your Disc. Ch. show was re-airing today?
I hope you’re right, but having stolen the office of Commander in Chief, if he says to drop bombs on Iran, the Air Force is supposed to say “From what height?”
Personally I hope the Air Force is staffed with generals who aren’t afraid to say “No” when it comes to bombing a country that, once again, is not an imminent threat to us. But I have my doubts.
Maybe somebody can clarify this. I remember that the President can not just decide to use nuclear weapons even in time of war. The Generals have their finger on the Button and have final authority. Or to go nuclear the military have veto power over the executive. Generals were revolting lately. Could that have anything to do with this? Just my two cents of CT.
That would be cool. I’d love a link on that, if anyone can provide. Do the Generals really have the power to intervene a direct order for a nuclear attack? I mean, they could, they’re human, regardless of the law. But if that’s legal, that’s very interesting, and hopeful!
I too thought an attack on Iran was imminent. But now I doubt it. Certainly some people are proceeding as if it will happen. They are recalling servicemen, playing war games on their computers, writing speeches – george thinks whatever he wants to happen will happen.
Somehow they have been oblivious of the approaching tidal wave.
Lisa – you can’t save the whole world – if you try too hard you just become a raving single-issue evangelical.
Alice – I hope you are right. And I was confused at first by your last line, but I think it goes to what Simon said below. Agreed. Being shrill and yelling “the sky is falling” is not likely to be helpful under nearly any situation, unless, of course, the sky really is falling, right now, and there IS somewhere to duck under to avoid being killed! ;D
I’m not so sure. There are circumstances when I can accept the yelling and whining. At some level it can feel like semi-public crying to me. It is better to let it happen. You’ll feel better and stronger afterwards. Maybe by allowing your mind to turn over completely you give yourself a fresh start. I have found myself cyber-holding hands.
Lisa, if I had an answer to the question of how to awaken the masses, I’d awaken them to the fact that we have a pretender to the presidency currently sitting in the Oval Office. I’d awaken them to the fact that two gay guys burning a flag at their wedding is no threat to the United States, but George Bush and his merry cabal of thugs are. There are lots of things I’d awaken them to, and the possibility that the United States is going to attack Iran is only one of them.
It’s going to be a long slog if we can do it at all, and we’ve only just gotten started. Which is a pain, because we don’t have a lot of time. Every day the Greedy Old Party sits in power is another day that we are being looted blind and being sold down the river.
I guess I want to know if other people have had any success. I’ve reached out to people I know, some who aren’t very political, with varying success. Some thank me profusely for giving voice to their own fears. Some say hey, I really don’t want to know, in not quite so many words. Others just don’t respond at all. I don’t push. But I have to try at least once, I feel.
Is awakening even an issue ?
Millions marched against the invasion of Iraq before the fact. Millions more email our congresscritters every week. The right haragnues them over social issues, demanding that they stop ruining the country, and we castigate them for senseless death and shameless tax breaks, demanding that they stop ruining the country.
They don’t care what we think.
They care that lobbyists give them great, steaming piles of money with which they will (successfully) tell us what should frighten us. BOTH parties (and yes, of course the Republicans are worse) ignore the inconvenient issues their constituents care about, and set about convincing us that we HAVE to support them (even though they are ignoring our concerns) because the other party is SO MUCH WORSE.
They care to the extent that we hold them accountable. When accountability is gone, as it seems to be in the current administration, than you are right, and that’s our democracy dying, right there.
I have finally had a chance to read the entire thread.
Lisa, this was an excellent diary. What joy to have you writing here !
Strangely, I am feeling more hopeful. Thank you, thank you, thank you for sharing your work with all of us.
Anything that creates hope is a good thing. Thanks for your comments. I’ve been here before, and it’s always been my preferred place. Who doesn’t want to step up to the big megaphone now and then? But for reasoned debate and thoughtful analysis, and a minimum of snark and off topic postings, this has always been my favorite place. If I get quiet it’s only because I have some writing offline I simply MUST finish. But outrage over some news story will invariably bring me back to the table..!
I really appreciate all the warm comments from the people here. Thanks. I think it takes one to know one, if you know what I mean. You guys are great.
Ask questions first. Are they aware of the nuclear enrichment issue? Any idea if they are politicized or not? and if so, how they lean? The few Persians I’ve encountered have been highly westernized & overall fairly apolitical (though better informed than the typical American). There’s a been a lot of & activity in various parts of the Iranian exile community. Haven’t there been some rallies recently in the LA area?
The royalists still dream of a return of the Pahlavis. & then there is the crazy propaganda campaign by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the political wing of the right-wing terrorist organization, the Mujahideen-e Khalq (People’s Mujahideen or M.E.K.) who bill themselves in the US as democratic reformers. Last Saturday,
This report appears in sf.indymedia of all places! The MEK is the group in Kurdistan that the US decided to leave alone, as they would be helpful in running operations in northern Iran.
Connie Bruck’s New Yorker, article, Exiles: How Iran’s Expatriates are Gaming the Nuclear Threat gives the lowdown on the Rajavis (Massoud, her husband, runs the MEK):
After the invasion of Iraq,
Highly recommend the Bruck article, which no longer seems to up on the New Yorker site, so I linked to a reprint.
I’ll definitely read the article. Thanks, Arcturus. You reminded me too. When I was in Berlin last summer, I saw a group of Iranians protesting something, and found one who spoke some English. He explained he was part of the Democratic opposition to the regime, and that many Iranians were working hard to reform the country from within for fear America would come and reform it from without if they didn’t. They were there raising money for their cause.
Yet another reason to give them some time.
And I’m not certain any country would give up its right to develop nuclear weapons. The whole point of that is deterrence, not usage. That’s why, I think, the US has not used the same level of rhetoric and forcefulness against North Korea.
From what I understand, the major exile groups, including those broadcasting into Iran from the west, have little if any support within the country and little connection with the genuine reform movements within the country. The latter may not be universally applicable.
Engagement — & accepting new global realities — not regime change, should be the goal.
There’s an ng take on Korea’s missile threat & what they might be up to oer at Asia Times.
it seems to me that you might be putting more weight on this situation than it can bear.
by that i mean to say that though it’s a nice example of a general problem, there’s not much real imperative to solving this specific instance. my language is imperfect here, so please bear with me. my point, in part, is to say that one mistake that can be made in such a situation is to focus the general imperative (people need to wake up) onto a specific situation (you people need to wake up about this). bearing the general imperative is what you might call holy work, and you can’t force people into holy work.
another (problematic) way to say that same thing is to note that there’s little to nothing these particular people can actually do. i call this way of saying if problematic because taken as a general rule it easily leads to apathy and hopelessness.
the more comprehensive view says that ‘waking up’ is deeply personal and general at the same time. we wake up to the parts we were born to play, so to speak. in other words: waking up is realizing what part of the general imperative we are capable of bearing.
and, of course, as Morpheus says: there’s a difference between knowing about the path and walking it. which gets back to your question. when you’re asking ‘what can i do?’ you’re asking, what part of the general imperative might i bear?
of course i don’t know the answer to that – but want to caution you that there are ditches on both sides of the way. you can, i mean, try to bear too much as well as too little.
Thanks, Simon. That’s really well said, and to the point.
My most specific reason to alert these people was that I imagine all of them have family back there, and I would want someone to give me a heads up if my country were about to be attacked and I was not aware of it. So yes – I do think getting through to people on the personal level about something specific is easier, and wiser.
Re the larger issue, the general imperative, I guess that’s a lifelong question, in a way. I struggle how to answer that on a daily basis, both for what I should do and what I should try to get others to do…or not.
I guess that’s a lifelong question…
yeah, i get that about you. it’s a profound question that gets into all sorts of paradoxes. most people avoid that question for good reason (a reason similar to avoiding thinking about conspiracies); yet to avoid the question completely is to forfeit our humanity. i think.
what is ‘real history’ but the burden of a genuine imperative? what is fake history but an escape from responsibility? yet, denial can serve a purpose of protecting people from knowledge that they can’t bear. as one writer put it: no one should dare landing on the Holy Planet Purgatory (which is the deep meditation upon the question of conscience) until they are capable of building the rocketship that will take them offworld again.
but how does one know if they are capable of ‘building the rocketship’ (see David Bowie’s The Man Who Fell to Earth)? capacities arise out of crisis. Crisis, as the Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam tells young Paul Atriedes in DUNE, is our test.
so in sum, i don’t have any answers, but i thought you might enjoy this way of conceiving of the issue.
Hi Simon, I’m reading and reading your piece. Something bothers me. Is the level of abstraction too high? Should I just go to bed? The contrast with your line about the crackpot changing the world is remarkable. You seem to not like Apathy and Hopelessness. Sure it may not change the world right away. Crackpots may cause change, for the worst most of the time, but sometimes by accident for the better, like evolution ‘works’. Apathy and Hopelessness come from the other side of the spectrum. They are there because they help us protect deeply held, maybe ancient spiritual values. Apathy and Hopelessness allow you to hold on to privately held convictions, your inner being, convictions that may not mesh at all with the convictions of the masses. Right now there may be no hope you can express those convictions. But is it wrong that you realize there is no Hope you can find a Path out for your inner self? Isn’t it right that you recognize that what you see in yourself shouldn’t be abandoned to conform to the masses? Aren’t you in fact stating that in the end you think the larger community can be enriched (woken up) with your inner ancient wishdom?
yes, that in fact is what i’m stating.
as to why it bothered you: i think it’s because part of you understood and part of you didn’t. so you had to work out the potential value of Apathy and Hopelessness in order to reconcile the part of you that didn’t understand what i’d written with the part of you that did. good work!
i would only add that not all apathy is equal, functionally speaking. there’s a difference, that is, between being of the world but not in it and in the world but not of it. the apathy and hopelessness i was referring to was of the former sort – of the world, but not in it. not falling back to inner values, but simply feeling frustrated, helpless and defeated.
take the case of Bucky Fuller. the epiphany that transformed his life came as he prepared to hurl himself into the East River, having failed at his chosen profession. some people, though, don’t have the epiphany that allows the inner ancient wisdom out. point being that every path has its pitfalls.
i want to leave you with a little quote that i’ve lifted from a friend’s weblog. it’s his welcome message, and i post it not for the beauty of its language (whatever that may or may not be), but for what it refers to:
Simon. I’ll take some time to digest your answer.
Huge marches. No, the marches against the invasion of Iraq didn’t dissuade the Bushistas and Cheneyists from their attack…but we must contend to the last.
People need to realize that if the United States attacks Iran, all hell is going to break loose–and that the people dying when American bombs fall will be innocent men, women, and CHILDREN.
Oh, and it’d be nice if we could get the Congress to actually do its goddamned job and demand that Bush try diplomacy over military action. I’m not a big one for writing to my Congressman or Senators, because in my experience, they tend to respond only to people who have money to offer them…but we have to try. If we don’t try to stop this next phase of the imperialistic war that Bush and Cheney have declared, then the blood is on our hands, too.
“…the people dying when American bombs fall will be innocent men, women, and CHILDREN.”
But, they DESERVE it. Just like the children in Afghanistan and Iraq. If they didn’t want to be bombed, they’d get rid of their crazy, aggressive, WMD wielding, evil leaders, just like…….. never mind.
That’s certainly the reasoning WE use when we bombed Iraq. The people of Iraq didn’t throw out Saddam themselves, and therefore it was our right – no, our duty – to go in and “save” them.
How would you feel if someone said, I could get rid of George Bush (don’t applaud yet), but it will cost you half your family, and your standard of living will plummet. And btw – we’re going to hire people from outside the country to come in and rebuild what we ruin with our bombs?
I mean, as much as I want to get rid of George Bush, I don’t want it to happen THAT way!!
I’d be an insurgent.
And the people for whom we’d have the greatest disdain would be the collaborators.
It’s called the “Reality Gap”–the gap between what the people want and government policy.
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20060121.htm
Chomsky on why the American public often doesn’t know what’s going on:
Chomsky on the role of indoctrination
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051207.htm
I gave a talk in Europe last summer called “The Reality Gap.” Dang, I thought I had invented the term! Good points.
There is something about the mind’s inability to perceive things too far from their consciousness. Sometimes in conversation I’ll just slip something in, and some people will get it and go for it, and other times people will walk right past it, verbally, as if they never saw it. I’m not describing that well. A physical analogy would be – I was starting to tell a friend about the cool flight patterns of pelicans at Santa Monica bay. (They look like dive bombers, flying parallel to the water, in formation, then diving nearly straight down in the water.) His retort – there are no pelicans there, therefore you couldn’t have seen them. It was a bizarre argument, because there are, in fact, pelicans in Santa Monica Bay. (Dolphins too!)
You can’t have an intelligent discussion if you don’t share the same basic reality. For many, the issues I want to discuss are like the Pelicans in Santa Monica bay. You can’t talk about the impact of the Downing Street Memo to those who think Bush was right to take us to war. It’s just not part of their reality.
Not only are there pelicans in Santa Monica Bay, they come up to my boat and open their mouths for me to throw fish in. I’m really good at throwing stuff into the mouths of pelicans….just one of my many talents.
Chomsky, in recent interviews, has actually declared himself an optimist about the future of democracy in America. Chomsky believes that the American people were awakened in the 1950s and 1960s by various popular movements (including the civil rights movement), and once that light goes on, it’s impossible to extinguish.
Chomsky’s example is the Vietnam War v. Iraq War II: it took years for popular resistance to form against the Vietnam War, and only after half a million draftees were despatched by LBJ. Iraq War II protests drew millions of people into the streets before Bush even started the invasion, and despite the relatively lower loss of life in Iraq II v. Vietnam (2500 thus far v. 56,000+ for Vietnam), the general public have already turned against Iraq II.
I was lamenting the lack of leaders like MLK and RFK t one of my friends and his response was very interesting: Those men did their jobs. They awakened us, so that now, in a way, all of us are MLK and RFK. That’s why we don’t see as many national leaders–because we don’t need people to stir us up. We’re already stirred up!
That’s not to say that “all is well” or that “all will be well” if we just wait long enough. Nothing great is achieved except through faith and hard work, and hard work accounts for 99% of that!
And yes, we do need leaders–not a “knight on a white horse” but somebody who will speak with us and for us.
Pretty sure the term Chomsky uses is democratic deficit. Has alliteration, yanno? So you can claim reality gap 🙂
As MWAC notes, NC does find hopeful features in today’s cultrual landscape. But don’t forget he also believes we’re living in a defacto failed state, whose 3 defining characteristics are: 1) An inability to protect its citizens. 2) The belief that it is above the law. 3) A lack of democracy. Check, check, check. Checkmate.
Funny about the pelicans. I’ve gone on & on before about the coastal ones’ more elegant cousins, the white pelicans of Nevada & the Great Basin. To watch a flock circling in air as they take off or land at Pyramid Lake, white bodies glistening in the hot sun, black wing tips flashing in & out of sight, the whole flock turning in perfect formation — it’s to experience the meaning of grace. Pelicans in the desert? An absurd notion to the un-informed.
Just as George thought the notion absurd when a European reporter asked him yesterday what he thought about polls showing many in the world believe the USA to be the major threat to world peace. Un-informed. Theater of the Absurd.
Most people make decisions based on emotion and desire to believe. Rational thought, fact based analysis, sadly, have far less to do with the behavior of the public mind than they should.
Compliance-inducing professionals, con-men and propagandists of all stripes understand this. They know that if you can get someone to react and respond on an emotional level to stimuli, that that person becomes far more vuilnerable to the kinds of control exercised by those who manipulate public opinion.
This weaponization of ignorance is the fundamental rubric at the very core of the Bush regime’s cultlike popwer over the public mind. They’ve tricked people into first being afraid, then believeing that Bushco has the remedy for that fear. By doing this they’ve tricked (a vast segment of) the public into wanting to believe BushCo are good guys who mean well and that it’s important to keep supporting them else we’ll all be behaeaded by those murderous infidels.
How else to explain how a country such as ours can regard the Imbecile in Chief and the minions that surround him with any respect or credibility at all.
If I were to launch an effort to get people tosee through the charade, I would start out by seeking ways to get across the fundamental point that knowing the truth will always serve you better than continuing to believe in things untrue just because you want to believe in them. And that this is true even when the truth is uncomfortable to bear.
Think of the parent unwilling to accept the reality that what their child is telling them about being molested by the parish priest is true. How is that parent served by clinging to their denial that a priest could do such a thing? Their child suffers more and the priest gets to perpetrate more molestation. This is a perfect example for explaining the perils of wishful thinking and the tragic consequences of denial.
I’m firmly convinced that the masses in fact could care less no matter how many polls or studies are done as long as it doesn’t interfere with their personal comfort level at any point.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might as well be a television series. Who can explain the government in America today? Who really cares as long as the comfort level meter doesn’t move from day to day.
Americans are too self absorbed with the pettiness of daily life. Most have been conditioned to not make waves by being a team player. Individual decision making is frowned upon and punished. The group think and decision is promoted so that no one person stands out from the crowd.
Taking a strong stand on any subject in this group think and decision making environment is the fastest way to be ejected from any discussion and dismissed as sour grapes, disgruntled or just plain crazy.
Anything at odds with official reality that passes for being an informed person results in a loss of that individuals credibility within the group think.
America is now all about maintain an illusion of reality at any cost that supports the mass comfort level.
The masses don’t want to wake up because as long as none of what is happening in the rest of the world fails to directly impact their daily comfort level it will be ignored as unimportant and insignificant.
The only way the masses will stir is when the mass comfort level is disturbed across the board. Gas prices are a perfect example. If the price of gas was to drop to under $2.00 at the pump the masses would not even care about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Mac-Attitude and memory of the general public is so short it is now measured in hours not days, weeks, months or years.
Waking up the masses is an exercise in how to fail incredible fast. Americans like their comfort level to remain the same from day to day. As long as it does the masses will stay asleep, uninformed and oblivious to the changes which will affect them later on down the road.
It’s depressing so lets not talk about it, Ok?
I don’t think masses of people are converted quickly, other than by shocking events, and perhaps not even then. Very few individuals can take on such an enormous task as a whole, but we can talk to each person who gives us an opening. For me it has been and is a struggle to talk and listen and reason, not just argue or lecture or tell people how they are wrong.
Openings are there through trust, kinship, friendship, moments of vulnerability, or just being in the same place at the same time.
I’m thinking of the tiny girl I saw this past weekend, wearing a Code Pink t-shirt! That was a great moment. The person I was with thought it was a “Thank heaven for little girls” sort of t-shirt. It set off an interesting exchange about war, peace, commercial vs. political messages, many other important topics. Perhaps I would have been prepared otherwise, but Damnit Janet bears more than a little kudos for what happened.
I think we have to be prepared for those moments as they come. But that’s it. Knowledge, being ready for the moment, and in some cases, creating it.
Nice diary.
I am definitely frightened by what I view as the real possibility that we may indeed be bombing Iran this summer, or within the year.
I predicted, about three years ago, that the U.S. would go along in Iraq, losing about 1-3 soldiers per day, on average. Until we decided it was time to leave. So I’m feeling like I’ve got some horse-sense on military issues. (At least more horse-sense than anyone currently in office). And I think it comes from starting to see through the mainstream press reports of things.
I’ve noticed in the past few months that there are a number of stories cropping up on the front pages (or the broadcast leads) that tend to demonize Iran, or the Iranian people. These stories seem to come out of nowhere. And they frequently retreat as rapidly as they come. This is just my sense. Things like — Iranian President denies holocaust again. Iranian President unable to attend World Cup in Germany. Iranian government issuing Jews and Christians yellow stars for identification (later retracted). And it just seems clear to me that these stories have a clear design. To paint the picture of a dangerous enemy.
What I don’t see in the American press is any detailed analysis of international law as it relates to the U.S. v. Iran dispute. I assume this is because there is a very strong factual case to be made that Iran has in no way breached its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and that there is a fairly strong case to be made that the U.S. has breached its own obligations under the same treaty. From the standpoint of international law, the question really ought to be, what right whatsoever does the U.S. have to be sabre rattling, let alone bombing, another country? But our media has shifted the debate again to, how fearful should we be of Iran?
It is the same things that happened in the run-up to the war in Iraq, really. Much of the world debated, and still debates, the illegallity of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There is a very strong case to be made that our actions were clear violations of international law (see Phillipe Sands, Lawless World). But the U.S. population has never even had this debate. Our media just really didn’t cover it much. Not a central question. Our questions about was their WMD or was their a connection to al Qaeda. Not really dispositive of the question about whether an invasion was legal. I mean, with solid evidence of such things, and the proper procedures being followed, there is a chance a legitimate war might have been waged with UN authorization. But we never even got to that debate. Even now.
I’m very hopeful that at some point in the future, members of the Blair government, and members of the Bush administration, including the heads of these governments, will face a world tribunal to answer for these war crimes. A tribunal far more fair than the one that has been afforded Sadaam.
But it is absolutely ridiculous how easily manipulated the American public is. It is no wonder to me that Pew polls show the U.S. to be the most feared nation on earth. We are absolutely flipping insane. We are like the whack job who got laid off and is headed back to the office with a gun. And the rest of the world is diving under desks.
Wow. Just after reading your post, I got an email from the Discovery Channel touting these specials. Is the linkage coincidental? Probably. But after reading this, of course, I wondered.
What would a war against Iran look like? Suppose we bomb Iran (this is what everyone seems to assume would happen). Would we knock out everything as we did in Iraq in preparation for an invasion?
Or would we just try to intimidate them with selected strikes (as we did in Iraq with the no fly zones)?
The military always favors the first option, they don’t want any resistance when the invade. After we bomb are we going to invade? Where would we get the troops and materiel, are we going to shift them for Iraq or Afghanistan? Would those countries now getting their oil from Iran stand by while the supply was cut? What would happen to world oil prices and availability if Iran’s capacity was compromised?
Perhaps bombing their “nuclear” facilities would be all that was attempted. This is what Israel did with the Iraqi reactor. Even if parts of the program were left untouched the psychological effect might be enough to change the dynamics.
What we seem to have now is two mentally disturbed groups of leaders, those in the US and those in Iran who are engaged in a game of chicken. Self delusion is such cases usually leads to catastrophe – Iraq is the most recent example, but look at Hitler’s invasion of Russia for a more classic example.
An attack on Iran:
The United States enjoys both naval and air supremacy over Iran by a wide margin, so Bush can do all of these things if he really wants.
Bush can “win” against Iran in the short run, but in the long run, the blowback will mean that the United States will LOSE.
The blowback will include:
I’ve been expecting an attack on Iran for some time, and it hasn’t come. Perhaps Bush and Cheney really have had their hands tied in this matter by their financial backers, who are the ones really calling the shots (aka the oil conglomerates that have profited so much during the Bush-Cheney years). I think the oil conglomerates have figured out that a regular supply of expensive petroleum is far more profitable to them in both the short-term and long-term than risking a disruption of Middle Eastern petroleum that might drive Americans to actually start conserving fuel by driving smaller vehicles and turning to alternative fuels, such as E-85 ethanol.
Note: Brazil has reduced its petroleum imports to virtually zero in the past 15 years by converting all of its vehicles to E-85, which is a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. The ethanol is derived from a readily renewable source, sugar cane stalks, and has a far higher energy return ratio than the corn-based ethanol that is produced in the United States. Plants that use native switchgrass rather than corn for their ethanol source are being started in the United States, and the energy return ratio means that the price per gallon of ethanol is $1.85 a gallon, versus about $3 a gallon for gasoline. It’s been estimated that the Great Plains states like Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and other states, not to mention the central Canadian provinces, could produce enough switchgrass-based ethanol not only to wean America entirely from importing petroleum, but would make the US a net EXPORTER of fuel.
Of course, that would completely screw Bush and Cheney’s oil company buddies, not to mention the repressive Islamic regimes they back in the Middle East, so forget about it.
Two comments:
1-How to awaken the masses?
Imminent and real danger.
Of death, of starvation, of homelessness, of financial ruin.
That’s it.
Sorry.
If they were awake…they would not be “masses”.
They can be MOBILIZED…an entirely different concept…by appeals to that fear or by appeals to their continuing desire for comfort and slumber, but for that you need control over an effective mass propaganda system.
Sound familiar?
It is THE MEDIA that are the crux of the matter, here.
Change the media and you change the masses.
Do NOT do so, and you must wait for the disaster.
2-I do not believe that BushCo believes that they can currently open another front in this war. Their propaganda machine is highly stressed simply with maintaining the Iraq fiction and simultaneously covering up the utter incompetence and criminality of the Republican system as it now stands; rising prices are making “the masses” restive…they DO awaken once in a while, you know…and frankly, I am not sure that the leaders of the armed forces would OBEY such an order. I AM sure that most of them would resist it in any way that they could. Right up to another JFK-like coup.
The wild hair in all of this?
The ONE way that they could get away with such an act?
“Terrorism.”
Watch.
All it would take would be one terrorist attack.
Real OR false. Because there really is no difference in terms of spin.
We shall see…
AG
Mass Psychology:
If the powers that be can hypnotize the masses by applying mass psychology can we hope to overcome evil eventually by choosing honesty and truth as our weapons?
This is Richard M. Dolan about Conspiracy Theories in the same article
Deeper down in the article the idea of a ‘conspiracy’ is wrapped up
At the end of the piece this, in conspirational spirit