2002: Fuzzy Navel Gazing

   This is from the Institute for Propaganda Analysis:

TRADEMARKS OF NEGATIVE HIERARCHY CONTROL SYSTEMS

·         Influence toward differentiation, multiplication of detail, overwhelming splitting and fragmentation.  Note: This is precisely the datum of the Prussian educational system imported to the US from Germany.

·         Subversion of noble goals, ideals, and institutions.

·         Stress on goods and services as all-sufficient for humanity.

·         Perversion of cultural life so that nothing is deemed worthwhile unless it provides sustenance.

·         Stresses nationalism as the great divider of humanity.

·         Denial of anything beyond mechanistic thought.

·         Dead scientific concepts and dead education, characterized by rote learning and ridgification of natural biological processes.

·         Tedium in life, as exemplified by the endless stream of “toys for adults” modes of living.

·         Obsession with mechanistic reductionism and measurement.

·         Promotion of ceaseless strife by creating opposing sides who do not realize that they have been set up by others.  Note: example – 1990 Delta Force creation of Bosnia conflict.

·         Obsession with identification of population and absolute control.

It is possible, through tracing the above intentions, to locate and identify the organizations who are perpetrators of planetary suppression.

          Well, I don’t know about you, but it sure seems to me that the author is simply pushing their agenda, which is against reductionism and mechanized modes of behaviour and thought, very much against the concept of goods being the end all for humanity (3 of the points address this, when one would have sufficed), “living” science and education (whatever that means), the promotion of “noble” institutions, goals, and ideals (whatever that means), energetic living, and a few other, rather fuzzy points.

          In short, the author and I might be considered “fellow travelers” except that this list really doesn’t live up to its title.  What is should have been called was “I Hate Western Civilization and the US in Particular and Here’s Why.”  But instead it purports to enable us to identify who is responsible for “planetary suppression.”  Suppression of what or whom?  IS there planetary suppression?  Or are we all humans trying to make things work – some for our own advantage and some for the “greater good” (whatever that means).  I think Riane Eilser’s dominator/partnership model fits human reality much better than any other opposed poles system.

          This sort of thing annoys me to no end.  Snake oil salespersons became quite clever in the 20^th century – they changed tactics and now, instead of hawking feel good shucks, they sell us our worst fears, but it is still worthless garbage and even poison.  These people have no solutions, just a belly full of anger that they aren’t the ones in charge.

          Let us look at each of these 11 points.

          First there is the title, which purports to be a comprehensive and scientific document, except the use of the word “negative” tips us off.  This word is never defined; we must discern what “negative” means by reading the list.

          The first point – I am not sure what is meant by “influence of differentiation,” but the other points are clear and I agree with them.

          The second point is utterly worthless, since we have no idea what a “noble” goal, etc. is.  I guess the author means “subversion of things that I think are noble.”

          The third point is where we start to see the bias come out.  Who says that stress on material goods is indicative of “Negative Hierarchy Control Systems” worldwide?  It sure is in the US though, and that is who the author’s beef is with.  But it wasn’t the case with Mao, nor with Hitler – they were selling ideologies.  Material goods were obviously part of the picture, but were not “stressed.”  Maybe they weren’t “negative” control systems then.  Hmmm, so who is?

          The fourth point is sloppy and reiterates the third point.  What exactly constitutes “perversion” anyway?

          The fifth point is confusing.  Is the author saying that these negative systems stress nationalism, which is a divider of humanity, or is the author saying that negative systems say that nationalism is a great divider when it really is not?  So what does a “positive” system do – is it anti-nationalism, or is it for nationalism, which has been unjustly accused of being a dividing factor?

          The sixth point I have yet to see in practice anywhere in the world or in history.

          The seventh point I agree with the rote learning bit, but what system rigidifies biological systems?  Does the author mean the way we think about biological systems?  And how does one arrive at the conclusion that a science or education is “dead.”  What are the criteria?

          The eighth point talks of tedium of life, and I would agree that this is a control method, though it can backfire.  But then ANOTHER reference to mindless consumerism.  Is this a communist writing this?  But surely all communist systems to date fall squarely within these “definitions.”

          Next we have mechanistic thought and measurement – which I do not see a necessarily negative or used for control always.  After all, this sort of thing has brought us indoor plumbing and cinemas and remote controls.  Perhaps the key is the word “obsession” but how does one determine whether an institution is “obsessed” with mechanistic thought?  Does the author mean scientists?  Has the author bought into the whole “noble savage” thing, advocating a return to some ideal state of pre-technological nature?  Is the author Amish?

          Next there is the ceaseless strife point, which I agree with, and the method of setting people against each other, which I also agree happens.  I do note, however, that of the two example given, both relate to the US.  Clearly, the author identifies the US as a NHCS, but I fail to see this list applicable anywhere else.

          Lastly, the identification issue, which I agree with.

          I don’t know – maybe you all out there are operating from the same contextual assumptions as the author and so are not as confused as to what exactly s/he is talking about.  If so, drop me a line and enlighten me.  Until then, I shall consider this shoddy and sloppy at best, and almost a total waste of time.