Maintain the Illusions

I recently finished the book Empire of Illusion by Chris Hedges. It's a decently written book in which Hedges manages to mix mature writing style without sacrificing accessibility to the average reader. And, at under 200 pages, it's a quick read. The basic premise of the book, as the back cover states, is that "A culture that cannot distinguish between reality and illusion dies." In five sections, the illusions of literacy, love, wisdom, happiness, and the illusion of America itself, Hedges illustrates how spectacle and superficial but catchy sound-bites have essentially taken over from more in-depth reading and understanding of issues. As the population gets less and less literate and chases more and more after entertainment and celebrity-ism, the powerful and wealthy people who control most of the economies of the globe are able to promote their agenda through political processes without much thought of objection by the voters. This initially sounds like some sort of tired and recycled conspiracy theory about how the Illuminati are controlling everything behind the scenes, but it is anything but that. It is a careful examination of how powerful entities, most notably corporations, are exerting their influence in a more and more consolidated manner to achieve their agenda of profit at all costs (no pun intended). Anyone who follows politics at a thoughtful level recognizes that no political party or successful politician is actually serving the people anymore. Politicians, especially in America where it takes enormous amounts of money to get elected, are already sold out to corporate interests before they ever get elected. They are fully owned, and not by the voters who think they put them in office. No decision the politicians make is ever based on what is only best for the population or the society, but always considers the wishes of for-profit corporations whose interests are pushed through by lobbyists. The political aspect of the book is only one component, but perhaps the most important one. Hedges also discusses how television has evolved from a genuine information source to nothing other than entertainment. Particularly in the past 15 years, with the advent of reality television, entertainment has taken over in an especially appealing way for the average citizen. The average person in America has very little in terms of success or meaning in their life (so goes Hedges' thesis), and therefore it is very successful to sell people a story that their life may amount to something. They are a celebrity themselves just waiting to be discovered. This is the appeal of reality television. Rather than watching sports and dreaming about how you could have been that successful athlete, you can now watch reality television shows and watch everyday, flawed people who really are just like you, and think that you might be the next star on TV. This illusion fills a void in one's life and hides the reality that we are not special, and that one day we will all die with most of us never really amounting to anything worthy of remembrance.

I felt that I could really relate to Chris Hedges' thesis in this book. I'm always looking for over-arching themes to society and human behaviour, and I would suggest that Hedges has found one. The replacement of reality with illusion is very, very appealing to humans (as religion has shown over millennia). This overwhelming temptation to accept illusion over reality is entertaining and temporarily satisfying, but of course it leads to a depressing, unfulfilled life. And worse, it leads to a disengaged, disillusioned, apathetic population. Hedges conclusion is that American society is inevitably headed towards a "reverse totalitarianism" based on extreme corporatism, and I am inclined to agree with him. Every citizen in America will one day be monitored in every aspect of their lives by corporations in bed with government.

With the theme of his book in my mind, I watched a short clip this morning of Kevin O'Leary sharing his opinion on the news that the wealthiest 85 people in the world now have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people in the world. Here is what Mr. O'Leary had to say:

I think anyone who isn't a billionaire (in other words 99.9998% of the world population) understands how inherently ignorant and insulting this statement is. O'Leary's main point is that everyone who isn't extremely wealthy (part of the 1%) is simply not working hard enough. When I was in my 20s and 30s I regularly worked 75 - 80 hours a week. Here I am still not party of the 1% (not even close). I'm sure many readers can relate. As Amanda Lang points out in the video, the poorest people in the world don't even have socks to pull up and get to work and it is ludicrous to suggest that if they only worked harder they too could be the next Bill Gates.

But more importantly than the ignorance that O'Leary spouts is the way in which he does so. As Hedges writes in his book, the media and television are simply entertainment now. Sound bites rule. Celebrity broadcasters or celebrity guests (such as O'Leary) spew out the illusion that the public wants to hear. Despite the fact that most of us are not filthy rich, and despite the fact that we inherently know that working harder is not going to turn us all into billionaires, there is comfort in that illusion. There is comfort in knowing that, hypothetically at least, we too could become wealthy beyond measure. This illusion is maintained by not allowing any proper discussion on the issue. An educated host who was given equal time to discuss the issue would easily pick apart O'Leary's ridiculous assertion. But note what O'Leary has been trained to do: to cut people off and just repeat his sound bite. There is no depth of thought, no attempt to actually understand the opposing point of view. The illusion is spewed out, never given time for analysis, and then the television moves forward before the audience really has time to think about things. Repeat the message every day over and over and people who should see the idiocy of such an illusion start to accept it. Worst of all, whether someone like O'Leary realizes this or not, the main power brokers who want this illusion maintained certainly know the falsehood of the message. However, they want the illusion maintained because their wealth accumulation requires it. The huge lie that working harder will make everyone rich is based on the fact that the super-wealthy need the majority of the population to be kept in poverty in order to facilitate their own enrichment. For example, where is the cheap labour for a corporation going to come from if every Bangladeshi in a sweat shop only worked hard enough to lift themselves up to the status of billionaire?

While I really enjoyed Hedges' book, my main objection is the ending. He spends a couple of pages at the end suggesting that human love eventually overcomes evil in this world. That, even in the death camps of World War II, a bit of love here and there was still noted. I find this to be a feeble sort of roll-over defeatism conclusion to the book. Instead of love, I suggest education. Education is the only solution to preventing (or reversing) the perpetual illusion believed by the majority of the population. Sadly, the powers that be have long ago also recognized that fact and gutted the educational system. The last thing the powerful want is an educated and enlightened population capable of critical thought.

Fortunately, however, while they may control things like funding to formal education, they can't control your decision to turn off your TV and go read a book or engage in some meaningful and respectful discussion with someone about relevant issues.

Love Your Neighbour As Yourself...The Downside

The Golden Rule. Treat others as you want to be treated. Love your nieghbour as you love yourself. Some form of this rule seems to be understood and encouraged in many different societies. It is often attributed to Christianity, as though Jesus was the first person to think of it (but that's a topic for another post). It is heralded by many Christians as a sort of trump rule that overrules much of the nastiness in the Bible. Don't worry about all the Old Testament, the New Testament and its Golden Rule are all that really matter. How could anyone disagree with that?

I recently watched a video showing a discussion between Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher on religion. The video can be found here:

Now, I would hope and assume that anyone who has gotten as far as this point in having a desire to read my blog is already rolling their eyes at the inclusion of Bill O'Reilly as an embedded video. The man is incapable of disusssion, his idea of a conversation is to cut off the other person whenever they even begin to say something he might disagree with (or more likely when they say something that might legitimately challenge his own position) and speak loudly and immediately change the topic. Whether one agrees with anything he says or not is irrelevant, he is the anti-thesis of intellectual debate in which each party is given time to be heard and must back up their position rationally. However, this video does have some relevance to what I want to say about the Golden Rule. O'Reilly, at about the 3:15 - 3:30 mark of the video, promotes the "love your neighbour as you love youself" philosophy, and states that he doesn't see the downside of that. Bill Maher sort of agrees with a vague "right", but his disagreement seems to be other issues. My disagreement is with that very point: the downside of the Golden Rule.

At first the Golden Rule seems fair enough. Who wouldn't want to live in a considerate society in which people care for each other and treat each other with genuine respect? A society in which people are treated the way they want to be treated? Yet, there are major problems with the Golden Rule.

Firstly, and most obviously, how does one know that others want to be treated the same way as you do? Maybe someone I know is into some seriously devious behaviours that I find repugnant and distasteful. My assumptions that they want to be treated the same way I do is simply self-absorbed and narcissistic.

Secondly, there is the whole "he started it" routine. Children, when asked to show respect to another child, very often respond with "he started it", as a justification for their anti-social behaviour. Bill O'Reilly, I'm sure, would even extend the Golden Rule to foreign policy. Don't fly airplanes into our buildings because that's not what you would like done to you. This simple minded approach, completely fails to notice that, in the minds of terrorists who flew planes into buildings, they were acting out of revenge for a similar act against them. America started it, the terrorists would argue, by bombing and invading us to begin with. You started it, Bill O'Reilly would argue, by committing acts of terrorism that forced us to invade you so we could protect ourselves and our way of life. Like two children who both claim the other one started it, there is no peaceful solution to this approach. The Golden Rule fails massively on this account.

Thirdly, there is the problem of legislated morality. Many fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. would love nothing more than to base the country's laws on the Bible (or at least their interpretation of its laws) and to "bring back" morality to the nation. What better law that the Golden Rule if you want to base laws on the Christian message? But, how do you enforce the Golden Rule legally? Anytime you're convicted of a crime, your immediate and justifiable defence is: "Well, I would have liked it if someone did that to me, so I was treating him as I would want to be treated." You can't legislate morality. Basing a country's laws on the notion that people should just be "nice" to each other isn't going to work at all. The only thing that keeps a civil society civil is the legislation that binds us all to very specific behaviours with predictable consequences when they are not adhered to. As a nation progresses, these laws have to be modifed and interpreted as people push the boundaries. Something as simple as the law to not murder someone can become incredibly complex when you try to define murder in the context of self-defence versus premeditation versus accidental manslaughter, et cetera.

In this particular instance, in reference to Bill O'Reilly, one could hardly think of a man who doesn't put his claimed Golden Rule into action more than Mr. O'Reilly. He shouts at his guests, cuts their microphones, bullies them, cuts them off mid-sentence, ridicules them. Is that how you want to be treated? Is that how anyone wants to be treated? No, O'Reilly is just a primitive primate who likes to claim the Golden Rule as some sort of fake trump card in promotion of a softer version of his monstrous and ignorant religious views, but which he need never actually put into practice. Like a child, he is the first to point out when someone else has violated his version of the Golden Rule, all the while never abiding to it himself.

The Golden Rule fails every time. I don't know why anyone even bothers trying to pretend that it holds any value whatsoever.