Humanarchy, Chapter 2 - Belief and Fear, Part 2
|...continued, from Part 1 of
CHAPTER TWO – Belief and Fear
Part Two of CHAPTER TWO – Belief and Fear
The Teeming Hordes
|The third part of the Unholy Trinity is the most feared because it
concerns the most personal and fundamental aspect of our individual lives.
Just like every other living thing upon the face of the Earth we are born
with one purpose hard wired into our bodies and our minds. We are born to
For most of the time human beings have been around, the Earth’s population
was fairly stable – that is births and deaths were almost perfectly in
balance. It may be argued that any species, living in harmony with its
environment, would exhibit a similar stability. However, after the invention
of agriculture, the world’s population began to increase rapidly. Right now,
we are told, there are almost 6 billion of us and the world’s population now
doubles every forty years. Put simply, this means that there are around
240,000 more people being born each day than are dying.
None other than the late, but highly esteemed, Jaques Cousteau wrote in a
The United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment, seems to agree with him
and informs us:
It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be
stabilised and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This
is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the
general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.
Given that most of the world’s population would almost certainly aspire to
an "American material standard of living," that means there are presently
around 5 billion too many of us kicking around this third rock from the sun.
Clearly, dealing with this problem now will be far cheaper and much more
humane than in the future. So, now the United Nations is engaged in a long
term drive to stop the population increase by eliminating poverty, with safe
and effective birth control widely available and by formulating strategies
that transfer real political power to women.
...an agricultural world, in which most human beings are
peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people...a reasonable
estimate for an industrialised world society at the present North
American material standard of living would be one billion. At the more
frugal European standard of living, 2 - 3 billion would be possible.
But hang on there just a minute – doesn't giving power to one half of
humanity (female) mean that that the other half (male) will have to lose
power? The answer is undoubtedly yes. The feminisation of society is already
well under way and will increase dramatically in the new ‘Century Of Women’.
Legislation is underway to enforce all governments to ensure that all women
have ‘equal’ access to property and wealth and must be free to live
untouched by warfare or violence.
These strategies – ostensibly to enhance women’s ‘rights’ are being applied
zealously through our individual nations governments. Strange, when you
consider that the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand are
countries that have practically negative population growth, yet in these
nations the destruction of families is rampant, the injustices and punitive
measures against males are the most harsh and that women are the wealthiest,
healthiest and most cosseted on the entire planet.
Strange also that the United Nations originally championed ‘human rights’
that applied to all human beings – as clearly human beings are both male and
female. But the UN has progressively elevated ‘human rights’ for women and
‘The Girl Child’ to the degree that they have now been redefined as superior
to those of males. Consequently, we must assume that the male of our species
is now defined as sub-human.
If we were looking at such an explosion of numbers among any species on this
planet it would naturally cause us deep concern. Surely, no possible
increase in food supply can cope with this? There are just too many of us.
Surely, unless the population explosion is slowed down we are headed for a
global catastrophe even if global warming and toxic emissions can be
But don’t panic! The fact is that the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is actually
declining world wide. A TFR of 2.1 is generally accepted as population
stability or Zero Population Growth. In developing countries, where we are
told things are really desperate, the TFR shows a 45-year decline, down from
6.1 in 1950, to 3.9 at the present. In the developed countries, the rate is
below zero growth. In America, the rate is 2.0; in Europe, 1.6; in Japan,
1.5; in Spain and Italy, the rate is 1.3.
Good news – but even if a small fraction of humanity still continues to
reproduce at its current rates the situation is essentially the same – the
world’s population will increase overall at an alarming rate – even if many
nations are in ZPG. Time to panic again? No, not yet. The trends indicate
that though the populations of some Asian countries, Africa and Latin
America will continue to grow for some decades, the rest of the world will
soon be in demographic decline. Additionally, there is a well known
correlation between poverty and high birth rates. In almost all countries,
whether they be capitalist, communist, Catholic, Muslim, eastern or western,
population growth slows down or stops when grinding poverty disappears.
This is called demographic transition. This is why helping countries to
become self sufficient is not just decent – it is vital. So, one of the
central issues in the world population crisis is poverty. But, there are
exceptions to this. Some wealthy nations still have high birth rates. But in
them, contraceptives are sparsely available and women lack any real
political power. See where we are headed? In forty years time, if the
doubling stays constant there will be 12 billion of us, in a hundred and
twenty years 48 billion. There is no way the Earth can support that many –
The idea that population growth has exceeded the earth's capacity was first
exploited by Malthus (1766 - 1834), and has resurfaced every now and again –
especially when there is a political advantage to scaring the shit out of
the human herd. For example, in 1968 Paul Ehrlich spelled out the
devastating consequences of overpopulation. He also suggested a solution to
the problem – a government that would imposed severe population control
measures to save the planet.
Heavy stuff – but let’s hear it from another perspective. The Agricultural
Economic Institute at Oxford University, who presumably ought to know what
they are talking about, conducted studies that showed that by utilising the
"best methods," 35.1 billion people could be fed to the standards of an
average American diet. Not only that, but Colin Clark, the former director
of the AEI, estimated that no more than half the land area would be used for
The Population Research Institute gave this simple illustration. They
calculate that if you divide the present global population by the 262,000
square miles of the State of Texas, the entire human race would fit nicely
into it, with the average family of four having the amount of space
approximately the size of an urban building lot. Well, that’s a comforting
thought – unless you happen to live in Texas already, that is.
So what the hell is going on here? This is scary stuff. Who do we believe –
the scientists who tell us there is no need to panic, things are actually
getting better and the population in coming down – or those who predict
global catastrophe and want to kill off 5 billion of us? Of course, it’s
possible that both sides are lying to us – but which one – and why? You know
it’s a frightening thought – but what if they are both telling us the
TRINITY OF THE ECO-CREED
WE HAVE WAYS OF MAKING YOU THINK
There is no such thing at this date of the world's history,
in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions and
if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.
I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I
am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for
similar things and any of you who would be so foolish as to write
honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.
If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper,
before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of a journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright;
to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon and to sell his
country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it
and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the
tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping
jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our
possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We
are intellectual prostitutes.
— John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff of the
New York Times,
called by his peers, "The Dean of his profession,"
when asked to give a toast before the NY Press Club in 1953
|Before the First World War, there only 125,000 radio receiving sets in
the entire U.S.A. Radio was seen as a enthusiasts hobby rather than a
means of mass entertainment but by 1937, 27.5 million American families
had radios – a larger percentage than had telephones, automobiles,
plumbing, or even electricity!
Such wide access to the ears, hearts and minds of so many Americans was
too good to miss – especially to advertisers desperate to sell their
products. It was American radio that gave birth to the ‘soap opera’ –
short dramas serials with comforting homespun themes liberally laced
with the ‘message from our sponsor’ – usually an entreaty to the
housewife to buy a particular brand of soap powder.
The new media attracted the attentions of more than just the advertising
industry though. In 1937 the Rockefeller Foundation funded several
universities to investigate the social affects of this new form of mass
entertainment. They headquartered the study – popularly known as "the
Radio Project." – at the School of Public and International Affairs at
Princeton University. It’s true purpose was to test the thesis that the
overall effect of the mass media could be used to ‘atomize and increase
lability’ – in other words ‘brainwash’ people.
In 1939, the ‘Radio Project’ actually published some of its findings in
the Journal of Applied Psychology. They announced that the American
public had become what they termed ‘radio minded’ and that repetition of
format was the ‘key to popularity.’ Repetition of almost any content
would invariably make it acceptable – something that most of us who have
grown up in an age where we have been constantly bombarded with the
strategies of the Radio project, on TV, in advertising, music and movies
do not even give a second thought to. It was also found that rigid,
recurring themes were very successful at shaping the minds of the masses
– the characters, the period, the details may change, but the same basic
story is the same.
We have become accepting of having our minds made up for us by somebody
else. We don’t even notice it, but we are constantly having our opinions
formed on all kinds of issues. Selling us soap powder, a car, a hit song
or a movie is relatively harmless (as long as you think that having you
mind controlled by someone else to get at your money is
harmless) – but the power of the press can be used to deliberately lead
people astray, and to make them believe whatever propagandists want them
to believe. When it comes to swaying your opinions politically, things
can take on a more sinister aspect.
One of the shrewdest ways for human predators to conquer
their stronger victims is to steadily convince them with propaganda
that they're still free...'
— Dr. N.A. Scott
"All Germany hears the Führer with the folks' radio
|When Adolf Hitler took power in Germany he well understood the power
of the media, and he used it to shape a modern, civilised industrial
nation to his ends. With full control of the national press, his
propaganda minister Paul Josef Goebbels developed sophisticated and very
effective tools of propaganda to control public opinion in Germany, and
even in other countries. He infamously proved that if you repeat a lie
often enough in the mass media, most people would accept it as the
truth. We should remember also what was achieved with the relatively
primitive methods and limited media components of the day – the radio,
the cinema and the printed word. Today, the skills and techniques of
advertising and propaganda have been honed to perfection. Lying to the
public to control their actions and their thoughts is now an extremely
Indeed, such is the subtle nature of propaganda that we fail to
understand its significance and its power – unlike those who disseminate
it – who are fully aware of how effective and necessary it can be in
keeping the human herd moving along. Today,some advertising agencies
have bigger budgets and more actual power than Goebbels did – imagine
what a government could do with such power. Yet we totally ignore the
fact that our freedom of thought is manipulated. If our bodies were
being poisoned by radiation or chemicals there would be hell to pay –
but our minds? That’s OK, we allow anyone to come right in and do what
ever they please with them.
We may think that advertising agencies use their power only to sell us
commercial goods, but they also plan election campaigns for politicians,
and manipulate our perception of governments. Politicians may pretend
that their advertising managers have no political power, but it's
obvious that the man who controls the election also controls the
politician. In this day and age, where huge national and multi-national
corporations are more powerful than governments, we should be even more
aware that we are being lied to – but no – the line between fiction and
reality is so blurred in our minds we let it all wash over us – and
what’s worse – we allow an unhealthy amount of it to sink in.
There are some advertising practises that are supposed to be illegal,
subliminal advertising on movies and TV, for example, but the limits are
not enforceable. Advertising is a multi-billion dollar business and
advertising agencies have millions of dollars a year to fund research,
naturally they have good reasons to keep their techniques secret. You
can bet that there plenty of other, more underhand techniques that we
don't know about.
Most of the things that are advertised are actually things that we do
not need and do not want – therefore advertisers have to create that
need. One way is to make people unhappy with what they already have by
bringing out new ‘superior’ models of their products. This philosophy is
taken to the extreme the by the fashion industry. The young and the
gullible are the prime victims of fashion, but the threat of insecurity
posed by not looking like or keeping up with the herd is a powerful
mechanism that is hard for almost everyone to resist.
But, the media does not just sell us products – it sells us an image of
ourselves – and we are suckered into believing it because we are
basically scared to see beyond the safe boundaries of the herd. But who
makes these boundaries? Who restricts us to what we may believe about
the world – even about ourselves? Not the democratic consensus of the
herd, but the drovers. They tell us what to think and if we are honest
with ourselves, most of us are just too plain chicken to think for
In 1990, a study found that nearly 40% of the contents of American
newspapers began with press releases or other hype from public relations
agencies. There is no way the daily newspaper can compete with TV and
radio, yet we still cling to the belief that anything in black and white
is the truth. The rest of the ‘news’ – even the ‘real’ news is nothing
but bad news. As every newspaper man knows – bad news sells newspapers.
It also gives the public a deep seated sense of unease. It keeps them
scared with a daily diet of horror, murder, death and environmental
After all, the view of the world that advertisers like to portray is the
one that says you can't be happy until you have bought every single
product they have to sell. Obviously you will never succeed, but that's
no problem for the advertisers, because you will keep trying – as long
as you have money in your pockets that is. Subconsciously you have
picked up the message that by buying this car or that video camera –
going to see this movie or listening to that music you will somehow get
a little closer to nirvana. It won’t. In spite of the lies the media
constantly tell us, the truth is that possessions do not make you happy
– and they certainly will not make you rich. However the people who are
selling them to us are not doing it for their health or because they are
basically altruistic, caring human beings. They just want your wad – all
of it. We know that but somehow we just can’t bring ourselves to
Ask yourself, what do we want in this country above all? People
want to be happy, isn’t that right? Haven’t you heard it all your life?
I want to be happy, people say. Well, aren’t they? Don’t we keep them
moving, don’t we give them fun? That’s all we live for, isn’t it? For
pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit, our culture provides
plenty of these.
The Fire Chief – Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury
FOR SALE – NEW WORLD ETHIC
|Fashion is not just about the clothes we wear or the kind of car we
drive – it pervades everything we do – the food we eat, our body shape
and the way we think. Fifty years ago it was fashionable to love your
country and hate the Japanese. Today we go to sushi restaurants and
drive cars made by the same company who’s aircraft bombed Pearl Harbour
– yet there are still people alive who fought their way across the
Pacific and witnessed thousands of their comrades killed by fanatical
Japanese troops. Fashion can heal the wounds of warfare, but it’s as
well to remember that it can open them up a hell of a lot quicker – like
in Iran, Iraq and Serbia for example.
Today it is unfashionable to be patriotic, to fly the flag of your
country. In the UK, the Union flag is now regarded by many as a symbol
of evil, racist thuggery. Sixty years ago it was an image of freedom and
democracy holding out against the nazi invaders. Today, the Rolls Royce
company – the technological acme of British skill and engineering is
owned by BMW – a company who’s engines powered the bombers of the Nazi
Blitz. The world is now taking shape in "trading sectors" – the "Pacific
Rim," "The Americas," "European," and "Middle Eastern – including
New forms of multi-national currency unit are an important aspect of
this melding. The introduction of the ‘Euro’ created the first real
challenge to the Dollar on world currency markets and though it remains
to be seen whether the EU will stabilise, international commerce between
individuals as well as companies and organisations may eventuallyl lead
to the adoption of a truly international world currency unit. Whether we
like it or not, the nation state is already dead – the flags that
millions of men died for are worthless rags to be despised, set fire to
and trampled in the dust.
During the late 60's and most of the 1970's the United States fought a
hot war in Vietnam as well the Cold War with the Soviet Union. There was
considerable opposition within the United States and in Europe to the
Vietnam War – opposition that emanated in the main from students in
Colleges and Universities. There was also a deep sense of unease brought
about by nightly news broadcasts showing the casualties, both military
The Soviet intelligence services had access to some very powerful
propaganda and persuasion techniques and a long established spy network
that spread throughout most of the free world. They paid particular
attention to causing rebellion and unrest among the student populations.
They knew full well that the young, the naïve and the idealistic were
among the most malleable sections of any human society. The hi-jacking
of whole generation’s allegiances was accomplished. The science of
persuasion and manipulation made a quantum leap in the years from 1960
to 1980 and thousands of young men died uselessly and needlessly in a
war that was never declared.
Since the 1970's some of the people who protested about the Vietnam War
have done very well in the social action business. ‘Hanoi’ Jane Fonda,
for example, who actually visited North Vietnam and openly protested
against American bombing raids and then later actually persuaded
millions of American women to buy her exercise video. Organisations that
began as idealistic crusades, born out of the civil rights movement, or
campaigns for equal rights, or to save the whales or whatever, now have
budgets of millions of dollars a year. Their very existence depending on
a constant supply of bad news to justify their very existence.
Moving, moving, moving, though they’re disapprovin’ keep those
dogies moving, rawhide…
Lyric from the theme song of the popular 60’s TV series
|Now, just suppose that a powerful organisation – an organisation like
Ted Turner’s CNN, for example or the Walt Disney Corporation,
Time-Warner or Viacom wanted to sell us a whole new society? Wouldn’t
they attempt to make the old, traditional model look bad? Wouldn’t they
keep right on telling us that the new improved version was better? You
bet they would. You bet they do.
YOU’LL DO IT THEIR WAY
|‘Public’ opinion is nothing of the sort. The public do not possess an
opinion of their own and if they should start to form one, there are
powerful methods at work to suppress any such rebellion. The power that
shapes and manipulates our thoughts reaches into almost every home, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. It moulds the minds of the
young and the old, the intelligent as well as the ignorant, the rich as
well as the poor. The media gives us not only a carefully tailored image
of our world – it also tells us what to think about that image.
Government deregulation of the mass media has led not to a varied and
competitive industry, but to a succession of massive mergers and take-overs
that have brought about a situation where the whole of the western
world’s media resides in the hands of very few people. Wherever you
watch TV or a movie, wherever you listen to music, read a newspaper or a
book you can almost guarantee it was produced and distributed by one of
these powerful mega-media companies.
This is a situation that is bound to lead to an abuse of the tremendous
power that such organisations wield over us. It’s one thing to use that
power to sell us their products, but when they sell us our thoughts or
more accurately force us to think what they want us to think then
we should resist and rebel against such oppression.
Yet we do not question what is thrown at us. If we even notice a sudden
increase in important roles played by black actors, for example we
applaud it as a good strategy for racial integration. If we see an
amusing sit-com including a positive homosexual character, we might
figure that this is the way the world is now and we should emulate the
TV script and learn to be tolerant. These characters are paraded in
front of us that we may believe and obey. The smart loner in control of
her life – the modern woman who has career, wealth, numerous partners
and a child, but is independent of a husband. The promiscuous
divorcee – outrageously pursuing men half her age and screwing her way
to the top of the ladder. All positive modern female role models for
impressionable young women too emulate.
But – when we see the negative stereotypes constantly paraded before us
we should be warned. The Deadbeat Dad. The racist bigot – always male
and white – the violent criminal – always male and white, the
survivalist, the gun nut patriot – always male and white. The fool –
once exclusively a black man, now always male and white.
How about those terrible Nazi propaganda movies where Jews were shown in
the streets spliced with pictures of rats running through the sewers?
How we used scorn those old 40’s movies that portrayed black people as
happy banjo plunking minstrels, or oversized but devoted housemaids. The
50’s when lip-sticked, corsetted females were simpering, hysterical,
neurotics – hopelessly falling in love with Rock Hudson.
Remember when every western bad guy wore a black hat? How about the
early 60’s where every social outcast and juvenile delinquent was a
young guy on a motorcycle wearing a black leather jacket? How about
the70’s when we had a succession of black side-kicks, police chiefs or
street-wise hipsters? Then there were the female cops, battling against
sexism and the glass ceiling in between shooting down nasty white males
in litter strewn alleyways.
Now the decent hero who stood alone under the noon day sun is an
embodiment of the patriarchal oppressor. He has been replaced by the
heroine – she’s feisty, violently independent and constantly at war with
the male establishment – the only men in her life are drooling morons or
gay boutique owners.
An action movie is now a plot-less succession of near nuclear explosions
where hundreds of men are gunned down by a Neanderthal hero in a blood
spattered vest. A horror movie is where an attractive career woman is
stalked by a rapist. A family comedy is when an ex-husband has to dress
up as a woman to see his own kids.
Anyone who doubts that public attitudes are changed by the media is as
deluded as every other couch potato who sits in front of the tube, day
after day, night after night and has their brains sucked out by the one
eyed, two faced, lying telescreen. Its fantasy is
what passes for reality.
It’s safer to conform to the perceived
conformity of the herd, but we do not really know what the herd thinks –
we only know what we are told it thinks by the media. The truth is that
mostly it doesn’t think at all. We are told that we are all part of the
same great big human herd, moving steadily forward, guided by our
drovers towards anew, improved equal opportunitied, eco-friendly,
multicultural, sexually diverse future. The old model is obsolete – and
God help us – incredible as it may seem – we believe it.
Posted 2000 04 19
2006 10 31 (reformated)