More Than One Issue Is At Issue Here
In remote isolated settings there is a certain well documented pattern which tends to recur over and over again, be it on that reminder of our collective abiding shame, native reservations, or be it in other remote, isolated settings which tend to take on similar characteristics to reservations.
The Game goes something like this:
Power monopolists create their own personal extended support group.
A few key power players control and pass the power ball back and forth amongst themselves, invariably while disempowering the often-unaware community at large.
This is known as the "Law of the Few", a law which is value neutral and can be used for good or for ill.
The Few impose this Law on a given community by using it for their version of the Game.
In a remote communitu this can include a kind of local "branding", wherein the powerful use whatever culturally skewed but superficially comforting mythology will successfully merge with the community’s own version of what it needs to believe is its own idealised identity.
In common language this can either be a commonly held uplifting belief or it can be a debilitating and sustained con game.
Meanwhile, the Few promulgate their own personal agenda(s), often various seemingly selfless, philanthropic schemes devised for the benefit of the community.
Beneath the surface, however, these schemes consistently tend to fund private self-gain through augmentation of personal power for the Few.
Invariably, "selfless devotion" is one sure way to generate a following and thereby acquire and build power and achieve greater control.
Such schemes do have certain recognisable earmarks.
They tend to be either idealist and transformative or greed driven and fear based, or both.
The power plays involve several basic techniques, only one of which is called "Act As If".
"Act As If" or AAI is a useful gimmick wherein the power broker’s own assumptions can be made to appear congruent with and representative of broad stroke community values, carefully designed for indiscriminate consumption by a silent majority.
The latter quickly fall in line.
They are conveniently reflected back to themselves as supposedly supporting, in principle, whichever buzz phrases are deemed applicable, such as "multicultural diversity" or "pro-business" or "exceptionalism" or "tolerance" or "enlightenment" or "artist’s colony", etc.
Whichever consensus illusions can be utilised are aimed at the Achilles heel of the community in question.
Monopolists tend to masquerade as being tolerant of diversity. Nothing could be further from the truth. They promise followers what will remain forever unattainable goals, promises such as "Everlasting Security".
Instead, (as the comic named Swami Beyonanda succinctly pointed out), the reality is actually one of "Everlasting Insecurity".
He who willingly forfeits freedom in exchange for the promise of security deserves neither.
Of course, the truth of the situation continues to fester underneath, but the facade goes unchallenged, precisely because the entire milieu in which this Game is sustained operates exactly like an extremely dysfunctional family, writ large and called "community".
And so the given community remains a closed system, by definition. Meanwhile, at least some of those who unwittingly comply with the Game may from time to time wring their hands helplessly. It matters not. They will remain either unwilling or unable to do anything meaningful to effect change. A successfully divided community cannot function as a whole since it will usually refuse to even recognise, let alone challenge, the damage wrought by this boxed in dynamic.
This denial in turn adds fodder to the "divide and rule" agenda of the Few.
In short, this is a classic example of an abuse model, except that in this instance the Few get to abuse an entire community, not just a few individuals.
The Dubbya administration had and still in many ways has this game down to a highly profitable exercise carried out on a national scale. But then, so did Goering, under Hitler’s regime.
History is rife with examples of how easily the Game insinuates its erosive presence into society.
By the sounds of it, it can be very disillusioning awakening from the American Dream to discover the nightmare in process, let alone that it's on its way north via Harper, whose campaign is rumoured to have been funded by sources in Washington, and who seems a Dubbya clone if I ever saw one.
Apparently, but don’t take my word for this, as I have mentioned previously the stats on awareness are as follows: 15% of people are always "awake" and have no choice but to see what is really going on; 20% to 25% can be awakened but will still sit the fence unless sufficiently swayed by the awake 15% to go their way; and 60% notice nothing unusual, question little, and will continue to sleep walk throughout their whole lives.
Of course.
So maybe that, then, is why most people might allow themselves to tolerate any blatant pyramid power scheme in their midst, wherein power trickles up from the bottom and becomes transformed into the Law of the Few?
What do you think?
"Feedback" sometimes goes sideways, passive aggressively, or it gets high handed, both of which are abiding signatures of those with low self-esteem.
"We-only-want-to-tell-you-how-we-do-things-around here" is condescending, patronising and arrogant. At best, even if it is not intentionally designed to marginalise or "shun" those with the “wrong” opinions, it still does so. Many who are timid become easily intimidated and more than a few will fold immediately.
Once "burned” twice shy is human nature, except for those with skin like alligator hide.
Hence, maybe this makes it "safer" for many to submit to a non community blog or to only submit articles sourced from outside the community - or else offer nothing at all.
"Flaming" by any other name is still an attack against someone. If you are upset, consider the courtesy of a thoughtful approach. If you don’t have the courage to speak to an issue honestly, personally, or sensitively, or to take aside the writer you may already know in private first, or if you lack the respect to give the benefit of the doubt to them, face to face, then why sound off in this venue?
And that makes flaming nothing more mysterious than the same old "lions & Christians" game. Criticising an idea, but not a person, and succeeding in doing so skilfully and respectfully is one thing. Flaming an individual randomly is quite another. It matters not if this has become the cyber fashion. It diminishes everyone. However, to this I would add that I think that the exception to this logic might be trying to behave democratically while being screwed around by one of those who act like just one of the folks to disguise being guilty of fuelling the Law of the Few.
Sometimes blogging ain’t all that friendly, be it without a referee or even sometimes with one who may not like the job, or who gets overwhelmed doing it. This is especially true if a blog submission touches a local nerve, all of which becomes even more unacceptable in a remote location or in a claustrophobically small community.
So … dare most risk submitting a personal "opinion" piece to a small community blog?
If they do, is that courage, just plain foolishness, or suicide by blog?
Probably all three.
While an atmosphere of genuine hospitality is far more likely to invite relaxation and encourage creativity through open acceptance of diversity and welcoming of opinions, it is the Jerry Springer approach that sells.
If, however, the blog sandbox contains nothing but quicksand, that is not only not welcoming, it is treacherously unsafe.
On some sites with defined agendas, any non-submissive blog submission that does not toe the blog’s party line may create an occasional furore, and the writer will be slapped down hard. More’s the pity. The most sensitive ones are the first to retreat from needless aggression, if they even dare to approach it at all. And with them goes a lot of creativity and any opportunity for enriching the rest by sharing it.
Of course the clue to knowing entry has been denied to any wannabe exclusive blog club, or to one with too narrow an agenda, will often be contained in exactly if, how or whether or not other readers react, especially negatively, to the positing of any proactive idea, which is essentially a rather harmless exercise.
Non "submissive" blog submissions have been known to create anger quite disproportionate to their benign content.
Of course, anyone is free to throw a carcass into the middle of a pack of circling hyenas, including their own carcass. Still, others who hesitate and hold back may not fully understand why they do so, (perhaps with good reason), but often they still take heed and hide - or else attack.
Nor does the opinion piece genre of writing assure any neutral safe haven. Poetry and fiction are a safer choice, except perhaps for those with a war torn artistic psyche. Obviously sticking to the anonymity of fiction and the chameleon options afforded by most poetry also avoids the inherent risks which may attend open dialogue.
Our local paper, for example, was once a venue for fabulous creative exchanges. It is hard to describe the eagerness with which many once anticipated the next issue in the mailbox. No more. That was before everyone became mortally afraid of openly democratic dialogue’s imagined legal ramifications, after one of the Few apparently threatened the assistant editor with legal action, and then we all sank like a stone to the lowest common denominator, almost overnight. The local rag caught a terminal case of law phobia and had to immediately bundle up, loaded down with double layers of bullet proof vests and heavy duty body padding, all on some quasi legal pretext or other, and all on the off chance that someone might so much as raise their tea finger too high during any heated exchange. Since then that once glorious rag seems to have been thrown into a political correction institute and is now left to moulder by the firebox in the corner.
Have we really become so frightening to and frightened of one another? If so, why?
My position is this: Creativity as a concept is much too narrowly defined if, in the process, it excludes true creative debate.
Lively yet welcome discourse is more than intellectual posturing.
So, I return my focus to this potential minefield and pose again the question: Why are people hanging back on the sidelines of this site, or only offering Internet sourced opinion pieces?
When one witnesses a local proliferation of global scale blog submissions from non locally sourced origins, even if they are also fascinating think pieces offering a global perspective, they are still from virtually anywhere else but here. There must be at least one solid reason why exercising such a "safe" option would be preferred.
Could it be possible that, as in any small town, the price for speaking up is too painful a penalty to pay? Can one be made a social pariah via a blog? Maybe, if the town is small minded enough.
If so, would this be any different than the "shunning" practises used by extreme religious groups and especially by cults?
Not many are prepared to take the personal risks involved in entering what looks like calm water on a sunny afternoon only to find that things seem to blow up out of the blue and in minutes become decidedly unfriendly waters once the boat is already adrift at sea.
While those who lob personal attacks from behind the wall may be cowards, what exactly would it have to take for people to feel safe enough to know it is really all right to open the key to the treasury of their own individual creativity?
Or is the blog a modern trend wherein only the thick of hide will want to participate?
Could it simply be that some people are shy, or less than articulate, or now that they have retired they are eager to keep their heads down, or some are too vulnerable, or they just feel that some environments are not non judgemental enough to be conducive to free flowing creativity?
Besides, what kind of person who either aspires to be or already is confident, self possessed, secure and self respecting would willing want to wait the moment to attack another, on a blog or otherwise, while everyone in the wings watches with morbid fascination?
And who would stoop to doing so just to shore up a desperate need to "belong" to some ever more elusive, ill-defined ideal of what a given community is "supposed to be"?
Insider/outsider games played to feel special can divide everyone. We are all that much poorer for that division and loss.
Then too, many have a way of appropriating for their own uses what others have struggled to create for entirely other reasons, a website being just one example.
While any website owner may strive to set the tone, just as the personality of the owner of a pub can determine its atmosphere, maybe everyone who participates or hangs back has a different interpretation of what any given community blog is supposed to be for and about.
Is it, for example, a gossip rag? A community posting board? A thought provocation locale? An artistic exploration venue? A chat room? A newsletter? A finger on the community pulse? A gallery for the best creative works?
Is it meant to exist only to address one specific agenda?
Some think a blog should stick to local creativity. Others prefer to remain attached to a cerebral worldview, - but then each of our egos tends to get bogged down so easily in any navel gazing game.
I personally happen to think that well crafted opinion pieces can be a form of personal creativity. I am not even a little bit Dutch but I admire their tradition, which is one of dialogue rather than conflict.
Encouraging healthy debate seems like it should be a secure part of what both a local site and a local community are able to offer.
Conversely, one would think only a conflict phobic demographic would create rigid rules designed to silence well expressed political differences.
JI know a woman for instance, who clearly wants others to know how to recognise the key characteristics of over a century of manipulation of the unconscious masses by powerful interests. To me she’s expressing the concern for those victimised and hope that people may be inspired to take personal responsibility for learning how with such horrific subtlety modern propaganda now works, rather than simply succumbing to its evil.
Perhaps she risks the possibility of sounding a trifle emphatic, especially after perhaps devoting many years to pursuing exactly which unseen forces drive people to so willing become unquestioningly compliant and "lemming like" as they live under the thumb of their own self anointed "leaders"?
The blog owner on a personal website, by virtue of being the host(ess), may be in an awkward position, running what sometimes seems like an unruly, contradiction-filled day care centre, perennial children who definitely don’t always play nice, in fact who take to squabbling on a dime, while the site host may be expected to step in and act as some effective yet benign and somehow still non authoritative role model.
Tricky to do, as the website owner can easily inadvertently create more than was originally bargained for, just by what he or she does, or does not do, or by what he/she expects or says.
In the main commentators usually sound refreshingly coherent and articulate, with the kind of minds one immediately wants to engage in an interesting, stimulating and rewarding dialogue. I also sense in some an understandable unease. Maybe some want to hold to whatever they think is their own privacy and what they imagine may be the site owner’s idea of a "correct" position. Yet clearly others are also assertive and doubt they're not right,, even while self described as "timid". However, this description is not meant to peg anyone, as either an undecided newbie or yet another blog flamer, or whatever. I want to resist stepping into that dogma trap where everything becomes black or white through illogical "either/or" filtering.
Honed intelligence and an evenhanded perspective are assets to any community. But is there ever such a thing as a last word? Hey, avoid falling into the black hole of being an apologist for not being some supposedly non clogging first tier/class full timer, and come on back out and play, why doncha? A mind is way too much fun to waste alone.
I venture to submit that one reason why so few offer personal submissions to a community site may be a mix of paranoia born of rarely or never getting off the island and a justifiable simple fear of judgement.
Or it may simply be this:
Islanders are comprised in part of those damaged by the world at large who therefore have an understandable but fear driven need to remain personally safe. However, sometimes people with low self esteem can get so locked into the box called victimology that they fail to realise that clinging to an identity of victimhood, if not closely examined, can and does evolve into victims who become bullies who then, in turn, victimise others and eat their young.
As for education, it is a given that a closed mind simply opts out of education anyway.
Speaking of the limits of education, ironically, the SS, were originally chosen to become that infamous Nazi group of thugs precisely because they were the most highly educated of all, supposedly suave, highly cultured, the cream of society, elite intellectuals with a well developed knowledge about and a strong appreciation for art, music, and philosophy.
I recall the words of a German acquaintance of mine from many years ago. Lutz was the highly educated son of extremely wealthy family of neo Nazis, who continued on with underground Nazism after the war ended.
Lutz had all the benefits of a good education, was trained to Olympic standards as an athlete, and learned many languages as a child, which he then used to converse with large numbers of frequent dinner guests, at regular large dinner parties held by his parents.
By the time he was sixteen he had his own house, his own chauffeur driven car and his own pair of Doberman guard dogs. While growing up he routinely attended dinners held in his parents’ home, grand affairs peopled by post war Nazis from all over Europe, all of whom were involved with supporting, expanding and upholding the stronghold of neo Nazism in Germany and elsewhere, including in South America and in the United States.
Before he turned 18 Lutz revolted against everything his parents stood for, left home and never ever saw his family again. He traveled extensively, lived in India, and was part of an early plot to blow up the Berlin Wall.
Back then he told me how repelled he was by and how he recoiled from what he viewed as a schizoid cultural and personal split which he witnessed often and which he loathed experiencing in this neo Nazi element of his own countrymen.
He described a certain perverse propensity of Nazi officer friends of his parents, who seemed to have had no problem with being able to listen to classical music of German composition at breakfast, before overseeing the extermination of hundreds or even tens of thousands of human beings all morning, and then, while reeking of shallow sentimentality, crying as if on cue into their before supper cocktails, while nostalgically remembering so fondly their dear departed Mamas.
I tell this story not only because this schizoid regime cost my mother 24 members of her immediate family, but because it tells a larger story, as well, about the so called merits of "education" or any belief that humans are somehow one iota more "civilised" than we ever were.
Being inhuman comes naturally. It is becoming decent that is the exception, developing the ability to experience true empathy, rather than just sympathy or indifference, being willing to overcome narcissistic self absorption, … while capable of growing strong enough to stand up for universal values, not to mention learning to know when sham politeness is used only as a ruse to distract others from an untoward agenda.
These are what make one the extraordinary exception to the rule, which is not such a bad thing to be, given the slippery slope down which mob rule so often takes us.
But I digress, if only in aid of trying to find optimism about the human potential for evolving, versus being trapped forever inside a hamster wheel while living out repeat cycles of personal and global history
Labels: The Tipping Point
