“Be Not Afraid of Their Fear”

I was struck by the Epistle reading during Mass last Sunday – it's from I Peter iii, verse 14. There are, of course, many translations, but the essence seems to be that succumbing to not just the fear of others but to their own fears is a trap and a hindrance. It is certainly true that (to quote another verse) “sufficient unto the day are the troubles thereof”, i.e we each have plenty of our own problems to worry about without getting drawn into the fears, anxieties, hang-ups, and phobias of others – getting infected, if you will.

And yet what is our society – and the world in general – but a hotbed of fear? And it seems especially accentuated for us, because we have more to lose – materially as well as in world-view terms. But most of it has nothing to do with our personal, direct experience – it is, rather, adopted. It is made part of our belief system, and thus becomes as real to us as an actual direct threat to our lives and well-being.

Now, much has been made of the role of the media in all this. Time was (and I remember) when you had to wait around all day for the evening news on the radio or TV, or the evening paper... or wait overnight for the morning paper. You could then indulge in reacting to the “outside world” for a while, but your everyday affairs still took precedence. But what do we have now? A 24-hour news cycle, hundreds of radio stations, TV channels, and the Internet, to augment the traditional “paper” media which have multiplied as well. And the question arises, or should – how much “news” is too much? Is this “global village” imploding, and collapsing of its own weight – its information overload? Is it really our duty as citizens to keep constant vigil – to be constantly on guard, with a panic button at the ready? Do we have the emotional capacity to “care” about everybody and everything that happens in the entire world? (Change.org is a good example of what happens when someone assumes that we all have the time and energy to attend to all the problems of the entire world population.) And, on a deeper level, has the world really gotten that much worse in only a generation or two, so that we cannot be allowed to rest, even for a moment – to turn it off? If this is true, then the “good old days” really were good – but on some level we know it's not that simple.

That's one line of questioning. Another, which has grown somewhat more popular of late, is – what is the function of all of this fear... anxiety... panic? Is it really to inform? It certainly doesn't make life any easier, so it must have something to do with survival, right? Except that pretty much any piece of “news” that one runs across carries with it an element of despair – that there's nothing any of us can do about it. Or actually there is – namely to run to the open arms of the government, since it is the only thing on earth powerful enough... wise enough... good enough... to protect us from the myriad threats that we are forced to encounter on a daily basis. And this agenda, if you will, is the very one that Michael Crichton presented so masterfully in his book “State of Fear” (published in 2004). The book is identified as “a novel”, but like so many good works of fiction that deal with the future, near future, or present, a canny reader will say “novel schmovel, this is the way things really are”. That is, we are being manipulated at all times -- “played like a fiddle” as the saying goes – not only by politicians but by all other species of fear-mongers as well. And what is the goal? Just to sell more tranquilizers – more liquor? Well, no – it's to increase (not maximize, note – that would be too much for the Regime to handle) helplessness and dependence up to some optimum point, where we would do the government's bidding without question, simply because of the terrible consequences that might result if we did otherwise.

And I shouldn't have to dwell on the irony of all this. After all, don't we constantly brag about our “freedoms” and our prosperity, and standard of living, as opposed to the poor benighted peoples of other lands (especially the ones we insist on invading – for their benefit, of course)? In fact, isn't “freedom from fear” one of the Four Freedoms articulated by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his 1941 State of the Union address? And yet we have become a fear-ridden society, with anxieties and bogeymen that our forebears (of 1941 or earlier) could never have dreamed of. The Regime promised us freedom from fear, then with barely a skipped beat presented us with the terrors of the atomic bomb and nuclear warfare. And so it continues up to the present day, with enemies real and imagined... disease... hunger... pollution... overpopulation... global warming and/or cooling (depending on where you take your sample of the propaganda)... war... more war... even more war... and so on, ad infinitum. (And let's not forget “terror” -- the fear of fear. So perfect for our times!) And it's not as if some of these issues are purely imaginary; they may exist on some level. The question, rather, is how much time should the average citizen spend thinking – i.e. worrying – about them, as opposed to minding his own business, earning a living, and sitting – if there's any time left – under his own vine and fig tree?

Where does one look for inner peace, after all? Is it among what are called “tax receivers”? Their anger and resentment seems to know no bounds; the more benefits they receive the worse their attitude becomes. Is it, then, among the rich – the ambitious, the capitalists, the “one percent”? They're too busy trying to get even more. It's easier to find smiling people in the inner city than among millionaires and billionaires. Is it, then, among the middle class? But they are set upon by every side by the media and the popular culture; they are a majority that is treated like a minority (or the way minorities used to be treated before they became the majority) – with mocking and contempt. Every effort they make to improve their lot meets with push-back from the Regime; the tax code is designed to inflict diminishing returns on their efforts to better their material lot. They are, in effect, slaves who know not that they are slaves, except on those rare occasions when someone – typically a “tea party” type – sees a glimpse of the truth.

The peaceful people of this world tend, it seems to me, to be those with religious faith – not necessarily of a given creed but sufficient in strength to overcome the frustrations of the world and the fear those generate (or are generated – intentionally – by the overlords). And this is not to say that the answer to fear is to not care – to be apathetic, or a happy idiot. It's to put the material in its proper place, and allow faith (or philosophy, if you prefer) to have the upper hand. And yes, it's a delicate balance, because few are called to be complete mystics – spiritual beings who just happen – by accident, as it were – to be in the world. But on the other end of the scale, the dissatisfactions of materialism are all too apparent: Those who have not, want. Those who have, want more. Find me someone who has enough – who is satisfied – and I'll show you a non-materialistic individual.

And of course fear – which is how this got started – has to be directed at something, and that something is typically some kind of loss – of life, liberty, friends, fortune, job, health, home... all perfectly respectable things in themselves, but the fear of losing them can become an entity in itself, and corrode one's outlook on life, stifling enjoyment of the here and now. Our rulers claim they want a contented populace, but in fact they want anything but. Widespread contentment would put them out of work, so it can't be tolerated. In its place, we have a finely-tuned mechanism for generating and sustaining fear – not too much, not too little, just right. You can see it in the media on a daily basis – the constant cycle of crisis and reassurance – but not enough reassurance to totally eliminate the fear generated by the crisis. So the residual fear builds up; its names are legion and it begins to manifest itself in the physical – in terms of our mental and bodily health – which then becomes still another basis for increased dependence on the government. And there are always new things to be afraid of; they cascade around our heads each day. New ones are being created faster than new “terrorist” organizations. If we took each of them seriously, we'd have to be afraid of everything, and would sit, paralyzed, in a catatonic state of fear – which is, figuratively, the way a lot of us live already.

There are no simple prescriptions for this disease of ours, but a sense of proportion and of skepticism would certainly help, as well as the awareness that we are, in fact, being manipulated according to an agenda we had nothing to do with, and for purposes we have no interest in or use for. And rather than indulge in escapism (another tool of the Regime), confront the Fear Machine head-on. Put in a good day's work re-asserting your freedom – not just of body but of mind – and then sleep well, because the battle will resume with the morning light.

Crisis Mismanagement

When it comes to predictions, I freely admit that my record to date has not been so hot. After all, I predicted that the presidential election of 2008 would be between Giuliani and Clinton (Hillary, that is), and that Hillary would win. But Rudy jumped the shark when he trash-talked Ron Paul during the debates, and then sealed the deal when he placed his political fate in the hands of east coast Floridians (AKA expatriate Jews from New York – there, I said it and I don't apologize!). And Hillary, as usual, underestimated the sleaze factor that clung to her like a slick coating of BP oil – a residual effect from her husband's administration (which was, in all likelihood, more her administration than his – hopefully someday we'll know for sure). So what we wound up with was, on the Republican side, a permanently PTSD-addled presidential candidate with a fanatical Christian Zionist for a running mate, and, on the Democratic side, a guy who advertised himself as an outsider and as Mr. Clean, even though he had just crawled up out of the cesspool of Chicago politics. And his running mate was (and is) a flaming a-hole, but at least he was “the devil we knew”. So the Mr. Clean outsider won, and immediately proceeded to surround himself with an army of hard-core insiders, most of whom, although they couldn't be elected dogcatcher in their own right, have had placed into their hands all power and authority over the future of the nation and its hapless citizenry. (And I should add that the other two pieces of the traditional power triumvirate, namely responsibility and accountability, were somehow forgotten along the line, leaving them with only pure power.) So now we have, in all but name, a socialist administration – or, at least, one that aspires to socialism (a variety more properly termed fascism) – that is the supposed “answer” to the many encroachments and abuses of its predecessor. And the cry rings out from every corner of the White House and the Capitol: Capitalism is dead! Long live – what? Power to the people? Not really. “Power to the government” is more like it. And no one dare object, since all of the alternative forms of government have already been tossed, by Obama & Co., onto the ash heap of discarded ideas (if I may indulge in a bit of Bushism here).

And when it comes to quotes, I predict (yeah, I know) that the defining quote from the Obama administration will be that of Rahm Emanuel, Israel's man in Washington, when he said “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” That mindset has, in fact, characterized nearly every move of the Obama administration to date, and every crisis (or alleged crisis) – the economic meltdown, failing industries, trade imbalances, Wall Street shenanigans, global warming, health care, education, etc. -- somehow, mysteriously, calls for the exact same solution, namely bigger government (along with higher taxes, more borrowing, bigger debt, and inflation). The latest crisis, of course – which mercifully drove all the others from the headlines, at least for a while – is the Gulf oil spill, and the solution to that is – bet you can't guess – bigger government! Now, of course, this philosophy of governing – pick the crisis du jour and use it to justify passing laws that will lock in collectivism for generations to come – could, at least in theory, turn on its very advocates. What if, for example, a crisis occurs that reflects badly, and directly, on the administration? Well, that would be a terrible thing to waste too, wouldn't it? And the solution, clearly, would be to toss Obama and his cronies onto the ash heap of discarded politicians. This is clearly what the “tea partiers” have in mind – and the Republicans are only too glad to second the emotion from their amen corner (even though they both despise and fear the tea partiers, truth be told). Smart and manipulative conservatives of the conventional mold have become born-again constitutionalists... whereas those who were constitutionalists all along, like the paleocons and libertarians, are feeling kind of like those guys who came up with a world-changing invention but were conned out of their share of the profits (and credit) by sharp operators who knew the ropes. Or – like the gal who was invited to the prom just so some dude could get in the door, at which point she is promptly abandoned while he goes and spends the night dancing with more desirable partners.

But really, this newfound Republican respect and affection for the Constitution is no more than an exercise in massive hypocrisy. Where were they when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, were trampling everybody and everything underfoot? Nowhere to be found, basically – stunned into silence by the spectacle of a naked power grab by people who were supposed to be the “good guys”. And what I fear is that the tea partiers and their ilk will suffer the same fate – they are simply too naïve and idealistic to be able to cope with the realities of Washington. It would be like a bunch of vegans wishing they had jobs in a sausage factory; it just ain't gonna work – not now, not ever. So the Regime will march on, oblivious to the wants, needs, and desires of the people, because, you know what? To quote a line from Lily Tomlin's “Ernestine” speaking for the phone company: We don't care! We don't have to!

Which brings us, I suppose, to the question of the upcoming mid-term elections, and even the not-all-that-far-away election of 2012. Will the Republicans succeed in throwing the rascals out? Maybe – but even if they do, it will only be to put their own rascals back into power. Some see a ray of hope in Sarah Palin, who seems to be running one of the best pre-presidential campaigns in recent times (you'd have to go way back to William Jennings Bryan to find something comparable) – but I get the feeling that she is too easily manipulated. She would be surrounded, as she was during the campaign, by an army of “handlers” like so many bacteriophages, and even if she were to get a truly liberty-oriented thought in her head, it would quickly be snuffed out before it ever saw the light of day. And everyone else who believes in constitutional freedoms – Rand Paul, for example – is an even bigger long shot. The tea partiers are going to wind up in a “flop sweat”, sitting dejectedly among deflated balloons and banners... or at the nearest bar... and the libertarians are going to say -- as they are well-practiced in saying -- “a curse on both your houses”. Thus, my prediction for 2010 and for 2012 as well. The powers that be are just too entrenched, and nothing short of a genuine revolution of the old style is going to shake their hold on the body politic... and even that might not work. It might take a huge meteor striking the Earth... or an invasion from Mars... or real global warming!

Of course, in all of this, it must be admitted that America is no longer an island, entire of itself. We do have the rest of the world to deal with, and we have been all too willing, of late, to deal with it, usually in the most dysfunctional way possible. One problem is that we just don't do “empire” right – we don't know how to make a profit from foreign engagements, and wind up allowing them to drain our treasury and sap the will of our citizenry. Will the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end with a bang (us getting kicked out, a la Vietnam) or a whimper (some sort of “compromise” that leaves us with little or no influence, but still holding the bag money-wise – think Korea, for instance)? Will the EU declare independence, once and for all, from our follies – recognizing that its very survival might be at stake? Will China put the ultimate squeeze on, or will it continue to bleed us like a herd of Masai cattle? And how about Israel? Will it finally be locked away in an asylum, there to rage and rant until the (next) millennium... or will it, in a fit of self-destructive rage, cause a conflagration that we will inevitably be drawn into? These are the unknowns... at least to me.

But there is also the strong, steady, calculating hand of the Regime to be reckoned with – and this is a tricky issue, since most people, at least publicly, are unwilling to admit that there even is such an entity. As far as they're concerned, the world really is a crazy house – full of chaos, irrationality, atavism, racism, sectarian conflict, “hate”, and the like – and the financial world is just a subset of that. So it could all just blow up, or melt down, and national leaders would be helpless to do anything to prevent it. But this is, I submit, to vastly underestimate the strength and influence of the (international) Money Power, which clearly has all Western governments in the palm of its hand, and which, I'm sure, can come to some satisfactory accommodation with China (and with Russia as well, although they are wisely keeping their own counsel at this point). Will the Regime, furthermore, allow Israel to push the doomsday button? I think this may be the key question in all of this; it all depends on who is where on the totem pole. And, to what extent does the Regime have any influence over the Moslem world, which to us seems so volatile and out of control? Clearly, the Moslem/Israeli (and American, by extension) feud is going to have to be resolved eventually – but if it is, it will surely be resolved in the interests of the Money Power. That is, unless this feud is serving some purpose... supporting some agenda. It's certainly making a lot of arms makers rich, but are they at the top of the heap? Don't they, ultimately, have to answer to the international financial elite, whose interests surely lie in much more than mere profits from arms sales? After all, wars destroy much more than they build... and if you're rich and powerful, it's your “stuff” that's being destroyed.

My theory – as you know by now – is that all that is visible in the way of governments, politics, and economics is subordinate to a much higher-level controlling elite. But – to borrow a question from Freud – what do they want? Are they content with the chaos that characterizes current events? Or would they prefer to eventually consolidate it all into an overtly one-world government (or as much of the world as they care to bother with)? If you take the world scene, and eliminate all the major players, there's not much left – Africa and Latin America, basically, as well as some isolated outposts that are of little or no concern to the powers that be. And – the core “cui bono” question – is all of this apparent chaos and strife really as chaotic and strife-laden as it appears, or is it simply part of a larger agenda... a means to an end? It's clear, once again, that chaos at the grass roots in this country only feeds into the agenda of the collectivists – which implies that, on some level, the type and intensity of chaos is being carefully controlled and programmed for the maximum effect. (There is overwhelming evidence of this just in the daily output of the media; it's certainly no secret, and is not done subliminally.) I've talked about the “fear factor” -- and we're not the only ones suffering from it. Overseas, it's about the Moslem “invasion” of Europe... of native populations actually declining... of selected economic meltdowns that ensnare more sound economies (think: the “PIGS” of the EU). Global warming is being used as a hobgoblin elsewhere as well... although it doesn't get much of a hearing in “developing” countries like China and India. (But if it's all a myth, it hardly matters anyway, does it?) Maybe the plan is to cripple the West so that Asia can take over; but would that really be preferable? Certainly there is little or no resistance to collectivist notions in the Asian part of the Old World... and maybe that's the key. Why bother with people who have some exalted notions about “freedom” when you can deal with people who have been slaves for millennia? But that implies that the people who are running the world are running the _whole_ world... and I'm not yet convinced of that. I think there are battles yet to be fought between East and West... between the Asiatic mindset and the “Judeo-Christian” one. And we see that much of the current strife is happening in the border lands – Afghanistan, Iran, Central Asia, and so on. Does this reflect the deepest reality, or is it, too, a symptom and, basically, a hoax? Whose orders is Ahmadinejad following, for instance? One suspects China, but does their reach really and reliably extend that far at this point? The Cold War was ostensibly between communism and capitalism... but how about what has been called World War Four – that thing we call the “War on Terror” but which most of the world sees, correctly, as the next major round in the war between Islam and the West? China seems, at times, to be taking the side of Islam, but the Chinese leaders are too smart to allow this to become plain and obvious, and maybe it is, in fact, neither plain nor obvious. They will always be pursuing what is in their best interests – a lesson we seem to have forgotten since amnesia set in in Wilson's time. They will always take advantage of our delusions, foolishness, and impulsiveness, as they did in Vietnam. Perhaps that legendary “inscrutable Oriental mind” will finally triumph over misguided Western idealism; the stage is certainly set, and China is doing all it can to severely compromise our economic strength and independence. Play one of those “world conflict” board games, and extend it fifty years into the future – who is on whose side at that point? Who has won or lost in the meantime? Who has ceased to exist and who is still around? Is the Regime, at the present time, all-powerful, or are they girding themselves for Armageddon, with China on the other side? All we can do at this point is watch and wait – look and listen, try to detect trends... read between the lines (or electrons)... and wonder if true liberty was, as some have speculated, a brief flash of light in an otherwise dark night of tyranny.

The Dismal Tide

My nomination for quote of the week – or maybe the month – is this, from Thomas Fleming, editor of Chronicles (in the January issue): “The true American character was forged in danger and hardship and bitter necessity, but that character has been diluted by mass immigration and weakened by the very success it achieved. The weakness of our character was revealed by the number of people who, against all reason, voted for Barack Obama, because they were afraid. The majority of mankind, however, is always made up of weak and frightened people. It has always been an elite... who have defined the real America.” And by “the elite”, he clearly means the strong, independent, and self-sufficient – not to be confused with the “elite” of our time, who are just the biggest, most bloated parasites.

And it's true, I suppose, that the ruling “feeling tone” of most people in most societies at most times in history has been fear – and that fear has been directed at their own rulers as often as at any external threat. If you accept the model of societies being formed from the ground up for mutual protection, then it would seem that fear of “the other” came first – fear of the tribe in the next valley, the raiders from the next village, the pirates showing up on the shore. But once a society is organized, vested interests develop in its staying organized, and with the same power structure. I.e., once the crisis has passed, whatever serves as the “government” will not wither away as some might like; it will stay in place, supposedly as insurance against subsequent threats, but mainly because the people in charge want it that way, and they are able to influence sufficient numbers of others to cooperate and support their position. So you get the “chief” or warlord, sitting on a hand-carved wooden throne surrounded by his retainers – i.e. goons. And if he's doing his job, he is indeed protecting the tribe, group, or village against invaders. But the price he exacts is that, when there are no threats from without, he stays in office – thus “domestic fear” -- fear of the government – is substituted for fear of the invader. And as societies develop, one can expect that this alternation of sources of fear will eventually be replaced by a hybrid system of all fear, all the time -- perpetual fear of invaders (whether justified or not) combined with perpetual fear of the government.

And this is, lo and behold, precisely what we have today. We certainly have fear of invaders – AKA “terrorists” -- to justify any and all military activity anywhere in the world (not to mention the economic and social consequences). And as for fear of the government, seek no further than the IRS. Of course, domestic fear, American style, is not a simple affair; it's cloaked in many layers of deceit and dissimulation. And yet, behind every government program, regulation, or law, there's an “or else” -- either explicit or implied. The hypocrisy comes in when the program, regulation, or law is presented as being “for your own good” -- i.e. for the good of the citizenry, either as individuals or as part of some arbitrarily defined group. But one always has to ask, if this provision is such a good idea, and if any reasonable person will agree that it is, why does there always have to be an “or else”? And the reason is that most of these programs, regulations, and laws are _not_ good ideas; they serve the interests of a select few, and harm the interests of the many. But under our system of rotating bribes, every once in a while you get to grab at the golden ring – i.e. it's your turn to be bribed, and one of the conditions of the bribe is that you have to shut up about everyone else's bribes. And then the propaganda apparatus broadcasts the myth that everyone has come out ahead on the deal -- even when we see that the government itself winds up with the lion's share -- and the deception is complete.

But none of this would work if it weren't for the basic groundwork of fear. And as much as people talk about “freedom”, no one wants to accept the downside of freedom, which is risk. So our freedoms gradually turn into dross, for the simple reason that, in the process of eliminating all risk, we have to eliminate all real freedom; this is an iron law of both politics and economics, although very few people are willing to admit it. So regardless of the government's motives for restricting freedom – which are almost always malevolent, even when they include a patina of “progressivism” -- the end result is always the same, and what I call “domestic fear” is one of the main factors holding the system in place. And this, in turn, is why “education” and the media, are so important to the program – because, in our time, fear is rarely of the bonafide, primitive, adrenalin-laden type; it resides primarily in the world of ideas. And who is in charge of the planting and nurturing of ideas in the skulls of the citizenry? Why, the public schools and the media, of course. So this is why a goodly proportion of any public school curriculum, or media programming, will have a high fear content; the citizenry must be made to feel both threatened and helpless so that it will continue to run to government and lay its few remaining freedoms at the feet of its “leaders”. And, by the same token, any upstarts who start preaching about liberty, or the need for independent thinking, have to be suppressed without mercy.

But Fleming clearly does not imagine that the American character has always been this corroded, corrupted, and degenerate. He clearly believes that what served as the foundation of this country, and what sustained it for a good period of time, was rugged independence – a historically rare thing, apparently. Well, when you think about it, how much “rugged individualism” do we see, or read about, in history? There are plenty of heroes – but a hero is not necessarily an individualist, any more than a military leader or politician is. A hero may simply be the one who is at the front of the band at a given time – the most aggressive, the loudest, the strongest, the most ruthless. But his power is derived mainly, if not entirely, from his position in the group; he might not fare any better going off on his own than any of his followers. Think of the true individualist in the American tradition – the “lone gun”, the homesteader, the trapper, the desert rat of song and story. That is a true American type, and a type rarely to be found anywhere else, at any other time in history. What was it about this place, and this time, that gave rise to, and rewarded, individuals of this type? That would be the topic for a few good books, which I'm not prepared to write just now. But suffice it to say that that rare window in time which was open for a few generations now seems to be closed again – slammed shut, in fact, by the powers that be – the government and the ruling elite. They are, as I've said before, reaping what they did not sow – the last fruits, if you will, of the true American character and his works... his legacy.

But what he built up has been corrupted and distorted beyond recognition. If one knew nothing of American history, one could not even begin to guess as to its chief features by surveying the America of today. Oh, I suppose that one could listen to the propaganda spewed forth by politicians and by speakers at Memorial Day ceremonies, or fed to schoolchildren... but if all one did was observe, one would never guess. What one would see would be a lazy, sensual, decadent, spendthrift, impulsive, delusional, short-tempered, warlike people who use up resources far more rapidly than they can be replaced, and who think that it's their business to interfere with the affairs of every other nation on earth -- who think, in fact, that despite their manifest character flaws, they possess some sort of moral superiority. One would see a bizarre form of nationalism based on a concept of “nation” that is ill-defined, fragmented, divorced from history, and has little or no basis in reality. One would see a political process by which every man is trying to gain an advantage over all others, and, as a result, winds up being exploited by those who are in control – and who, in fact, winds up further behind than if he'd just minded his own business.

And if one were told that the mythical Founding Fathers – with all of their immortal thoughts, speeches, and writings – were still considered our direct forebears, politically and philosophically... well, the only proper response to that would be uproarious laughter. It would be clear that what intervened between them and us, between then and now, was plain old human nature and concupiscence – that the best plan, the best-designed government on earth could not insulate people against their own weaknesses, foolishness, and greed... and that while America might, in fact, have been the most noble experiment in government of all time, even it had its limits, and those limits are long past.

And this is, I suppose, the issue when it comes to responding to idea like Fleming's. Was “the true American character” a happy accident – a flash in the pan – the product of a specific time and place, never to be repeated? And is what we have now – drearily like most other societies down through history – the “normal”, the baseline? In other words, which is the figure, and which is the ground? Fleming, who I would never accuse of being an optimist, nonetheless seems to feel that as long as there is a remnant – a few righteous men – America and the American spirit can never be wholly annihilated. Well, it's true that ideas can survive as a thin, underground stream for many generations without ever appearing on the surface of a society or having any impact on it... but I'm not convinced that that's inevitable. For one thing, how do we know how many “lost ideas” there have been down through history? (If we knew, they wouldn't be lost, would they?) We know that much of what civilization has produced has been lost over time; history is full of references to great works of which no trace remains. And when it comes to political ideas – I say again, can any of them ever stand up, indefinitely, to the corrosive effects of human nature? Won't we always be regressing to the primitive, tribal baseline, where the strong man and his goons rule over everyone else? (Isn't that what we have come back to in our own time?) Won't fear always be the default setting? We see in our current system, as complex and convoluted as it is, that it ultimately all boils down to fear – fear that is generated and manipulated by the ruling elite, and felt by the masses.

There might have been one brief moment in American history – the so-called Progressive Era – when fear was not the main political medium of exchange. For a while there it seemed as if government could actually do some good – albeit in an extra-Constitutional sense – in areas like public health, food safety, drug safety, workplace safety, fair wages... you know, all those great old causes that blossomed in the pre-World War I era. Now granted, there was, arguably, a basis in fear for all of these programs as well; I'm talking about a matter of emphasis. The operational definition of a “progressive” might be found in a quote by Robert Kennedy -- “I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” This is, let's admit, an optimistic point of view – one looks at the status quo and imagines that things could be better... that improvements could be made. And, if one is “progressively” inclined, one imagines that the government is the most fitting agent to make those improvements. It's not that things are all that bad now... but they could be better.

But is this the attitude of the government at present? Is this the “feeling tone” that is being projected? No – it's more like, “Things are terrible now, and we're all helpless and doomed, and government is our only hope... and still, we'll be lucky just to survive, and even luckier if all we do is break even.” In other words, you lower expectations to the point that no one can ever be disappointed. Compared to the sunny, cheerful message of the progressives, this sounds like some black-robed figure ringing the chimes of doom with bats flitting overhead against a stormy sky. In other words, the “fear dial” has been turned up to a high volume, and it just keeps getting higher with each passing day – and not without reason! Things really are getting worse on almost all counts – but the main culprit in all of this is not "the other" -- not terrorism or global warming or any of the other boogeymen du jour -- but government itself. Can you think of a single current “crisis” on any front that did not originate in – or was not at least aggravated by -- some cynical or ill-conceived government policy, regulation, or law? And yet it's always government that is called in – by unanimous plea of the citizenry – to fix what government wrought in the first place... and thus the poison is concentrated to the point where it has to become fatal. And so we have a gradual evolution from government being, at most, part of the solution to its becoming part of the problem, to its becoming _the_ problem. But again, none of this would have been possible without a corresponding, parallel degeneration of the American character. A free people would never have put up with a fraction of the high-jinks that government has been committing down through the years. But what has eroded that freedom more than anything else? Not the law, not oppression, and not plagues, wars, and disasters, but fear. And that, in turn, counts as a bloodless victory for the forces of totalitarianism – to render an entire population afraid of its own shadow, even in the midst of, arguably, plenty of residual prosperity and token freedoms – this is, truly, a prodigious feat. And yet it has been carried off, and with remarkable efficiency – since each succeeding generation has a much lower “fear threshold” than the one before. People of my parents' generation would have scoffed in disgust at what now passes as a “crisis”, or as “poverty”, for example. And yet, I imagine that we're tougher – in all of our cry-baby self-pity – than the generations to follow. I would like to know just how weak Americans can become before they cease to exist at all! I suppose that eventually they will all turn into benumbed slaves whose only source of energy is sheer biological survival instinct – not unlike concentration camp inmates (and even there, inner strength was a powerful predictor of survival). And this, of course... or so one would think... would be a fate to be feared much more than anything that is now causing us to give up our freedoms. I mean, there really are some things worse then death, aren't there? Like death of the spirit, for example? And yet, to see the trends in current events, that seems to be the least of our worries.