Wednesday, December 19, 2007

The New Totalism

Dear George,

The twentieth century saw the birth pangs of a dynamic movement that was to reach its maturity in the twenty-first: methodological totality and its child, social engineering. As is so often the case, it was a difficult birth. The totalized methods set into motion by Lenin, Stalin and Hitler were crude affairs whose lack of sophistication and marketing acumen guaranteed their self destruction.

Despite their clumsiness, these early experiments shared one thing in common with the more sophisticated ideological totality of the twenty-first century, and that was the belief that ideological implementation was possible only through the complete destruction of a nation, a system or an individual. Out of this blood and rubble of the old would emerge a “new nation,” a “new system” or a “new man”.

These earlier efforts failed because they equated destruction with actual destruction. You shot all the dissidents and beat the survivors into submission. Out of this, they believed they could reconstruct the individual into a passive pawn who would willingly submit to the dictates of the State or the ruling clique. Through social engineering they thought they could completely renovate the human psyche and sap it of its individuality and will.

You can't rebuild the human psyche, you must corrupt it through its virtual destruction. Instead of active support, the sole goal of the State is to induce passive apathy. Once it turns citizens into spectators, the State is free to do as it pleases as long continues to entertain the proles. So forget the parades and rallies, the mass gymnastics and all of the trappings of the old totalistic societies. As long as Britney keeps shaving her head and political coverage continues to obsess on fashion and fund raising, there is little chance of the masses rebelling.

Where others failed, Corporatism is scaling heights undreamed of by the totalistic regimes of old. Be proud that you are the midwife of this movement, even though you can’t tell the difference between forceps and follicles.

Your admirer,
Belacqua Jones

No comments: