At the beginning of this week, our class was discussing regulations and the intertwining of government and business that has occurred over time, as well as the process of conditioning and legitimization that goes along with it. The process to keep the powerful in power, to make the masses more docile in the hopes that they won't question anything, has become easier for them through the decades, partially through kids being taught from a young age, or indirectly through indoctrinated parents, and with the evolution of media. Though subliminal messaging can be debated in the form that is typically displayed in science fiction, it is definitely a real thing, with certain morals and messages being conveyed into the populace through advertising, movie and TV themes, and presentation of information in such a way that it is interpreted in a specific way if one doesn't pause long enough to thank about what is being presented. Hidden hypnotic messages aren't as effective as creating a way of life that the consumer wants to emulate for some reason or another. Indoctrination is easier when the subject is willingly converted... cue reference to religion, and let it pass to avoid a whole different tangent. Part of what makes it difficult is that sometimes, channels of resistance are displayed through the same mediums, meaning that if one isn't aware enough, a clever power can disguise their program as part of the opposition, while finding ways to try and either make the consumers of it either useless or converts. Certain types of greenwashing are examples of this, where environmentally destructive groups try to re-brand or make propaganda and try to convince people that they are actually helpful, or that the groups trying to oppose them are the bad guys in some way. Even if those exposed don't switch sides, people who fall for this tactic are prone to stopping activity due to feeling like they have become part of the problem instead of the solution. But problems like this aren't the greatest threat from oppressive powers.
Another point that was discussed was the size of the US penitentiary system, especially due to the ways that laws are designed to keep certain groups and subsets in prison disproportionately. I happened to watch an episode of The Daily Show that featured an interview (it's in two parts, if you want to watch the whole thing) with Eugene Jarecki that covered many of the same topics that were covered during the class discussion, though a bit more focused on the drug war (which he stated as having failed) and prison system. They covered how our prison system is the largest in the world, even exceeding China in number of prisoners. One of the parts I found fascinating was the fact that crack cocaine and powder cocaine, which are different forms of the SAME DRUG, are sentenced differently in the penal system- by a ratio of about 100-1 initially, only recently reduced to about 18-1. The reason? From a clear, outside perspective, completely arbitrary. However, the main difference between the two forms is the demographic of the consumers- poorer individuals (especially urban blacks) are associated with the cheaper "crack" form, while the more affluent are the ones prone to buying the powdered form. The different treatment of the issue is appalling. And then, while it might be a debatable point, the fact that prisons are so full due to a combination of certain incentives for cops to make arrests and a huge industry behind the prison system that makes its money due to the suffering and incarceration of others (though some do deserve it) seems like a sort of moral failing, though whether blame falls more on corporate greed or political favoritism is vague. Just because we need a penal system doesn't mean it has to be one of the biggest and most heavily supported systems in place. Sure there is crime, but that doesn't mean that we need to define more actions as criminal to expand how much we use it.
The system is not limited to services rendered, however. Most know about the way that big oil is so ingrained into politics, that promises of a green transition sound emptier every time. Also, the military-industrial complex, which creates a system where companies that produce arms and armaments to supply the armed forces. In fact, congress's role in the matter is to make most of the budget decisions for the military's purchases, and they apparently have a role in some of the purchases. Some members of congress are trying to push for the refurbishments of tanks that the Army doesn't even want, but this push isn't based on actual defense. It's based on money- either money given to the congressmen as bribes, the concern for jobs in the constituency for manufacturing employees, or the concern about future production capacity if the plant is shut down in the interim. It just goes one to show how the industrial interests are weighted too heavily on the scales of decision makers, even if the recipient of the product has little to no interest in obtaining it. The industry officials don't have the interests of their employees or even their clients at heart when it comes to their primary goal of making more money than they did last year. The other factors are secondary to this goal, more side-effects of their efforts. Individual congressmen and women probably have different views on the way that this situation has played out, but even those who disapprove are relatively silent on the matter.
In the end, the question remains: How will it all end? Will there be some sort of uprising, a resistance to being manipulated and controlled by those who don't have any interest in the general well-being of the land and people? Or will they one day have complete control over our lives and resources? I suppose there is also the third option of things hovering around the level they are at now, but I'm inclined to think that we are heading for some kind of breaking point, and however it turns out, the transition will not be pleasant.
No comments:
Post a Comment