At the end of "Evil: Part II" I wrote: ‘In Evil: Part III, I’ll attempt to address an idea that is popular amongst Collectivists; that knowledge of Emergent Patterns is a sign that we should start creating them ourselves by creating centralized, governmental methods of imposing them on society.’
Well, I lied. I’ll get to it in Evil: Part IV.
Neo-Communism and Incrementalism
Here’s a quote from another post on the boards at the moment. I thought it made a good jumping off point for this post. It’s from a politician on the latest anti-smoking jihad (and a very popular one, I must say), making it illegal to smoke in a car with a kid inside.
Quote:
"I am just seeking every opportunity I can to denormalize smoking and to try to put it out of the reach of kids,"
So much for road rage, traffic jams and distracted driving, I guess. I’m sure the impact of all of these will far outweigh any benefit to the adorable, defenceless, little pre-adults. But you’ll never see that on the news.
Really, it’s a very good sentence to describe the whole mindset. Just insert the term of your choice. Give it a try!
I am just seeking every opportunity I can to denormalize ________________ and try put it out of the reach of kids.
The government should just have that one line on every form for the special interest groups that come through the door.
You can take just about anything that is bought and sold in this country and insert it in the blank space.
alcohol
meat eating
fast food
sugary food
baby formula
"hate speech" (conservative or libertarian thought)
manufacturing
driving
soft drinks
coffee
pet ownership
private property
It won’t matter soon. Deodorant, household cleaners, furniture, light bulbs, sports, metal tools, whatever.
The reason I was led to write this series of posts is that the thing with this protectionist, governmental trend is that you can’t beat it with logical, cause and effect, subject and object reasoning because it isn’t being driven by logical, cause and effect, subject and object reasoning.
I’ve really come to look* at all of these problems to be tremors of a much larger force that is moving along on its own. I like to call this force Neo-Communism.
I know when I write "Deodorant…light bulbs, sports, metal tools, whatever", you know that I’m joking. Well…Let’s explore this idea a bit…
Any environmentalist or anti-smoker reading that would say "That’s ridiculous. I’m not trying to ban furniture or coffee! I’m not a Communist! This whole thing is a crock!"
Here’s the thing. And it’s very important.
They’re telling the truth. Somehow, though, neither you, nor they, will be able to reconcile their present honesty with their future acceptance of these very same ideas.
This is really very obvious, but no one seems to have brought it out in the open. I’ve always assumed that these people know damn well that they’re lying when they say things like:
"We’re just saying that we want smoking to take place in separate section. We’re not interested in telling bar owners what to do."
Then a few years go by and they say:
"We’re just asking you not to smoke in bars and restaurants to protect the employees. Just step outside. We’re not asking you to stand out in the street."
Then one year goes by and they say:
"We’re just asking that you not stand so close to the entrance, we’re not trying to force anyone to quit smoking."
Then six months go by and they say:
"Second-hand smoke is incredibly dangerous and there’s no safe level of exposure. There can be no smoking outdoors or in."
I’ve always called this phenomena "incrementalism". Here’s the fascinating and frightening thing about "incrementalism" though.
(I have a theory that these shrinking timeframes can be reduced to something called "The Power Law". IF ANYONE KNOWS WHERE NIGHTLIGHT IS, I’D REALLY LIKE FOR HIM TO READ THESE. He could probably help.)
If, as I stated, these people are being honest when they say these things, then what the Hell is moving all of this along? If it moves along incrementally, what, specifically, is "it"?
People move "it" along, of course, but if the people who are driving these ideas along don’t have any individual intention of moving these ideas along, then some larger force, for which I have no explanation, must be well, moving it along.** God? The Devil? Let’s not start pulling out the supernatural cards.
The behavior and the intent of anti-smokers didn’t seem to add up to what they themselves wanted it to add up to. Their overall behavior didn’t match their individual behavior, but somehow all of these people start interacting together and this whole big monster of anti-smoking and the larger monster of neo-communism gets pushed along.
In other words:
"…global patterns of behaviour by agents in a complex system interacting according to their own local rules of behaviour, without intending the global patterns of behaviour that come about. … global patterns cannot be predicted from the local rules of behaviour that produce them. To put it another way, global patterns cannot be reduced to individual behaviour." (Stacey 1996:287)*** (Top Middle)
That’s a definition of emergence.
Science has a hard time defining Emergence. I invite you to look on Wikipedia or any other source. You’ll find similar definitions (though a bit less post-friendly).
Do you see the budgie? I’ll promise you that no budgie ever said to itself "I’m going to start looking like my environment." (top center)
Gestalt Psychology incorporates the idea of Emergence.
When people say they have "no intention of" doing this-or-that, they mean it, they’re usually telling the truth. When they say it, you have no evidence whatsoever that they have a different intent because they don’t have that intent. Give it a little time, and who turns out to be right?
You do! The very same accusation you made a year ago, the very prediction that you knew would come true, comes true, and everyone just shrugs their shoulders, they’ve got other things to worry about. If you ask the anti-smoker who claimed to have no intent of banning smoking near the entrance, the anti-smoker will say "Well, I didn’t know at the time how much bother it would cause, and there’s no safe level of exposure, blah blah blah…"
Guess what? They’re telling the truth again! Ask them if they intend to ban smoking in the home and guess what they’ll say. "No, of course not. We have no intent…private property…blah, blah, blah…"
Six months later, that same bastard will be on TV selling the virtues of banning private smoking!
Yet, when he said it, six months before, I’ll guarantee you, in most instances, could hook that guy up to a polygraph and put him under a PET scan and literally take a picture of his brain, and you’d find that he was telling the truth.
Let’s put this in another perspective. When people speak about the problems with draconian, anti-smoking or "ban mentality" policies, they always object on the grounds of "unintended consequences". Those unintended consequences keep occurring, but no one is ever guilty of wishing for those consequences, or they deny that they exist to keep the new status quo that they fought for in place, despite the unintended consequences. Even the people implementing the policies don’t want the unintended consequences. In this way, you see that Neo-Communism can’t be reduced to the elements that produced it.
If you have a friend or relative who agrees with current anti-smoking sentiment, but has no stake in the game, you know that they used to let you smoke in the house and they never objected. Even if you offered to go outside, they may have told you not to bother. Anti-smoking rolls out a few weeks of TV commercials, and you find yourself out on the porch in January. A few more weeks of TV commercials and you find yourself standing in the yard. Pretty soon they just stop asking you to come over.
You’ve been driven away from your friend or relative. Unintended consequence. If you ask the anti-smoker, they’ll say "See, your smoking drove you away from your friend."
You’re supposed to believe this shit when the very same friend used to let you smoke right in front of them all the time! You’ve been driven away because they’ve been brainwashed by some TV commercial! By the time you’re standing in the yard, it isn’t even the TV commercials any more, it’s just something they "feel right" doing. Neo-Communism is working down on them. They justify it by thinking it "will make you quit smoking", supposedly out of their deep concern for you. This is the guy that’s a month away from never inviting you over again! Because you’ve been polite enough to smoke in the yard in January!
Why did your friend or relative ask you to stand outside? They’ll say "Because of your smoking". Why didn’t they care before? "They didn’t know about the (non-existent) danger before." Why did you have to stand in the yard? They "thought it would help you quit." Why don’t they invite you over anymore? "Gee, I don’t remember. I ought to give him a call."
People who never coughed a day in their life around you are suddenly breaking into convulsive fits whenever you light up.
"…global patterns cannot be predicted from the local rules of behaviour that produce them. "
Incrementalism is the driving force of Neo-Communism. Like the budgie in the picture, through a process similar to selection, it camouflages itself as good intention, but the unintended consequences form on lines that cross good intention. If you could see it, it probably looks like an interference pattern, like this:
The "Magic Eye" art that was popular about 10 years ago is an example of emergence working across interference patterns.
When they banned smoking in bars and restaurants, I told people that they were going to come after food. Everyone at the time called me crazy. Now, trans-fat is gone and Neo-Communism is working hard on fast food. I was right. No one gives a damn. I don’t mean I want a pat on the back, I just want them to recognize that something’s going on. They seem to have no idea of what I’m talking about.
The behavior of such people can not be reduced to their past intention, because they had a different context. It wasn’t what they wanted back then. Somehow, it just happened. If you tell them now that they’ll be a vegan in ten years, they won’t believe you. Hell, you could tell them while they’re cooking you a burger on the grill they’re soon to be afraid of. Ten years from now, if you’re still talking to each other, they’ll be telling you the virtues of Vegan America.
Humans have free will. So, it’s very difficult for us to understand that, even while still acting according to our own will and whims, that a pattern larger than us makes us behave collectively.
When you try to explain it to people in the grasp of it, it is like trying to explain to a zombie why "zombies are bad" before they eat your brain.
During the Cold War, people recognized films like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "Night of the Living Dead"**** and novels like Richard Matheson’s "I am Legend" as metaphors for Communism. No one has really ever tried to articulate why.
It just so happens that "I am Legend" is being release as a feature film starring Will Smith this winter. This month a film called "Invasion"starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, which seems very similar to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", is also coming out. There is a horror film called "Pulse" available right now in your local video store that deals with similar themes. Art has a habit of making statements about the time that it doesn’t necessarily intend. No one has ever been able to make a good argument that "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" was a metaphor for Communism, not because it wasn’t a good metaphor for it, but because the people who made the film had no such intention.
People are not moving Neo-Communism along solely by their good intentions. They’ve created a monster that moves them that they can’t stop with these good intentions, and we all know what road is paved with them.
I promise you, it doesn’t seem realistic now, but if this pattern keeps growing the way it has, Neo-communism will have us living in the dark because it’s convinced us that we should feel guilty about the light. Seem crazy? I know where I’ve heard that before. Print this out and keep it in a safe place so you’re children can read it with a flashlight in 25 years.
Neo-Communism is Evil.
0 Comments