I think Wilhelm Reich was on the money when he said this:
The responsibility for wars falls solely upon the shoulders of these same masses of people, for they have all the necessary means to avert war in their own hands. In part by their apathy, in part by their passivity, and in part actively, these same masses of people make possible the catastrophes under which they themselves suffer more than anyone else. To stress this guilt on the part of the masses of people, to hold them solely responsible, means to take them seriously. On the other hand, to commiserate masses of people as victims, means to treat them as small, helpless children. The former is the attitude held by genuine freedom fighters; the latter that attitude held by power-thirsty politicians.
I think this is perfectly illustrated in todays UK where "millions" of outraged citizens opposed the War in Iraq on Friday, but after going out drinking Saturday, watching the news and having a roast that Sunday, were back in their cars burning Iraqi oil come Monday.
If we as a citizenry are intent on perpetual consumption of goods, should we be surprised, shocked or affronted then, when in order to fulfill that demand-and capitalize from it- our leaders engage in global expansionist policies, military resource grabs, enable and merge with transnational Corporations, and use them to subjugate, exploit, and displace indigenous populations of people, to secure the resources required to meet our demands?
Where else really do the inhabitants of a small Island like Britain expect to obtain their endless supply of consumer luxuries, if not by the oppression, occupation and brutalisation of the colonies?
"The prosperity of our people rests really on the oil in the Persian Gulf, the rubber and tin of Malaya, and the gold, copper and precious metals of South- and Central Africa. As long as we have access to these; as long as we can realize the investments we have there; as long as we trade with this part of the world, we shall be prosperous. If the communists were to take them over, we would lose the lot. Governments like Colonel Nasser's in Egypt are just as dangerous."
Julian Amery
Is it not therefore fitting that the political system and structure of the Imperialist countries of Great Britain and the US, seems geared around elevating those most able to tell huge lies with the biggest smiles, those most able to deceive us in the friendliest most charming way, those able to sell the wholesale exploitation and subjugation of their fellow man to positions of eminence in government?
Is it not the nature of political discourse in the last decade or two, that he most able and willing to obfuscate the truths we as people seem unwilling to confront, goes right to the top, rewarded for blind allegiance to religious convictions, capitalist ideology or tradition, with the task of leading whole populations of subservient and dependent people?
We want a nice reassuring smile, someone to tell us "god is on our side", or that "we are serving the ideal of progress" while we chop up the world and waste it's resources.
We are happy as people to perpetuate the concept of limitless consumption being the foundation of a linear drive towards some form of perfection/Utopia, and as little part we play in determining the course towards that end the better.
There are always willing demagogues, aspirants and ideologues waiting in the wings to do the thinking for us, who are more than happy to dictate to us direction this drive should proceed.
We all want the same thing so there is no need for any diversity in the Three political parties, we want commodities, employment, energy and entertainment, these are gladly offered as core policies of all her Majesties' political parties, additions to ensuring those core points are irrelevant; independent parties, true left or right wing parties, any parties with more than superficial values is marginalized, so vaguely left or vaguely right with a mandate for globalization, financial restructuring, neo-liberalisation and good capitalist values is the outcome.
This is thanks in part to the non-political, politically Nationalist and Conservative members of society that live on Indian Tea, Chinese electronics, African Diamonds, Bangladeshi clothing, West Indian sugar, Indonesian minerals, American Gold and Arabian oil, and are thus dependent like children upon the State and it's institutions as being essential to continuing the supply of these demands, and the continuation of the Empire.
If we have happily lived under Plutocratic rule for centuries while it was comfortable, enjoying the privileges of being members of a marauding and war mongering Imperial power, do we have the right to complain in times of enforced austerity to reign in our unsustainable consumption?
