Friday, 4 July 2008


"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."

Apparently, only 3% of crimes are solved using CCTV. This tiny percentage hardly justifies the huge expense of installing covert surveillance devices across every region of the UK, begging the question that if crime reduction and prevention is not the goal, what is?

Not just a treasury money-spinner in terms of extracting yet more stealth tax from the nation by means of speed cameras, these devices are also a means of ensuring social control. The introduction of "talking" CCTV cameras, which will bark warnings to unsuspecting litter-droppers and dog walkers who fail to poopa-scoop, as well as the developing capability to "eavesdrop" on pedestrians conversations and identify individuals via face recognition technology are all very real aspects of an increasingly Orwellian state in which civil liberties and personal privacy are threatened. This is a psychological war. Teenagers are being targetted by sonic waves in the form of the high-pitched "mosquito" resonators that broadcast painful levels of high-frequency noise in an attempt to disuade them from loitering in public places. This is a form of audio VIOLENCE, and regardless of how you feel about "hoodies", who in their right mind can agree with this level of abuse against children? Or argue that people should not be allowed to congregate in public places, irrespective of their intent?

Not only is it possible, following the introduction of anti-terrorism legislation, for the state to create highly detailed profiles of "suspects" using email and telephone interception, our increasingly on-line lives also leave an electronic trail detailing via transaction records what clothes we wear, what books we read, what music we listen to, even what food we eat. This may appear harmless but in terms of identifying a demographic of intellectual dissent likely to oppose the totalitarian tiptoe, this kind of psychological profiling means that anyone whose lifestyle choices fit the stereotype of a "free thinker" can be immediately identified and monitored. Come on down, Winston Smith.

The more blinkered amongst us always tend to shriek "well, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear... they're only after the terrorists!" Which brings us into a semantic debate about what exactly constitutes a terrorist, and the dreaded realm of "thought-crime". Is being intellectually opposed to the government an act of terrorism? You may be the most ghandi-esque, passive character known to man, but potentially, as far as they are concerned, your ideas are a threat. You may have the POTENTIAL to be a terrorist, purely by the nature of your idealogy, and we can't have that, now can we? The aim of society is to keep everyone neatly inside their box, mentally dulled on a diet of e-numbers, junk television and crippling debts. You're not supposed to have time to think about anything else, or question why only 2% of the population control 90% of the countrys wealth. You need to know your place, and carry on working for a shit wage in a job that does not inspire you for the rest of the days, just so that 2% can prosper as result of your efforts. They need to protect the status quo here. If people start thinking, they will start to realise that this system is inherantly unfair. We have the capability to re-distribute the wealth of the nation, yet "they" prefer to keep it all for themselves. far better that they should spend the majority of their time hunting foxes and paying £300,000 for a pair of earrings whilst pensioners freeze to death because they can't afford to put the heating on!

Constant CCTV surevillance means that any peaceful protest can be immediately nipped in the bud, and the instigators identified and removed from circulation. They want us passive and unresisting, and will continue to chemically and intellectually pacify us as long as they can. Fluoride in the water supply? Fuck all to do with protecting our teeth, countries which do not flurodate have LESS dental caries. Fluoride is a toxic by-product of the aliminium industry, known to cause brain damage and a lowering of IQ. The Nazi's were the first to consider the concept of adding it to the water supply for social control and we all know how that turned out!
How about aspartame, 200 times sweeter than sugar and found in every diet drink and sugar-free chewing gum? Again, neuro-toxic, lowers IQ, and causes cancer.
Next we turn to television, the opium of the masses. That REALLY keeps you in your box, safely tucked away. Watching TV causes a lowering of brainwaves to an ALPHA state, the same state of low-arousal that results from hypnosis. Prolonged periods of alpha-state functioning leave us open to suggestion, and is the intellectual equivalent of staring at a blank wall. Which means you are perfectly attuned to believe any old bollocks you see.

The advent of "reality-tv", in particular programmes such as Big Brother have, in light of this, a dual purpose. On a subliminal level, experienced in the alpha state, the message is that being constantly under surveillance isn't such a bad thing after all. Appearing on BB is regarded as an achievement for talentless losers who have no hope of success through any other format. People queue for hours for the chance to live in a literal prison for 3 months, giving up their privacy and dignity, having every psychological defect scrutinised by the public in what is the 21st century equivalent of a public hanging. To the viewer, the message is that people who don't conform to society's idea of how people should behave, regardless of whether it is in their true nature as an autonomous human being to do so, will be relentlessly and mercilessly vilified for something so trivial as arguing about oven chips. We watch people come perilously close to losing the plot, all for the sake of cheap entertainment, whilst at the same time, we are introduced to the idea of this kind of intrusion as normal, even desirable. For three months we obsess over these people, then they are chewed up, spat out and forgotten, left to deal with the emotional scars and being deemed evermore unemployable all for the sake of their 15 minutes of fame. And let's not forget that from the outset, this programme was hailed as a "social experiment". We are now seeing the results of this spreading throughout society at large.

No comments: