One of the nice things about being a literate person in the modern age is the ability to read old, old books. I like to do this because it acts as a window into a different world. This helps me put the present times into perspective and gives me the evidence I need to discard some of our modern world's deepest superstitions.
One of the books I am talking about are the Icelandic Sagas, which record the age of the old Norse. They were written down long after Iceland had embraced Christianity, but they retain enough of the "old ways'" flavour that I think I can get some inkling of pre-Christian Europe. One passage I loved to read was where family and friends had gathered for the Yule celebration. I suspect that most of us would recognize much that went on---people traveling to visit bringing gifts, a decorated tree brought into the house, a roaring fire, and, lots of food and drink.
So when people complain about wanting an "old-fashioned Christmas", I agree, whole-heartedly. I say "yes! I want to go back to celebrating Yule!"
In keeping with that tradition, I'm taking a three week vacation from this blog, my day job, and, I'm just going to relax, enjoy time with friends, and, eat and drink. It's been a hard year for me in many ways. As we enter the shortest day and longest night of the year (Dec 21st) I will reflect on the fact that winter will not last forever, nights will grow shorter, and, no matter how bad it seems there are always green shoots hidden beneath the snow. So enjoy your family and friends!
Norse Yule Celebration, Image: Reykjavik City Museum, c/o The Lincolnite
(Since I posted this, I noticed all the women are working and the men are having a good time.
Not much different from my childhood---but I can at least remember ploughing until midnight one Xmas eve.)
In my last post I took the time to work out an argument that supports the idea of "deplatforming" neo-Fascists. In this week's op-ed I'd like to build on that foundation to talk about some disturbing trends that I've recently noticed outside the loony bin and on the main stage of our political theatre.
&&&&
On April 18th Canadaland published a leaked internal memo from the Toronto Sun that outlined how management wanted their reporters and journalists to cover the upcoming Ontario election. It makes for interesting reading. Here's part of the introduction:
Editorial Perspective:
The past 14 years of progressive Liberal policies have undermined Ontario’s economy, electricity system and core public services and introduced unprecedented social division.
Successive Liberal governments have been fiscally reckless, plagued by scandal, self-serving and demonstratively harmed the quality of life for millions of Ontarions.
Our focus will focus on exposing the Liberal record during the campaign and advocating for change that addresses the critical need to responsibly address chronic and growing problems in health, education and economy.
We are not better off than we were 15 years ago.
It goes on to outline a list of stories that management wanted their staff to write about. Consider the following, which are only a few chosen from a long list:
Issue: Hydro
Story: The $9.2 billion fire sale of Hydro One was just one of many blunders that undermined the province’s electricity sector and drove up energy rates. We revisit the government’s failed green energy plan, articular ongoing and future costs, look back at the gas plant scandal and costs and detail how soon after the election rates will rise, and what the 25% rate cut will cost. We look at the high salaries and bonuses paid to hydro execs and dig into the Hydro One purchase of a U.S. coal plant and toxic sludge farm. Does anyone have a realistic plan for hydro?
Issue: Carbon tax
Story: We compare Liberal cap-and-trade with Conservative and NDP plans for carbon pricing. We look at the impact carbon taxes will have on Ontario’s economy, from jobs to grocery and gasoline prices. We review failure of carbon taxes elsewhere, and problematic nature of implementing if the U.S. does not.
Issue: Minimum Wage
Story: Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office estimated as many as 50,000 people could lose their jobs this year because of the wage hike. In January, 59,300 part-time workers lost their jobs. Declines have flattened out since then. We look at stats as they’re published during the campaign. Meanwhile, a 22.5 per cent cut in Ontario’s business tax from 4.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent won’t offset increased staffing costs and other incentives such as paid sick days and three weeks paid vacation for workers with five years on the job.We’re also increasingly seeing unintentional consequences, including part-time work for people with disabilities.
Issue: Green Energy
Story: Ontario’s Liberals have wasted billions on unnecessary wind and solar energy. We look at links between those who benefited and party. We also look at carbon taxes and impact on consumers. Cost of green energy? Corporate welfare? Promised Green jobs?
Please note, this is a strange form of journalism in that the managers are telling their writers and researchers what their conclusions should be before they go out to look at the facts. This isn't how news is written, instead this is propaganda. (This certainly isn't how I go about writing stories for the Back-Grounder. While it is true that I often have some vague idea about how I want to write a story, this usually goes out the window when I start doing research and learn how little I knew going in. For example, last week I thought I'd focus on climate change denial before I started researching and I ended up going with the problem of media concentration. That's how journalism is supposed to work---.)
&&&&
Paul Godfrey,
Conservative Politician and Media Tycoon
Image by Vibhu c/o Wikicommons
The Toronto Sun is owned by "the Postmedia Network". This is a very large newspaper chain that was accumulated by and is currently managed by Paul Godfrey (even though it is now owned by an American asset management firm called "Golden Tree Asset Management".) Godfrey doesn't come from a background in journalism---or even ordinary business. Instead he has been involved with various things such as: Conservative municipal politics (Alderman in North York 1964-73, then appointed to various higher offices such as North York Board of Control, Metropolitan Toronto Council, ending up his career as Chairman of Metropolitan Toronto in 1984), public administration (chair of Ontario Lottery and Gaming corporation 2009-2013), and, professional sports (president and CEO of Toronto Bluejays 2000-2008.) (The Wikipedia article linked to his name is really worth reading. The man has had his thumb in a lot of pies over the years.)
Just to give you an idea of how important he is to Canadian journalism, here's a list of Postmedia Network properties:
Newspapers
National Post
Calgary Herald
Cornwall Standard Freeholder
Edmonton Journal
London Free Press
Montreal Gazette
Ottawa Citizen
Regina Leader-Post
The Star Phoenix (Saskatoon)
The Vancouver Sun
Windsor Star
Calgary Sun
Edmonton Sun
Ottawa Sun
The Province (Vancouver)
Toronto Sun
Winnipeg Sun
24 Hours (Toronto, Vancouver)
Airdrie Echo (tabloid)
Barrie Examiner (broadsheet) sold to Torstar and closed, 2017[17]
Belleville Intelligencer (broadsheet)
Bow Valley Crag & Canyon (tabloid)
Brantford Expositor (broadsheet)
Bradford Times (tabloid) sold to Torstar and closed, 2017[17]
Brockville Recorder and Times (broadsheet)
Camrose Canadian (tabloid), closing 2018
Chatham This Week (tabloid)
Clinton News-Record (tabloid)
Cochrane Times (Alberta) (tabloid)
Cochrane Times-Post (tabloid)
Collingwood Enterprise Bulletin sold to Torstar and closed, 2017[17]
Cornwall Standard Freeholder (broadsheet)
Drayton Valley Western Review (tabloid)
Edson Leader (tabloid)
Elliot Lake Standard (tabloid)
Fort McMurray Today (tabloid)
Fort Saskatchewan Record (tabloid)
Goderich Signal-Star (tabloid)
Grande Prairie Daily Herald-Tribune (tabloid)
Hanna Herald (tabloid)
High River Times (tabloid)
Hinton Parklander (tabloid)
Kenora Daily Miner and News (broadsheet)
Kincardine News (tabloid)
Kingston Whig-Standard (broadsheet)
Kingston This Week (tabloid)
Lakeshore Advance (Grand Bend; tabloid)
Lloydminster Meridian Booster (tabloid)
Mid-North Monitor (Espanola; tabloid)
Mayerthorpe Freelancer (tabloid)
Nanton News (tabloid)
Niagara Falls Review (broadsheet) sold to Torstar, 2017
North Bay Nugget (broadsheet)
Norwich Gazette, closing 2018
Orillia Packet & Times (broadsheet) sold to Torstar and closed, 2017[17]
Peterborough Examiner (broadsheet) sold to Torstar, 2017
Pincher Creek Echo (tabloid)
Sault Star (broadsheet)
Simcoe Reformer (tabloid)
St. Catharines Standard (broadsheet) sold to Torstar in 2017
St. Thomas Times-Journal (tabloid)
Strathmore Standard (tabloid), closing 2018
Stratford Beacon Herald (broadsheet)
Sudbury Star (broadsheet)
Timmins Daily Press (broadsheet)
Vulcan Advocate (tabloid)
Whitecourt Star (tabloid)
Woodstock Sentinel-Review (broadsheet)
Magazines:
Financial Post Business
Living Windsor
Swerve
TVtimes
Websites:
Canada.com
celebrating.com
connecting.com
driving.ca
househunting.ca
remembering.ca
shoplocal.ca
SwarmJam.com
Infomart.com
in addition, Postmedia Network owns all websites associated with all properties listed on this page either wholly or in partnership.
(All of the info above comes from a Wikipedia article. I thought it would be
valuable for readers to get an idea of the scale of Postmedia Network holdings.)
&&&&
What's happening here is a wealthy business man with ties to the Conservative Party is creating a Canadian equivalent of Fox News---a private propaganda outlet that relentlessly pushes a partisan viewpoint under the guise of "journalism".
It's important to understand how propaganda was created in older authoritarian nations like the Soviet Union. It wasn't particularly the case that each editor and reporter had an assigned KGB officer that they answered to. Instead, what happened was people who were interested as working as journalists realized "what side of the bread was buttered" and wrote stories accordingly. People who did this well and didn't let things like facts get in the way of the "party line" tended to get promoted. The foolishly idealistic, on the other hand, were quickly identified and they lost their jobs and never got hired again. No need for thumbscrews and beatings---the vast majority of people will simply do what they need to do in order to pay the mortgage and feed the family. Reporters are especially vulnerable to this sort of thing now because newspapers are in "free fall" and jobs are scarce as hen's teeth with gold fillings.
The other thing that we need to remember is that recent events have shown that even in a modern liberal society propaganda is tremendously successful. All through the scandals rocking the USA right, for example, popular support for Donald Trump has sat at a rock-solid 42% of the body politic. That's what happens when you have a significant fraction of the public who get all their news and information from corporate propaganda outlets like Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting.
The important takeaway from the above is that there is a problem with letting a small number of extremely wealthy and well-connected individuals control the media. Freedom of speech laws don't mean much if one side has a huge, enormously-amplified megaphone and the other side has nothing but the quiet voice of reason. That's why we need to build our own megaphones, and, lessen the ability of "big money" to say whatever they want---no matter how divorced from truth or objectivity.
&&&&
The pitch for support shouldn't actually be necessary in this week's op-ed. Do you want to let propaganda machines like Postmedia control what you learn about our society? Or do you want some sort of in-depth coverage that gives an objective, much more complete picture? The choice is up to you---you can support independent, responsible journalism, or, you can passively watch a small number of wealthy individuals amass a "free market" propaganda machine designed to control a large slug of voters. But that choice is easier than it has ever been. Just subscribe to the Guelph Back-Grounder through Patreon or put something in the Tip Jar. Other people have already done it---(thanks Charles for being so awesome!) What's stopping you?
You can also share the Guelph Back-Grounder through social media. Word of mouth is the only advertising I can afford.
&&&&
Another issue that is compounding the importance of this debate is the fact that the federal government is aware of the problems that newspapers are currently facing, which is why the Trudeau government has pledged money to help the news media. But the question is, who gets what and how is the money going to be allocated? Certainly, it sounds like Paul Godfrey thinks that he is going to be getting some of it.
Paul Godfrey, the CEO of Postmedia, which publishes the National Post and daily broadsheets in many of Canada’s largest cities, said that tax credit “could be looked upon as a turning point in the plight of newspapers in Canada.”
“I tip my hat to the prime minister and the finance minister. They deserve a lot of credit,” said Godfrey. “Everyone in journalism should be doing a victory lap around their building right now.”
"$600M in federal funding for media 'a turning point in
the plight of newspapers in Canada’ "
Stuart Thomson, Nov 21st, 2018, The National Post
Of course, it wouldn't be a good idea if journalism actually disappeared. But equally, we don't want the government-of-the-day deciding on a case-by-case basis how this money is going to be divided up. If we don't do that, we will probably end up with an independent board deciding how to divide up the largess. But there will be a temptation to get a group of "establishment media types" together who will give most of the money to the existing media companies---like Postmedia. And if we do that, we run the risk of propping up some really horrible media practices, like managers deciding the editorial policy is to support the party of the guy who manages the paper.
Is this the only way we can deal with news in Canada? Maybe it would make more sense to decide the money needs to be divided up on the basis of how actually independent, objective, and, perhaps even local, the news media really is. I think that voters should make sure that Paul Godfreys and Postmedia don't end up using our tax money to tell us how to vote. What do you think?
A few years ago a huge debate erupted on-line about whether or not people should physically fight against the re-emergence of fascism as a political ideal in society. The debate centred around an open white supremicist named Richard Spencer who was "sucker punched" while giving an interview on a sidewalk.
People argued back and forth on this issue using a variety of different starting points.
Some argued that freedom of speech should be an absolute with no exceptions, which means that no one should attack someone else simply because of what they say or advocated. This has more traction in the US than here, simply because Canada---like many countries---has hate speech laws that make it illegal for anyone to advocate certain ideas in public.
There are three separate hatred-related offences: section 318 (advocating genocide), section 319 (publicly inciting hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace), and section 319 (wilfully promoting hatred).
(Quoted from the Wikipedia article linked to above)
In contrast, the USA is a tradition of free speech absolutism, which means that they do not allow any infringement on freedom of speech---period. And, as a general rule most American citizens are also free speech absolutists, which I can attest to from conversations with my American wife and her friends. Most of them are somewhat appalled by our hate speech laws and see them as a tremendous assault on personal liberty.
Another dividing line in the discussion centres not on the ideal of free speech but rather on the tactical issue of whether or not it is good politics to punch out fascists. The argument is that while it might be legitimate on a moral basis to physically attack them, it will alienate any bystanders who might be sympathetic to your overall political agenda. It will also make the NAZIs more sympathetic to them because they will then use images of this attack over and over again to point out the hypocrisy of their opponents.
On the other side, people argue that if society doesn't vigorously oppose this ideology every time it becomes visible a process of "normalization" starts to take place. Ideas that were once "beyond the pale" become things that are now open to "legitimate discourse". And people who advocate them start to become important "news-makers" that can play reporters against one another for "access". (If you watch the YouTube clip I've put in above you might notice how Spencer is working very hard to "normalize" himself with the reporter doing the on-street interview. No "frothing at the mouth", just a regular guy trying to express his own, "legitimate" belief system.)
While this process often only goes so far in terms of making certain ideas acceptable to ordinary citizens, it can have a tremendous impact on the ability of organizations supporting these extreme views to reach out to that small fraction of the public who are predisposed to accept them. This is an important point to understand as these groups already understand that they will never constitute a majority point of view in society. Indeed, one of the memes that they bandy about is calling themselves "the three percenters". The reference is to the idea that only three percent of citizens supported the American revolution. If you advocate an authoritarian, armed revolution you don't need to have majority support---just enough armed thugs to force everyone else to accept it.
The philosopher Karl Popper (who lived and suffered through the rise of the NAZIs in Europe) wrote about this issue and called it "The Paradox of Tolerance". Instead of trying to explain the issue myself, I'll use the following cartoon which is widely copied on the Web.
Sorry, I couldn't find an original source for this---even though it has been copied over
and over again. The "Pictoline.com" caption is just a repository of images without attribution.
&&&&
Popper's "paradox of tolerance" is probably the best argument for anti-hate speech legislation. It suggests that experience shows that there have to be limits to tolerance in order for it to protect itself. If you accept this idea, then the next stage is to ask yourself what the concerned citizen should do if the state steadfastly refuses to pass and enforce anti-hate speech laws?
There are people who call themselves "Antifa" (ie: Anti-Fascist) who have been trying to shut-down and "deplatform" specific speakers. To understand what is going on, it is important to remember the specific context. There are a class of inflammatory speakers (such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Faith Goldy) who have built a business model around the following formula: get a small student group to book you as a speaker at a university campus, say as much outrageous nonsense as possible in order to bait students opposed to said nonsense into trying to shut down the event, then plead "censorship" to the media.
It's important to remember that they are exploiting a couple weaknesses "baked into" a specific place: university campuses. Universities usually have a policy of providing subsidized spaces to campus clubs that they can use to bring in speakers. This means that a small group of radicals on a campus can rent a venue that they could never get (either because of price or beliefs of the owners) if they were trying to book in someone like Yiannopoulos or Goldy through the private sector.
Secondly, universities tend to have an internal culture of free speech absolutism. This comes about because academics tend think in theoretical instead of practical terms, and, research is based on the free flow of ideas. This means that any administration that tried to ban right-wing shit-disturbers from the campus would have to deal with emotional opposition from inside the community. In contrast, businesses and churches that provide most of the venues off campus have totally different motivations---their responsibility is to protect their "brand", which would be tarnished if it became associated with alt-right provocateurs.
Finally, as a group, journalists (the people who report all of this to the general public) also tend to be free speech absolutists who have zero understanding of the sort of issues that Popper deals with in his paradox of tolerance.
Creating a media frenzy through having your public "lecture" disrupted will give you lots and lots of free publicity, which people like Yiannopoulos and Goldy then convert into support from the "three percent" crowd. This support can be mobilized in several ways: financial (especially for "security" and "legal fees"), names on a list that can then be sold to various nefarious groups looking for the "three percenters", and, book sales. If you look at the clip below, it has all the elements described above. Please note that a "Republican club" booked Milo into a campus hall in Berkeley---an area of the country that is so known to be a hotbed of left-wing thinking that it is called "the people's republic of Berkeley". This venue choice means that the point wasn't to connect with the audience, it was to create a conflict on the streets. Consider, if you will, how valuable the news clip below is to Yiannopoulos in his quest to connect with "the three percent". You couldn't buy advertising this good even if you were a billionaire.
Does this mean that the antifa is wrong and that their battle to stop "normalizing" the alt-right is back-firing because it just creates more publicity for them? Not necessarily. It turns out that both Yiannopoulos and Goldy have been banned from using Patreon to raise money for their antics. If you want to know how important this is, consider another---admittedly far less crude---alt-right "star", Jordan Peterson. He has almost 8,500 subscribers on Patreon and rumour has it that he gets $80,000/month off it. In addition, if enough pressure is exerted on college campuses they may rethink the policies that are being exploited by provocateurs. Moreover, news editors might eventually get the message and stop allowing these jerks to "play them like a fiddle" for free publicity.
The secret to "deplatforming" seems to be three-fold: convince college campuses to stop providing subsidized venues for fascist provocateurs, get the media to stop "normalizing" them in their coverage, and, cut off their access to money through crowd-funding sites like Patreon. This isn't the total answer to dealing with neo-fascism---there are a lot of other elements to our current crazy situation---but it does seem like a logical program to deal with one particular aspect.
&&&&
This raises an important point that we need to consider. What is it about "the three percent" crowd that allows it to create such chaos in society far beyond their numbers would indicate? I'd suggest that it's because they are highly motivated. This is why they are far more willing to pull out their credit cards and support their people on Patreon than "progressives". This is also something that needs to change. If you want to read news that actually informs instead of confuses, you have to be willing to pay for it. And this brings me to my usual "beg". Writing this blog is a lot of work. I have a day job (at least until I retire---which will be soon I hope), but if we want young people to have careers in journalism people have get into the habit of paying for content. So what's stopping you from signing up with Patreon? Even as little as a dollar a month will support the model if enough people pony up. A one-time payment in the tip jar is also appreciated.
In addition, don't forget to share posts on your social media! Word-of-mouth is the only way I get the word out about "the Back-Grounder".
&&&&
This is enough for one week's op-ed. I hope to go on and talk about the issues I've identified above and how they relate to climate change denial. I think that they are related.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks of 2001 I was asked to take part in a panel discussion about them at St. John's-Kilmarnock School in Breslau. This place is obviously designed to teach children of wealthy families so they can move forward to take their place as elite members of the community. As such, the people organizing the event were able to find a really broad mix of important people to talk about the subject. There was a protestant minister, a catholic priest, a cabinet minister, someone giving the Israeli perspective, several others I've forgotten---and even me to give the strange, "odd man out" viewpoint.
Sitting on that stage with a lot of people who represented "conventional wisdom", watching teenage students in the audience who were obviously quite conscious that they were being groomed to become future leaders; I was intrigued, then surprised, and, finally horrified by what the other members of the panel discussion were saying. They all harped on a single theme: how awful, horrible, unprecedented, and, totally unexpected the attacks had been. I remember the cabinet minister going on and on about how she was overcome with waves of violent emotion as she watched the attacks.
In effect, everyone else on that stage with me was doing their best to whip the audience into an emotional panic.
From Fox television's "The Simpsons"
Used under the "Fair Use" copyright provision
Luckily, I had brought my well-worn translation of Dao De Jing, so I opened it up to chapter five and quoted from it:
1. Heaven and earth are not humane (jen),
They treat the ten thousand beings as straw dogs (ch'u kou).
The sage is not humane (jen),
He treats the hundred families as straw dogs (ch' kou).
(Ellen Chen trans.)
I explained to the students that "heaven and earth" are the way the ancient Chinese described the laws and forces that govern the universe, "straw dogs" are cheap ritual offerings that are used once and discarded, and, that "the hundred families" are all the individuals in the human race. In effect, that the universe is totally unconcerned with the suffering of individuals, and, that wise people (ie: "the sage") understand this fact and act accordingly.
I went on to talk about how they should think about this insight. First, I said that every single person in the room was going to die. (You could have heard a pin drop. I don't think that anyone had ever told any of these teens this obvious fact.) I also said that they shouldn't pay attention to the mere fact that 3,000 people died on 9/11 without putting that number into a context. I didn't have the numbers at hand, but I told them to remember that 3,000 deaths would have been considered a very slow day in WW2. (A conservative estimate places the deaths then at 55 million, over 5 years equals over 30,000/day.) I also might have pointed out that more people die from car crashes every year (37,500 in the USA---over 100/day and 2,000 under 16), but I don't remember for sure.
I then said that I was mentioning this fact because it was tremendously important to not get too emotional when something like this happens. That's because if you act out of fear or anger the possibility arises that you will support policies that would involve flailing around like a wounded bear that would make things much, much worse. I said that if people get emotionally freaked out, they could support policies that will result in the death of innocent people in far, far greater numbers as "collateral damage" of an aggressive foreign policy. (I seem to recall the cabinet minister turning and looking at me when I said that---but memory plays tricks.)
Looking back since then it's pretty obvious that my most dire predictions have come true. America flailed around like a wounded bear, and dragged a lot of its allies with them. (All praise to Jean Chretien for refusing to attack Iraq.) Many, many more people have died from "collateral damage" in the "war on terror" than on 9/11 (a "credible" estimate" of 461,000 in Iraq alone) but they weren't white, and, it was "accidental"---so who cares?
&&&&
I suspect most readers haven't a clue about what the title of this op-ed means. It's medieval Latin for "the fear of death disturbs me", primarily a reference to the following line in a church ritual:
Peccantem me quotidie, et non poenitentem, timor mortis conturbat me. Quia in inferno nulla est redemptio, miserere mei, Deus, et salva me.
Sinning daily, and not repenting, the fear of death disturbs me. For there is no redemption in Hell, have mercy on me, o God, and save me.
I came across the line when I studied English literature during the first year of my undergrad degree. It was a line that was used repeatedly in medieval Scottish and English literature. In effect, it was a meme---much like the angry cat one that people trade around today.
Like any other meme, this one was used to spread a fragment of culture among people, namely, that we should think about death. This is similar to the quote from the Dao De Jing that I tossed out at St. John's-Kilmarnock. Our days are numbered and the universe is profoundly indifferent to our mortality. The important point that people used to remember, however, was that this meant that we should always try to live our lives knowing that the next thing you do could be the last thing that you can do. Moreover, that action could well be what we are remembered for and what defines our brief life on earth.
This was considered a very important idea through much of human history and was continued through the Renaissance with the use of another meme: the "memento mori" (ie: "remember you will die".) What this often consisted of was the inclusion of a human skull in the pieces of art.
"Young man with a skull", Frans Hals, 1626. National Gallery, London. Image c/o Wiki Commons
The memento mori even went further than art. Often educated people would have a skull on their desk, in their studio, or, workshop to remind themselves that they were going to die and that they should live each day as if it was their last.
&&&&
The emotion that I felt the most after that school assembly was sadness that the people who should have felt obligated to help these young teens control their fear and anger instead helped whip them up into a greater sense of emotional outrage. I'm afraid that this is what politics has come to in this day-and-age. Even if you don't think it's a good idea to push people to panic, I suspect many politicians believe that they have to at least pay lip service to people's "pain" in order to keep their votes. Unfortunately, there are lots of folks---we call them "populists"---who have no qualms at all about stoking people's anger and/or fear.
As in so many things, the great author George Orwell was able to articulate this stream in politics. In his novel about totalitarianism, 1984, he described a tactic that the government used to keep the citizens whipped up into a frenzy: the "two minutes of hate". It was specifically designed to make sure that people don't think but instead feel.
Just to give you a feel for what I'm talking about, take the time to look at these two video clips. The first is from a movie adaptation of Orwell's novel where the two minutes of hate are shown.
Next, here's the same clip that has been used to create a video "mashup"---in case the obvious takeaway from this op-ed isn't clear enough. ;-)
Emotions are important parts of being a human being. But they need to be tempered by reason. And politicians who genuinely care about the country shouldn't be playing to emotions in order to gain power. And voters should be extremely careful to recognize when they are being "played" by sleazy leaders who are trying manipulate them. One way of doing this that has worked for pretty much all of human history has been for people to remember their own mortality so they can think about how future generations will view their actions.
"The Dance of Death" from the National Gallery of Slovenia image c/o Wiki Commons
