The Affluenza Epidemic

Leadership

12/16/2013 @ 1:07PM |14,197 views

The Affluenza Epidemic

Dr. Dale Archer, Contributor

I'm a psychiatrist and discuss business, markets and human behavior

When Texas teenager Ethan Couch drank himself into a stupor at more than twice the legal limit, got into his pickup up truck, and plowed into four young people, killing them, you’d have thought he’d get sentenced to prison for a few years at least. But the court, which tried the 16-year old as a juvenile, heard a novel defense for manslaughter, and bought it: affluenza.

The witness for the defense, a psychologist, said Couch was the victim of a lifestyle of privilege and entitlement, raised without consequences for bad behavior. As a case in point, he described the time this boy, at the age of 15, was caught with an unconscious naked 14 year-old girl in his parked pickup, doing who knows what. He was never punished, setting a standard of not being held accountable.

The ultimate irony is that Couch, who got drunk on beer he stole from a Walmart, is not being punished for cutting short the lives of these people, either. Two sisters had stopped to help a young woman who had pulled over by the side of the road to fix a flat tire. A youth pastor who was driving by stopped to help as well. Then this 16-year old boy, who was driving 70 miles per hour in a 40 miles per hour zone, slammed into the group. He got 10 years of probation and will likely spend a few months in a pricey rehab center in Newport Beach, California – something more akin to a half-million dollar vacation paid for by his father.

A portmanteau of affluence and influenza, a more detailed definition of affluenza can be found in the book Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic, which describes it as “a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more”.

As disturbing as this trend may seem, it is nothing particularly new. Economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen introduced the term conspicuous consumption in the 19^th century to explain the behavior of the newly wealthy social class that emerged during the second industrial revolution in the late 1800’s. Veblen applied this term to what he called the nouveau riche—families who spent their accumulated wealth in ostentatious ways to show off their newfound prestige and power.
But what is new, is how commonplace it has become. A century later, with the growth of a middle class with more and more discretionary income, the term has come to apply to a much broader group of people, particularly in developed economies like the U.S. Most conspicuous of all is that top 1 percent that owns 42 percent of the nation’s financial wealth. But the behavior, just like a virus, has spread from there to the population at large.

Despite, or perhaps even because of, a vast wealth gap in this country, the affluenza disease is spreading among all socio-economic groups. Through social media and reality television shows like Keeping Up With the Kardashians, we feel we can, and should, keep up with this conspicuous consumption at all cost. Kids of all demographics are raised to believe they deserve the latest and greatest must haves and luxury goods, be they iPhones for five-year olds, the latest X-Box for 10-year olds, or designer handbags for teenage girls, regardless of what families can afford.

The social and psychological consequences can be devastating. We are raising a generation of narcissistic consumers and losing our moral compass along the way. Why? Because the more valuable money and objects become to a person, the less valuable other people or emotions or finding inner happiness becomes.

A case in point: the recent Black Friday door buster sales, where fist fights broke out over who got the last flat screen television on the shelf. One woman even used a stun gun on another in a Philadelphia mall.

These days, we’re seeing consumption on steroids. Who doesn’t know those families who go crazy with the Christmas shopping? They leave so many toys under the tree that their children seem almost annoyed with all the unwrapping they have to do, playing with their new gadgets for a couple of minutes before heaving a sigh of boredom and tossing them aside.

They’re not grateful. They don’t appreciate the hard work that went into earning the paycheck that made a bountiful Christmas possible – or indeed the credit card debt their parents incurred. Some younger children are so overwhelmed, they cry, and not tears of joy. They don’t appreciate what they have, and yet somehow getting more and more is expected.

I won’t speculate on whether or not Couch feels any remorse for his actions or compassion for the families who lost loved ones because of him. But a lack of empathy is definitely one of affluenza’s worst symptoms. Recent research by University of Michigan social psychologist Dr. Sara Konrath finds that levels of empathy among Generation Y have been steadily diminishing.

Her study of 13,737 college students found that there was a 40% decrease in empathy currently, when compared with 20 or 30 years ago. The conclusions were based on the results of the Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index test, which looks at the ability to imagine another person’s perspective and feel what they are feeling. A narcissist has no use for those pesky emotions.

It’s a disturbing trend, and something to think about as we fill our Christmas shopping lists and attempt to stuff yet more presents under the tree this year.

New Treatment For Affluenza; Stop Giving The Rich Everything They Want

 

New Treatment For Affluenza; Stop Giving The Rich Everything They Want

 

Author: Randa Morris December 29, 2013 5:17 pm

 

30 different studies by Berkeley researchers show that the rich lie, cheat and steal more often than the poor and they found the cure for that too.

By now most people are familiar with the case of Ethan Couch. Couch, is a 16-year-old from Texas, who took the lives of four innocent people, while driving drunk last June. The case drew national attention after a psychologist testified that the teen suffers from something called “Affluenza.” Just to be clear, Affluenza, an affliction which supposedly results from rich people getting everything they want, is not a real medical diagnosis.

‘Affluenza,’ is just a fancy word for ‘spoiled brat.’

Couch’s psychologist, G. Dick Miller, was recently interviewed by Anderson Cooper. During that interview, Miller agreed with Cooper, when he suggested that what Miller calls ‘Affluenza,’ is just a fancy term for “spoiled brat.” Wes Williams covered the story for Addicting Info, saying that Miller “shows a lot of concern for Couch’s welfare,” while showing little concern over the four people killed, or the people who lost loved ones because of Ethan Couch’s actions.

But wait a minute. Is Miller really showing concern for Ethan Couch’s welfare? On the one hand, he claims that his patient has been psychologically damaged by his pampered, rich kid life style. On the other hand, he told the court that it would be best for Ethan Couch to continue his pampered, rich kid lifestyle.

That sounds a lot like prescribing cigarettes as a cure for cancer. Or writing a prescription for chocolate cake to treat obesity. If Ethan Couch’s twisted pathology is the result of years of being a rich kid, allowed to do whatever he wants, without consequences, how is it in his best interest to continue that pattern?

Berkeley researchers discovered that rich people are more likely to lie, steal, cheat and disobey the law.

In the summer of 2013, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley discovered some pretty amazing things about the psychological differences between rich people and poor people. Beginning with the fact that rich people lie, steal, cheat and disobey the law far more often than poor people. They were more likely to ignore traffic laws and yes, they were more likely to run someone down with a car. Like Ethan Couch ran down those four people in Texas.

According to the results of 30 different studies, carried out both inside and outside of the laboratory, rich people lack compassion and empathy. They also show an exaggerated sense of entitlement, believing they deserve more than others, and that they earned things which were actually given to them. If you were not inclined to call them ‘spoiled brats,’ you could say that the rich subjects of the Berkeley study were also afflicted with ‘Affluenza.’

Researchers also discovered that when rich people become poor, they act differently.

But what was most remarkable about the Berkeley study is that the researchers also found a way to cure these people. When rich people were made to feel poor, they suddenly became more compassionate and acted more ethically. They were less likely to lie, cheat and steal. If this treatment worked for them, we can assume it would work for Ethan Couch, and other ‘poor rich folks’.

You can’t treat a disease with its cause.

Of course ‘Affluenza’ is not a real medical or psychological condition. Yet, if it was, what real condition would be treated by prescribing more of the same thing that caused it? When a person has a real health condition, the first thing a doctor does is look for the cause. Once the cause is found, it’s taken away.

So how does Miller justify treating his patient, whom he seems to believe is the victim of his rich kid, entitled life style, with more pampering? Not only is this treatment of Ethan Couch against the best interests of society, it seems that it is not even in Ethan Couch’s best interest.

Miller claimed that Ethan Couch is ‘sick’ because he’s a spoiled rich kid. Then he asked the judge to give him preferential treatment, because he’s a spoiled rich kid. And the judge did exactly that.

Ethan Couch was sentenced to ten years probation. The court recommended he receive treatment in a luxurious California rehabilitation center, costing $450,000 per year. But Couch will emerge from the rich kid treatment center as the same spoiled rich kid who went into it. Worse, he will probably emerge even more convinced that he’s above the law, and more certain that he can get away with anything.

Here’s what the doctor should have prescribed.

If Miller was at all concerned about treating his patient, he should have recommended that Ethan Couch be stripped of all the privileges that go along with being a rich white kid. If he really believed his own ’Affluenza’ diagnosis and truly wanted to help Ethan Couch,’ then according to the research done at Berkeley, he should have recommended the following:

1. Take away Ethan Couch’s designer clothes and replace them with a prison uniform.
2. Take away his luxury, private accommodations and replace them with a prison cell. Give him a room-mate whose favorite phrase is “Touch that and I’ll kick your ass, boy.”
3. Take away all the elegant furnishings he’s used to and replace them with a metal cot and a urinal in the corner.
4. Take away the usual six course, gourmet meals and replace them with three squares of unidentifiable ‘mush and chunks’.
5. Stop allowing him to get away with murder.

This treatment would work for bankers, Wall Street traders, corporate CEO’s and Congress people too.

The only thing shown to treat the symptoms of “Affluenza,’ selfishness, greed, vanity, egotism, entitlement, lack of morals and ethics, etc… is to remove the person’s wealth and take away their privileged status.

According to the Berkeley research team, once rich people stop seeing themselves as rich people, they develop all kinds of human characteristics, like empathy, morality and compassion, for starters. In other words, with the right treatment, even rich people can become productive members of society.

This treatment would not just work to cure spoiled teenagers like Ethan Couch. It could also be used on bankers, Wall Street traders, corporate CEO’s, Congress people, former presidents and anyone else who is used to getting everything they want, believes that they should get away with murder and who sees themselves as entirely above the law.

Why The Racist And Homophobic ‘Duck Dynasty’ Comments Have Nothing To Do With Free Speech

Why The Racist And Homophobic ‘Duck Dynasty’ Comments Have Nothing To Do With Free Speech

By Zack Ford on December 19, 2013 at 4:27 pm

"Why The Racist And Homophobic ‘Duck Dynasty’ Comments Have Nothing To Do With Free Speech"

CREDIT: @BoycottAETV

On Wednesday, Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson made comments in a GQ interview condemning homosexuality as sinful and comparable to bestiality, as well as claiming that African Americans were better off under Jim Crow laws. A&E, the network that airs the program, has since suspended Robertson from filming, prompting conservatives to rush to his defense. Even some prominent lawmakers are insisting that his free speech is in danger.

Bobby Jindal (R), governor of Louisiana, which is where Duck Dynasty is filmed, argued that TV networks no longer believe in the First Amendment:

Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), similarly claimed on Twitter that it was “wrong” that Robertson is being “penalized” for his faith. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) offered on Facebook that “free speech matters”:

If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson. Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job. In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him–but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.

Former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) was similarly worried about the fate of free speech:

Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.

In addition, a Facebook page called Stand with Phil Robertson now has over 700,000 “Likes” — more than double what it had Thursday morning — and directs visitors to a “petition” that collects information for the Tea Party-affiliated Patriot Action Network and urges A&E to apologize to Robertson. The conservative group Faith Driven Consumer has its own petition asserting that Robertson was “discriminated against” and should be reinstated immediately. A Twitter profile called simply @BoycottAETV now has over 11,000 followers, producing memes with messages like, “Freedom of speech is not just for liberals!” Even Herman Cain thinks “this crap is out of control.”

These outraged messages have largely defended Robertson’s anti-gay comments as an expression of his religious beliefs without acknowledging his remarks that African Americans were better off without full civil rights. On that point, they have been notably silent. Moreover, nothing about this situation has anything to do with “free speech.”

Robertson is a free man. He has not been arrested for his beliefs. He could continue to say whatever he’d like and, given the current media frenzy, it would probably be quickly published in many other places. Robertson could even take to his own website and publish whatever he wants to say, and individuals could share it through social media the world over. His freedom of speech has been in no way encumbered.

A&E, as a company, enjoys constitutional protections as well, and is under no obligation to provide a platform for messages it disagrees with. The network’s statement suspending Robertson from filming was telling in this regard: “His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.” A&E is not Robertson’s employer, lest it be forgotten that the show Duck Dynasty is about his actual business, Duck Commander, which produces duck calls and other related (and not-so-related) products.

What actually is taking place is that conservatives are taking umbrage because a fellow conservative’s beliefs are being publicly criticized. This happens all the time. When Chick-fil-A head Dan Cathy, whose company gives millions of dollars annually to anti-gay groups, said that homosexuality is “twisted up kind of stuff” that is “inviting God’s judgment,” LGBT groups called for awareness-raising and boycotts while conservatives rushed to show their “appreciation.” The exact opposite happened when companies like Starbucks and General Mills announced their support for marriage equality: LGBT groups offered praise, while anti-gay groups vowed to dump their products.

All of this is emblematic of free speech. Free speech allows citizens to say things that are offensive and unpopular and it allows other citizens to disagree, as well as to choose whether to provide an ongoing platform for those remarks. If anything, the claim that Robertson’s free speech has somehow been inhibited is just a straw man to avoid addressing the merits of what he actually said: that all gay people are going to Hell and that African Americans don’t deserve a seat at the lunch counter.

Tags:

• Bobby Jindal
• Civil Rights
• David Vitter
• Duck Dynasty
• free speech
• homophobia
• Sarah Palin
• Tea Party
• Ted Cruz

Rich versus the filthy, stinking rich

New York Post

Rich versus the filthy, stinking rich

By Andrea Peyser

October 10, 2013 | 4:09am

Modal Trigger

 

Photo: Shutterstock

Call it the battle of the rich — versus the filthy, stinking rich.

In the tony enclave of Riverdale, a nabe that sits uneasily atop The Bronx, a borough not typically associated with snobbery and extreme wealth, a skirmish is brewing between super-rich residents and the prosperous kids who attend the area’s three top-tier private schools.
The first shots were fired at the beginning of the school year.

That’s when barricades, adorned with signs reading, “STREET CLOSED. PRIVATE PROPERTY’’ went up at intersections around town, snarling traffic all the way to the Henry Hudson Parkway.

The roadblocks prevented school buses and other undesirable vehicles from passing through Riverdale’s ultra-snooty Fieldston enclave. And the blocks prevented cars from getting to the area’s three, wickedly expensive private schools. Some neighbors and parents are livid.
“It’s rich people harassing schoolchildren to keep property values up,’’ one mom of private-school kids complained to me.

Todd Rubinstein, who is at times trapped on his street by barricades, told me the barriers have created a kind of “moat’’ around Riverdale, forcing kids and even shoppers to go far, very far, out of the way.
In this city, where the merely rich presumably have the same civil rights as the wildly rich, how can this go on?

Riverdale is unlike other urban enclaves, containing some of the finest single-family houses within city limits. It is also home to three of New York’s priciest private schools — Fieldston Ethical Culture, Riverdale Country School and Horace Mann.

All that exclusivity costs an arm and two legs. Tuition and fees for preschool through high school runs an eye-popping $41,150 at Mann this year, and $41,400 at Fieldston. It takes a positively loony $43,600 to park a young one at Riverdale Country.

Yet this year, wealthy denizens of Riverdale’s swanky Fieldston neighborhood got fed up with the well-to-do interlopers who march through their property on weekdays.

During the first two days of school last month, streets were blocked by signs and manned security vehicles. The blockade forced buses and private cars en route to the three private schools to take “stupid loops’’ around the neighborhood, said one angry parent.

After two days, most passenger vehicles were waved through checkpoints. But not buses.

Rubinstein, 60, a lawyer who lives between the Fieldston and Horace Mann schools, told me the barricades now come up randomly — and at times are unmanned.

“Sometimes, they forget to take them down at night,” he said. “They’re in the middle of the street!’’

Just driving his 2009 Chevy Malibu hybrid to synagogue requires military planning.

But Rubinstein, who says he’s not as wealthy as some neighbors — his kids attended public school! — fears for his safety.

“One day, Sanitation had to move the barricades manually to get their trucks through. If a firetruck has to manually move a barricade to get to my house, doesn’t that slow them down?’’

Fieldston, with just 225 homes, is a private community, and property owners evidently get what they want. And they don’t want outsiders passing through their streets.

“The simple answer to your question is our streets are owned by the Fieldston Property Owners Association and are recognized to be private, as is the sewer system that lies beneath,’’ Brendan Contant, president of the association, told me via e-mail.

The barricades remain, he said, “as reminders that the streets are private and commercial thru traffic is prohibited.’’

In the City of New York, how can a community, no matter how wealthy, turn into a barricaded camp?

In response to my inquiries, the city Department of Transportation is looking into it. “We are reviewing the situation in consultation with the community and other city agencies,’’ said a spokesman.

I hate seeing the wealthy inconvenienced by the super-wealthy.
Take down those blasted barricades.

Louts’ ladies must move on

With the Primary of Pervs now in the rear view, a ticklish question remains: What to do about Anthony Weiner?

The compulsive sexter and mayoral primary loser’s suffering wife, Huma Abedin, has received an ultimatum from her boss, Hillary Rodham Clinton, now mulling a 2016 presidential bid: Leave the embarrassment behind or forget about a top role in Hillary’s campaign and administration, The Post has reported. (A Clinton rep denies this).

But the couple has a kid, and Huma has, so far, resisted fleeing.
She might cry in her white wine with Silda Spitzer, spouse of hooker-happy comptroller-primary loser and disgraced ex-Love Gov. Eliot. She was reportedly set to dash after the primary, but hasn’t — yet.
Ladies, do it for yourselves, if not for the empowerment of all women. Stop enabling these creeps.

Pedicabs take license

Eric Piga may legally operate a pedicab in Manhattan — even though his driver’s license is from Burkina Faso. Driving a rickshaw in New York, Piga said, is “much harder.’’

That’s because back home in West Africa, motorists bear to the left side of the road, not the right. Yet Piga and his brethren in foot-pumping are not required to pass New York road tests nor obtain local driver’s licenses. Any foreign license will do.

This illustrates everything wrong with an industry that caters to clueless tourists, while causing traffic chaos. Get these menaces off the streets!

Clearly not NY’s Finest

This man is a disgrace to the uniform.

Off-duty undercover NYPD Detective Wojciech Braszczok, 32, a guy who outdid Anthony Weiner by posting shirtless selfies to troll for young ladies online, was identified by police brass as one of the motorcycle riders who terrorized a family as they rode off the West Side Highway — smashing the rear window of the SUV holding Alexian Lien, his wife and 2-year-old daughter.

The alleged road-rager was arrested and is accused of lying, telling investigators he had nothing to do with Lien’s Sept. 29 beating. But video shows Braszczok shattered the SUV’s window with his gloved hand, cops say.

The 10-year NYPD veteran could face up to 25 years behind bars if convicted of charges including gang assault and criminal mischief. A rogue cop does a disservice to the many fine men and women who risk their lives daily to save yours. If guilty, I hope this guy does serious time.

A dumb study

Americans are dumb?

So said an international study that compared the brain power of a minuscule 166,000 people, 16 to 65, in more than 20 countries. No surprise — the survey found that US adults scored below folks in places like Japan, Canada, Australia and Finland in math, reading and problem-solving with technology. We also had trouble calculating mileage, reimbursement due a salesman, sorting e-mail, and comparing food expiration dates on grocery tags.

I haven’t a clue how to sort e-mail, or why. But this study seems designed to make us fail.

Finland? I’ll take America.

Wikipedia

The Lucifer Principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lucifer Principle is a book by Howard Bloom. It sees a social group, not an individual, as a primary "unit of selection." “Individual selectionists” like Richard Dawkins see the individual as the only unit of selection. They rule the competition between groups out of any influence on genes. The Lucifer Principle says that both competition between groups and competition between individuals shape the evolution of the genome. The Lucifer Principle shows these facts at work especially in human evolution. The Lucifer Principle "explores the intricate relationships among genetics, human behavior, and culture" and argues that "evil is a by-product of nature's strategies for creation and that it is woven into our most basic biological fabric".^[1] It sees selection (i.e. through violent competition) as central to the creation of the 'superorganism'^[2] of society. It also focuses on competition between individuals for position in the 'pecking order' and competition between groups for standing in pecking orders of groups. The Lucifer Principle shows how ideas are vital in these pecking order battles. Vital in creating cohesion and cooperation. Vital in powering competition. And vital in fueling the process of cultural evolution. Says The Lucifer Principle: “Superorganism, ideas and the pecking order…these are the primary forces behind much of human creativity and earthly good.”

However, The Lucifer Principle argues that cooperation and our commitment to a higher purpose, our commitment to the group, can blind us to the negative consequences of our actions. “From our best qualities come our worst,” says the book. “From our urge to pull together comes our tendency to tear each other apart. From our devotion to a higher good comes our propensity to the foulest atrocities. From our commitment to ideals come our excuses to hate. Since the beginning of history, we have been blinded by evil's ability to don a selfless disguise. We have failed to see that our finest qualities are often the generators of the actions we most abhor…murder, torture, genocide and war.”

Though The Lucifer Principle is a book of science, it is designed to wake us up to the dark side of our cooperative acts, the dark side of our idealism. Says the book’s conclusion: “Superorganisms, ideas, and the pecking order…the triad of human evil--are not recent inventions, ‘programmed’ into us by Western Society, consumerism, capitalism, television violence, blood and guts films or rock and roll. They are built into our physiology. They have been with us since the dawn of our race. But there is hope that we may someday free ourselves of savagery. To our species, evolution has given something new…the imagination. With that gift we have dreamed of peace. Our task…perhaps the only one that will save us…is to turn what we have dreamed into reality. To fashion a world where violence ceases to be.”

The book proposes as the mechanism for human cultural development the selection of specific psychological traits in a given population to support the culture it develops, as well as some universal traits supportive of the humans' nature as a social animal, necessary for the formation and maintenance of social groups instinctively formed by humans, and of cultures developed by these societies, through propagation and replication of memes. It also sees ever enlarging human societies with their specific cultures compete throughout history in violent competition and war. It claims the selection processes manifesting themselves as Evil from an individual's point of view.

Reviews of the book^[3] saw it as 'ambitious' and 'disturbing' in its conclusions that societies based on individual freedom might succumb to systems such as communism or Islamic fundamentalism.^[4][5] The Washington Post said that "Readers will be mesmerized by the mirror Bloom holds to the human condition... He draws on a dozen years of research into a jungle of scholarly fields...and meticulously supports every bit of information...." while Chet Raymo in the Boston Globe termed it "a string of rhetorical firecrackers that challenge our many forms of self-righteousness."

Bloom later wrote^[6] that he and his publisher had been threatened by Islamic groups who objected to aspects of the book. He claimed that "Arab pressure groups asked ever so politely that The Lucifer Principle be withdrawn from print and that nothing that I write be published again. They offered to boycott my publisher's products — all of them — worldwide. And they backed their warning with a call for my punishment in seventeen Islamic countries." Bloom states that the Attorney for the Authors Guild wrote to his publishers, warning of an author boycott if the book was pulled from the shelves. The publishers asked Bloom to rewrite a chapter on Islamic violence, which led to the creation of 358 lines of footnotes attesting to the facts he presented within it.^[6] Today, there is a strange acknowledgement that what Bloom wrote about Islam in The Lucifer Principle is based on expertise. Bloom is a frequent guest on Iran’s Press-TV, Iran’s Alalam-TV, Saudi Arabia’s KSA-2-TV, and even on Syria’s Ekhbariya-TV.

References

1. Bloom, Howard. The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History. Google Books. Retrieved 2007-12-30.
2. Bloom, Howard. "Superorganism" (Web article on book excerpt). Retrieved 2007-12-30.
3. "Booktalk.Org" (Book review-from Publishers Weekly). Archived from the original on 2007-06-13. Retrieved 2008-01-01.
4. Schultz, James. "Evil is it born or bred?" (Book review). The Virginian-Pilot. Archived from the original on Feb 28, 2008. Retrieved 2008-01-01.
5. Bloom, Howard. "Islam's War Against the West" (Book excerpt). Retrieved 2008-01-01.
6. Bloom, Howard. "Islamic Censorship — How Allah Has Nipped Your Right to Know" (Web article originated April 2003 edition of Abuse Your Illusions). The Birdman.org. Retrieved 2008-01-01.

External links

• Official website
• Muslim protests against The Lucifer Principle at the Wayback Machine (archived October 23, 2007)

We Are a Nation of Virtual Stalkers

Go to citysocializer

Are We a Nation of Virtual Stalkers?

May 10, 2013

• Insights

inShare16

It’s everyone’s dirty secret. We all stalk people online. We all have a nosey at people on their social channels. Admit it, you have stalked someone online. Whether it’s a potential date, new colleague or old school friend are we becoming a nation of virtual stalkers. Heading straight to LinkedIn, Facebook or Twitter to form an opinion of someone.

I stalk. There, I said it. My name is Philip and I am a Digital Stalker. It’s quite boring though. I really just stalk people who I am interested in doing business with. I have a look at their LinkedIn profile, I Google them and I have a look at any tweets they may have sent.

To me it’s like an extended business card. I get a little bit of an idea as to who they are and what they do but nothing more than that. Corporate Digital stalking is good for business in my view, especially for people like me who are terrible with names and faces. If nothing else, it saves me some embarrassment at conferences when I have to start every introduction with, “buddy”, “chief”, “mate”, etc.

“We all have a digital footprint, an indelible impression of who and what we are online.”

A recent survey from match.com found 48% of women will research a potential date online before deciding whether to go along. On the surface you can see the thinking here. We all have a digital footprint, an indelible impression of who and what we are online. Surely this imprint will give some insights in to who we are and what we like? If you went on a date with someone from your hometown, you would ask people in your hometown what he or she was like. Is “Digital Stalking” not a logical extension of that?

The big change since the rise of Web 2.0 is that we now put ourselves on display in the digital world. We publish our lives on to a page for people to read, we leave a trail of breadcrumbs by liking, creating and engaging with digital content. This has not been possible before. Well, it was possible, you could stand on your doorstep and shout at passers by and tell them what you like, while showing them a slide show of your holiday snaps but you would have been locked up fairly quickly. The digital world has amplified the persona but does that mean there is no privacy?

“Privacy is not just about keeping everything private, it’s about the ability to control what is private and what is not.”

According to the all knowing Wikipedia, “Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view, or to control the flow of information about themselves.”. Privacy is not just about keeping everything private, it’s about the ability to control what is private and what is not. To that end, we can control what certain people can stalk about us depending on the situation and person in hand.
This is where the rise of social discovery sites becomes interesting. Your social discovery profile is the front door to your digital world. It is the front face of your digital self to things and people that you don’t yet know. Like a door it should be safe, secure and give away just enough information to connect you. You can see the world from your front door without connecting to it. You can lean over the gate and see what is going on and decide what you want to join in with without letting everyone see everything about you. Your social networks are something more personal, because by definition, you know your network and therefore you are happy to share more with them. You are happy that they may stalk your albums (though not the one marked “Ibiza 03”). You are happy they may know more about you.

We are a nation of stalkers but that’s ok. If we understand the levels of privacy available and protect ourselves appropriately, then its ok to find out a bit more about someone. It’s ok to have a look and see what they look like or what they like doing. It’s a part of living in a digital world.

This post was written by

Philip Macartney

Commercial Director at citysocializer, with a passion for Social Media.

A Cruel, Irresponsible and Dysfunctional Budget Deal

The Nation / By John Nichols

A Cruel, Irresponsible and Dysfunctional Budget Deal

 

Forcing others to lurch from crisis to crisis so that you can tell yourself you have taken “a step in the right direction” is socially and economically dysfunctional. 

 

 

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray speaks at a press conference announcing a bipartisan budget deal, as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan looks on at the US Capitol on December 10, 2013 in Washington, DC

December 12, 2013  |  

 

The following article first appeared in the Nation. Sign up for their newsletter here. 

The trouble with making “functional” government the great aspiration of the American experiment – as so many pundits and politicians now do – is that a smoothly operating Congress is not necessarily moral, humane or even economically smart.

It is important to remember this disconnect as we consider the budget deal announced late Tuesday by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, and Senate Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray, D-Washington.

“This agreement breaks through the recent dysfunction to prevent another government shutdown and roll back sequestration’s cuts to defense and domestic investments in a balanced way,” said Murray. “It’s a good step in the right direction that can hopefully rebuild some trust and serve as a foundation for continued bipartisan work.”

Ryan was equally self-congratulatory, declaring that – after a fall the saw a government shutdown, nasty wrangling over the historically uncontroversial task of raising the debt ceiling and general congressional dysfunction – he and Murray had achieved “a clear improvement on the status quo.”

“This agreement makes sure that we don't have a government shutdown scenario in January,” he added. “It makes sure we don't have another government shutdown scenario in October. It makes sure that we don't lurch from crisis to crisis."

Murray and Ryan are excited that they had stopped fighting for long enough to agree to $63 billion in “sequester relief” – as opposed to an actual end to sequestration – and $23 billion in net deficit reduction. They're also glad that they have set the discretionary spending level for fiscal year 2014 at $1.012 trillion, while setting the level at $1.014 trillion for fiscal year 2015. That apparently qualifies – in the eyes of the budget negotiators – as a sufficient alternative to lurching from crisis to crisis.

But the agreement does not address the crises that matter. “This plan won't create jobs, get the economy back on track, or meaningfully cut the deficit,” explains Congressman Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon.
And that's not the worst of it.

The following piece first appeared in the Nation. For more great content, sign up for their newsletter. 

What of the 1.3 million jobless Americans who – with a fully Dickensian twist – now stand to lose Federal unemployment benefits three days after Christmas?

The budget agreement does not look like a “step in the right direction” for them. And unless Democrats succeed in renewing benefits in a distinct piece of legislation that apparently must pass this week – as Congress is moving rapidly toward recess – many of the most economically vulnerable Americans will be “lurching from crisis to crisis” very soon.

Their crisis is our crisis. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, extending benefits for the long-term unemployed would boost a still slow economy by two-tenths of a percent in the coming year – creating 200,000 needed jobs. As the CBO explains: “Recipients of the additional benefits would increase their spending on consumer goods and services. That increase in aggregate demand would encourage businesses to boost production and hire more workers than they otherwise would, particularly given the expected slack in the capital and labor markets.”

Without providing for the extension, something that easily and appropriately could have been done in the budget agreement, Ryan and Murray failed in their most basic humanitarian and economic duties.

And what of the federal workers and members of the military who will be required to take what is effectively a pay cut in order to pay more for their retirement benefits?

“Federal workers have sacrificed over $113 billion for deficit reduction since 2011, including a three-year pay freeze and increased pension contributions for newly hired employees. This figure does not include the up to eight furlough days caused by sequestration this summer and a 16-day shutdown in October which resulted in financial hardship and profound anxiety for half the government’s workforce and their families,” noted unions that represent federal employees. “Given these contributions, we are dismayed to learn that increasing the pension contributions and/or changing the retirement formula for current federal employees is on the table. This is simply unacceptable.”
This is, also, absurd.

Despite Murray's prodding, the House and Senate budget chairs did not close a single tax loophole. But they did come up with a scheme to take money away from public employees and people serving in the military – effectively reducing what millions of Americans will have to spend on Main Street.

Members of House and Senate who are paid $174,000 annually, collect generous benefits and – thanks to redistricting and an incumbent-rewarding campaign finance system – enjoy no small measure of job security, can pat themselves on the back for breaking through “the recent dysfunction.” But forcing others to lurch from crisis to crisis so that you can tell yourself you have taken “a step in the right direction” is socially and economically dysfunctional. Not to mention cruel, and irresponsible.

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

The Democrats' 'Third Way' Quarrel Could Change Your Future

Richard (RJ) Eskow

Writer; Senior Fellow, Campaign for America's Future

The Democrats' 'Third Way' Quarrel Could Change Your Future

Posted: 12/08/2013 11:12 pm

Follow

Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Financial Crisis, Allyson Schwartz, Democratic Party, Jonathan Cowan, Money And Politics, Third Way, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Corporate Corruption, Fracking, Jared Polis, Jim Kessler, Joe Crowley, Nuclear Industry, Ron Kind, Politics News

 

 

There was a big dust-up in the Democratic Party last week, triggered by a somewhat incoherent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal from the leaders of a Wall Street-funded "think tank"/lobbying group called Third Way. Many of the responses dealt with the op-ed's attack on Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but don't be distracted by that. As Sen. Warren would undoubtedly agree, the issues involved are much more important than the personalities.

As politicians affiliated with Third Way hasten to distance themselves from the op-ed, the question remains: Why are Democrats affiliated with a group which works so strenuously to gut Democratic programs? Voters deserve more than platitudes from these politicians. They deserve clear answers about the issues.

This is not an "inside baseball" story about politics. It's a battle for party control whose outcome could affect every household in the country. If this quarrel is to be remembered -- and it's incumbent upon genuine progressives to make sure that it is -- it should be remembered as an attempt by a the corporate class to retain control of the Democratic Party and limit the leftmost limits of political and economic debate.

In our two-party system, this struggle could determine whether voters are offered a genuinely democratic and equitable economic agenda anytime in the near future.

Out of hand.

Clearly Jonathan Cowan and Jim Kessler blundered in writing this editorial. It's badly written and its arguments are poorly constructed -- unlike other, much slicker Third Way materials. Worse, it's misleading. (We discussed the content here. Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times did an excellent analysis.)

At times the op-ed descends into vituperation and becomes, as Rep. Keith Ellison noted, "out of line" and "really ugly." We said there seemed to be "an almost palpable air of desperation" to it as well. That suspicion seems to be borne out in later remarks by co-author Jim Kessler, who said they wrote it because of Sen. Warren's support for a bill to expand Social Security. Said Kessler:

"She is a very compelling elected official and national figure. Her involvement in that particular bill, we just looked at it and said 'okay, this seems to be starting to get out of hand.'"

"Out of hand" is a telling phrase for a corporate-backed faction which has tried to keep the leftmost limits of debate very much in hand and under tight control. It has done so with striking success for decades, thanks in large part to its ability to influence politicians like Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

 

 

Cui bono?

One of this faction's key goals is to roll back three of the Democratic Party's signature achievements: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is a measure of their power and influence that they've been able to get so many Democratic politicians to support Social Security cuts when public opinion is so strongly against them. (This poll even shows that large majorities would pay more in payroll taxes in return for stronger Social Security benefits.)

In the words of a Latin phrase beloved by district attorneys everywhere, Cui bono? Who benefits?

There are only two populations in the United States who clearly stand to benefit from these cuts - high earners, who would avoid paying more taxes if the payroll tax cap is raised, and the Wall Street banks which would become even more profitable if they were able to manage more retirement funds.

Third Way is very much a creature of Wall Street (as is documented here.) Its banking connections help explain these positions. They also explain why the self-described "think tank" is constantly raising the alarm about Medicare costs without mentioning the recent slowdown in healthcare cost increases -- or, more tellingly, the negative effect private investors like those backing Third Way are having on our healthcare economy.

(For more on the effect of private investment on health care costs, see here.)

Comeback kids.

"That Social Security plan was the final moment for us," said Kessler of Sen. Warren. "Final moment" is a telling turn of phrase. Polls show that the public wants more genuinely progressive policies than those it is receiving from the Democratic Party leadership. Sen. Warren's popularity seems like a harbinger of that party's potential moved to the left -- a move that would render the "have it both ways" cynicism of the Third Way crowd obsolete.

Economically they're already obsolete. The Clinton/Third Way/DLC ideology -- which typically markets itself as "centrism," even though its economic policies are far to the right of public opinion -- was thoroughly discredited by the financial crisis of 2008. That crisis was caused in large part by Wall Street deregulation which they pushed, and it exacerbated the growing wage inequality and loss of social mobility which has devastated middle class and lower-income Americans.

And yet, their brand of Wall Street-friendly "centrism" made a remarkable comeback after 2008, thanks in large part to the Obama White House's influence on the Democratic Party -- and to corporate money's influence on the political process. Five years after the crisis, the entire nation is still seeing the disastrous effects of their economic policies on our nation's most intractable issues: unemployment, wage stagnation, and the lack of opportunity for most Americans.

Lip service.

Even corporate Democrats are beginning to recognize that our society's increasingly unjust economy is becoming a political liability. It has become fashionable for them to talk about "inequality" (while remaining cautious and/or evasive when it comes to solutions). In one sense, at least, that's a step in the right direction. At least it's being discussed in the corridors of power -- although it will only become meaningful when it's backed up by concrete policies.

Until then, it's clearly de rigueur to at least pay lip service to principles which Cowan and Kessler sneeringly dismissed in their op-ed as "economic populism." (One can only imagine the phone calls they received after it was published.)

The Third Way Two come across like choir members singing from last year's hymnal. Today's corporate Democrats are expected to at least sing populism's praises. Corporate Dems now seek to co-opt, rather than alienate, the many Americans who support Sen. Warren and the agenda she represents.

Musical co-chairs.

This shift in political emphasis is one of the reasons why many corporate Democrats hastily distanced themselves from Third Way's op-ed.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) quickly called upon Rep. Allyson Schwartz, a Pennsylvania candidate for governor and "co-chair" of Third Way, to resign from the group. Schwartz declined to do that, but she called the op-ed "outrageous" and hastily announced her support for the Social Security increases which had sparked Cowan and Kessler's ire against Warren in the first place.

Rep. Joe Crowley responded to progressive pressure by saying he disagreed with Third Way on Social Security but would "continue to work with them." Rep. Ron Kind objected to the singling out of Warren by name and said he disagreed with the idea that "economic populism is dead." Rep. Jared Polis said "I like Elizabeth Warren. I like Third Way. I hope they can learn to get along better,"

They are engaging in a kind of misdirection when they make this controversy about Elizabeth Warren and "getting along better." This is a question of policy, not personalities. Schwartz and the other Democrats associated with Third Way need to be asked precisely where they stand on that group's policy prescriptions -- not because everything funded by the wealthy is bad, but because corporate money and influence is corrupting the political process.

The agenda.

By lending their names to the Third Way letterhead, these politicians are endorsing its agenda -- not in part, but in full -- presumably because this affiliation gives them access to money and power. If that's not the reason then the public deserves an explanation, especially considering the following: Third Way is largely funded by members of an industry with a well-documented record of fraud; that industry has enjoyed enormous government favors and its members have not been legally called to account for their misdeeds; and Third Way promotes policies which are beneficial to its patrons and hurtful to the middle class.

(And it does so while claiming to be "progressive" -- a term which is quickly losing its meaning.)

Democrats who choose to be publicly affiliated with a group like that should therefore expect to be asked: How can we count on you to vote in the public's interest when it clashes with Wall Street's?

Questions.

Third Way has taken a number of strong and specific policy stands. It's not enough to denounce an op-ed. Democrats who affiliate themselves with Third Way need to answer some questions for the voters, such as:

• Do they agree with Third Way's support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a job-killing "free trade" deal which also gives corporations and the nationals of other countries unprecedented control of US regulations and courts?
• Do they agree that it's "soaking the rich" to raise the top marginal tax rate for billionaires to 49.5 percent (it was 93 percent under Eisenhower), or that increasing taxes for the wealthy is a "purely ideological fix"?
• Do they support Third Way's pro-fracking and pro-nuclear industry positions?

There are those in our nation's capital who argue that it is a "witch hunt" to ask these questions. Only in Washington is it considered a form of persecution to ask an elected official where they stand on the issues.

Fault lines.

We're living through tough economic times -- well, most of us are, anyway. In the bubble-fueled Clinton economy of the 1990s, it was easier to obscure the economic divisions that have been carrying this country apart for decades. Unfortunately for the Third Way crowd, nowadays the fault lines are much clearer.

The president quickly abandoned his Third Way-ish habit of claiming that "Wall Street and Main Street rise and fall together" as it became increasingly clear that in most cases the opposite is true. The "old myths" -- to use a presidential phrase -- were shattered in the 2008 crisis.

Wall Street deregulation shattered the economy. The banks are now bigger and more concentrated than they were before the crisis. You can't stand with them, support corporate-friendly tax and trade policies, push for "entitlement" cuts with cynical and misleading arguments -- and still claim to be a "progressive" who opposes wealth inequality.

Final moments.

The preferred solutions of the Democratic corporate class -- continued deregulation and under-regulation of finance and industry, job-killing trade agreements, and the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts they've been pushing relentlessly for 20 years -- are disliked by American majorities. They are economically disastrous for most Americans. And yet, Big Money's stranglehold on the political process has left the voters bereft of alternatives.

Washington operators like Jonathan Cowan and Jim Kessler aren't really afraid of Sen. Warren. They're afraid of what she represents, both politically and economically.

They're right to worry. This isn't a fight about Cowan and Kessler, or about Elizabeth Warren, or about whether the Democratic Party is a "big enough tent" to hold people of varying opinions. It's a fight to determine whether that party will represent the public's interests unsparingly in the years to come, or will continue to be swayed by corporate interests.

For too long the public has been deprived of the chance to vote for a party which wholeheartedly represents its economic interests. When voters come to understand the Third Way agenda and what it stands for, the resulting political shift could lead to corporate centrism's "final moment" as the dominant faction of the Democratic Party.

 

Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
 

American Psychosis

Whole Brain Catalog

American Psychosis

What happens to a society that cannot distinguish between reality and illusion?

  

Chris Hedges, 17 June 2010

Image on left by TOM MIHALEK/AFP, on right STILL FROM WRECKING BALL


 he United States, locked in the kind of twilight disconnect that grips dying empires, is a country entranced by illusions. It spends its emotional and intellectual energy on the trivial and the absurd. It is captivated by the hollow stagecraft of celebrity culture as the walls crumble. This celebrity culture giddily licenses a dark voyeurism into other people’s humiliation, pain, weakness and betrayal. Day after day, one lurid saga after another, whether it is Michael Jackson, Britney Spears [or Miley Cyrus], enthralls the country … despite bank collapses, wars, mounting poverty or the criminality of its financial class.

The virtues that sustain a nation-state and build community, from honesty to self-sacrifice to transparency to sharing, are ridiculed each night on television as rubes stupid enough to cling to this antiquated behavior are voted off reality shows. Fellow competitors for prize money and a chance for fleeting fame, cheered on by millions of viewers, elect to “disappear” the unwanted. In the final credits of the reality show America’s Next Top Model, a picture of the woman expelled during the episode vanishes from the group portrait on the screen. Those cast aside become, at least to the television audience, nonpersons. Celebrities that can no longer generate publicity, good or bad, vanish. Life, these shows persistently teach, is a brutal world of unadulterated competition and a constant quest for notoriety and attention.

Our culture of flagrant self-exaltation, hardwired in the American character, permits the humiliation of all those who oppose us. We believe, after all, that because we have the capacity to wage war we have a right to wage war. Those who lose deserve to be erased. Those who fail, those who are deemed ugly, ignorant or poor, should be belittled and mocked. Human beings are used and discarded like Styrofoam boxes that held junk food. And the numbers of superfluous human beings are swelling the unemployment offices, the prisons and the soup kitchens.

It is the cult of self that is killing the United States. This cult has within it the classic traits of psychopaths: superficial charm, grandiosity and self-importance; a need for constant stimulation; a penchant for lying, deception and manipulation; and the incapacity for remorse or guilt. Michael Jackson, from his phony marriages to the portraits of himself dressed as royalty to his insatiable hunger for new toys to his questionable relationships with young boys, had all these qualities. And this is also the ethic promoted by corporations. It is the ethic of unfettered capitalism. It is the misguided belief that personal style and personal advancement, mistaken for individualism, are the same as democratic equality. It is the nationwide celebration of image over substance, of illusion over truth. And it is why investment bankers blink in confusion when questioned about the morality of the billions in profits they made by selling worthless toxic assets to investors.

We have a right, in the cult of the self, to get whatever we desire. We can do anything, even belittle and destroy those around us, including our friends, to make money, to be happy and to become famous. Once fame and wealth are achieved, they become their own justification, their own morality. How one gets there is irrelevant. It is this perverted ethic that gave us investment houses like Goldman Sachs … that willfully trashed the global economy and stole money from tens of millions of small shareholders who had bought stock in these corporations for retirement or college. The heads of these corporations, like the winners on a reality television program who lied and manipulated others to succeed, walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses and compensation.

The ethic of Wall Street is the ethic of celebrity. It is fused into one bizarre, perverted belief system and it has banished the possibility of the country returning to a reality-based world or avoiding internal collapse. A society that cannot distinguish reality from illusion dies.

The tantalizing illusions offered by our consumer culture, however, are vanishing for most citizens as we head toward collapse. The ability of the corporate state to pacify the country by extending credit and providing cheap manufactured goods to the masses is gone. The jobs we are shedding are not coming back, as the White House economist Lawrence Summers tacitly acknowledges when he talks of a “jobless recovery.” The belief that democracy lies in the choice between competing brands and the accumulation of vast sums of personal wealth at the expense of others is exposed as a fraud. Freedom can no longer be conflated with the free market. The travails of the poor are rapidly becoming the travails of the middle class, especially as unemployment insurance runs out. And class warfare, once buried under the happy illusion that we were all going to enter an age of prosperity with unfettered capitalism, is returning with a vengeance.

America is sinking under trillions in debt it can never repay and stays afloat by frantically selling about $2 billion in Treasury bonds a day to the Chinese. It saw 2.8 million people lose their homes in 2009 to foreclosure or bank repossessions – nearly 8,000 people a day – and stands idle as they are joined by another 2.4 million people this year. It refuses to prosecute the Bush administration for obvious war crimes, including the use of torture, and sees no reason to dismantle Bush’s secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus. Its infrastructure is crumbling. Deficits are pushing individual states to bankruptcy and forcing the closure of everything from schools to parks. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have squandered trillions of dollars, appear endless. There are 50 million Americans in real poverty and tens of millions of Americans in a category called “near poverty.” One in eight Americans – and one in four children – depend on food stamps to eat. And yet, in the midst of it all, we continue to be a country consumed by happy talk and happy thoughts. We continue to embrace the illusion of inevitable progress, personal success and rising prosperity. Reality is not considered an impediment to desire.

When a culture lives within an illusion it perpetuates a state of permanent infantilism or childishness. As the gap widens between the illusion and reality, as we suddenly grasp that it is our home being foreclosed or our job that is not coming back, we react like children. We scream and yell for a savior, someone who promises us revenge, moral renewal and new glory. It is not a new story. A furious and sustained backlash by a betrayed and angry populace, one unprepared intellectually, emotionally and psychologically for collapse, will sweep aside the Democrats and most of the Republicans and will usher America into a new dark age. It was the economic collapse in Yugoslavia that gave us Slobodan Milosevic. It was the Weimar Republic that vomited up Adolf Hitler. And it was the breakdown in Tsarist Russia that opened the door for Lenin and the Bolsheviks. A cabal of proto-fascist misfits, from Christian demagogues to loudmouth talk show hosts, whom we naïvely dismiss as buffoons, will find a following with promises of revenge and moral renewal. And as in all totalitarian societies, those who do not pay fealty to the illusions imposed by the state become the outcasts, the persecuted.

The decline of American empire began long ago before the current economic meltdown or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It began before the first Gulf War or Ronald Reagan. It began when we shifted, in the words of Harvard historian Charles Maier, from an “empire of production” to an “empire of consumption.” By the end of the Vietnam War, when the costs of the war ate away at Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and domestic oil production began its steady, inexorable decline, we saw our country transformed from one that primarily produced to one that primarily consumed. We started borrowing to maintain a level of consumption as well as an empire we could no longer afford. We began to use force, especially in the Middle East, to feed our insatiable thirst for cheap oil. We substituted the illusion of growth and prosperity for real growth and prosperity. The bill is now due. America’s most dangerous enemies are not Islamic radicals but those who sold us the perverted ideology of free-market capitalism and globalization. They have dynamited the very foundations of our society. In the 17^th century these speculators would have been hung. Today they run the government and consume billions in taxpayer subsidies.

As the pressure mounts, as the despair and desperation reach into larger and larger segments of the populace, the mechanisms of corporate and government control are being bolstered to prevent civil unrest and instability. The emergence of the corporate state always means the emergence of the security state. This is why the Bush White House pushed through the Patriot Act (and its renewal), the suspension of habeas corpus, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” warrantless wiretapping on American citizens and the refusal to ensure free and fair elections with verifiable ballot-counting. The motive behind these measures is not to fight terrorism or to bolster national security. It is to seize and maintain internal control. It is about controlling us.

And yet, even in the face of catastrophe, mass culture continues to assure us that if we close our eyes, if we visualize what we want, if we have faith in ourselves, if we tell God that we believe in miracles, if we tap into our inner strength, if we grasp that we are truly exceptional, if we focus on happiness, our lives will be harmonious and complete. This cultural retreat into illusion, whether peddled by positive psychologists, by Hollywood or by Christian preachers, is magical thinking. It turns worthless mortgages and debt into wealth. It turns the destruction of our manufacturing base into an opportunity for growth. It turns alienation and anxiety into a cheerful conformity. It turns a nation that wages illegal wars and administers offshore penal colonies where it openly practices torture into the greatest democracy on earth. And it keeps us from fighting back.

Resistance movements will have to look now at the long night of slavery, the decades of oppression in the Soviet Union and the curse of fascism for models. The goal will no longer be the possibility of reforming the system but of protecting truth, civility and culture from mass contamination. It will require the kind of schizophrenic lifestyle that characterizes all totalitarian societies. Our private and public demeanors will often have to stand in stark contrast. Acts of defiance will often be subtle and nuanced. They will be carried out not for short term gain but the assertion of our integrity. Rebellion will have an ultimate if not easily definable purpose. The more we retreat from the culture at large the more room we will have to carve out lives of meaning, the more we will be able to wall off the flood of illusions disseminated by mass culture and the more we will retain sanity in an insane world. The goal will become the ability to endure.

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times, is the author of several books including the best sellers War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning and Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.