Brink Porn

Postscript:

Reactionary thinking typically entails conceiving of all things in simplistic terms–as with the binary taxonomy indicative of a Manichean worldview.  Such false dichotomization serves as the lens through which Reactionaries view the past, the present, and the future.

The harbingers enumerated in scripture enjoin the Pollyannas-at-heart to see every quirky occurrence as just another thing heralding the glorious End Times, whereupon there will be a final settling of accounts.  We all yearn for a reckoning; so we are enticed by the message: “Just hang in there, and stick with the program; and everything will work out in the end.”  Such perpetual anticipation–a chronic feeling of immanence sustained by intermittent reassurances–keeps the (false) hope alive.

So True Believers will be showered with rewards.  Meanwhile, those who fail to curry favor with the powers-that-be shall be consigned to an eternity of perdition.  Damnation is, of course, nothing but a scare-tactic to keep people in line.  Fear can take the form of dread and of insecurity–a point that Ernst Becker made in his landmark work, “The Denial of Death”.

Using fear to control people is just as common–and every bit as effective–as using (false) hope.  In social / political contexts, the use of fear for propagandistic purposes (i.e. as a tool for mass manipulation) takes the form of “alarmism”.  This invariably involves enmity toward THE OTHER (portrayed as an ominous and baleful force, ready to pounce the moment we let our guard down).*  THE OTHER, then, is equated with those from whom we need to be protected and/or those whom we need to attack (and thereby eradicate).**  In this artificially-constructed Manichaean scheme, the out-group is vilified while the in-group is glorified.  Such a tendentious worldview enables the legitimization of whatever WE feel that WE are entitled to do.  The trick, then, is to exclaim, “WE are the best” so as to ensure everyone is gung-ho about the agenda that is currently being peddled by the powers-that-be.

Insecurity and false pride are symbiotic.  In between every ornery declaration that we should be very proud of ourselves (typically for some specious reason), there are admonishments that we should be AFRAID of something nefarious (lurking somewhere out there); something that is supposedly out to get us.  (An extreme version of this paranoia is the siege mentality, made all the easier if the in-group is seen as dwelling an ABODE, as with Beth Israel or Dar al-Islam.)  This feeds off of insularity (read: parochialism), in which there is an inward-turning.  Couple this with the paranoia resulting from a siege mentality, and the reaction is to “circle the wagons”, and so to project hostility outward toward a (demonized) OTHER–who is perceived as lurking “somewhere out there, trying to GET US; so we should GET THEM first!”

Collective narcissism invariably manifests as Exceptionalism (“Behold, WE are better than–and thus more important than–everyone else!”).  This self-image can be extremely intoxicating, even addictive.  In order to assert how great we are, though, a rationalization is typically required (god chose us; we kick ass; we are morally superior, etc.)  The key is that the rationalization is COMPELLING, irrespective of whether or not it has any actual credence.  Rationalizations tend to seem more plausible when we fashion ourselves as WINNERS.  This is where the fear comes in.

Alarmism is useful insofar as it affords us the opportunity to prevail in some sort of grand confrontation.  By declaring (pending) victory, we justify our indulgence in a magnificently burnished self-image.  Hence the utility of triumphalism in getting people to rally around a grandiose cause.  People fancy being on the winning team (that is: on the team that they PERCEIVE to be winning; or on the team they ANTICIPATE will–eventually–be victorious the end.)  So the appropriate narrative is fashioned.**

The efficacy of saber-rattling can be explained in this manner.  Getting people’s dander up is a sure-fire way to galvanize them (as anyone knows who has ever attended a well-orchestrated pep rally, whether for politics or sports).  Such agit-prop works best when we see ourselves (the hyper-romanticized in-group) as pitted against a menacing nemesis (a demonized out-group); and thus as participants in a righteous crusade…in which we shall eventually prevail…but only if only we get our act together.  What animates this is a fear of–and/or contempt for–the menacing caricature of the designated foe.  The toxic cocktail of hostility and dread is typically married with an obsession with tribal honor; as false pride can be leveraged to impel people to do even the most asinine things.

In “The Island”, the illusion of SAFETY made the sham work so well.  Within the prison-disguised-as-sanctuary, residents felt entirely at ease.  There was no battle to fight, no impending peril to worry about.  The eerie thing was that NOBODY in the film was afraid…of ANYTHING.***  The outside world was a nasty place from which they were being protected by the gracious corporation into who’s hands they had been delivered.

And so it went: In the compound of “The Island”, there was no need for alarmism because everybody felt secure, and grateful to be under the protection of the powers-that-be.  Moreover, everybody was deluded by a lingering hope (eager anticipation of eventually making it to “the Island”).  This (very potent) false hope was stoked enough to keep them going each day (that is: acquiescing to the prescribed routine, without questioning things).  After all, why be suspicious of the heroic people who are keeping one safe?  Everyone slept well at night AND had a compelling reason to wake up each morning.  Visions of the “Island” got them through each day.

The thing about exploiting fear is that you need to drum it up first.  The more fear there is, the more there is to exploit.  This parallels the logic of creating demand in the marketplace.  To sell a consumer product, the trick is to create the perception of a need–spurious as that perception might be.  People will drink the Kool-Aide if they FEEL parched.  (There is a reason that guzzling ocean-water does not quench thirst.)

But fire and brimstone does not have to be credible to work; it just needs to SEEM plausible to the credulous listener.  The lurid punishments outlined in the Koran are simply employing the same strategy used by John of Patmos in his foreboding “Book of Revelation”.  While carrots (Paradise) can be extremely compelling; so too can sticks be employed to goad people into acting a certain way.

The ultimate disincentive is the raft of horrors wrought upon the world on Judgement Day: the crushing of every person in his own grave until his ribs break; the agonized screams at the terrifying site of the apocalypse; etc.  All the terrible things in store for those who don’t get with the program are every bit as persuasive as are the wonderful things that are in store for those who sign up.  When the alternatives are that stark, the choice is a no-brainer (insofar as one BELIEVES them).  I explore this ultimatum in “A Brief History Of Heaven And Hell”.

Whether false hope or drummed-up fear is the primary motivating factor, the underlying logic is the same: Create the (perception of) a dire existential ailment, then offer the (purported) cure-all.  The authors of the Koran–as with the author of the phantasmagorical “Book of Revelation”–understood this all-too-well.  The more horrifying the threat, and the more fantastical the reward, the more persuasive the gimmick (again, see “A Brief History Of Heaven And Hell”).

Contrast the scenario in “The Island” (all false hope; no fear) with the scenario proffered in the Koran: BOTH false hope AND fear.  The Mohammedan narrative is so incredibly compelling due to the promise of Paradise coupled with the threat of damnation.

{*  Take, for instance, Nazis’ characterization of “communists” and “Jews”, Stalin’s characterization of “Kulaks”, Revisionist Zionists’ characterization of Palestinians, the West’s domino theory of “communism”, America’s war on drugs, the so-called “war on terror”, etc.  This involves more than just the derogation of the out-group as subaltern–as with the “Dalits” in India or black people in Apartheid South Africa (where the other-ized people are seen as simply inferior, not as a threat).  The characterization we’re concerned with here involves hostility, even aggression.  In other words, the aim is not just to subordinate; it is to ERADICATE.}

{** This inverts the sports adage, “The best offense is a good defense.”  A militaristic society proceeds as though the best defense is a good offense.  If nothing else, the siege mentality (and an abiding persecution complex) engenders militancy.  After all, hostility is a hallmark symptom of neurosis.  It can’t be emphasized enough: Even in the midst of a siege mentality (“We’re surrounded by the nefarious other, so we need to take drastic action for our self-preservation!”), demagogy is impelled by the projection of and air of STRENGTH (“Support us, because WE are [going to be] the winning team.”)  Those who are susceptible to suggestibility tend to be drawn to–and intoxicated by–auras of power.}

{*** …pace the wariness of venturing outside into the (purportedly) despoiled world beyond the compound.  “Don’t go out there; it’s dangerous!  Remain in here, where you’ll be sheltered and safe; and we can watch over you.”}