Guardians of the Status Quo
Global life rests on a knife-edge, diplomacy is a high-wire act above an ocean of boiling tensions, and mutual tolerance among superpowers is an endangered species. The impression that we sit on the precipice of military, economic, and ecological disaster is palpable and growing. Neo-liberalism and its sacred markets are the fuel propelling us on a collision course with the harsh realities of finite natural resource and the ambivalence of capital.
As privilege is entrenched so too is class disparity, and working people always shoulder the majority of burden from that growing divide. Mutually beneficial national cooperation is cast aside during serious contests for power, at the expense of the majority who ought to benefit. Their interests are traded in or held hostage as bargaining chips in political arm-wrestles and pursuits of private profit. There has been a substantial chorus of objection from the continually oppressed - the 99% - to the continued neglect of their interests; but in a proportional response, the guardians of the status quo are collectively digging in their heels. Their potent influence and that of their propaganda is such that even those they tread on most may feel compelled to take up the fight on their behalf.
We are seeing a concerted, organised, and well-funded global effort to convince us of one thing: that progressive change is not only nonviable, but far too risky. We don't need outlandish conspiracy theories of secret societies with reptilian overlords to explain this effort. Elements of government, corporate interests, the media, the military-industrial complex, and industry are working in unison toward a common goal; not because they share member cards to a secret clubhouse for rich elites, but because they have a shared interest in securing their grossly unequal shares of wealth. Change and reform are staved off by those with special interests who enjoy abundant benefits in the current situation and would prefer if we would all just stop virtue signaling and let them secure their ordained advantage.
Increasingly broken and disconnected lines of logic are required in defence of the status quo. For example, buying the argument put by proponents of coal mining that their interest lies in the prosperity of workers and their families requires a gymnastic act of self-deception. To accept their claim, one must deny the following: a) that their industry is systematically ensuring that the earth is inhospitable for generations of families to come; and b) that they are hoarding the overwhelming majority of the wealth created by workers. What then, allows for such absurd claims (among countless others) to find fertile ground among ordinary people?
The status quo seems to possess a powerful gravity all of its own. It's bolstered by our fear of change, the stubborn lens of ideology, and relies heavily on cultural and social tribalism. All of this is exploited and carefully cultivated within us. This politics of polarity is the weapon of choice for status quo defenders, whose strategy is simply to fearmonger, divide and conquer. Freedom is their sacred bastion, of course. The freedom to exploit, the freedom to mislead, and the freedom to incite hate. It's common knowledge that marketing plays on our anxieties and insecurities to encourage over-consumption. But it's equally self-evident that the same wily techniques are employed by conservative, neo-liberal voices. Narratives are literally constructed by means of gross distortions of fact, and these narratives are then taken for granted as the foundational basis on which divisive rhetoric and behaviour is perpetually escalated.
One favoured tool of the propaganda arm of the status quo involves the language of extremism and terrorism. Extreme, a word commonly reserved for fundamentalist terrorists, is being used to describe public figures like Bill Shorten, Bernie Sanders, and Jeremy Corbyn. Recently, animal rights protesters in rural Australia were labelled as "vegan terrorists" by Home Affairs minister Peter Dutton. Smear tactics are the knee jerk reaction to any zealous challenger of the status quo. It is their only choice. If progress and reform aren't demonised, they would run the risk of their popular appeal being realised by the people. Which is clearly imperative.
As privilege is entrenched so too is class disparity, and working people always shoulder the majority of burden from that growing divide. Mutually beneficial national cooperation is cast aside during serious contests for power, at the expense of the majority who ought to benefit. Their interests are traded in or held hostage as bargaining chips in political arm-wrestles and pursuits of private profit. There has been a substantial chorus of objection from the continually oppressed - the 99% - to the continued neglect of their interests; but in a proportional response, the guardians of the status quo are collectively digging in their heels. Their potent influence and that of their propaganda is such that even those they tread on most may feel compelled to take up the fight on their behalf.
We are seeing a concerted, organised, and well-funded global effort to convince us of one thing: that progressive change is not only nonviable, but far too risky. We don't need outlandish conspiracy theories of secret societies with reptilian overlords to explain this effort. Elements of government, corporate interests, the media, the military-industrial complex, and industry are working in unison toward a common goal; not because they share member cards to a secret clubhouse for rich elites, but because they have a shared interest in securing their grossly unequal shares of wealth. Change and reform are staved off by those with special interests who enjoy abundant benefits in the current situation and would prefer if we would all just stop virtue signaling and let them secure their ordained advantage.
Increasingly broken and disconnected lines of logic are required in defence of the status quo. For example, buying the argument put by proponents of coal mining that their interest lies in the prosperity of workers and their families requires a gymnastic act of self-deception. To accept their claim, one must deny the following: a) that their industry is systematically ensuring that the earth is inhospitable for generations of families to come; and b) that they are hoarding the overwhelming majority of the wealth created by workers. What then, allows for such absurd claims (among countless others) to find fertile ground among ordinary people?
The status quo seems to possess a powerful gravity all of its own. It's bolstered by our fear of change, the stubborn lens of ideology, and relies heavily on cultural and social tribalism. All of this is exploited and carefully cultivated within us. This politics of polarity is the weapon of choice for status quo defenders, whose strategy is simply to fearmonger, divide and conquer. Freedom is their sacred bastion, of course. The freedom to exploit, the freedom to mislead, and the freedom to incite hate. It's common knowledge that marketing plays on our anxieties and insecurities to encourage over-consumption. But it's equally self-evident that the same wily techniques are employed by conservative, neo-liberal voices. Narratives are literally constructed by means of gross distortions of fact, and these narratives are then taken for granted as the foundational basis on which divisive rhetoric and behaviour is perpetually escalated.
One favoured tool of the propaganda arm of the status quo involves the language of extremism and terrorism. Extreme, a word commonly reserved for fundamentalist terrorists, is being used to describe public figures like Bill Shorten, Bernie Sanders, and Jeremy Corbyn. Recently, animal rights protesters in rural Australia were labelled as "vegan terrorists" by Home Affairs minister Peter Dutton. Smear tactics are the knee jerk reaction to any zealous challenger of the status quo. It is their only choice. If progress and reform aren't demonised, they would run the risk of their popular appeal being realised by the people. Which is clearly imperative.
Comments
Post a Comment