[ Safe Inside the Establishment Vivarium ] or/

20 Apr
Why The Extreme Center Cannot Hold


“We have seen the development of a form of government I call the extreme centre, which currently rules over large tracts of Europe and includes left, centre left, centre right and centre parties.”  (Tariq Ali, writer, journalist, filmmaker.)
Although Ali bemoans this situation throughout Europe, it behooves Americans to insist upon ownership and originality. We invented it: we live it, perhaps we have exported it abroad but above all, it’s part of our “exceptionalism”.  Give us our due! “Engineering consent” was born here and morphed into “manufacturing consent”, the matured production of a century of effort. We must not be denied our handiwork.
It is now embedded in our very DNA. The last time there was even a slight lapse was during those awful sixties. You remember: sex, drugs and rock n’ roll. Tune in and drop out.  Off the pigs! Love Ins. Black Panthers. Weathermen.  Well, that’s all gone for good. We have our ways of dealing and they work. Left wing-nuts, peace liberals, “Nelson Rockefeller” conservatives, and old style mugwumps are now safely maintained within the Establishment Vivarium.
Establishment; (ecology) the process by which a plant or animal becomes established in a new habitat.
Vivarium; (Zoology) a place where live animals are kept under natural conditions for study, research, etc.  The Free Dictionary
Within this virtual vivarium the inhabitants embrace fondly the extreme centre.  In the following Tariq Ali references Europeans, but substituting Americans is easily warranted:
” A whole swathe of the electorate, young people in particular, feels that voting makes no difference at all, given the political parties we have. The extreme centre wages wars, either on its own account or on behalf of the United States; it backs austerity measures; it defends surveillance as absolutely necessary to defeat terrorism, without ever asking why this terrorism is happening – to question this is almost to be a terrorist
oneself. “
A byproduct of that busy century of  engineering and manufacturing consent is the corruption of language that accompanied a synchronized effort to sell soap and ideas with the same tools. An early casualty: the word war: as in war on poverty, drugs, cancer and the latest victim, war on terror.
Where did that last one come from? Not from history, apparently.  We considered our Indian foes as warriors. We fought the Red Coats from behind trees as militias or irregulars.  Campaigned against guerilla fighters in this Continent and elsewhere.  Now any perceived enemy, anywhere, even at home is a terrorist. A meaningless, catch-all phrase.  Tagging a shoe bomber as equal to an army in uniform, with a flag, representing a State such as ISIS, is nonsense. We’re still trying to tag the Russian Federation with that amorphous label.
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” George Orwell.
And that is why the Orwellian concept ‘double speak’ has settled in our fair land. Losing or relinquishing precise meanings of words renders clear thinking impossible. If a conversation or dialogue, at best difficult to successfully accomplish, has a corrupt element in language, all meaning is suspect. Laws, treaties and contracts and intentions are subject to suspicion.
Here again Tariq Ali focuses on the conduct of various governments as proponents of extreme centre activities and attitudes.: 
” Why do the terrorists do it? Are they unhinged? Is it something that emerges from deep inside their religion? These questions are counterproductive and useless. If you ask whether American imperial policy or British or French foreign policy is in any way responsible, you’re attacked. But of course the intelligence agencies and security services know perfectly well that the reason for people going crazy – and it is a form of craziness – is that they are driven not by religion but by what they see.”
 These clandestine operators are quite skilled in keeping us from understanding what the others see and perhaps doing something about it.  What may be overlooked is that to a degree all of the above players are democracies, at least in form.  So their policies must be at least token representation of the various peoples’ tacit approval.
Can we expect anything different to arise from such a base? Is this not the essence of what “consent of the governed ” professes to mean? Have not the governments gotten their fondest wishes by manufacturing that consent?  Have we not created the very people who now huddle for safety in the bosom of the extreme centre but are perhaps incapable of understanding the price they have paid to embrace that centre? 



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: