If you'd asked me what it was about before last week, I would have told you: "Firemen who burn books."
And if you'd asked me why on earth they did that, I would have answered just as confidently: "Because a tyrannical government wanted them to."
There is a trend afoot to conveniently remember the works of authors like Ray Bradbury and Aldous Huxley as warnings against distant totalitarianism and control. But this only scratches the surface of what these books are about.
Earlier this year a community college student in San Bernardino protested being required to read a Neil Gaiman graphic novel in one of her classes. It was too graphic, apparently. Her father - who does not seem to understand that his daughter is a separate human being (an adult one no less) - told The Los Angeles Times, "If they [had] put a disclaimer on this, we wouldn't have taken the course." A mom in Tennessee has complained that the gynecological information in the book in the bestselling nonfiction science book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, is too pornographic for her 10th grade son. While these conservative complaints about the content of books are unfortunately as old as time, we're also seeing a surge of a different type. A Rutgers student has proposed putting trigger warnings on The Great Gatsby. Robin Thicke's song Blurred Lines was banned on many college campuses for promoting rape. Last year, Wellesley students created a petition to remove an art project featuring a lifelike statue of a sleepwalking man in his underwear in the snow because it caused "undue stress." Controversial speakers (many conservative) have been blocked from speaking at college commencements. Pick up artists - never convicted of any crime - have had their visas revoked due to trending Twitter hashtags.
In August, Jezebel ran the headline "Holy Shit, Who Thought This Nazi Romance Novel Was a Good Idea?" I remember thinking, "Um, probably the fucking writer who spent a lot of time writing it." Whether they succeeded at making anything good, I cannot say, but should they be shamed for trying? It's not as if there aren't good books of Nazi love stories. In fact, there is one called The Reader!
The people in these examples are certainly a bit ridiculous - but by no means bad. None of them see themselves as censors, naturally. They were being sensitive, outraged, protective or triggered. And to be fair, most of their complaints and protests stop short of actually saying "This should not be allowed anywhere."
But that distinction matters less than they think.
Let's go back to 451, which I found myself re-reading recently. It begins with Guy Montag burning a house that contained books. Why? How did it come to be that firemen burned books instead of putting out fires as they always had?
The firemen have been doing it for so long they have no idea. Most of them have never even read a book. Except one fireman - Captain Beatty - who has been around long enough to remember what life was like before. As Montag begins to doubt his profession - going as far as to hide a book in his house - he is subjected to a speech from Beatty. In it Beatty explains that it wasn't the government that decided that books were a threat. It was his fellow citizens.
"It didn't come from the government down," he tells him. "There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no!"
In fact, it was something rather simple - something that should sound very familiar. It was a desire not to offend - of an earnest notion to literally have "everyone made equal." And it's at the end of this speech that we get the killer passage:
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy, isn't that right?...Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn it. Someone's written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, to the incinerator."And before you get offended, let's clarify what Bradbury means by minorities. He's not talking about race. He's talking about it in the same way that Madison and Hamilton did in the Federalist Papers. He's speaking about small, interested groups who try to force the rest of the majority to adhere to the minority's set of beliefs.
I don't mean to cherry pick. I see no need to pile on to college students as being particularly responsible for the "coddling of the American mind." (Great piece, read it.) Though I do find it ironic that we require kids to read this book in high school and just a few years (or months) later, they're leading the charge on exactly the kind of well-intentioned censorship Bradbury was talking about. I don't mean to say that these examples come close to the kind of overt censorship that every reasonable person dreads. But I do mean to say that they come from the same place - and very alarmingly - ultimately end together in a much worse place.
In the 50th anniversary edition, Bradbury includes a short afterword where he gives his thoughts on current culture. Almost as if he is speaking directly about the events above, he wrote: "There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running around with lit matches."
There's that saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. When it comes to censorship, one might say that the road to thought and speech control is paved by people trying to protect other people's feelings.
It's important to realize that today, we have a media system paid by the pageview and thus motivated with very real financial incentives to find things to be offended about - because offense and outrage are high-valence traffic triggers. We have another industry of people - some call them Social Justice Warriors - who, despite their sincerity of belief, have also managed to build huge platforms by inventing issues and conflicts which they then ride to prominence and influence. One might call both of these types Rage Profiteers. They get us riled up, they appeal to our notions of fairness and empathy - who likes to see someone else's feelings hurt? - without any regard for what the consequences are.
Of course, the real and fair solution is much less politically correct but effective. It's to stop trying to protect people's feelings. Your feelings are your problem, not mine - and vice versa.
Real empowerment and respect is to see our fellow citizens - victims and privileged, religious and agnostic, conservative and liberal - as adults. Human beings are not automatons - ruled by drives and triggers they cannot control. On the contrary, we have the ability to decide not to be offended. We have the ability to discern intent. We have the ability to separate someone else's actions or provocation or ignorance from our own. This is the great evolution of consciousness - it's what separates us from the animals.
What also separates us is our capacity for empathy. But how empathetic the speech we decide to use is choice for each one of us to make. Some of us are crass, some of us are considerate. Some of us find humor in everything, some of us do not. It's important too - but those of us that believe it and live our lives by a certain sensitivity cannot bully other people into doing so too. That sort of defeats the purpose.
There is a wonderful quote from Epictetus that I think of every time I see someone get terribly upset about one of these things (I try to think about it when I get upset about anything): "If someone succeeds in provoking you, realize that your mind is complicit in the provocation."
He said that some 1,900 years ago. Even then we felt that it was easier to police the outside than examine our inside.
Control and discipline of one's own reactions make for a successful person and a functioning society. I don't think you want to live in a world where that isn't the expectation of each of us. I don't think you want to see the things that will need to happen when the burden of making sure everyone is happy and not offended is put on the government - or worse, a corrupt and bitter blogosphere.
But that seems to be the road we're going down. Even though we've been warned.
Ryan Holiday it the bestselling author of Ego is the Enemy & The Obstacle Is The Way
Reader Comments
I don't see these people as just happening, like stuff happens, I see them for what they are. Tools first, terrorists second, and traitors to the ideals of liberty third.
Protesting a book that's required reading at a community college? Give me a break. Any college with any sense of social responsibility should recognize a nut job first off, and second they should just dis-enroll him.
It's a duty to do so.
George Soros comes first to mind as a chief instigator and payroller of these tools.
And we know too well his brand of social responsibility and that of others of his ilk.
As with book burners, puppets with constructed frauds, bringing frauds to trial and creating pretexts for changes in laws, usually supported by the puppets in gov-corp.
These tricks are ancient to evil. When you have 3 individuals with half the entire wealth of the United States you've got a big problem. We got people living the parking lot at Walgreens across the street. No kidding, living in a pickup truck, and this is something unknown since the 1930's. Yet again, there's no help for them, or for that matter anyone else. It's like they are trying to murder people with economic starvation and herding others with economic terror.
Soros, and his ilk may exploit these "tools" for their own ends, but the "tools" were already there, begging to be exploited by Soros type "people"... The general law of accident seems fitting here.
Therefor, because we/they are subject to forces beyond control - or understanding... Then Karma is null and void.
"Do What Thou Wilt"
The understanding of the situation, and the kindness/love/understanding shown to thy neighbours, is, at least , a glimmer of the emotion of the higher centre. However, this situation is complicated by the mixing of pre Adamic man, and Adamic man. The pre Adamics, not having the higher centres. I would agree with this, however, i reckon that it is not the full picture, even though it is correct, and applies to the vast, vast majority methinks. When a human being becomes conscious (how can an unconscious being be subject to karma, excepting the general law of accident?), and has the higher centres, and has reached the second threshold, then karma is very real, and must be addressed before the second threshold has been crossed, and the so-called karma of ones ancestors must be addressed..(remorse of conscience, and intentional sufferings). Is karma the right word?? However, i do agree with your comment.
Karma may not be the right word. I doubt we have a right word for it. Human vocabulary is probably too limited. Its more a concept that is better understood after being fleshed-out through debate with minds capable of holding water . Once one 'gets it', one will always understand. What say you, sir?! Lol!
STS, STO... I don't know... The C's say everything is circular cyclical in nature, or spiralling... 'Circlical' (new word)... pulsating... ebbing and flowing... After our Lessons, 'We' all come/go back to Source: 7D as One . No STS... No STO... Just... BEING??
Then 7D gets bored and starts ALL OVER AGAIN!!!
4million (mas o menos lol) In-Breath
4 million years ... Out-Breath
To/From LOVE
(just want to say: I thoroughly enjoy my 3D interactions with you! )
But by the time one is in tenth grade, if they've not gotten the concept, they're just going to become someone's useless idiots.
Sadly, however, bad people exist at all points of the socio-politicical spectrum, so there is always a nearby 'user of idiots', which the psychopaths are always willing to 'help' by 'programming' them, removing as much free thought and free will as possible. Meanwhile, good people do not try to take advantage of idiots - we try to help them learn to open and use their mind.
This affirmative tendency of the psychopaths among us to recognize both, (a) other psychopaths, and (b) those 'useable' fools, which has led us to the society we are witnessing 'bloom', like some pond scum sucking all the oxygen out of the water. Lobaczewski's Political Ponerology explicates this point I feel I'm failing at making, and yet I must go.
Best wishes, folks.
R.C.
Sottomites gives me the itchies lol
Sottites .... naaa. .. makes us 'tiny'
Mites... na lol
"5.43. Population programmes should be implemented along with natural resource management and development programmes at the local level that will ensure sustainable use of natural resources, improve the quality of life of the people and enhance environmental quality...."
Population programmes? And who determines and implements them?
" 7.4. ...These approaches should form the core principles of national settlement strategies. In developin these strategies, countries will need to set priorities among the eight programme areas in this chapter in accordance with their national plans and objectives, taking fully into account their social and cultural capabilities...."
National settlement strategies?
"8.21. Each country should develop integrated strategies to maximize compliance with its laws and regulations relating to sustainable development, with assistance from international organizations and other countries as appropriate...."
Would that "assistance" equate to the kind of U.S. assistance offered in Syria?
"Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good."
Karma: It's not about 'what's coming to you'
The concept of Karma, which dates back thousands of years, is taught by various cultures throughout human history. Despite its ubiquitousness, the idea of karma seems to be generally misunderstood...The general law of accident, according to Gurdjieff, is that humans are mechanical, and that the moving/instinctive centre, the lower emotional centre, and the lower intellectual centre are like reels of film, in particular, the two latter centres are inscribed with impressions early in life, and run on repeat there after. So, like a machine, and unconscious, and automatic. The moving/instinctive centre is fully formed at birth , however, postures will be recorded on this as well, especially within the womb, and pertaining to the species (ancestors), and perhaps as well, in the process of emergence from same? These centres are subdivided into various parts, for example, the moving/moving centre, the moving/emotional centre, the moving/intellectual centre, the instinctive/instinctive centre, the instinctive/emotional centre, and the instinctive/intellectual centre. That is just the moving centre!. That the other centres will receive impressions from the moving centre, and therefor, the primary postures in the latter two centres are subconscious, and run on automatic. Thats my understanding anyway. Hence the machine Gurdjieff mentions. So everything that happens is, in this regard, accidental, as one machine reacts with another, etc. The recent session with the Cs discussed Gurdjieff at length, and that he materialized everything, and failed to understand the spiritual, non material aspect. Still, the Gurdjieffian mechanical nature of man still holds water methinks.
Thjs weeks Mithra and Prince George articles too oh and Masculinity (Atreides)
The mechanical body is the 5th and last of our 5 bodies. The KEY is spiritual body. 6 th sense. (Our gut feelings.... therefore our GUT (mechanical/physical/ANIMAL body) must be parasite-FREEEEE )
To be whole, to live wholeheartedly, one must have integrated (transcended our.fear of) the 6th sense. (BC snake again!)
Law = Order
Accident = Chaos
"Ordo Ab Chao"
The 6th sense (spiritual body is the first body, in which all 4 others reside).
Our free will is the glue that holds them all together in consciousness.