- Brock Chisolm, former Director of the (United Nations)
World Health Organization, is quoted as saying, To achieve world government,
it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism,
loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.
[GWB quote of the day, 7/7/1999]. Remove from the minds of men ? Doesn
t that sound like mental conditioning? How does that square with the Alexander
Downer/Tim Fischer version of globalism as freer markets ? It doesn t,
- Some years ago another hero of the globalist-Left, B.F.Skinner,
in his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity , mounted a concerted attack on
what he termed autonomous man . What was autonomous man ? Autonomous
man was an independently thinking and acting, morally responsible, individual
human being. Skinner, who formed his ideas by training pigeons to peck
different buttons in the laboratory in order to get food, spent a whole
book arguing that the human mind does not exist. Just what he thought
he was using to develop his argument never seems to have occurred to him,
but such is the standard of modern scholarship, at least in the so-called
social sciences . According to Professor Skinner (p. 196) science must
abolish autonomous man if it is to prevent the abolition of the human
species....To man qua man (man as a human being) we readily say good riddance.
Skinner advocated the mass mental conditioning of human beings by an
elite group of behavioural scientists. Beyond Freedom and Dignity became
a standard text in teachers training colleges.
- Why would socialists be so hostile to individualism,
to autonomous man ? Even their opposition to the traditional family can
be traced to its capacity to build independence of character and spirit,
and to foster politically incorrect ideas. National patriotism too is
a uniquely individual emotion: the love of a country regarded as home
in defence of which men have been prepared to die in wars not of their
own making. Even the globalist hostility to religious dogmas can be
sheeted home to the Christian teaching that man was created as an individual
by God in His own image, with individual rights inalienable at the hands
of worldly governments, including the right to commune directly with the
Creator without the interposition of a human intermediary in the form
of a priest or pope. Such ideas are anathema to those hell bent on people
- But what is it about the independently thinking individual
that socialists hate most? Ayn Rand identified it as the ability to reason
[see Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual (1960), pp. 10-57, esp. p. 44].
Why would socialists hate the ability to reason so much? Because they
can t do it! And what they can t do, or otherwise control, they will destroy.
They are driven by envy, and that is the nature of envy: the hatred of
the good for being the good. The fact is, the independent thinking individual
has always posed, throughout history, the greatest obstacle to attempts
to collectivise human beings and now, in the latest version of this oft-repeated
human saga, the greatest obstacle to global collectivisation at the hands
of the social science elite is again the independent thinking individual
with a sense of dignity and self-worth. But let s go back to the beginning.
- When modern man first appeared on the earth about 45,000
years ago he was living in small tribal groups, surviving by hunting and
gathering, and using primitive stone tools and weapons. Obliged to follow
his food sources about, he was unable to form permanent settlements. Tribal
society was socialist, the individual was regarded as a tribal resource
, everybody was required to work, all labour was linked to tribal survival,
and the proceeds of hunting and gathering were pooled and shared according
to tribal custom. Professor Friedrich Hayek describes this as everybody
having a visible common purpose [F.A. Hayek, Law Legislation and Liberty
, Vol.II (1976), p.134].
- Around 8000 BC in Mesopotamia (now Iraq), certain tribes
to turned from hunting and gathering to cultivating crops and domesticating
animals which enabled them to settle into permanent farming villages. Settled
argiculture brought about productivity increases which allowed parasitic
elites to form whose members did nothing but rule over the productive
masses, tax them, and squander the spoils on wars, monuments to themselves,
and leisure, including sexual depravity. So what s new? By 3,500 BC, the
first civilisation, Sumer, had developed in southern Mesopotamia.
- Somewhere between 45,000 BC and 3,500 BC man developed
language, and in a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown
of the Bicameral Mind , American psychologist Dr. Julian Jaynes of Princeton
University argued that since language is essential not only for communication
but also for reasoned thought, man, prior to the development of language,
must have operated in another mental state, a kind of semi-conscious mode
he called the bicameral or two-chambered (of the brain) mode. The person
operating in bicameral mode would not be fully conscious in the sense
of being a self-aware reasoning individual, but would still be capable
of performing most tasks necessary for survival in a group or tribe, in
much the same way as people automatically do up buttons without actually
thinking about it. Tribal man, in other words, had a tribal mind which
was not fully conscious in the modern sense.
- The tribal mind would have had no sense of self, of being
an individual separate and distinct from the collective. The tribal individual
would learn their behaviour from other members of the group, and in novel
situations would call upon hallucinated instructions arising in the right
temporal lobe of the brain, which were interpreted as instructions from
the gods , much like a schizophrenic hearing voices. Jaynes presented
evidence that man operated in this mode even into the fairly advanced
stages of early civilisation.
- As civilisation advanced, however, and agricultural production
and trade expanded, the number of new situations the bicameral had to cope
with daily increased and the bicameral mode was no longer viable. It began
to break down and a new way of thinking evolved. This used the imagination
to develop an internal map of the outside world, enabling an individual
to reason through various alternative ideas or courses of action and to
decide on the most appropriate. The learned action and automatic thought
of the bicameral tribal mode was replaced by the self-willed action and
independent thought which is now described as consciouness.
- The important point Jaynes made was this: the transition
to full consciousness was volitional, not automatic. The individual had
to choose to adopt the new mode of thinking, and had to make a conscious
effort to continue to think that way. Failing that, through mental laziness,
by allowing others ( authorities ) to do their thinking for them, people
could readily lapse back into bicameral mode. The thing which initially
encouraged people to exercise their consciousness was competition. Survival
was still a problem then, and the fully conscious individual had a distinct
competitive advantage over the person lingering in bicameral mode. Because
of this competitive advantage consciousness won out over bicameralism.
Until recently that is, but more on that in a moment.
- With the rise of permanent settlement and the collapse
of the bicameral mind, tribal society gave way to an individualist social
order in which people were free to pursue their own goals in their own
way, bound only by common rules of conduct (morals). The new order was
based on production and exchange. A concept of private ownership developed,
and the nuclear family replaced the tribe, or extended family, as the
principle social unit. This new social order was to persist for the next
10,000 years. Socialists call it the bourgeois capitalist system, because
it is based on private ownership of property. Professor Hayek calls it
a Great Society , and Professor Karl Popper an Open Society [see Karl
Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies (5th. Edition revised, 1966)].
It was a society in which each individual was free to use their knowledge
for their own, not tribal, purposes.
- Not everybody welcomed the new social order. Some people
wanted to lapse back into bicameral mode and avoid self-responsibility,
longing for a return to the warm fuzzy feeling of being protected or taken
care of within the tribal environment. Others, particularly the parasitic
ruling classes, saw advantages in the greater degree of social control
afforded by the tribal organisation. As Ayn Rand pointed out, there is
only one means of survival available to those who live parasitically off
the efforts of others: to control those who produce.
- As a result, as Karl Popper describes it, ....this civilisation
has not yet fully recovered from the shock of its birth...the transition
from the tribal or closed society ....to the open society which sets
free the critical powers of man. He refers to the rise of reactionary
movements throughout history which have tried, and still do, to overthrow
civilisation and return to tribalism. Totalitarianism, according to Popper,
belongs to a tradition that is just as old, or just as young as civilisation
itself [Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies , Volume 1, Introduction].
Professor F.A.Hayek also identified Socialism and its variants, Communism
and Fascism/Nazism as attempts to re-impose tribal values and a tribal
organisation on large modern societies [see F.A. Hayek, Law, Legislation
and Liberty (1972-9), esp.Vol.II, p.133 et.seq.].
- Globalism is merely the latest version of these reactionary
movements, this time striving to create one big global tribe, or global
village , an attempt to recreate paleolithic tribal society on a global
- What about the so-called big brave capitalists? How does
big business fit into this picture? Martin Page, in his book The Company
Savage (1972) drew the parallel between the modern corporation and the
tribe, which he defined as a group of people who superstitiously believe
that, together, they add up to more than the sum of their individual beings.
From this superstition springs another notion found in almost all tribal
societies: that the tribe itself is a living force in its own right, which
exists independently of the people who make it up. In Africa, says Page,
tribesmen call this force the Tribal Spirit , in Britain it is called
the Company Spirit . This pagan belief is even recognised in corporate
law as the fictional persona, the corporate personality. It is also the
basis of the idea of the organic corporate state .
- Antony Jay, author of the book, Corporation Man (1972),
also recognised the similarity between the tribe and the modern corporation
and even sought to apply the dynamics of tribal behavior to corporations
in a bid to have them function more effectively. Professor Hayek also
attributed the recent revival in tribalist thinking to the fact that more
and more people were obliged to work in larger and larger organisations,
both public and private.
- Globalists are socialists and therefore collectivists,
in other words, tribalists. They view society not as many individuals,
but as various tribes, pressure groups, or human resources whose interests
are necessarily in conflict. They readily accept concepts such as inherited
tribal guilt, guilt for past wrongs allegedly committed by people of the
same tribe or race. It is therefore meaningful for them to apologise for
the alleged crimes of their tribal ancestors, and to try to persuade others
to do likewise. They are obsessed with issues of race, culture and group
rights , while they ignore and set about abolishing individual rights.
- The more disturbing aspect of global tribalism lies in
the adoption of policies which are having the effect of causing the masses
to revert to bicameral or tribal mode. Globalists are committed to mass
people conditioning along the lines advocated by B.F. Skinner, and in
a society supplied with an abundance of material goods, in which information
is carefully controlled by the mass media, and in which independent thought
is discouraged from an early age by an education system which rewards
conformity, it is possible to achieve that. Masses of people, through
the encouragement of mental laziness and reliance on authorities , can
be lulled back into bicameral mode. Once there they can be induced to
believe almost anything provided it comes from an accepted authority figure
or source, such as political leaders , professors of this or that, newspapers
with coloured pictures, teachers in the classroom, the lyrics of pop music,
or the TV.
- People can be persuaded to reject their morality and
to adopt values actually threatening to themselves and their society.
They can be induced to believe the butchery of defenceless civilians by
NATO is a humanitarian action , that war-making is peacekeeping , and
that it is wrong to judge people who do such things because moral rules
are merely an outmoded form of social control, a conspiracy by naughty
people from the old individualist order. Faced with ideas seemingly too
difficult to grapple with, bicamerals will reject them out of hand as
conspiracy theories or just another person s opinion , and move on to
easier things, like sport or gossip.
- Large numbers of people in Western society now fit this
description. In Australia it tends to be dismissed as political apathy.
But the disturbing thing is that the self-styled elitists who now monopolise
the institutions of governance.... global governance, and what s left
of national governance....are themselves exhibiting signs of bicameralism,
increasingly inhabiting an imaginary world of their own making, and making
statements which bear no relation to reality or to logical consistency.
- That bicameralism should infect the institutions of governance
is not surprising. According to Martin Page, tribalists gain from the tribe
a sense of identity that they mostly cannot provide from within themselves.
Expulsion from the tribe can lead to breakdown, even death, through the
loss of this. It follows that the prospect of expulsion can motivate members
to accept unquestioningly the beliefs and values of the group, no matter
how bizarre they might be, gaining authentication for those beliefs from
the fact that significant numbers of influential people subscribe to them.
- Politicians, bureaucrats and academics operating in bicameral
mode can believe that the world is warming up even though it isn t, an
economy can be healthy even though it is over a quarter of a trillion
dollars in debt, that globalisation can be good for Australia even though
it requires the surrender of the nation state, that increasing monopoly
in economics is leading to increased competition , that banning unpopular
views is consistent with free speech, that discriminating against discrimination
prevents discrimination, that giving preferential treatment in the allocation
of state benefits or employment to some groups at the expense of others
promotes equality , and that a conspiracy between government and opposition
to exclude parties like One Nation from the political process is consistent
with democracy . They can also be persuaded that the sexual mollestation
of children is not paedophilia but cross-generational sex , that every
child has a right to a relationship with a loving paedophile , and that
the merging of semen with faeces in an anus has equal legitimacy to its
deposition in a vagina.
- Ultimately, fed the right sort of bunkum, bicamerals
in government, the bureaucracies, academia and the media can come to inhabit
an upside-down world which has no relation to reality, in which the unreal
becomes the real and vice versa, in which good becomes bad, lies become
truth, ugliness becomes beauty, morality is dismissed as a social control
conspiracy, in which evil becomes good, crime goes unpunished while innocence
is condemned, perversion is normal, self-defence is a crime against the
attacker, real assets can be bought with imaginary money, and tyranny
is freedom (from the tyranny of too much freedom). It s the world of
Rousseau in which men must be forced to be free , or of George Orwell
in which war is peace, freedom is slavery, and 2 and 2 make 5 . Get used
to it. That s the new world order.
homepage (book available):