blackout
shortly after 4 pm on thursday, 14 august, a blackout swept
the u.s. north-east and eastern parts of canada. i know that
many guyanese handled the blackout with light-hearted retreat,
with jokes founded on our acclimation to no electricity.
i tend to look at things from socially conscious angles.
the blackout to me was not entirely an opportunity to make
jokes, but to observe massive homegrown american mind-control
at work.
i reside in queens, new york, and was able to witness the
subconscious thwarting of politicians and media-heads from
the very first hour of the blackout. during a blackout in
1977, there was widespread looting and arson in new york.
new methods had to be used to neutralise the threat of looting.
the most widely used method was one that i will call "the
right of assumption." this is where a statement--most
times a lie, sometimes a fact--is made by a loud, far-reaching
voice (politicians, the media, etc.), and we align ourselves
with this assumption. we do so because we are trained to conform
and that straying from the pack is antisocial, and that's
the worst thing you can be in america. in america, antisocial
does not only describe behaviour prohibited by accepted norms
and laws, antisocial is anything that seems unusual or different.
antisocial is not doing what everyone else does, is not feeling
like speaking, is expressing an opinion different from the
majority's. we conform to the statement because it is interpreted
as the stance of the majority, and we feel safest when running
with the rest of the herd.
on our battery-powered radios we heard mayor michael bloomberg
addressing the people. he expressed his pride in new yorkers
for being ever so strong and resilient and profusely cooperative--this
being funny in itself; imagine jagdeo making a radio address
praising us for surviving a blackout, "i will order a
full investigation into this matter, to ensure that it never
happens again. this should not have happened. this is unacceptable.
the strength of the guyanese people during this blackout has
been phenomenal."
bloomberg's right of assumption was clear. he told us that
we were strong, resilient, and cooperating willingly and though
we may have been angry, frustrated, extremely uncomfortable,
uncooperative, severely inconvenienced, and on the verge of
violent looting, we each thought, "maybe it's just me
feeling angry. according to the mayor, everyone is cheery
and cooperative, and i should be that way too. after all,
i wouldn't want to be the wet blanket in this blackout adventure."
contrary to what the mayor said, i witnessed a situation
right here in queens where the owners of a supermarket had
to park opposite the store with their truck lights on the
building to stop a group of young men who were apparently
ready and willing to break into the store, as they had done
once before.
if you don't understand the right of assumption, here's another
example. let's say that you're having a party and you're finding
it difficult to get people to come. to cope with this, when
inviting people you tell them, you lie, that many more people
have already agreed to be there. this new factor will greatly
affect people's judgement and they will be more likely to
accept your invitation. they have found themselves in a situation
where they can either conform, or stray from everyone else.
having been institutionally taught that straying is bad, they
conform. so your party is a success and no one knows you lied.
the right of assumption is not only used during blackouts.
it's also implemented to sell movies, music, and anything
else: "sixteen million people agree, this movie is awesome!"
"get this hot new cd that's flying off store shelves!"
the media, of course, loves big stories. one could imagine
the television news people waiting impatiently like contemptuous
dogs to relate something or the other to 11 september 2001,
just to add more urgency and, in a way, more excitement to
the unfolding event. they always do this during a crisis.
mention 11 september and your audience increases, so does
revenue from advertisers.
aside from mind control by the right of assumption, there
was also something else that baffled me. these were the pleas
from the city mayor and state governor to conserve electricity
as it was restored. conserve? it made me laugh. conservation
in america is just a "feel-good" word. it's a word
for greenpeace activists and the few people who actually do
conserve. but it's just a word in america, there is no action
behind it. in such an energy-dependent, i.e. oil-dependent
country, conservation is just a word that people use during
blackouts. every other electric day, americans are joy-riding
in their gas-gulping sport utility vehicles, burning electricity
in all things turned electric, and consuming electricity for
entertainment. yes, electricity is burned for entertainment,
as decoration. all over america, for instance, electric lights
are used not for illumination, but for decorative effect.
neon signs do provide a nice-looking notice that a store is
"open" or that a restaurant offers "free delivery",
and even though we think that these things are necessary to
mark our advancement as a species, i'm sure we could save
a lot of electricity, a lot of oil, by replacing these neon
lights with cardboard and ink signs. what i'm proposing probably
sounds like a backward step, but it is just one of many, many
ways to conserve. sure, this may seem unnecessary now, but
if we continue on this path then at some point it will
be necessary to get rid of things like neon signs and the
times square extravagance because of certain inevitabilities:
we'll run out of oil, or we'll destroy the earth by consuming
this oil.
if we're going to use electricity for entertainment or decoration,
we might as well run pipelines from iraq or saudi arabia and
light fires at the end to amuse ourselves. when we use electricity
for unnecessary, visually appeasing purposes, we've advanced
no farther that our prehistoric counterparts who were also
mesmerised by fire.
developing alternative energy sources may be the only thing
that can save us, but oil is big business and oil corporations
and governments controlled by these corporations will not
allow themselves to be replaced or challenged by clean-energy
industries--similar to how america, by any means necessary,
will never allow any nation to surpass it as an economic or
political power.
there was a time when i associated electricity with "clean,
amazing, powerful, and unlimited." naturally, i was then
taught that it comes from oil which was not clean or unlimited.
so i have trained myself to see horrible thick black billowing
smoke spilling from an unearthly gigantic chimney every time
i turn on this computer, plug in a can-opener, turn on the
tv, or open the fridge. i think that people dangerously associate
electricity with clean energy because we don't see
the choking exhaust gases in the production of electric power.
there is not and cannot be any such thing as conservation
in american society, where wasteful extravagant excess is
regarded as an indispensable measure of technological muscle
and social advancement.
in conclusion, let me ask myself something that some people
out there might want to: "what does all this have to
do with guyana and truth?"
well, like i said before, i look at things from a socially
conscious point of view. i ask myself "how does this
relate to guyanese, guyana, and the development of the nation?"
the answer is simple and has two parts. firstly, i write about
this because i live in america right now and the system irritates
and pressures me. secondly, and more importantly, i write
about experiences in america because this is exactly where
we'll be if we don't do something to save our culture. guyanatruth
is trying to save our culture.
maybe i've also indulged in this rant because, after all,
blackout in america is like no blackout in guyana.
related links:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4478.htm
-- al qaeda claims responsibility for the blackout
http://marilynmanson.com/manson/columbine.html
-- marilyn manson's response to the columbine shootings. "America
loves to find an icon to hang its guilt on. But, admittedly,
I have assumed the role of Antichrist; I am the Nineties voice
of individuality, and people tend to associate anyone who
looks and behaves differently with illegal or immoral activity."
