• Robert Taylor
  • 03
  • Oct
  • 09

Just over 50 years ago, Rod Serling began working on the idea that would eventually turn in to one of the most popular and successful television programs of all time, The Twilight Zone. Everyone who has ever seen the show can recall the spooky introduction, the brilliant writing, and the ability to scare without using buckets of blood or indiscriminate violence.

I can remember catching a glimpse or two when I was younger while my dad watched them, always enjoying its sci-fi nature but never grasping the deeper philosophical and political undertones that drove the show. Re-watching a few episodes a dozen years later, The Twilight Zone was truly one of the best modern defenders of the individual over the collective and freedom over control, and its messages and warnings are still as relevant as ever. The characters even tended to say some very unpleasant things about government officials!

Take for example the episode entitled “It’s a Good Life.” The fictional town of Peaksville is the only town left in the entire world, and the inhabitants have no idea how the rest of the world was destroyed. They do know the cause: a terrible monster that reads minds and is easily disappointed. The classic opening narration tells it best:

She began to sing aloud. Now, the monster doesn’t like singing, so his mind snapped at her, turned her into the smiling, vacant thing you’re looking at now. She sings no more. And you’ll note that the people in Peaksville, Ohio, have to smile. They have to think happy thoughts and say happy things because once displeased, the monster can wish them into a cornfield or change them into a grotesque, walking horror. This particular monster can read minds, you see. He knows every thought, he can feel every emotion.

Peaksville is filled with numb and fearful citizens, constantly worried about displeasing their authoritarian monster-master. American culture closely resembles this small Ohio town, where our speech and our thoughts are policed, monitored, controlled, directed, and molded until it’s PC-approved. The media and the public schools do a very good job of this, only the monster-master in America resides near the Potomac River. Like Huxley’s sheeple in his Brave New World, individualism and the freedom of our minds are being sacrificed to that dangerously vague “the common/collective good.”

Perhaps my favorite episode from the archives was “The Eye of the Beholder,” where a Leader on a telescreen shouts to the people.

We know now that there must be a single purpose!  A single norm!  A single approach!  A single entity of peoples!  A single virtue!  A single morality!  A single frame of reference!  A single philosophy of government!  We must cut out all that is different like a cancerous growth!  It is essential in this society that we not only have a norm, but that we conform to that norm!  Differences weaken us! Variations destroy us!

This would have done George Orwell proud, who’s depiction of “Big Brother” in 1984 is eerily similar to this episode’s “Leader.” The Leader’s rant is unique only in the sense that it is so upfront about what he desires. In reality, this is what all leaders, be they dictators or elected representatives, want: the herd mentality of their subjects, the continuing conformity of thought and morals. A numbed population walking on politically-correct egg shells doesn’t ask too many (or the right) questions.

The spirit of individualism and anti-authoritarianism in The Twilight Zone struck a chord with Americans who were comparably free and immensely more independent. 50 years later, their nightmares have become our reality.

_

For more of Robert’s work, please visit his Libertarian Examiner blog.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

» You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.

No similar posts found.
  • What I meant by that was the slow and deliberate process of American institutions of shaping young minds so that they think and act relatively the same. We are told now how to think, but what to think, and we are asked to worship and praise people who have no business receiving our gratitude (most American presidents and public figures).
    You are right that there is a lot of "speech" out there, but the content varies little. Anyone that falls off of the status-quo tracks is outcasted or asked to apologize. Jon Stewart called President Truman a war criminal, which even if one disagrees, is a legitimate claim backed by much evidence. Yet he apologized the next day for refusing to conform to the public understanding.
    Or take a look at anyone who doesn't shout out elementary school understandings of Lincoln or FDR.
    The US may have a lot of outlets for speech, but in the public square, you must say the right things or you have no shot at furthering your career.
    And the fact that someone brought an "assault" rifle around the president would not be cause for alarm in a free society, only in a society governed by fear and submission.
    As long as there is a government as large, dangerous, murderous, immoral, brutal, monopolistic, aggressive, and ever-expanding as DC's is (regardless of who's in charge), then I will always be wearing my tin-foil hat proudly.
    'When the people are afraid of their government, there's tyranny. When the government is afraid of the people, there's liberty.' -Thomas Jefferson
  • TDub
    "What I meant by that was the slow and deliberate process of American institutions of shaping young minds so that they think and act relatively the same."

    Again, this hints at hyperbole. Do you have evidence of this? From my own experiences with both adults, and a diverse and broad selection of children - this wouldn't be an apt description. And that's not taking into account the tremendously broad spectrum of opinions about anything and everything, that's so widely publicized in the media, be it within the government, or the citizenry. It's almost safer and more accurate to argue that none of us can agree on anything.

    "Jon Stewart called President Truman a war criminal...Yet he apologized the next day for refusing to conform to the public understanding."

    I haven't seen the clip(s), so I'll admit I don't have first hand knowledge of the reference. Those were Jon Stewart's words? If so, it's interesting because such a change of tact would be at odds with his 'usual' stance and approach.

    "The US may have a lot of outlets for speech, but in the public square, you must say the right things or you have no shot at furthering your career"

    Absolutely. Why would one vote for somebody they adamantly disagreed with? It's nice we're not bound to. I think the ongoing issue is the ability to effectively monitor and hold elected officials accountable for their actions. The system is set up so that we simply don't reelect them to whatever office is in question. But politics as something that could have been an ethical and balanced system, had become really nothing more then who is better at sales and marketing. There are some who actively reject that approach, I'd offer up Obama though I can certainly understand why others wouldn't. But the public does deserve better, in general.

    "And the fact that someone brought an "assault" rifle around the president would not be cause for alarm in a free society, only in a society governed by fear and submission."

    In the same fashion that someone bringing an unlicensed, concealed handgun into a nightclub in New York City wouldn't be cause for alarm?

    "'When the people are afraid of their government, there's tyranny. When the government is afraid of the people, there's liberty.' -Thomas Jefferson"

    I'm usually a big TJ fan, but this is one of his quotes I've never much cared for. Largely I think, because it doesn't translate well into modern times. Back then when you had a group of people fighting off the yoke of an oppressive monarchy - that's one thing. Not so much the case these days.

    First, I don't know that a convincing argument can be made that your average American is scared of the government. Being raised to be cynical, distrustful, and to question the government openly and loudly is kind of something we're known for.

    Our problem, I think, is that we're not terribly fair or balanced in our analysis and criticisms. Sometimes we hit it fairly, other times we're comparing an effort to provide public health care to an effort to exterminate a number of different races, ethnic groups and sexual orientations that was partially and horribly successful.

    That's pretty fucked up, and is on us, not 'them'.

    Second, fear should not be a part of the equation. A government afraid of its people can not be an effective government, any more then a parent can effectively parent if they are afraid of their children. And certainly a people can not prosper, evolve, learn and grow if they are afraid of their government. Which just springboards me back to the beginning of my first point.
  • What is so amazing is that 50 years later these shows hold up so well. Oh they are in black and white, which is really kind of cool. And occasionally you'll see the old cars or a dial telephone that gives away the time. Most of the time, they could have been shot yesterday.
  • TDub
    "American culture closely resembles this small Ohio town, where our speech and our thoughts are policed, monitored, controlled, directed, and molded until it’s PC-approved."

    I'm curious as to the facts and figures you're basing this statement on as really, it simply sounds like baseless rhetoric and tin-foil hat wearing hyperbole. Both of which I think we've all had quite enough of from the media these days.

    From Fox News, to CNN, to the New York Times, to the Daily Show. From Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace, to Arianna Huffington and Jon Stewart. The countless blogs (I don't imagine the Men In Black have stopped by to talk to you yet, for example. Have they?). The results of the recent 'Town Hall' meetings for the public health care initiative, in regards to the actions of those who attended (e.g. rolling in to see the President, carrying an assault rifle). Even looking at the various political statements made on the arts side of the spectrum between films being made, music being recorded, and books being written.

    Not all of that are/were productive or positive methods of communicating or expressing one's self. But wherever one looks, it's easy to see the right to free speech at work. For better or worse. Hell, our right to free speech is so broad and all-encompassing, that we don't even have the right to hold people accountable for what they say, or demand responsible and accurate reporting (looking at you Fox News).
blog comments powered by Disqus