Václav Havel – The Pull Of The Land

The Power of the Powerless V

December 11, 2021December 11, 2021 Richard Barnes

This concludes the series of posts on Václav Havel’s consequential 1978 essay.

We have seen that in a totalitarian or “post-totalitarian” system, it is relatively easy for most people to conform to what those in power require of them.

Havel uses the example of a sign that private citizens are required to post every day. Even though they may not agree with or support the sentiment proclaimed by the sign, they nevertheless post it because they do not want to make waves, or they do not want to offend others, or they need their livelihood, or simply because “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient.”

Submission to lies goes to the point where millions are controlled by an ideology which they have accepted because it provides an explanation for or a “harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.”

So, they continue to post the sign knowing that between the ideology and the reality there is “a yawning abyss”. Furthermore, they cannot tolerate anyone who questions or denies the system or the ideology that undergirds it. To question or deny will cause the entire edifice to come tumbling down.

And so, they prefer to live within a lie; a life permeated with hypocrisy and falsehoods. It is a different sort of quiet desperation than suggested by Thoreau, but it is a desperation nonetheless.

And yet there remain many who yearn to live free and to walk in the Truth. They know — at least inchoately — that Truth and Liberty are integral.

But how can they walk in Truth if the entire ideology, narrative, and means of communications are consubstantial with the power structures that possess and enforce the system?

Well, truth is their power and that is what will enable them to walk as free men and women, albeit not necessarily without a price.

Havel observes that this weapon — Truth — is unique because it is in the breast of everyone, including those in power. A quick test of this is to simply tell the truth to anyone who would rather continue to walk in lies. The thoughtful, inquisitive response is rare. The usual reaction is mockery, shunning, denunciation, anger, even violence. They react thusly because they sense, correctly, that the lie they have chosen to live under is threatened.

And, since Truth also resides in the hearts of the power structure, when you invoke it, you strike at a critical center of lies.

I would urge you to parcel out the time to read the essay completely as Havel develops these thoughts much further than the woefully incomplete summaries I am able to give it here.

We will conclude this series of posts with something of a test. I will list several statements of fact regarding that which has consumed most of the “Free World” for the past 21 months. I will not develop these statements, but I can assure you that they are documented by published research and studies and sources: official and unofficial; professional and amateur; scholarly and nonacademic.

The purpose in listing the following is to enable each of us to examine our reactions with honesty:

Deaths by age: Covid cumulative vs. car accidents in one year (2019):

Ages 1-4: 71 vs 435

Ages 5-14: 202 vs 847

Ages 15-24: 1,965 vs 6,031

Mortality rates:

Ebola: 70%, all ages

Smallpox: 30%, all ages

The Great Influenza (“Spanish flu”): 10% – 20%, all ages

Covid: .05% – .01%, depending on age

Vaccine protection duration

Tetanus and diphtheria — Booster after 10 years

Measles and rubella — Life

Hepatitis A — 20 years or more

Hepatitis B — 30 years or more

Covid — A fraction of the above, depending on source

Danish randomized control trial on masks: “… masks did not reduce infection rate…”

CDC definitions have changed:

Vaccines (changed 4 times since 2012; twice in 2021)

Covid Deaths

Gain of function

Highest vaccination rates have highest case rates:

Countries

U. S. States

Covid deaths include:

Murder suicide in Grand County, Colorado

Motorcycle fatality in Travis County, Texas

Many more such examples throughout the country

Do not take my word for the above; look them up for yourselves (but do not use Google. Duckduckgo will work). If you find a gross error, please advise (rmbarnesr@gmail.com) and I will check and happily correct if proved wrong.

However, if you find them to be true, then determine to live within the Truth. Say what you really think. “Express solidarity with those whom [your] conscience commands you to support.”

“Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety.”

Heda Margolius Kovaly’s *Under a Cruel Star*, is her story of life in Prague, Czechoslovakia, first under the Nazis and then under Communists. Hers is a good example of seeking to live in the Truth, at great cost including isolation from former friends and very real danger from the establishment.

The Power of the Powerless IV

December 2, 2021December 2, 2021 Richard Barnes

This is our fourth in a series of posts on Václav Havel’s seminal 1978 essay of the same title.

In our last post we saw Havel’s use of an example: authorities require everyone to post a seemingly innocuous sign. To avoid any trouble and to not buck any authorized narrative, citizens dutifully post the sign in their shop windows or homes and go about their business with few pausing to research much as to the truth of the sign or, if they have researched or reflected, they obediently refuse to complain that the sign is not really true or that the citizen does not believe it.

Havel sums up that citizen behavior as, “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient.”

This attitude enables people to deceive their consciences and “their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi…” subjecting them to totalitarianism and keeping them there.

It keeps them there, furthermore, via the power that ideology wields over a nation’s population. This ideology may have taken a century or more to take hold. But it cannot be ignored. It is “a very pragmatic but … dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side…. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo.”

It provides people “with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.”

But, “between the aims of the post-totalitarian system and the aims of life there is a yawning abyss: while life moves toward plurality, diversity, independent self-constitution, in short, toward the fulfillment of its own freedom, the post-totalitarian system demands conformity, uniformity, and discipline.”

Any attempt by someone or by a family or by a church or by any organization to overstep its predetermined role or roles is regarded by the post-totalitarian system as an attack on itself, a denial of the system. And it must be stamped out.

“Ideology, in creating a bridge of excuses between the system and the individual, spans the abyss between the aims of the system and the aims of life. It pretends that the requirements of the system derive from the requirements of life. It is a world of appearances trying to pass for reality.”

“This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of [the State] is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views….”

“Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.”

“Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as if they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.”

A university student in Czechoslovakia put her understanding of unthinking actions well: “Totalitarianism creates a sense of disparity between the minds and actions of ordinary people, and leads them to live a life without reflection and a life that cannot be reflected.”

However, there are usually, if not always, people who desire to live free under ordered liberty. People like the generations of America’s colonial and early republic eras.

Under a “post totalitarian” system or regime, such people are powerless.

Or they seem to be but are not.

They have a mighty weapon which they can wield.

That weapon is the Truth. That is the power of the powerless.

And it must be employed wisely, confidently, and fearlessly. Wisely, because one must recognize the power of ideology in the post-totalitarian system. This recognition will help one to behave with understanding yet without compromise. Confidently and fearlessly because the Truth is known by all, even by the regime which is so intent on maintaining its apparatus of power.

The powerless who wield this weapon, in effect, insist on living within the Truth.

Václav Havel speaks to joint session of Congress, February 22, 1990. Vice President James Danforth (“Dan”) Quayle and Speaker of the House, Thomas Stephen Foley behind him.

The Power of the Powerless III

November 24, 2021November 24, 2021 Richard Barnes

We have seen (Part I and Part II) that Václav Havel, in his 1978 essay, The Power of the Powerless, defines “dictatorship” as something well beyond the classic, superficial image of a small group of people, usually military, who take over a country. The modern dictatorship is more of secular religion in the devotion and loyalty it demands from its subjects. As he puts it, this religion, this ideology “has a certain hypnotic charm” and those under its sway will not tolerate dissent.

“In terms of the physical aspects of power, this has led to the creation of … intricate and well-developed mechanisms for the direct and indirect manipulation of the entire population….”

“Of course, one pays dearly for this: … the price is abdication of one’s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority. The principle involved here is that the center of power is identical with the center of truth.”

Havel then seeks to illustrate what he means by the above.

A grocery store owner opens his shop and dutifully places the sign that is required to be placed in all shop windows: “Workers of the world, unite!” But, why does he place it? Is it because he has invested time in deep studies of the philosophy and history of the concept behind the phrase and out of conviction he places the sign? Well, no. All stores have the sign, after all. It is quite uniform across the country.

What the grocer is really saying with his sign is “I, grocer, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.”

Of course, the grocer’s message is “directed above, to [his] superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects [him] from potential informers….”

What is the sign really saying?

“I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient.” That statement would reflect the truth, but he would not only be embarrassed to post it, he would be placed in danger if he did so.

But the official sign allows the grocer to express his loyalty innocuously. After all, what’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?

“It hides him behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.”

“Ideology offers … the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier to part with “identity, dignity, and morality.” It enables people to deceive their conscience and “conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves.”

Havel used the illustration of a sign. Today he would use the illustration of any of the easily debunked shibboleths being mandated upon us and upon much of the world.

They are a veil.

How can one pierce that veil?

The phrase used by Havel to illustrate his point

The Power of the Powerless II

November 6, 2021November 6, 2021 Richard Barnes

I invite you to read Part I for background on this series of posts, whose title is taken from Václav Havel’s famous 1978 essay.

Havel valiantly attempts to define his terms, beginning with “dictatorship”. One who carefully reads the following extracts from the early paragraphs of his essay, will see he speaks to us today.

Because good writing speaks across generations.

From “The Power of the Powerless”

(all emphases are mine):

“Our system [speaking of Czechoslovakia, in 1978] is most frequently characterized as a dictatorship or, more precisely, as the dictatorship of a political bureaucracy over a society which has undergone economic and social leveling. I am afraid that the term “dictatorship,” regardless of how intelligible it may otherwise be, tends to obscure rather than clarify the real nature of power in this system. We usually associate the term with the notion of a small group of people who take over the government of a given country by force; their power is wielded openly, using the direct instruments of power at their disposal, and they are easily distinguished socially from the majority over whom they rule. One of the essential aspects of this traditional or classical notion of dictatorship is the assumption that it is temporary, ephemeral, lacking historical roots. Its existence seems to be bound up with the lives of those who established it. It is usually local in extent and significance, and regardless of the ideology it utilizes to grant itself legitimacy, its power derives ultimately from the numbers and the armed might of its soldiers and police. The principal threat to its existence is felt to be the possibility that someone better equipped in this sense might appear and overthrow it.

“Even this very superficial overview should make it clear that the system in which we live has very little in common with a classical dictatorship. In the first place, our system is not limited in a local, geographical sense; rather, it holds sway over a huge power bloc.… And although it quite naturally exhibits a number of local and historical variations, the range of these variations is fundamentally circumscribed by a single, unifying framework throughout…. Not only is the dictatorship everywhere based on the same principles and structured in the same way (that is, in the way evolved by the ruling power), but each country has been completely penetrated by a network of manipulatory instruments controlled by the power center and totally subordinated to its interests….

“[This system] commands an incomparably … precise, logically structured, generally comprehensible and, in essence, extremely flexible ideology that, in its elaborateness and completeness, is almost a secularized religion. It offers a ready answer to any question whatsoever; it can scarcely be accepted only in part…. In an era when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis, when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediately available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything becomes clear once more, life takes on new meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this low-rent home: the price is abdication of one’ s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority. The principle involved here is that the center of power is identical with the center of truth….“

As we shall see in future posts, Havel will go on to note that his observations most certainly apply to the United States.

In 1978, even the most obtuse could see that Americans were living in “an era when metaphysical and existential certainties” were in a state of crisis. I began my career in public accounting in that era and during “boot camp” [our tough, initial training] I was aghast at the blasphemy, profanity, and utter cynicism so evident in the speech and actions of many (thankfully, not all) of my professional contemporaries.

These were the crème de la crème of American society and it was ominous. Talking with a colleague there, I told him that I had been born in an American mining camp and my early childhood was amongst WWII veterans. I am certain that their mouths were not ivory soap clean when I was not around, but for sure, even in the club bar, where children were not banned in that era, I never heard even a smidgen of language such as I was hearing at this gathering of young professionals. Nor, as a child, did I ever sense a total disregard or disrespect for the Deity, as I was witnessing now.

Again, thankfully, “boot camp” experience was not a “100%” situation, but it was widespread enough for concern. So, when I heard Solzhenitsyn speak at Harvard and, especially, later when I read the speech, I hearkened back to my early professional career and understood his observations, although a good number of my contemporaries dismissed them.

But he and Havel, having lived and suffered through societies which had lost their liberties and who became subservient to established “power centers” most certainly saw many similarities in western societies, including the United States. They saw that a loss of belief in eternal verities will lead to abject submission and to assignment of transcendence to others, most likely the State; these are dispositions or inclinations which require “abdication of one’s own reason, conscience, and responsibility.”

Havel foresaw our disposition to a ready acquiescence to a ruling elite who would tell us what to do and when. Otherwise known as living within the murderous lie of totalitarianism. And to live under totalitarianism (whose definition Havel will continue to develop) requires living under a lie.

Mr. Shingler, the father of a childhood friend. I post his photo as an example of the men around whom my childhood friends and I grew up. They were not perfect men, in the sense that they had their sins and foibles. However, looking back, I can see they did their best to not harm the consciences of the children who saw them and were otherwise in their ambit.

My father, left, at my little brother’s first birthday. He also reflected the ethos of “do no harm”, to the best of his ability. Havel, and also Solzhenitsyn, saw the loss of that ethos in America. By the time of this photo, many of the Americans with whom I grew up had already left El Pao along with their families.

The Power of the Powerless I

October 21, 2021October 21, 2021 Richard Barnes

In 1978, Václav Havel (1936-2011) wrote an essay, The Power of the Powerless, from which I take the title for this and later posts.

Havel was born into a wealthy family, and that made him an outcast when the Communists took over 12 years later. He eventually became president of Czechoslovakia (her last), and, after the country’s dissolution, was elected president of the new Czech Republic (her first). But he is best known, not as a politician, but as an essayist and thinker who alerts his readers and hearers as to the dangers of totalitarianism, whether in its Fascist, Communist, Tin Pot, “Post-Totalitarian”, or democratic manifestations. And, most importantly, he eloquently demonstrates that the way for a people to defeat the brutal despotism of unjust domination by political and military elites — be they “soft” or “hard”, “democratically elected” or “installed by force” — is to “live by the truth.”

Truth is universal, and “historical experience teaches us that any meaningful point of departure in an individual’s life usually has an element of universality about it. In other words, it is not something partial, accessible only to a restricted community, and not transferable to any other. On the contrary, it must be potentially accessible to everyone.” By “everyone” he includes those doing the oppressing. His essay does not seek to proselytize religiously, but by “universality” he gives Christianity as an example. An example I wholly embrace.

The essay was written “hurriedly” (his word) but upon careful reading one marvels at his insights, clearly developed from a lifetime of social, economic, political, and religious oppression and upheaval. He is one of those rare intellectuals who not only earned the appellation but did not besmirch it with despicable, self-absorbed behavior and utter disregard for his neighbor.

Paul Johnson’s great book, The Intellectuals, details the lives of intellectuals who have had outsized, deleterious influence on the course of history, especially the 20th and 21st centuries. Men like Karl Marx and Jean-Paul Sartre, Cyril Connolly and Kenneth Tynan, and many others are examined and when one puts the book down, one wonders how people fell for these sordid characters whose fruit in their own lives surely portended evil for the rest of us. I wish Mr. Johnson had written a companion book on intellectuals who did lead admirable lives. Men like Václav Havel.

Open totalitarian regimes — Castro’s Cuba, Mao’s China, Khmer Rouge’s Cambodia, Hitler’s Germany, and many others — “post-totalitarian” regimes — Eastern Europe in 1978 — democratic regimes — Western Europe and the Americas — and points between all have a “hard” tendency to concentrate power and exercise it over their peoples.

“This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of formation is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance.”

“Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to posses an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.”

“Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as if they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.”

I invite you to re-read the foregoing three paragraphs and marvel with me that it was written in 1978 when Americans were offended at Alexander Solzhenitsyn for having pointed out similar thoughts at his Harvard address and was booed by the intellectuals there. The then First Lady sniffed, “He doesn’t understand Americans.” Even many “conservatives” were put off.

I was not one of them, although, I confess, I saw the issues he addressed as portending future evils. It was years later, upon re-reading the speech that I realized he saw them — correctly — as present evils. And today, their manifestation is such that only the most obtuse can honestly deny them.