Elaboration 40

It is a misconception to think that one is only in a group, and subject to group-consciousness, when the other members are near, in visual and auditive contact. Since all ideation can only take place 'inside' every individual, never outside him, it is clear that to feel as a group-member, one needs not the proximity of the group itself (i. e exterior to him). One can be suggested (idea) to belong to a group alongside the suggestion of what he should do as such. The consumer e.g. is a member of the group 'consumers' (virtually the same as 'electorate'), he knows this, and that is enough. Advertising therefore also has the typical tuning in for six-year old intelligence (see Dale Carnegie, Hitler etc.). In close proximity, only, it is called 'mob', it is where rationality may disappear entirely. One is swayed totally by pure animal, emotional cues. Forester shows his knowledge of crowds in e.g. 'The Ship'. "Panic can seize a crowd or individual, making men run for no known reason in search of no known objective; in panic men shake with fear, act without aim or purpose, hear nothing, see nothing." The individual is only so in panic, in crowd he is always so. The Mob is different from the group-consciousness only in being somewhat pronounced. The childlike quality of the emotions and the overall-, general-, nature are admirably put by Thornton Wilder again. "Now mind you! I don't say that everybody wants everybody dead. We all belong to little clubs. We want the members of other clubs dead; we only want the members of our own club STUNTED. A man wants his wife stunted and vice versa; a father wants his son stunted and vice versa". The capitals are his. Such group-consciousness, as mob, will un-man the individual, depersonalize him, and, typical for herd animals that never stampede at half-speed, the individual is in life-danger. Wyndham's keen insight in depersonalization, made him say that 'normality' goes always with a loss in individuality. Indeed, the person in the mob, simply 'must' be normal, i.e. be exactly like the rest, i.e. imitation. Why was Hollard immediately imagined by the crowd as spy, as the enemy? Because he was recognizable as acting rationally. The only one, in that dreadful-, panicky-, milling of fugitives from the Germans. (Hollard came to the conclusion that in a panic situation (in mob), the one man that shows being 'in control' of his mind, is suspect. See Martelli's report of the story in 'Agent Extraordinary', Collins 1960). The old and wise classics, knew already that simply participation in a mob, endangered one's very life (Seneca, Epictetus, etc.). The consumer, on the other hand, would hardly become aware of the (non-proximate) other members, but just through sub-conscious and sub-liminal messages in advertising the approach 'as if' he is a child, he becomes child-like. With the suggested command to consume, you get also the suggested command to belong to the consumers. You are actually commanded to refrain from thinking, you are to be a robot, an empty mind. In our country, we have a sham committee that purports to 'protect' the television viewers from being misused by the advertisers. It has concocted a set of rules for advertising and the public is encouraged to enter their critics. Naturally, they have not a iota of scientific knowledge about ideation, (is suggestion, is indoctrination, is deception, etc.), and they maintain e.g. the truth principle. You are not allowed to advertise that something is good for your health, if it in fact is not so. But, then, you are fully allowed to 'suggest' that you like people to have the good things, that you have the people's welfare at heart, while all you want in reality is to get their money. A more fundamental deviation from the truth is hardly imaginable, nor is it in any way in the interest of the public. Needless to say that the rules also forbid the use of subliminal influence (Elaboration 67.1). There also, is no mention of what to do in cases where the truth cannot be known. Common sense commands that one is not allowed to put these statements 'as if' true. What we know to be the truth, we are allowed to say (via such powerful suggestive medium), what we do not know for certain we may present as a theory, a possibility. But what we cannot know, nor anybody else, we'd better keep out of public discussions. What to say of the advertisement for flowers, the message that: 'flowers love humans'? We might be correct in supposing that our dog has a liking for us. We may deduct it from its behaviour, besides, we give it food, a bone even. With vegetative life, even this is impossible. It is far more obvious that flowers hate the human's guts, because they kill and kill. Humans, the only enemies of nature, cut off the flowers, thereby maiming them or kill the very plant. There is nothing comparable in stupidity with the plucking of flowers, putting them in a vase. If it was not the advertising that they love humans!