Re: New live video by me

of what
they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition. This last
difference was cardinal. By comparison with that existing today, all the
tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient. The ruling groups
were always infected to some extent by liberal ideas, and were content to
leave loose ends everywhere, to regard only the overt act and to be
uninterested in what their subjects were thinking. Even the Catholic Church
of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards. Part of the reason for
this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens
under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it
easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the
process further. With the development of television, and the technical
advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on
the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at
least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept
for twentyfour hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of
official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The
possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the
State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for
the first time.
After the revolutionary period of the fifties and sixties, society
regrouped itself, as always, into High, Middle, and Low. But the new High
group, unlike all its forerunners, did not act upon instinct but knew what
was needed to safeguard its position. It had long been realized that the
only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are
most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called
'abolition of private property' which took place in the middle years of the
century meant, in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer hands
than bef