Skepticism, Santayana observed, is "the chastity of the intellect." In similar fashion, resistance – not compliance – is the default response of a free person to a directive issued by someone acting in the name of "authority." Louise Ogborn, a teenage employee at a McDonald’s in Mount Washington, Kentucky, was sexually assaulted and confined for hours because this rudimentary understanding of individual autonomy was entirely alien to her workplace supervisor.
Louise was working a second shift as a favor to her supervisor, the improbably named Donna Summers, when someone identifying himself as "Officer Scott" called the restaurant. Claiming that he had the restaurant’s manager with him, the "officer" said he was investigating a theft. The caller offered a description of the supposed suspect, which Summers thought matched Louise.
The teenager was summoned to the office, where Summers – at the behest of the caller – informed the young lady that she had to undergo a hands-on search, either in the office or at a nearby police station. Believing that she was effectively under arrest, Louise consented to a search in the office.
Within a few minutes the young lady had been deprived of her cell phone, purse, and clothing, which – per the "officer’s" instructions – were taken to another room. In the service of modesty’s minimal requirements, Louise was provided with an apron.
After Louise had been disrobed, the "officer" ordered Summers to enlist a male employee to guard the "suspect." A 27-year-old line cook named Jason Bradley was asked to play the role.
Following a brief conversation with the "officer," Bradley informed Summers, "in appropriately strong, colloquial language" – most likely involving a reference to bovine digestive residue – "that the situation was unacceptable," recounted the Court of Appeals for Kentucky in a subsequent ruling.
Significantly, Bradley’s objection focused on what he was being told to do, not the identity of the individual issuing the orders. Summers remained credulous, however, and in compliance with the "officer’s" demands called her fiancé, Walter Nix, to come to the restaurant to guard Louise.
Left alone with Louise for a space of about two hours, Nix – dutifully carrying out the "officer’s" instructions – forced the victim "to perform a series of humiliating physical acts, conducted a cavity search of her body, engaged in the additional physical assault of spanking her, and ultimately sexually assaulted her," narrates the Court of Appeals decision. Louise objected to the abuse she was suffering. At various times during the three-hour ordeal, she "asked for her clothes, and requested permission to leave. Her requests evoked some sympathy from her managers but were ultimately denied."
Eventually a maintenance man named Tom Simms grabbed the phone, spoke with the "officer," and told Summers that the whole thing was a hoax. This prompted her to call the store manager, who was at home, rather than the police station. Only then was Summers willing to allow Louise to get dressed and leave.
This incident was similar to a string of hoaxes believed to have been perpetrated over a ten-year period by a former prison guard from Florida named David Stewart. In 2006, Nix was found guilty of false imprisonment and sexual abuse, and sentenced to five years in prison.
Summers, who was fired from her position at McDonald’s, pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful imprisonment. Stewart, who may well have been a beta tester for the Transportation Security Administration, was charged with several felonies but acquitted.
During Walter Nix’s trial, the prosecutor insisted that he and Summers should have known that the caller wasn’t a police officer. This assumes that the crimes committed against Louise would have been justifiable if those acts had been carried out on the orders of a policeman, rather than a con artist. Jason Bradley’s entirely commendable defiance demonstrated that he recognized the immorality of what he was being told to do – and that the nature of those acts wouldn’t change if they were given the benediction of someone claiming to exercise "authority."
Several commentators have drawn comparisons between the outrage in Mount Washington and the notorious experiments conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram, which were documented in his book Obedience to Authority. Milgram’s tests were intended to measure the moral pliancy of ordinary people when ordered to commit potentially lethal acts against other innocent human beings.
Milgram discovered that 65 percent of his test subjects were willing to subject an unseen – and entirely innocent – person to what they believed was a fatal electric shock on the orders of a person seen as cloaked in that mysterious property called "authority."
Deference to the Authority Figure, Milgram observed, permitted those who participated in the experiment to "shed responsibility" for their actions.
Ten years after Milgram conducted his study, Dr. Philip Zimbardo carried out a similar experiment with the cooperation of the Palo Alto, California Police Department. Zimbardo and a team of academics from Stanford University selected a group of 22 volunteers for a two-week study of the dynamics of prison life. On the basis of a coin toss, half were designated "guards," and assigned the proper costumes. The others were labeled "prisoners" and swaddled in prison attire.
Within a day, the participants had immersed themselves in their respective roles. The guards became aggressive, hostile, and verbally abusive (physical violence was forbidden); the "prisoners" became depressed, and a few developed psycho-somatic afflictions, such as rashes. The "guards," by way of contrast, reveled in their status, constantly inflicting whimsical punishments on the "prisoners" and looking for new and more inventive ways to restrict what little liberty they still enjoyed.
When a graduate assistant protested that it was a form of abuse to inflict suffering on poorly-paid volunteers, Zimbardo ended the experiment – after just six days.
When Dr. Zimbardo announced the end of his study, "most of the guards seemed to be distressed … and it appeared to us that they now enjoyed the extreme control and power which they had exercised and were reluctant to give it up," he wrote in an essay published by the 1973 issue of Naval Research Review.
"Being a guard carried with it social status within the prison, a group identity (when wearing the uniform), and, above all, freedom to exercise an unprecedented degree of control over the lives of other human beings," Zimbardo observed. "This control was invariably expressed in terms of sanctions, punishment, demands, and with the threat of manifest physical power. There was no need for the guards to rationally justify a request as they did [in] their ordinary life, and merely to make a demand was sufficient to have it carried out. Many of the guards showed in their behavior and revealed in post-experimental statements that this sense of power was exhilarating."
The "power" described here, of course, was entirely fictive – just like that exercised by the faceless "Officer Scott" who ordered the abuse of Louise Ogborn. Of course, the ability of the peculiar artifact called the "State" to regiment, expropriate, incarcerate, and annihilate human beings depends entirely on the willingness of its victims to accept the moral fiction that coercive "authority" is in some sense legitimate.
As the Appeals Court observed, although Louise may have been forced to part with her purse – and lose her job – if she had simply decided to leave, she was not physically restrained or threatened with violence by her supervisors. She initially cooperated out of a desire "to clear her name, save her job, and clear her parents’ name." As the caller’s demands escalated, Louise succumbed to the "moral pressure" of her colleagues, who insisted that it was somehow the victim’s duty to submit.
The outrages inflicted on Louise Ogborn (who eventually won a substantial civil judgment against McDonald’s) were made possible because she was effectively paralyzed by what the Appeals Court calls "the threat of authority." Her former colleagues suffered from a kindred affliction – the delusion that "authority" can redeem immoral conduct.
Louise’s ordeal is depicted – with predictable dramatic license – in the new indie film Compliance, and the reaction of a preview audience in New York is revealing.
During a panel discussion following the screening, psychologist Stanton Peele asked: "How many people in this room think they would have gone along with this scenario if they were present?" Not a single hand was raised. One audience member insisted that the deception worked because it targeted unsophisticated people of the kind who would work at a fast food joint.
While most of the audience was content to marinate in a sense of cultural superiority, one man – who pointedly noted that he was "well-educated" – gave voice to the unvarnished truth about most people who live in our degenerate collectivist culture:
"If you truly believed there was a threat of consequence, you would have done it. [If a]police officer is calling, saying you might lose your job, you might be held accountable if you don’t do these things, you might follow through" – even if that means being party to a grotesque sexual assault on an innocent co-worker as she cries and pleads for help.
It’s worth nothing that acts very similar to those prosecuted as sexual assault when carried out by a McDonald’s employee and her boyfriend in 2006 are committed thousands of times every day at airports by federal employees in 2012.
Those acts are carried out in the name of "authority"; accordingly, it is those who object to being publicly molested who confront the prospect of prosecution. When episodes of that kind are given publicity by the State-aligned media, the Ministry of Truth will always find at least one properly docile subject who will recite the appropriate words of chastened gratitude for the indispensable service performed by the TSA’s Molestation Corps.
The unpleasant and undeniable truth is that in contemporary America, most people will scream the equivalent of "Do it to Julia!" long before they face the horrors of Room 101.
Some love the feeling of power over others, however if you question their authority, even if they're in the wrong, see what type of reaction happens. To them questioning them makes them feel they have no power and many of these types are so used to people being obidient they don't know what to make of it, their only option is to take back control by any means, and by any means that might be to beat you into submission or call in reinforcements because there is strength in numbers.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Posting in a Cicero 'The government is out to get me' thread.
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
Posting in a Cicero 'The government is out to get me' thread.
The story and topic are pretty interesting, it just shows how far some believe others have power over them because they say they do.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Posting in a Cicero 'The government is out to get me' thread.
More comprehension problems for buck. It's AUTHORITY - the story was about a McDonalds supervisor strip searching their subordinate.
Don't read these threads buck, they are above your grade level. Glen Beck or Hannity must be on replay somewhere on the Internet. You can listen to them call you a 'great American'.
I question authority when it seems appropriate... I don't automatically assume that every cop, every mayor or every school crossing guard is "out to get me" as some on this board seem to feel.
When G Worst Bush first made the accusations about WMD's, I assumed that it was true. Reading facts that contradicted those accusations made me investigate more and question the charges. I don't automatically question every item from every government figure. To do so for no good reason or doubt, would seem paranoid to me.
I assume that most people in authority... cops, judges, politicians... are there to do a good job as they see it. Many fail or many make mistakes, but I don't assume from the start that these people..."THE GOVERNMENT" is out to get me.
There are some crooked cops, some dishonest politicians and some criminals in positions of authority... but there are also some bad apples in the barrel... I don't condemn all apples everywhere because of those few rotten apples.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
There are some crooked cops, some dishonest politicians and some criminals in positions of authority... but there are also some bad apples in the barrel... I don't condemn all apples everywhere because of those few rotten apples.
But you do check them all out before buying them right, just to make sure those rotten ones didn't spread. If we don't question authority then when do we know the rotten ones from the good ones?
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
I question authority when it seems appropriate... I don't automatically assume that every cop, every mayor or every school crossing guard is "out to get me" as some on this board seem to feel.
When G Worst Bush first made the accusations about WMD's, I assumed that it was true. Reading facts that contradicted those accusations made me investigate more and question the charges. I don't automatically question every item from every government figure. To do so for no good reason or doubt, would seem paranoid to me.
I assume that most people in authority... cops, judges, politicians... are there to do a good job as they see it. Many fail or many make mistakes, but I don't assume from the start that these people..."THE GOVERNMENT" is out to get me.
There are some crooked cops, some dishonest politicians and some criminals in positions of authority... but there are also some bad apples in the barrel... I don't condemn all apples everywhere because of those few rotten apples.
I think a better example for you in relation to this story would be the soldier following orders to kill an "enemy" because of a perceived authority wearing costumes and medals gives the order to kill. An order which exonerates the soldier from a guilty conscience for committing murder. They are able to replace the actions in what a civilized society views as assault and murder and replaces it with honor and duty. And even if you are not personally involved in the killing, the citizens encourage and honor these acts of murder in the name of the state. It's pretty f'n scary.
I question authority when it seems appropriate... I don't automatically assume that every cop, every mayor or every school crossing guard is "out to get me" as some on this board seem to feel.
When G Worst Bush first made the accusations about WMD's, I assumed that it was true. Reading facts that contradicted those accusations made me investigate more and question the charges. I don't automatically question every item from every government figure. To do so for no good reason or doubt, would seem paranoid to me.
I assume that most people in authority... cops, judges, politicians... are there to do a good job as they see it. Many fail or many make mistakes, but I don't assume from the start that these people..."THE GOVERNMENT" is out to get me.
There are some crooked cops, some dishonest politicians and some criminals in positions of authority... but there are also some bad apples in the barrel... I don't condemn all apples everywhere because of those few rotten apples.
How is it that you ALWAYS manage to blame GWB for whatever the topic is? It's amazing that one man has that much space tied up in your head. Stop looking to the past man, live in the present and hope you're here for the future.
But you do check them all out before buying them right, just to make sure those rotten ones didn't spread. If we don't question authority then when do we know the rotten ones from the good ones?
When I go to the market to buy apples, I expect that they are all good apples. If when I got home I found that many were rotten, then on the next visit I would be more careful and if I continually found most bags of apples to have rotten apples... I might expect them to be bad. That's not the case with apples, and it's not the case (IMO) with politicians, police or others in authority.
In my experience, the rotten apple is the exception, not the rule. Some on this board seem to expect every apple to be rotten and are surprised when one isn't.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
In my experience, the rotten apple is the exception, not the rule. Some on this board seem to expect every apple to be rotten and are surprised when one isn't.
My experience is, if you don't grow the tree and pick the apples yourself, you are most likely getting GMO apples covered with pesticides manufactured by Koch Industries, grown on a giant government subsidized farm in the northwest and shipped to the supermarket and placed in a supermarket display case absent of all these dirty little secrets that went into growing the juicy, blemish free apple.
So even though there isn't any appearance of rotting, the very process in which the apples are grown isn't good for you. Just like state authority.
My experience is, if you don't grow the tree and pick the apples yourself, you are most likely getting GMO apples covered with pesticides manufactured by Koch Industries, grown on a giant government subsidized farm in the northwest and shipped to the supermarket and placed in a supermarket display case absent of all these dirty little secrets that went into growing the juicy, blemish free apple.
I'm glad I don't live in Cicero's paranoid little world. Come join the rest of us in the 'real world' any time Cic!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
