Cultural Homogenization in the Modern World

As human beings, we’re all connected by two variables — whether to a Creator (or the fact of existence itself) and to culture. The first relationship is unchanging, internal, and undying, while the second is the opposite — in motion until death, seemingly external and constantly changing.

The definition of culture is ambiguous — whether the values or societal expectations of a group or the way that group communicates — this is just the surface of what culture represents. These could mean geographic or racial groups, but just as easily signify a club or an association, and the values which have developed over time.

Ultimately, culture is an essence. Although it’s generally attributed to groups, the seed by which culture is spread exists in the individual. The natural world is propagated by culture, ultimately serving a biological role as well.

Before talking about the homogenization of culture, it’s important to understand its role on a societal level. There’s an old saying in Great Britain: “ask someone about the weather.” From their response, you’ll understand whom you’re talking to — their home, intelligence, wealth, etc.

It might seem shallow — however, just a few decades ago, a country was comprised of regions, each with a culture of its own. You could recognize a person’s hometown by the way they spoke. Additionally, certain patterns in language reflected the same person’s social class, and so on.

It’s still possible to understand aspects of a person’s background by the way they speak. I was recently at a hostel in New Orleans, and I struck up a conversation with a young couple from the U.K. After speaking for a few minutes, I asked if they were from the southwest of England — I lived in Bristol for six months, so I was familiar with the accent.

As information has increased its speed of communication, culture has ultimately experienced a degree of homogenization. Homogenizing milk is a good example of this process. By heating milk to a high temperature, certain bacteria are destroyed. The result is the different components of the milk are essentially blended together — no longer comprised of layers — into a singular liquid.

The homogenization of culture is a similar process. Perhaps the high temperature is replaced by the rapid exchange of information. Eventually, cultural nuances are burned away and the result is a monolith — a culture with similar qualities, from the types of food the people consume to their way of speaking, regardless of where they call home.

Two suburbs might appear identical, despite being on opposite sides of the United States. They have the same stores, and the homes are built with an architectural style that feels shallow and replicable. These cities emerge as the entrails of the desolate malls popular in the second half of the 20th century.

Additionally, a city in Western Europe might have the same products or expressions as a similarly sized city in the United States. Unless globalization reigns endlessly for 1000 years, certain differences will always exist. However, the point is these cultures are moving toward a place of homogenization. This includes the people as well.

There are numerous examples of culture being manipulated to encourage homogenization — generally in combination with emerging technology. A particular aspect of “American culture” has its roots in the 1950s and 60s. It’s well-known the CIA regularly tested psychoactive substances (the most famous being LSD) on a large number of people, including both volunteers and unsuspecting medical subjects. Papers released by the U.S. government, several decades later, describe the attempt to produce mind control in patients.

The use (and intentional distribution) of LSD would become a cornerstone of the movement that seemed to emerge abruptly on the West Coast in the early 1960s, when a specific neighborhood in Los Angeles became the focal point of an emerging music scene. Young artists from across the West (primarily the area around Washington D.C.) traveled to Laurel Canyon. Many had gathered before the music industry had even settled in Los Angeles.

Nearly all of these young musicians had connections to the U.S. military-industrial complex — Frank Zappa’s father worked at the Edgewood Arsenal chemical warfare facility run by the U.S. military; David Crosby was the son of Major Floyd Crosby, an Annapolis graduate and WWII intelligence officer; large parts of Stephen Still’s childhood were spent in El Salvador, Costa Rica, and various parts of Central America, educated primarily on military bases, and elite military academies; and finally, Jim Morrison (who prior to 1964 had virtually no interest in music) was the son of Admiral George Morrison, the naval commander responsible for the Bay of Tonkin — the “event” that initiated the Vietnam War. Coincidently, Jim Morrison would be discovered dead in a Paris hotel room in 1971 the same day the naval fleet was decommissioned.

There are countless examples of Laurel Canyon celebrities with connections to the same institutions. This isn’t to mention the obscene levels of homicide that took place in Laurel Canyon from the 1960s to the early 70s. A book I’d recommend to anyone with an interest in the subject is David McGowan’s Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon. The book paints Laurel Canyon as the epicenter of a military operation, using the backgrounds and stories of the various characters involved as proof of the intentional cultural renaissance.

Laurel Canyon was home to a military base, as well as the Hollywood studio responsible for editing footage of the Manhattan Project — the first tests of nuclear weapons in the United States.

As these new celebrities discovered success, they were streamed globally and broadcasted on radio and television — they’d become household names, idolized by a younger generation, and with no mention of their questionable backgrounds.

There are a number of theories for why the music scene was contrived. One was to discredit the anti-war protestors — regular people who’d spoken out against the Vietnam War before the invention of the hippie. When the music became popular, hippies started to emerge and became synonymous with the anti-war movement.

Although I have a deep love for much of the music, I’m suspicious of the 1960s as a whole. The timeframe began a process that would continue to the present day. Laurel Canyon was a clear example of the extent the military-industrial complex was capable of brainwashing U.S. citizens on both a subtle and incredible scale.

Additionally, it marked the initial step in a process described by Yuri Bezmenov, a defector of the KGB (essentially the CIA for the Soviet Union). He described the process of ideological subversion as a form of psychological warfare.

In a famous interview, Bezmenov stated that ideological subversion’s intention was to, “change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their communities and their country.”

The brainwashing process moves slowly, exponentially gathering speed with the movement of time. The first phase is demoralization and essentially exposes a younger generation to a particular ideology, without being challenged (or counter- balanced) by the basic values of American patriotism.

Educating a generation of young people is essentially a 15 to 20 year process. This was approximately the time between the 1980s and the movements which emerged twenty years prior.

Bezmenov continued: “Most of the demoralization is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards . . . exposure to true information doesn’t matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with authentic information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures . . . when the military boot crashes his, then he will understand. But not before that. That is the tragedy of this situation of demoralization.”

The next stage is described as destabilization. As the population is distracted by their subverted lifestyles, the military-industrial complex of a country is essentially hijacked. According to Bezmenov, this process takes 2 to 5 years.

The following stage is crisis. Occurring in just a few short weeks, crisis leads swiftly into a violent change in power, structure, economy, and a period of normalization which lasts indefinitely. In the United States, it’s ultimately the dissolution of the free market and the tenants upon which the country was supposedly founded.

To me, the events of the 1960s, and the words of Yuri Bezmenov paint a picture of psychological manipulation on a scale difficult to conceive. The exploration of culture might seem detached from the allusions I made to the military-industrial complex, but I see the combination as a great machine.

People live with a certain worldview — I believe that to be a fundamental quality of the human experience. Like computers, we maintain a kind of software — or a system of belief, and the lens by which a person experiences the world.

Over the last several decades, the process of cultural homogenization has aligned the perspectives of an entire population into a singular worldview. Obviously, not everyone has been susceptible — additionally, two people might see the world differently, yet both fall victim to the ideological subversion described by Yuri Bezmenov in the 1980s. As individuals debate, maintaining a (so-called) culture war, the machine carries on — the homogenization of culture continues, despite the differences of opinion regarding issues that vary in their levels of importance.

As mentioned, as individuals, we are essentially the seeds passing culture on generationally. Through the experience of homogenization, culture doesn’t propagate in terms of differentiation — we have to rely on the same models, and we’re ultimately servants to the progression of time. By that, I mean we’ve lost touch with the traditions that were anchors to our cultural development. Instead, we’ve become mirrors of the cultures of celebrity, technology, and the mainstream media (MSM).

I’m not a historian — however, over the last few centuries, culture has been forced into stagnation. It’s essentially been contained in a very small box. There’s a progression that occurs naturally — a community of people from Somalia moving to Minnesota, and after a generation, the children adopt the habits of the people who’ve lived there for a hundred years.

Most of us, however, are victimized by the passing of culture as deemed by the forces in control. With the help of technology, we disregard our traditions in favor of liberalism enacted by the State. We’re subconsciously informed of an end goal, and a model of perfection in which a singular version of culture exists. To experience the world through this vantage point is the expectation projected onto the “civilized.”

Alongside the ever-changing nature of culture (for better or for worse) is an ongoing connection to the Creator — whether that’s God or an intuitive connection to the force which binds us together through Creation, we rely on this stability as a safety net to provide support in the tumultuous storm of seemingly malicious forces.

For the last century (and likely, much longer), I believe we’ve been intentionally homogenized as a people. We’re encouraged to simultaneously celebrate our differences while desecrating the traditions which have been passed between generations for sometimes longer than written history.

Great changes are taking place in the world — one of these is the transforming role of the individual. As we move deeper into the 21st century, I believe the importance of individual sovereignty will become clearer. Whether this is a return to the cultures we’ve seemingly disregarded or the creation of novel ways of connecting to the Creator through shared practice, I’m mildly optimistic. As Bob Dylan sang in the early aughts, “I feel a change comin’ on, and the last part of the day’s already gone.”

The human experience is often beautiful. We can decide to use seemingly hostile tools as weapons against a malicious establishment. This is like throwing a wrench in the gears of the machine. While a cultural-spiritual war is waged on humanity (with its focus on the individual), we are provided the tools to confront the dark night of homogenization.

For each of us, this might look different. However, I think we’re in a strange and interesting place, where access to information and the freedom of communication is the balm — useful for confronting the evils (lies) of the past and recognizing the truth hidden in the present.