Fear is always guilt in disguise

"Fear is always guilt in disguise" -- from the latest episode of The Prisoner. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1472414/quotes

Why should a quote from a TV show that satirizes power relationships have such resonance? The idea that one ought not to be afraid unless one has something to hide is part of the logic of every dictatorial regime. This is a deep psychological truth that I will look at -- that a good conscience remains always in conformity with the status quo, no matter whether the values of averageness are ethical or otherwise. In the show, nobody is free. Those who dream of another life tend to commit suicide (perhaps responding to their own consciences' condemnation of their desire to be free). The ostensibly quiet life of the village is maintained by extreme forms of violence which prevent any actual freedom. 

Louis Althusser is instructive when it comes to understanding how our minds can be imprisoned by two different mechanisms of control:

C. State Apparatus: RSA (Repressive State Apparatus) and ISA (Ideological State Apparatus)
1. The basic difference between RSA and ISA is that RSA functions by violence whereas ISA functions by
ideology. Nevertheless, every State Apparatus-whether repressive or ideological functions both by violenceand by ideology (145).2. RSA functions first by repression then by ideology whereas ISA functions first by ideology then byrepression.3. A plurality of ISA must exist before the existence of one RSA.4. The ruling class who hold RSAs can also easily decree ISAs. In order to hold State power for a long period,the ruling class should at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the ISA (146).5. RSA belongs to the public domain whereas the ISA belongs to the private.6. It is easier to lay down the laws in RSA than in ISA.7. RSA is secured by its unified and centralized organization under the leadership of classes in power whereasISA is secured in contradictory forms by the ruling ideology, the ideology of the ruling class (149).

One is controlled in more than one way, as well as the combined effect of such control, that makes it difficult to escape the confines of "the village" (where the show's protagonist, the prisoner, is forced to stay). Furthermore, one can look to the philosophies of Nietzsche and Bataille to understand how difficult it is to break free from an internalized mode of control: When Nietzsche's character, Zarathustra, suggests that we ought to destroy ourselves to "become new", he is talking about what is necessary to make a radical departure from one's internal embrace of values commanding the status quo.

You must be ready to burn yourself in your own flame; how could you rise anew if you have not first become ashes! http://praxeology.net/zara2.htm

Zarathustra clearly states that one departs from internal adherence to the social norm only at the cost of one's "own burning".

And when a person goes through fire for his teaching -- what does that prove! It is more, verily, when out of one's own burning comes one's own teaching!

A similar psychological dynamic is employed by Bataille when he refers to "sinning". This should be understood as a way to break away from the social norms internalised by one's conscience. By "sinning", one thereby comes into a more direct relationship with one's conscience, whereby one comes to judge oneself on totally new standards governing behaviour and thought. "Sinning" is a way to break the stranglehold of the original form of conscience, in the case of Bataille's philosophical practice. Yet one is never free from conscience as a mechanism of control over one's life. One takes the mechanism of conscience off the beaten track and assures that one's relationship to it becomes highly personal and very individualistic. Thus, one departs from a more conventional relationship to conscience ( one whereby your conscience polices you on behalf of society and its status quo) toward a more individualistic, more intellectually directed relationship to conscience. 

When one observes this psychological structure underlying Bataille's and Nietzsche's philosophies, one can see that having a good relationship to one's conscience is not all it is cracked up to be. Rather, it could be a sign of playing it safe, of not wanting to challenge the how things are  -- indeed, of being too frightened to make a move on one's own behalf. It has clearly been a historical fact that those who have challenged the values of established orders have not fared well. Nietzsche takes pains to point out that the difficulties they face have an inward dimension:

You will be a heretic to yourself, and a sorcerer and a soothsayer, and a fool, and a doubter, and a reprobate, and a villain.

In other words, what he suggests on the part of the one who tries to command oneself is that one will have to suffer various assaults from one's own conscience.

[H]ow could you rise anew if you have not first become ashes!

The transitional experience that lies between "becom[ing] ashes" and "ris[ing]anew" is bound to be uncomfortable in the extreme. When this is occurring, you can be sure that various apologists for the status quo are likely to arrive on the scene, intoning: "Fear is always guilt in disguise." 

That they are correct in what they intone is beside the point. Rather, the sign that one has a guilty conscience indicates that one could be participating in a process that ends up with "ris[ing]anew" . (Of course, this outcome is not assured, but relates to what shamanism terms "a difficult crossing".)