Generally Speaking, You are Not a Person

Although I believe that our current era is, and will continue to be largely defined by the collapse of the many ideologies that have dominated the past century; I also feel that it is important to understand that history does not occur in a vacuum. Even as our past crumbles around us, the future beckons us forward and though we, as individuals may never reach that next hill, our history is what happens in the moments while we're chasing it. Despite the undeniable emptiness of a time in which religion, government, the media and business have all largely failed the societies that helped create them; we may yet remember this moment as a key historical turning point in what we define as human culture. Unfortunately, as with most other turning points in our collective history, our current era is marked by a struggle between deeply ingrained ideas from the past and new, emerging ideas about what it means to be human. For every two steps we take towards a common empathy, there seems to always be someone who's prepared to drag us back one step backward on the path of hate. Understanding this struggle between old and new ideas is important to the modern peasant because, in many ways the tension between them affects virtually every aspect of our lives; even most horrifyingly, our very thoughts.

On one hand, developments in communication and information technologies allow the common peasant a far greater understanding of how truly vast and diverse human culture actually is. While this is certainly a function of easier access to historical records and independent news sources, the real breakthrough has come in our ability to directly communicate with each other as a species across regions, countries and even continents. Armed with cell phones and the internet, many peasants are no longer reliant on government or mass media sources to learn about life in other parts of the world. Through independent films, podcasts, chat rooms and even major social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, everyday people are learning about each other, directly from each other across communications networks. Although various governments and ideological groups have attempted to monitor and control this type of communication, their efforts have by and large been unsuccessful. At this very moment, technology is still helping people teach each other and the lesson we are learning is that peasants all across the planet have a lot more in common than we'd been lead to believe. Alternately, we continue to live amongst the mental (and spiritual) wreckage of the grand ideologies that dominated and nearly destroyed that culture in the previous century. Despite what now appears to be a growing, worldwide rejection of totalitarianism, imperialism and politically systemic exploitation based on race, class or gender; we are still surrounded, and indeed influenced by the world that these ideas created. Casual racism, sexism and class divisions have replaced institutionalized versions of these ideas in much of the "free" world and there is still a direct effort to define modern conflicts in shockingly nationalist, or religious, rather than economic terms. Old hatreds die hard and as a direct result of the past century, humanity is largely still under the influence of a dangerous, inhumane "us against them" psychology.

Perhaps the most repugnant aspect of this struggle however, is the absurd duality of thought it creates in so many minds today. On a surface level, defined primarily by rational thinking, we can easily see hollow generalizations, assumptions and propaganda about ourselves for the mental rubbish that they are. I found the image on the left for example after searching for anti-American propaganda on the internet. It is reportedly the work of a North Korean painter and is part of a series that depicts vaguely American soldiers committing numerous atrocities against notably patriotic North Korean peasants. The series itself is apparently meant to reflect the actions of US troops during the Korean, or "Fatherland Liberation" War from 1950-1953, although for reasons that will become obvious; it is impossible to be completely certain of the artist's intentions. Naturally, to my (reasonably) educated mind this image registers as political propaganda. This is in part because of my familiarity with American culture and history, in part because of my (admittedly restricted) understanding of the North Korean government and in part because the image is so blatantly inflammatory. The artist has made little effort to conceal the message in this work and it's not hard to imagine how this poster is encouraging North Koreans to view the United States, or at least it's military. Even in this blatantly biased image however, there remains a grain of truth; although I have been unable to find evidence to suggest it's institutionalized, it has become common knowledge that abuses by US military forces in places as far flung as Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Libya have led to tremendous loss of largely innocent lives. One does have to question if these abuses would not be described as "war crimes" if they were committed by soldiers of a less influential nation but again, taken as a whole these actions morally outrage Americans and therefore are unlikely be a part of open military policy in the United States. In short, evil men have done terrible things while wearing a US army uniform but nothing about this poster is going to convince me that Americans want to invade North Korea and execute innocent civilians.  

Unfortunately, my ability to see through the above poster is mostly irrelevant because I am not the intended audience the artist is trying to reach. The image is intended for citizens living in a nation that expends a tremendous amount of money and energy to prevent its population from contacting or learning about the outside world. In this nation, it is illegal to own a radio or television that has not been modified the government to receive only state sponsored channels. North Korea remains perhaps the most brutal dictatorship on earth today and by most accounts available in the "West", it is ruled by a semi-deified "god" leader who uses terror, violence and food shortages to control virtually every aspect of daily life in the nation. When the above image is placed in the context of fear, oppression and literal ignorance of life outside one's own environment; what stands out as blatant propaganda to you and I, passes for the official story in the absence of anyone capable of refuting it. Although I can only speculate, I would not be shocked if this series of paintings were highly effective in stirring up anti-American sentiment in North Korea. This in turn gives Kim Jong-un greater freedom to continue oppressing his citizens; after all, everyone knows you're better off "with the devil you know" and even if life is harsh under the DPRK government, it's likely preferable to execution and torture at the hands of American soldiers.

I do not mention this to criticize the citizens of North Korea for not doing more to break the veil of ignorance Kim Jong-un maintains around and inside their nation. Nor was my goal to denounce the government of the DPRK for their considerable efforts to maintain said veil; although there exists plenty of evidence that such a proclamation would be completely justified. The point rather, was simply to exemplify how in a vacuum of knowledge, even the most blatant lies can drastically alter our opinions about the people and indeed, the world around us. While it is easy for us to see generalizations about ourselves for the incomplete information and deceptions they represent, we often simultaneously accept those same generalizations about people or cultures we don't know as both complete and truthful. Through this type of mental manipulation leaders, governments and corporations actively work to alter ideas, markets and behavior at their very roots: inside of both your conscious and subconscious mind.  In this way we can be convinced that we should purchase Coke instead of Pepsi, that we must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our security or that invading other countries is a path to peace. Naturally, the more knowledgeable and connected to the outside world a peasant population is, the more subtle and convincing the lies will need to be. Ultimately however, the recipe is typically some combination of fear, ignorance and disinformation.

The real insidious part of this type of thought-crafting however, is the way it exploits, magnifies and indeed relies on our own natural psychological tendencies as human beings. Man is at once a rational and a fearful animal; we constantly strive to classify, comprehend and contain the world around us, but this search is usually tainted by an instinctual fear of the unknown. This fear often leads us to ignore our own lack of knowledge about others or worse, project what little knowledge we do have to encompass complex situations, beliefs or even societies in their entirety. Furthermore, our own vanity (particularly in the west) combines with our need to understand and our inherent fear of the unknown, to lead most people to assume they have a pretty solid grasp of virtually every topic presented to them; an idea that is clearly ludicrous on its face. Into this deadly mixture you can add toxic remnants of the age of ideologies like nationalism, racial superiority/inferiority and religious doctrine designed to highlight our differences and obscure our similarities. Remember folks, these are not the machinations of our evil overlords I'm discussing here; this is simply a look at the breeding ground into which generalizations, suggestions and outright lies can be injected to manufacture ideas and control behavior. Like a camera that's always recording, our brains actively seek to fill gaps in our understanding of the world around us with any information available to us until such a time as better or contradictory information presents itself. Examined in this context, it becomes much easier to understand how readily peasant populations can be convinced to adopt and even embrace ideas, policies and conflicts that are simply not in their best interests. We instinctively feel pride and communion with that which we know and understand. Alternatively we fear and reject the unknown or that which is alien. Therefore, it becomes fairly easy to manipulate a population by casting "desirable" ideas and policies in the light of knowledge, while simultaneously depicting your enemies or opponents entirely in contrast to that which is familiar to the people you wish to influence. Although we are literally surrounded with examples of this phenomenon in our daily lives, perhaps the best illustration of this principle in action can be found in the US government's successful campaign to justify (temporarily) a never-ending war on terror. By exploiting outrage over the 9/11 attacks, fear of nuclear proliferation and general ignorance of Muslim culture in the largely Christian nation, the government was able to convince even noted anti-war activists to support policies (for a time) that included invasion, extensive surveillance programs and a terrifying expansion of government powers; virtually overnight in what is ostensibly, a "free and democratic" country.

Once we understand the ways in which governments, corporations and our leaders use fear, ignorance and generalizations to manipulate our opinions and manufacture justification for policies that actively harm the peasantry; the question then becomes: how can we prevent ourselves from being manipulated this way? This is also a particularly difficult query because as we've previously discussed, this thought-crafting actually takes root on a subconscious level, affecting our ideas and emotions even before we are aware of them. I would love to tell you that there is an easy answer, but the truth is that the solution is both complicated and demanding of those who would enact it. You see; the only way out of this trap is to examine both your own thoughts and every scrap of information presented to you with a critical eye before making up your own mind. You must be at once open to new ideas and yet vigilant against those who would reduce your thoughts to "us against them" squabbles. You will by necessity be required to seek knowledge about your fellow man from others, but you must simultaneously be wary of those who would seek to motivate you with lies and half-truths designed to elicit an emotional response. Your emotions have value, but never forget that a man who asks you to think only with your heart is likely doing so because he knows your mind would reject the ideas he's presenting to you. Knowledge, empathy and understanding must become both your weapons and your armor; a healthy dose of skepticism wouldn't hurt either. Do not ever assume that just because information is coming from your government, the media or some other "official" source that it is accurate; remember large organizations have agendas too, and you can be damn sure that whoever paid the piper will see their goals will be reflected in his tune. Read, watch, listen and if you can, ask regular people with first hand knowledge what they really think is going on. Formulate your own opinions from multiple sources, not the least of which should be your own rational mind and judgments. Embrace truth and contest lies openly; shout in the street when the Emperor dares to show his bare ass in public. Reject generalizations and stereotypes, cast them against the infinite complexity of your own life and expose them for the shoddy lies they are. Most importantly, accept and cherish humanity over concepts, ideologies and communal pride.

The simple truth folks, is that I don't have all of the answers and while I'm striving every day to live with my eyes wide open, the sheer amount of filth, lies and pollution in the information stream remains a constant obstacle. What I do know is that my life actually has very little to do with the actions of leaders, governments and corporations in my nation. I am not consulted on government policy, I have no say in who my church praises or criticizes and I don't benefit in any tangible way when war or diplomacy secures a sweetheart deal for large businesses from my nation. At the end of the day, my life is primary about surviving and earning enough money to provide for myself and family; maybe with a little cheddar on the side so I can enjoy a luxury or two. Unless I'm being told to care, I don't spend any time thinking about how citizens in far away nations perceive me and if the truth is to be told, I don't think those citizens think about it much either. No, the reality is that I have a lot more in common with the average Iraqi just trying to eke out a living than I ever will with any of my leaders. Furthermore, from a purely factual standpoint it is also true that the various leaders of my nation have more in common with Adlof Hitler than they ever will with me. Before you dismiss that statement as pure hyperbole, please be reminded that I have never held office, worked with captains of industry to control an economy or waged a war; can Stephen Harper, Barrack Obama or David Cameron claim the same? Generally speaking, that's fucking terrifying.

- Savannah Nix

None of the Above

Imagine for a moment that you are in small room with no windows and locked in a chair designed to keep you from moving your upper body, in particular your head. You cannot break the locks and owing to confining head restraints you cannot even turn your face. There are three men in the room with you and one of them begins to explain the reason why you've been brought here. He tells you that there will be a brief debate period, at the end of which you will be asked to choose between a punch in the face from the man on the left, or a kick in the face from the man on the right. Confused, you ask if there are more options. He says no and casually reminds you that there are other rooms where people just like you are currently choosing between a gunshot to the stomach and a beheading. Before you can object further, both of the other men begin babbling incoherently and attempting to shout over top of each other. You don't understand all of it, but ultimately you realize that each man wishes you to believe that his assault will be both more gentle and better for you in the long run. In turn, each man also assures you that the other is seriously trying to hurt or maybe even kill you. They both claim to have evidence of people who've died after choosing "the other guy". Finally, just when you think you can take no more of the incessant droning the first man shouts "time" and instructs you to make your choice. What do you do?

If you're observant, you will notice that I asked what you do, rather than what you would choose. This is because despite all of the language that suggests otherwise, you have not been presented with an actual choice. Regardless of which man you select, you will be struck in the face and the only variables are method of delivery and some empty promises to be gentle. Furthermore, since you are powerless to avoid the assault you really only have two options. You can make a "choice" and hope the blow doesn't kill you, or you can simply refuse to participate. Unable to defy the men in any other way you might be inclined to suggest that this game has been rigged, that it doesn't matter which man you select and that you will not dignify the process by making a choice.

For those of you still searching out your morning coffee, I am obviously talking about the act of voting in modern representative democracies. Although this scenario may seem dystopian and surreal, it's designed to highlight the irrationality of choosing between multiple leaders or political parties who do not have your best interests at heart in a (more or usually, less) democratic election. In the situation above, it would make little difference to you if your friends, family and neighbors were all willing participants in the process. No amount of peer pressure or campaign advertising would be able to convince you that being struck in the face was somehow vital to the direction of an orderly society. You would not believe that it was your civic duty to be assaulted and you would openly question the sanity of those who suggested the process was somehow good for the common man.

If we can agree that choosing between candidates and parties that do not have our best interests at heart is no choice at all, the question then becomes, how can we know the intentions of those who would lead us? Unfortunately this is frightfully easy to do for anyone who can read a dictionary and understands the peculiar combination of narcissism and selfishness common to the vast majority of politicians. First let's take a look at what politics actually is as taken from the 2010 edition of the Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary:

pol•i•tics (ˈpɒl ɪ tɪks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. v.)

1. the science or art of political government.

2. the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.

3. political affairs.

4. political methods or maneuvers.

5. political principles or opinions.

6. the use of strategy or intrigue in obtaining power, control, or status. 

 

The first thing you should notice here is that apparently dictionaries aren't what they used to be; each of the first five definitions defines politics by using some variation on the word itself. That's just shoddy craftsmanship and while it's certainly possible to infer that politics is the act of achieving and enacting governance over a people or state, it's certainly not clear. Let's take a look at what the notoriously maligned online encyclopedia Wikipedia has to say on the matter:

 

"Politics (from Greek: politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. A variety of methods is employed in politics, which include promoting its own political views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising force, including warfare against adversaries."

 

Now we're cooking with a little gas. Taking all of the information presented to us we can then suggest that politics is the act of influencing people to obtain and exercise control over a community or state. It's then not too far a leap to suggest that a politician, literally any politician is someone who is professionally engaged in the act of organized politics. In short folks, regardless of why an individual went into politics in the first place, being a politician is a job in every aspect of the word. What makes this job interesting in a representative democracy is that every few years, politicians will be "fired" and the position will be declared open. This is however also something of a lie, owing to the power of entrenched political parties and the sheer number of individuals controlled by most democratic governments, only a handful of people will be seriously considered for the job. What's more, this small handful will be selected primarily for their ability to both adopt and sell party ideology; which in turn will be heavily influenced by whomever is paying the staggering cost of running an election campaign in such a large society. In this regard it becomes clear that a politician has two professional goals; convincing the party to support his election campaign and convincing people who vote that he's a better choice than anyone else on the ballot. If providing the people with good governance, the rule of law or beneficial services appear anywhere on that list at all, they are clearly running far behind getting nominated and then winning an election. In summation, governance is what the politician does in the downtime between elections.

Once you understand what a politicians real job is, it becomes fairly easy to understand that no matter why a given politician entered the field, his survival in the profession is utterly dependent on convincing two groups with often wildly divergent goals that he serves only them. This is obviously a contradiction whenever the goals of these two groups collide, and owing to the nature of the process, you can virtually guarantee that the politician is going to side with the money when the chips are down. Put yourself in the politician's shoes for a moment; you cannot win an election if you are not on the ballot and frankly supporting the people with money tends to be far more lucrative when the music stops and you finally do lose an election. Your constituents simply can't offer you a cushy consulting job, position on the board of directors for a large corporation, a professional (and well paid) lobbyist gig or a partnership in their law firm once you've "retired" from a life of politics. Furthermore, because these people paid for your election campaign, you already have an established working relationship with them by the time you've entered office; your constituents on the other hand are represented by a series of polls that show as many as half of them (or more; gerrymandering is fun!) didn't even vote for you. In short, it is simply in the best interest of a politician to prioritize the party, his sponsors and winning elections ahead of providing the people with good governance.

So now you have to ask yourself some very simple questions. Looking at all of the politicians you've been ruled by your entire life; would you say that it's likely the are selfish, narcissistic bastards who would do or say anything for money, power and the ability to keep winning elections? Or, would you suggest they are typically altruistic and are genuinely prepared to risk their careers by opposing the party and corporate campaign sponsors when it's in the best interest of the people? Wanna buy a bridge?

To be completely honest with you, I do not consider myself a political person nor would I be comfortable with suggesting that this blog discusses political issues. Although I have in the past participate in the process, I am not currently a member of any political party; nor do I consider voting as it is presently constructed in my society, a rational act. I believe strongly that attempting to influence the beliefs of others through dishonest means is the action of a coward who is afraid sensible people would reject her true goals and ideals. When you believe in the freedom to make up your own mind, you tend to regard those who would poison the information stream as a direct impediment to your liberty. Furthermore, I believe that simply by voting, a person is expressing his or her tacit approval of this political process. Your individual vote has almost no say in who ultimately leads us in a democracy this large, but it certainly does provide justification for any given political mandate. The elected official will hold up your vote and proudly state that everything he has done has been justified by the will of the people. The really sick part here is that once a voter has made her choice, basic psychology will often blind her to the real actions of the candidate; nobody wants to be a fool or a villain and so we tend to view the people we vote for in the most favorable light possible for some time after an election. 

 

Personally, as I have no desire to be either morally responsible for, or emotionally receptive to the actions of a professional liar, I do not vote. This is not to say that I would never vote again, but for me to feel comfortable with the process would require a significant overhaul of representative democracy in our society. While discussing all of these changes would be an essay unto itself, it's safe to say I would not participate without smaller governments, more direct participation in the process and significantly improved financial restrictions to reduce the influence of big money on elections. These are of course just starting points for the establishment of true democratic elections and frankly our society would also have to eradicate left-right politics simultaneously to have any hope of actually progressing on this front. Idealistic utopias aside, the simple truth is that freedom to choose the flavor of your corporate slavery is in fact no freedom at all. 

 

-Savannah Nix

 

The Human Nature Fallacy

You are not a beast. You'll have to forgive me for being blunt folks; on this issue I feel there is no room to mince words. While we're on the subject you are not a compilation of compounds and chemicals either. You are not an organic robot, you are not a slave. While from a purely scientific standpoint you are an animal, it would take a fantastic leap of imagination to suggest that you are a wild animal. You are not an extension of your family, your peers, your school, your job, your religion, your race or your nation. Although you have no doubt been affected by your upbringing and environment, you are by no means a product of such. You are not controlled by your urges, instinct or spiritual forces. You aren't the sum of your choices and you don't live in a jungle; concrete or otherwise.

I'm not saying these things to shock or confuse you. For thousands of years mankind has been sold the idea that we are all the victims of human nature in some form or another. The terminology is relevant here; as we've previously discussed, words have power and in this case, the term "human nature" almost always has extremely negative connotations. We are told that unspeakable violence, irrationality, gluttony, sexual tensions, callousness and greed are all simply a part of human nature; that these things have always been with us, and owing to human nature, they will remain with us as long as man walks the earth. Of course, the exact reasoning behind why human nature is so vile has changed dramatically throughout the course of history; largely depending on whether the explanation was offered by a priest, a philosopher or a scientist.

In the darkness of antiquity, religious leaders told us that it was human nature to be influenced by all manner of spirit, demon and god; mankind's will was weak in the face of spiritual forces. As the light of reason flashed across the world, religion lost ground to philosophy and the rudimentary beginnings of science. Emotions, intellectual capacity and social class soon replaced existential beings as the recognized driver of human behavior. Unfortunately these philosophies typically contained healthy doses of racist, nationalist and religious propaganda; good examples from western history include social Darwinism and any number of racist or sexist passages attributed to the "great thinkers" of the day. As philosophy faltered, mankind turned towards studies of the mind and behavioral science to explain the subtleties of human nature. Once again however, the conclusions drawn where heavily influenced by the flaws of those who created them; Sigmund Freud's obsession with sex and survival, led him to suggest that human behavior was driven by these same desires in others for example. Finally, the rapid development of medical technology began to push mankind away from subjective conclusions and towards empirical evidence.  With the rise of genetics and improvements in the fields of sociology, biology, behavioral science and medicine; scientists began to unlock the riddle of the human mind at an ever increasing pace. To their credit, modern researchers make little if any effort to suggest this is anything but an ongoing process; while genetics and environmental conditioning may be considered significant factors, no scientist worth her degree would suggest they can explain the whole of human behavior. Unfortunately, this has not prevented a largely misinformed public from seizing on the twin fields of genetics and psychology as gospel to help rationalize human behavior in the modern era.

Although on the surface the explanations of the priest, philosopher and scientist may appear drastically different from each other, there are two important ways in which they are similar. For starters, each attempts to rationalize aberrant, antisocial or violent behavior as a submission to forces outside of the conscious mind. Whether it's a demon possessing your soul, desire possessing your mind or the biologically legacy of your parents directing your thoughts, the ultimate result is that you somehow lack control over your behavior to one degree or another.  This is then combined with a wanton failure to acknowledge, define and or properly account for the role free will plays in our lives. To the priest, man is a vessel; he is filled with the grace of god and born to be tempted by the wickedness of evil spirits. To the philosopher and psychologist, man is a social animal; he is destined to be ruled by his basest desires and the circumstances of his birth. At least the scientist seems willing to admit he hasn't figured out free will; yet this still hasn't stopped modern society from viewing man as a kind of biochemical android, controlled largely by hardwired genetic code. In each case the message is consistent; you aren't (completely) responsible for your actions and you stand virtually no chance of rising above the base aspects of "human nature."

In my opinion, this message is a best a misleading half-truth and at worst, an outright lie. Barring extreme mental illness, man's status as a rational animal is what defines us as a species. Born with the powers of imagination, the gift of reflection and the virtue of free will; mankind can choose to rise above temptation, desire, violent impulses and base animal instincts. Perhaps more to the point; armed with a sense of ethics, justice and morality, the human race has by and large done exactly that. At some point before the dawn of recorded history we started living, working, playing, loving, thinking, sharing and learning with each other; once that happened, the primordial law of the jungle was already living on borrowed time. What's more, along with higher thought functions and the capacity to choose, healthy human beings are also equipped with a conscience that actually encourages rational behavior. When we think carefully before we act, we are rewarded with a sense of self confidence; when we choose to submit to our own base animal desires the result is anguish and guilt. If we continually choose to ignore the guilt, we risk emotional deadening and psychological damage; we can "lose our humanity" or "die a little inside."

This is the true danger in accepting the human nature fallacy; by accepting that we are not in complete control of our actions, we ultimately abdicate responsibility for those actions and thereby run the very real risk of diminishing ourselves as human beings. By offering at once both a rationale and an excuse for inhumanity, the human nature fallacy merely serves to perpetuate the cycle of violence and degradation. It bears asking why nobody ever mentions concepts like charity, compassion, empathy or co-operation when discussing human nature; are these qualities not present in every race, religion or society in recorded history? No successful society on earth has ever been based on the principle of "survival of the fittest" and frankly if this is really how humanity operated, most of the people reading this blog would have been killed and eaten by now. Can you truly look at a mother with her newborn child and not see a love there beyond continuing the species? What about our capacity to trust, our communication skills and our ability to directly learn from mistakes; are these qualities somehow not a part of human nature?

No sir, you are not a slave to your desires, your past or your genes. You are not a beast or a computer. What you are, is a fucking miracle. Any definition of human nature that fails to recognize that, isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

- Savannah Nix

Language of the Absurd.

Before we can discuss the pursuit of liberty, or indeed survival, amongst the wreckage of the Age of Ideologies, it becomes necessary to address one of the more insidious aspects of this era's fallout. Few scholars would deny the power of words to change minds and alter political landscapes; the words of a former painter, soldier and spy named Adolf Hitler unleashed a twelve year nightmare that would engulf all of Europe in war and destroy the lives of countless millions worldwide. In fact, a careful study of human history will reveal that the majority of the deadly ideologies mankind has labored under since the decline of feudalism, began with the stroke of a pen rather than the flash of a muzzle. There is a type of primal magic in language, a direct pathway to our emotional core that can be used by a skilled manipulator to override rational thought. To be fair, this is not always done for insidious purposes; writers and storytellers have been weaving words to entertain us throughout time by using language to create a healthy suspension of disbelief. By appealing directly to our emotions, the writer allows us to "forget" for a time that we are reading a book or watching a film. This disconnect from reality then allows us to respond emotionally to the characters and situations presented as if they were in real; all without having to experience the (often dramatic) situations ourselves. When combined with music and pictures, the effect can be quite hypnotic and if you've ever found yourself "lost" in a book or movie, it becomes easy to identify the phenomenon.

Of course, one writer's harmless bit of fun is another man's instrument of control; countless demagogues, revolutionaries and two-bit dictators have risen to power behind pretty words that demanded violent actions. What is particularly fascinating about these tyrants, is how they almost universally apply language in a manner that is diametrically opposed to it's true meaning. In this way it becomes possible to describe the calculated slaughter of innocents as a "people's revolution" or the violent toppling of a foreign government and installation of a puppet regime as "liberating" it's citizens. When examined rationally, these statements seem ridiculous but when placed in a purely emotional context by a skilled wordsmith, they have successfully spurned the common man into action time and time again. Naturally this phenomenon has not escaped the notice of those who seek power and wealth in the modern era either; the foundation of all modern advertising, political campaigning and indeed, much of our social lives now rests on this principle. You are encouraged to vote, shop, think, love, work and act with your "heart" during almost every waking moment in modern society; your mind is largely irrelevant to those who call you towards action because if you applied rational though you might realize that Taco Bell isn't food, all politicians lie and you don't need a bigger TV just because your neighbors have one.

While a detailed explanation of all the ways in which language is used to bypass logic and elicit emotions in our society would be significantly beyond the scope of this discussion, it is important to note that these techniques are both ubiquitous and highly effective. Of particular importance to us however is the ways in which words are used to represent, define and legitimize vast social concepts, political movements and even warfare. Typically this involves a combination of symbolism, abstraction, metaphor and some outright lying but the ultimate goal is to imbue the object in question with the positive qualities of the words involved. To the right we can see a 2008 campaign poster that seeks to associate the candidate with the concept of "change" despite indicating in no way whatsoever what will change or how it will do so. Naturally an avid follower of the candidate in question could likely list his various proposed policies but this poster is clearly intended to reach a much larger audience. The implication is clear; supporting him means effecting change. Change is dynamic, change is sexy; "who isn't tired of the way things are today?" The genius of this poster is that it allows the viewer to insert their own idea about what will change and the poster confidently assures them that the candidate agrees. Personally, when I saw this ad I assumed he intended to end financial bailouts and years of debilitating war; an idea that seems laughably naive when cast into the glare of recent history. To be clear, the intent here is not to point out the failings of Barack Obama as a president; the simple truth is that poster would have made no more sense with a picture of John McCain and the word 'stability" strewn across the bottom. What matters is that through careful use of a stylized image and one, solitary word the artist has managed to turn a former Illinois senator into a modern American version of Che Guevara.

Once again, the effectiveness of this type of word association is difficult to dispute. For a less political example, one need only consider how many people actively purchase natural foods with little or now knowledge of what the term actually means. The consumer simply accepts the word "natural" to mean some vague association with nature and good health which in turn casts the product in a positive light. I'd don't know about you, by I've certainly never come across a package of dried pasta in nature; I have however, been assured by numerous food companies that their pasta is indeed "all natural". As in the campaign poster above, the primary reason this is effective is because it relies on an emotional appeal rather than a logical one and although it is not technically a lie, it is most certainly dishonest. A more harmful example would be labeling alkaline batteries as "environmentally friendly" or gasoline as "clean" simply because they are less damaging to the environment than previous versions of the same products were. This type of wordplay deceives consumers into believing they are doing a good thing when they purchase these products; the reality is that in both cases the poisoning of our planet continues, in slightly smaller doses.

Until now we've focused on the use of words to lend value to a product (of some kind) and encourage a solitary purchase (of some sort). While these examples have been dishonest and insulting, they represent low grade deceptions with little lasting value. Once you've cast your vote, bought your pasta and filled up the car at a service station, you've long forgotten how these words affected your decisions. When words are used to define and enhance political, religious and social movements however; the effect is both more negative, and more enduring. For a chilling example in our own society one needs to look no further than the proliferation of militias, neo-nazi organizations and violent extremists that drape their various ideologies in the constitutional language of America's founding fathers. White supremacists, hardcore "christian" fundamentalists and fascist political think tanks all proudly proclaim their association with "freedom, liberty and the American way" while simultaneously explaining that these virtues belong only to white Christians. This is not to imply that every person who has conservative views and uses the word "freedom" is a racist shitbag however; and therein lies at least part of the problem. Stretching simple words to convey vast and often reprehensible ideological concepts has a lasting effect on both parties and the relationship is far from symbiotic. In this way these religious, political and social movements virtually "drain" words of their value while obscuring their true or literal meaning in a form of linguistic vampireism. This in turn makes it harder for us communicate ideas using the affected words without accidentally conjuring up the organization who co-opted it. Thus, I can not describe a friend who lives a moral life as "righteous" without also summoning the church. I cannot express my belief in "smaller governments" without implying an association with say, the American Tea Party. Depending on both the speaker and the listener; it is presently possible for a person who hears me say "I support gun control laws" to automatically associate that idea with numerous assumptions about my political affiliations, social background and in extreme cases, loyalty to my country. Perhaps the best example of this can actually be found in the hostile reactions words like freedom, liberty and even democracy produce in parts of the world victimized by western (American) imperialism. The continuing attempts of western leaders to disguise their actions in noble language contrasts starkly with the actions of their armies and anyone using such language will be associated with the invaders rather than the concepts themselves.

To be fair, these examples really are only part of what is essentially a toxic mudslide of disinformation, propaganda, lies, marketing, branding and opinion-crafting that each and every person on Earth is exposed to daily. The assault on our language(s) is vigorous, thorough and unrelenting; it touches every nation and virtually all aspects of our lives. Like so many other words in our time, the term "Orwellian" is often casually tossed around like rice at a wedding. In this case however; the crimes against our language committed daily by politicians, corporations and religious leaders, actually do resemble something out of his dystopian nightmares. The good news is that while it is impossible to live completely unaffected by this poison, it is possible for an observant peasant to protect herself from the predations of those who would seek to deceive her. The key of course lies in using your mind to weigh and evaluate all the information available to you before making an emotional commitment. As previously mentioned; this type of deception relies on your natural inclination to "feel" rather than "think" and therefore, it rarely holds up to direct examination. Rationally you know that war cannot be peace, debt cannot be prosperity and no pair of sneakers can help you "be like Mike." Furthermore, once free of this emotional "black-magic" you might realize that wars drain public wealth, borrowed money must be paid back with interest and those sneakers are covered in the blood and suffering of small children. By this same measure, it is important to take the time to think carefully when you speak. Be clear, concise and honest; avoid twisting your words and seeking to manipulate those around you by soliciting emotional responses. When you share ideas with others, give them the time and space to come to their own conclusions. Try to remember that in real life there is a very significant difference between a "discussion" and an "argument"; discussions are better for the sharing of ideas because nobody has to "win."Above all else however, remember that you have the right to make up you own mind and then grant that right to every single person you meet.

Just one more question folks: "what's so funny about peace, love and understanding?"

- Savannah Nix

Shouting into a hurricane.

The cornerstone of any free society is the right to express ideas and opinions that may disagree with established religious, political and social authority. In this regard, we tend to think of censorship as the violent act of silencing those who would express such opinions; the vilification, arrest and or execution, of people or organizations that dare to speak out against "the powers that be." These overt forms of oppression are easy to recognize precisely because little if any effort will be made to hide them. Violent censorship seeks to eliminate dissent by both removing one source of opposition and more importantly, by frightening other potential dissidents into silence. While even the most brutal tyrants will officially deny these actions, the reality is that shattered lives, missing relatives and word of mouth ensure that the message is received. These atrocities will often be masked behind pretty words and grand ideologies but ultimately even the most oppressed peasant knows the actions of evil men when (s)he sees them. From the (relative) security of the western world it's easy to forget that what we describe as racism, totalitarianism and fundamentalism actually mean torture, murder and terror to billions of people all over the planet. Simply put: without security of person there can be no freedom of expression.

So where exactly does that leave me? Without going into too much detail I am an employed city-dweller, born and raised in what's supposed to be a free society. I'm white, which is important because it means I'm likely to avoid police persecution, racial profiling and casual racism in my everyday life. More to the point however; if I am arrested, my pigmentation means I am less likely to be a victim of police brutality, overzealous prosecution and discriminatory sentencing practices. Additionally I have enough money to hire myself a professional liar to represent me in court and with any luck he or she will be competent and concerned enough to ensure I can turn my currency into something resembling liberty. There's still some uncertainty in the situation because I am not wealthy, famous or influential enough to exist above the law but it's a damn sight better than my chances would be if I were a young, black male being represented by a public defender. Despite owning almost no property and renting my apartment; living in a developed urban area gives me easy access to emergency services (police, fire, ambulance), electricity, medical care, public transportation, food and a host of arguably useful products and services. Once again money is also a factor here as without it I'd be forced to rely on the charity and efficiency of my government to provide me with many of these necessities. Finally, the very fact that I am writing and you are reading this blog means that to a least some degree, I have the freedom to express ideas that disagree with those of established religious, political and social authorities. Although my ability to reach a wider audience through a random blog on the internet is questionable at best, there is no reason to believe that publishing it will threaten my safety or liberty in any tangible way. I write these things not with any sense of pride, but as a bitter reminder that I am afforded a greater degree of liberty than most other people on Earth and indeed, many members of my own supposedly free society.

Of course, it's not all gumdrops and lollipops. As previously mentioned; I'm not wealthy, I don't own a property or a business and I'm not influential in any significant way either. Possessing any one of these attributes would entitle me to a higher level of "freedom" than I enjoy now in the society I currently live in. Additionally the fact that I'm a woman means that at a bare minimum my security of person is at a much higher risk than that of any man around me. Whether this is caused by my physical limitations or a culture that casually turns a blind eye to victimization, rape and violence towards it's women is largely irrelevant to this particular discussion. My prospects don't exactly improve when you note that as a post-op transgendered woman, I have to work exceptionally hard just to guarantee even the precarious level of "safety" afforded most women in my society. All it takes is for one violent bigot, religious extremist or sexually repressed psychopath to notice that I'm a little taller than most girls, or that my hands and feet aren't exactly dainty and suddenly, the threat of violence becomes extremely real. Even amongst the supposedly "normal" members of my society there are a significant number of people who would casually wish me dead, raped or harmed simply because I was born with a Y chromosome; despite lacking the fortitude to perform said violence on me themselves. Remember folks we're just talking about my security of person at this point. I could go into wage inequity, social discrimination, religious (but non-violent) traditionalism, lost employment opportunities and casual sexism but out of necessity my primary focus must be protecting myself against violence despite my status as a citizen of a free society.

The disturbing part of all this is that these are just some of the many ways that I, personally am aided or harmed by the inequity of a society that proudly congratulates itself for being free and yet tolerates members being more, or less "free" based on numerous, seemingly arbitrary factors. This does not account for war, taxation, corruption, nepotism, the power of corporations, data collection or spying on citizens from both private and government organizations. It does not cover the devaluation of currency or the accumulation of massive public debt. It does not include austerity, worker exploitation, bailouts, environmental plundering, financial crimes, lobbyists or the disturbing connections between our governments, banking institutions and a complicit incorporated media. Our discussion hasn't touched on politics, political organizations, the suspension of government services or the slow erosion of representative democracy by way of gerrymandering, legal manipulation and simple population growth. In short; we certainly have a lot to talk about and frankly just looking at the size of it all is enough to frighten most people away. It is simply easier to believe that everything is fine and spending the Soviet Union into oblivion during the late 80's now means freedom, happiness and a McValue meal for everyone. Reality of course couldn't be further from the truth and it is with profound sadness that I realize the birth of democracy and the free market represented not the beginning of a new era of freedom for mankind; but a high water mark for the peasantry in what may well be a never-ending class war.

Once again the question becomes, "so where exactly does that leave me?" I'm both unwilling and unable to pretend that I am truly free. Furthermore the realization of just how big a lie the suggestion that I live in a free society has become, both terrifies and enrages me. Finally of course my lack of influence and status as a literally insignificant number in a massive body politic means that I am virtually powerless to do anything about it. I say virtually because my one asset is my voice, but even when I speak out against tyranny it's almost impossible to be heard above the constant roar of lies, disinformation and outright nonsense presented as news and entertainment by a profit-driven mass media. Again, whether this is on purpose or simply the result of government, corporations, monetary systems and media growing too large to give a damn about individual people is largely irrelevant. The final effect is akin to dropping a million haystacks onto a single needle; the speaker might as well attempt to shout his or her ideas into a raging hurricane for all of the good it will seemingly do. Where as totalitarian authorities use terror to prevent the spread of new ideas, here in the free world we simply drown them out with never ending waves of biased news updates, pop culture references and babbling psychopaths who don't possess a single opinion someone hasn't already paid for. Still, despite these many obstacles I do retain the right to freely express a voice of dissent in the face of an all out assault on the liberties peasants like me have fought and died for all over the world. I am, for this moment still allowed to talk about injustice in the world around me, whether it be local, domestic or international. I can still try to encourage readers to be a little less shitty to each other and to avoid being divided by politics, race and whether or not you can afford to buy a less awful life of slavery than your neighbors. Although it is likely to accomplish nothing whatsoever, I can still point out that not only does the Emperor have no clothes but he's a filthy rapist with designs on both your mind and your wallet. What's more, so long as this right is not afforded to all of my brothers and sisters on this planet Earth, I have a moral obligation to do just that.

So this is my story folks. There are many others like it but mine is special because it comes to you from the heart of a girl who just wants to see the day when all humans will truly be finally free. She has no politics, doesn't want your money, doesn't care which god you worship and isn't asking you to adopt an ideology. I have a lot to say, and owing to an ongoing illness I may not have forever to say it. If you're still reading this, there's a good chance we have a lot more in common with each other than we have differences and even if we don't, it's an almost absolute certainty we have more in common with each other than any of our so called leaders and elites. I don't know if you can change the world by talking but I do know that nothing ever changes without the free exchange of ideas. Besides, I've always been a sucker for hopeless causes.

See ya round Sam(antha).         

- Savannah Nix