It seems to me that, in light of recent global affairs, our new initial reaction to everything is to throw whatever we can at any form of crisis (from money to missiles), curl up in a corner and hope the scary scenes go away and stop being so darned nasty. In a way, it's almost like we've shrouded ourselves in our ideological bubble wrap to the point where if someone happens to walk past with a pointy stick and prop it slightly, we lose our minds and screech 'what do we do?' to the first poor beggar we happen to see in the street, drinking his coffee and texting his mother.
But why react in such a manner? Surely if something is amiss -- and it negates the better interest of several governments and their respective fiefdoms -- with the application of unity and good ol' fashioned 'team spirit', why do we repeatedly fail to reach a logical outcome without springing some new issue that we blind ourselves to for a few years? It doesn't seem to make sense. But then, it does. Is that a good thing?
Obviously, though we reluctantly shake hands with our UN peers and smile for the camera, our views and interests vary, collide and counter-act one another. One country wants this, another country wants that, and a third country hates both and just can't wait for them to move out already. But when Mother walks into the living room and tells them to behave, you can bet your lucky cufflinks that they will -- they just won't enjoy doing it very much.
Is that what keeps preventing us from succeeding in being rational problem-solvers? Petty squabbles? I dread to think it. And naturally, before we collaborate to argue and spite each other as a team, people scramble and choose sides pretty quickly to argue and spite each other as separate entities; when put in the same room together, it spells 'trouble' with more glaring signs than a neon display of the committee of letters that assemble to spell the word itself.
Bloody hell, that was a stretch.
If you look at -- let's say -- the situation in Syria (gasp, shock, the horror), it should be a simple case of everyone versus Daesh. But it isn't. Instead, it's a silent case of everybody who is against Daesh is also against each other. Hell, not even Daesh likes itself. 'I prefer IS', 'I prefer ISIS', 'I prefer ISIL', et cetera.
Madness.
So is that also preventing us from achieving a straightforward logical goal? Vanity? One thing to consider is that nearly all modern politicians are shameless demagogues; they'll give you any old hogwash policy to climb to power at some point because you kind-of sort-of agreed with something they may-or-may-not-have said once. 'Remember That Guy from That Party? Remember when he said that thing once? Let's vote for him'. Then, once they've been voted in, they stop caring until the next election. Naturally, when it comes to a global crisis like Syria, they'll do or argue amost anything in the popular public opinion to ensure their rise to power. Then they'll tell you it's 'within Britain's best interests'. Well, when you put it in the context of the public opinion, they're not exactly lying as such.
But what's a crisis without propaganda? 'We've always been at war with Eastasia'; replace Eastasia with 'The Middle East', and you've basically got the same thing, so says the Far Right. Which is funny, because I'm pretty sure there have been times where we haven't been at war in the Middle East. At least . . . I think so . . .
Oh my god.
Put together, this is what I like to call the "Fire Triangle" of (to quote columnist Frankie Boyle -- ah, yes, boo to you, too) psychopathic autopilot. Only instead of fuel, oxygen and heat, you have childish squabbles, vanity, and a rudimentary form of doublethink perpetuated by semi-educated, pseudo-intellectual sods who siegheil for a bloody passtime. It is because of these frankly ridiculous societal impediments that we can hardly ever find a rational resolve to some of the most arduous and demanding scenarios we are faced with, and it's appalling. Well bah to you all, I say. Thrive off the hysteria for all I care -- you're only an appealing argument for the dolphin uprising when they achieve enslaving us all and treat us like the primitive beings we pretend not to be. And when they do, I'd like to see you walk with your undeserved, scumbag air of self-porpoise.
Thursday 3 December 2015
Thursday 6 August 2015
R and R: Race and Religion, the World's Greatest Divide and Pack Mentality -Hypocrisy in Motion
I often spend my fickle, wasted days priding myself on a moderate knowledge of the workings of people and the Earth's societal infrastructure, with an understanding of social interactions, casual metaphors, and motives and reasons behind the actions of others. It is on the majority of these days I shall raise my hand in an ecstasy of triumph to repeatedly pat myself on the back as a reward for realising that the human race really is an amalgamation of logical, intelligent beings capable of individual thought, until the spoilt, heavyset child known as "Reality" will throw a shockingly solid curveball comprised of pure disgust towards my unsuspecting direction in a fit of pure rage, landing a devastating blow on the bridge of my nose and rendering myself barely conscious and hurt.
"Why?" I will frequently ask myself, an undertone of disappointment and betrayal resonating within the depths of my words, as Reality's sour, grotesque face twists and contorts to accommodate its vile attempt at laughter. The answer to this, I have found, is that this is Reality informing me that my revelations are a shambles and are lies; human beings -though individually possess the ability to produce insightful thoughts and inspirational ideas- are in fact illogical and unintellectual when clustered together in a pack, hence the "Pack Mentality".
The greatest example of the rather blatant difference between individualism and the Pack Mentality is displayed through topics such as prejudice; namely the prejudice found in religion and race.
The first of these two that I would like to discuss is religion, seeing as with the current global situations that are enacted now after being bred centuries ago, it is the larger of the two elephants rudely housing itself in the room that is all of civilisation. Though I myself am a devout atheist, I would be lying if I said I didn't believe that through theism, some of our greatest cultural, artistic, even scientific revolutionaries have come to be; for religion itself isn't a glorification of the god(s) that inspired the initial belief, but rather a study and guide as to how one should live their life and better themselves as a person, taught through a plethora of fables and scriptures with strong moral views. These fables are often the key inspirations behind some of the most culturally groundbreaking works of art, and even the views of individuals such as Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Junior, whom pathed the road to the evolution of the way we think and speak. But what is the point of this evolved manner of expression and acceptance if a large number of the world's population still reverts to what can only be described as primitive thinking, as in, using religion as a justifiable means for war and using the actions of a false ideology to justify a nondiscriminatory hatred of particular faiths? When thought about, I find it ironic that the only thing almost guaranteed to be free from discrimination is discrimination itself. In saying this, I mean to convey that hatred itself doesn't discriminate, and the discriminators target all of what they despise; be it man, woman, or child, all in aid to justify and express opinion. Too many times have the words of close-minded ideologists been taken as law, and subsequently means for war; because of this, the misconception that religion itself causes war and unrest has been enforced, and you are left with three factions: the foolhardy literals whom interpret their religious scriptures word for word and invent their own ideology with extremist force, the equally foolish abstainers of all religious teachings whom also enforce their views (in this case, abstinence) with extremist measures, and the truly open-minded, whom can be of any faith and accept the views of others in an impartial manner. The first two factors are the utter worst, for they fail to unify themselves, leaving them to discriminate against each other and, unsurprisingly, themselves; a good example would be the current Middle Eastern conflicts: in this, you have two subsections of the first factor, predominantly two ideologies that sprout from the East and West, both claiming to represent faiths that in reality, they aren't representing at all, and enforcing prejudices against one another. This is an example of how discrimination is prone to itself, and in examples like this, are self-perpetuating. An extremist response to an extremist call will exact another extremist response. This is the first example of the Pack Mentality, and the world's greatest divide.
When put to an individual, religion can be approached in a different light, taken out of the steady fists of men with pointy sticks to haul back the prospect of a unique way of thinking, and put into much more delicate and understanding hands. The individual is still capable of the three factors, but is more inclined to the third, with the previous two having less of an impact than it would with the Pack Mentality. This is due to the fact that, when alone, the individual is relieved of the pressure of the social conformity that is often found in a group, and can express their unique views to themselves -even if that view is negative, it will lack the substance that can otherwise be found in groups. With the Pack Mentality, however, the people included in the pack will often feel a need to adapt to the opinions of others to be accepted, and succumb to the self-perpetuating state of mind. Individuals who previously expressed prejudicial views in a group may find themselves with more liberal ideas when left alone, and this in its own way is how a false ideology works; it strips away the thought and will of an individual through tampered information that is never fully true, nor is it ever a full lie, and this is used to manipulate the thoughts of the person affected. Essentially, the Pack Mentality and false ideologies are kept alive by those who can perfect their wordplay by producing what they believe to be irrefutable evidence that their view is correct. This is because in a group, opinions need to be either black or white, whereas the individual is allowed to explore the grey area, and weigh up the pros and cons for themselves in a judgement-free environment.
The same principles apply in the argument for race, and the divide it brings about. The only thing that differs this form of discrimination and divide is that people are now so sheltered in their own environments that they begin to accept that their culture is what I like to refer to as "human culture", in which the inhabitants of a particular country or nation subconsciously take their views, beliefs and culture to be the norm for the entire human race, and when those views are challenged, the inhabitant not only sees the objection as alien, but the person in question that is objecting and challenging the opinion. This is most prominent in capitalist societies, and, frankly, this is awful; it is one thing I find illogical about people in general, and it is a key reason Reality throws the previously mentioned curveball in my face. The reason I think this to be so disgraceful as I do can be explained by a lyric to the song Map of the Problematique, in which the quote goes as follows: "why can't we see that when we bleed, we bleed the same?" To see the point this lyric raises, one must temporarily abandon their nationality: in fact, for the following point, you are temporarily no longer a national -be it English, American, Canadian, Oriental, Polish, German, et cetera- but rather, you are a human being. You are temporarily no longer in a collective country of a few million people, but rather a collective planet of over seven billion human beings; you -hell, we- are biologically alike, capable at some point or another of nearly the same things, and we all deserve to be treated as what we really are: human beings, all seven billion of us and counting. We may appear different colours on the surface, but there is a colour that keeps us the same and unifies us, and it is the only colour that matters -it is the blood that keeps us all alive.
I end this by saying that whereas there will never be a resolve to ideological conflict or racism, there is a point in unifying as many people as we can -if you take something from this highly convoluted rant, choose to take this message: abandon the Pack Mentality, for it is hundreds upon thousands of years out of fashion; individualism is in, and as an individual, rebel against social conformities and unite as a community -not a community of identical people, but as a community of outstanding individuals who wish to be treated the same as one another. Though we can't implement this idea as a political system, we can store it in the hearts and minds of the brave, wise, and kind. Do not succumb to the half-witted prejudices forced upon race and religion, for you have power in your judgement! Do not give yourself to what I believe is and from herein always will be the world's greatest divide.
The greatest example of the rather blatant difference between individualism and the Pack Mentality is displayed through topics such as prejudice; namely the prejudice found in religion and race.
The first of these two that I would like to discuss is religion, seeing as with the current global situations that are enacted now after being bred centuries ago, it is the larger of the two elephants rudely housing itself in the room that is all of civilisation. Though I myself am a devout atheist, I would be lying if I said I didn't believe that through theism, some of our greatest cultural, artistic, even scientific revolutionaries have come to be; for religion itself isn't a glorification of the god(s) that inspired the initial belief, but rather a study and guide as to how one should live their life and better themselves as a person, taught through a plethora of fables and scriptures with strong moral views. These fables are often the key inspirations behind some of the most culturally groundbreaking works of art, and even the views of individuals such as Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Junior, whom pathed the road to the evolution of the way we think and speak. But what is the point of this evolved manner of expression and acceptance if a large number of the world's population still reverts to what can only be described as primitive thinking, as in, using religion as a justifiable means for war and using the actions of a false ideology to justify a nondiscriminatory hatred of particular faiths? When thought about, I find it ironic that the only thing almost guaranteed to be free from discrimination is discrimination itself. In saying this, I mean to convey that hatred itself doesn't discriminate, and the discriminators target all of what they despise; be it man, woman, or child, all in aid to justify and express opinion. Too many times have the words of close-minded ideologists been taken as law, and subsequently means for war; because of this, the misconception that religion itself causes war and unrest has been enforced, and you are left with three factions: the foolhardy literals whom interpret their religious scriptures word for word and invent their own ideology with extremist force, the equally foolish abstainers of all religious teachings whom also enforce their views (in this case, abstinence) with extremist measures, and the truly open-minded, whom can be of any faith and accept the views of others in an impartial manner. The first two factors are the utter worst, for they fail to unify themselves, leaving them to discriminate against each other and, unsurprisingly, themselves; a good example would be the current Middle Eastern conflicts: in this, you have two subsections of the first factor, predominantly two ideologies that sprout from the East and West, both claiming to represent faiths that in reality, they aren't representing at all, and enforcing prejudices against one another. This is an example of how discrimination is prone to itself, and in examples like this, are self-perpetuating. An extremist response to an extremist call will exact another extremist response. This is the first example of the Pack Mentality, and the world's greatest divide.
When put to an individual, religion can be approached in a different light, taken out of the steady fists of men with pointy sticks to haul back the prospect of a unique way of thinking, and put into much more delicate and understanding hands. The individual is still capable of the three factors, but is more inclined to the third, with the previous two having less of an impact than it would with the Pack Mentality. This is due to the fact that, when alone, the individual is relieved of the pressure of the social conformity that is often found in a group, and can express their unique views to themselves -even if that view is negative, it will lack the substance that can otherwise be found in groups. With the Pack Mentality, however, the people included in the pack will often feel a need to adapt to the opinions of others to be accepted, and succumb to the self-perpetuating state of mind. Individuals who previously expressed prejudicial views in a group may find themselves with more liberal ideas when left alone, and this in its own way is how a false ideology works; it strips away the thought and will of an individual through tampered information that is never fully true, nor is it ever a full lie, and this is used to manipulate the thoughts of the person affected. Essentially, the Pack Mentality and false ideologies are kept alive by those who can perfect their wordplay by producing what they believe to be irrefutable evidence that their view is correct. This is because in a group, opinions need to be either black or white, whereas the individual is allowed to explore the grey area, and weigh up the pros and cons for themselves in a judgement-free environment.
The same principles apply in the argument for race, and the divide it brings about. The only thing that differs this form of discrimination and divide is that people are now so sheltered in their own environments that they begin to accept that their culture is what I like to refer to as "human culture", in which the inhabitants of a particular country or nation subconsciously take their views, beliefs and culture to be the norm for the entire human race, and when those views are challenged, the inhabitant not only sees the objection as alien, but the person in question that is objecting and challenging the opinion. This is most prominent in capitalist societies, and, frankly, this is awful; it is one thing I find illogical about people in general, and it is a key reason Reality throws the previously mentioned curveball in my face. The reason I think this to be so disgraceful as I do can be explained by a lyric to the song Map of the Problematique, in which the quote goes as follows: "why can't we see that when we bleed, we bleed the same?" To see the point this lyric raises, one must temporarily abandon their nationality: in fact, for the following point, you are temporarily no longer a national -be it English, American, Canadian, Oriental, Polish, German, et cetera- but rather, you are a human being. You are temporarily no longer in a collective country of a few million people, but rather a collective planet of over seven billion human beings; you -hell, we- are biologically alike, capable at some point or another of nearly the same things, and we all deserve to be treated as what we really are: human beings, all seven billion of us and counting. We may appear different colours on the surface, but there is a colour that keeps us the same and unifies us, and it is the only colour that matters -it is the blood that keeps us all alive.
I end this by saying that whereas there will never be a resolve to ideological conflict or racism, there is a point in unifying as many people as we can -if you take something from this highly convoluted rant, choose to take this message: abandon the Pack Mentality, for it is hundreds upon thousands of years out of fashion; individualism is in, and as an individual, rebel against social conformities and unite as a community -not a community of identical people, but as a community of outstanding individuals who wish to be treated the same as one another. Though we can't implement this idea as a political system, we can store it in the hearts and minds of the brave, wise, and kind. Do not succumb to the half-witted prejudices forced upon race and religion, for you have power in your judgement! Do not give yourself to what I believe is and from herein always will be the world's greatest divide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)