"Mind Control"

Today, in a conversation with several of my classmates in the Red River College Creative Communications program, I talked about people who advocate the use of marijuana, LSD, and related drugs.

Many advocates of mind-altering drugs will tell non-users that drugs like LSD act as gateway.  These particular advocates argue that if you do not use drugs, you are a victim of corporate mind control.  If you don't use drugs, the advocates say, you will never learn to think for yourself.

So said the folks who bought every word that Timothy Leary preached.  They denounced capitalism yet had no trouble giving their dollars to buy Dr. Leary's books or his spoken-word albums.  

Timothy Leary and the counterculture he led had much in common with the corporations they denounced: they had a message to sell.  "Tune in, turn on, drop out" was the anthem of counter-culture druggies.  The same druggies who criticized "corporate mind control" were taking drugs that controlled their own minds.  A case of pot calling the kettle black.

I think there's a fundamental difference between 'mind control' and buying into a message.  It is always possible to buy into a message while disagreeing with certain aspects of that message, and in no way can a person call that "mind control".  'Mind control' implies that a person has no agency.  Consumerism impacts us, but it does not control us.  If a person can simply stop listening to a message, that person has agency.  If your mind is under total control, you cannot avoid the message.  Our modern society just makes it hard to avoid consumerist messages.  But if people have the option to avoid, then they are free.

It is not the consumer who is under mind control.  It is the addict, the junkie, the Dionysian.  When the addiction takes hold, it is impossible to take different routes.  The addict cannot think for his or herself.  A person who cannot think will always accuse others of not thinking.  The gambling addict, alcohol addict, and shopping addict are all the same.  The messages they accept are not to blame.  The addicts only have themselves to blame.

Digital Romanticism: A Destruction of the English Language

 

(source: matrixfour.com)

 

 

 

 

The image above is a telling symbol of the state of the English language today.  It tells us how technology has circumvented our nerves and brains.

 

 

The new English language is more brief than the sentences I type.  LMFAO, LOL, OMG, ROFL -- three and four letter words violating all syntax yet making sense to newer beings.  When you look at the image above, you are witnessing a force with greater repercussions than a vicious block of wind.  You are witnessing the creation of a communicating line.  You are seeing the words all will only understand within a few decades.

 

 

The computer has replaced the book, and the meme is the monarch that rules over the language-impoverished land.  For many, it's easier to remember five letters than fifty-five sentences.  They were raised by machines, and thus, their brains act like machines, each technical execution committed five seconds after the prior. 

 

 

In the end, the acronym is pleasure, but it numbs us in midst of lethality.  

 



Give In to Hedonism: What I Learned from Last Saturday's Bomber Game

When I was at the Winnipeg Blue Bombers game last Saturday, my stomach rumbled as I walked around the stadium.  The smell of grilled meat, fries, and mini donuts was unavoidable. 

The price of food at a football game is astronomical.  At the Salisbury House stand, a Salsbury Nip cost almost $5.00.  Drinks alone cost $4.00.  You would think those prices would turn people away from the stands.  Instead, people were lining up to get their quick fix, and I was one of them.

A brilliant way to make money is to overwhelm the senses.  In this case, it's the sense of smell.  Normally, we are supposed to think, not feel in these situations, as we are supposed to watch our wallets.  But we give in to temptation anyway and let our pocketbooks take a bruising.

I gave into temptation and spent almost $7.00 on a bag of fries and a small cup of coffee.  I did because I lost control.  The smells challenged all reason, and the smells prevailed.  I became a few dollars poorer, but I didn't care because my stomach stopped screaming.

Human beings let their hedonistic desires go wild whenever their senses are appealed to.  Our hedonistic pursuit makes it very easy for eateries to draw us in and empty our wallets.  The food is expensive, but so be it, we need to satsify each and every craving.

Some have called such business practices immoral, but I disagree.  If we are to call the practice of selling food at football games immoral, we might as well call Hallmark cards immoral -- food tugs at our stomachs, and sappy poetry tugs at our hearts.  To be emotional is to be human, and our modern economy thrives on all that makes us human. 

It is easy for a human being to lose the sense of equlibrium and batter his or herself financially to please all senses.  Not all human beings, however, are like this.  It is important to remember that an institution's job is not to tame addiction.  An institution's job is to make money.  Institutions make money by knowing what is human.

I See, Therefore I Vote.

 

(source: cbsnews.com)

 

 

Politicians are walking advertisements.  They sell "big ideas" and persuade people to vote, and they don't even have to sell ideas.  All they really have to sell are appearences and sounds.  Thus, politicans are really living, breathing brands who make their mark with voices and body language.

 

 

When everyone talked about Barack Obama's now infamous debate performance against Republican hopeful Mitt Romney, they commented on his body language.  In this CBS News clip, commentators discuss how body language makes a person look presidential.  The general consensus was that Obama did not look presidential.  He kept looking down at this podium instead of addressing Mitt Romney directly. 

 

 

Obama disappointed not only his small-l liberal supporters but also moderates and independents.  Obama wowed the latter two in the 2008 presidential election with his strong command of the spoken word.  In front of the world on that debate stage, Obama looked like a shell of his former self.  All it took was one debate to shift the momentum back into Romney's direction.

 

 

Obama probably would have walked away with minimal damage had the economic recovery been stronger.  But because the American economy was (and is) still in a pitiful state, Obama had to defend his record.  By giving a poor debate performance, he came across as a person who could not defend his record at all.

 

 

The greatest irony, though, is that in this consumer era, an incumbent politician does not need to defend his or her record as much as in the past.  All a politician needs to do is creative a narrative that people can run with.  The narrative does not even have to be strong, for if the opposing candidate is weak, the narrative can look strong by comparison. 

 

 

Some say that people today vote with their hearts, not their heads.  I disagree.  Rather, I think people vote with their eyes and ears.  The image of the politician is the message, and the message does not have to be true.  Instead, it just has to be appealing.

 

 

It has also been said that people want to vote for the candidate they would like to have a beer with.  But I also believe that voters want a candidate that represents their best qualities.  Richard Nixon appealed to blue-collar workers yet alienated many other voting blocs in the process.  His message of law and order resonated with many voters, but many could not accept the message of a man with a stern voice and drooping jowls.  No one wants to see their inner demon in the mirror, and to many, Nixon was their inner demon.

 

 

Many voters flocked to Barack Obama  because they saw their best qualities within him.  People like hope, and people like a candidate who propigates the message of hope.  Four years later, they see a man who is wrinklier, crankier, and vastly more arrogant at least on television.  Even if Barack Obama is not a failure, he looks like a failure on television.  Voters hate failure in government, and even if they have lost faith in their candidates, they still demand a message that resonates.  Barack Obama has a message that may resonate with economists and policy wonks, but he doesn't have a message that resonates with the ordinary voter.  Raw data is useless to the eyes in today's political era.  Voters want a good salesman, not just an economist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Veganism: A Case of the Ego Power Trip

Many people like to boast about their healthy eating habits.  In a country where the obesity rate continues to climb, it's hard not to. 

Healthy eating and active living are golden eggs for vegan-based restaurants like Boon Burger Cafe.  Veganism seems to be catching on in urban centres.

I believe that institutions like these sell the idea that a healthier lifestyle is akin to some kind of individual exceptionalism.  A prolonged lifestyle, of course, does not say anything about a person's "uniqueness", yet many people accept the message that by not eating animals, they will be canonized. 

People often use accomplishment to boost ego.  Yet our definitions of what constitutes 'accomplishment' have changed greatly over decades.  The young adults of today are led to believe that a lifestyle is in itself an accomplishment.  That myth will perpetuate for many years.

There is nothing exceptional about veganism, but many believe it is.  As a result, there are dangerous repercussions.  PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) plans to erect billboards near public in schools in Canada condemning Thanksgiving.  Their message is clear: eating turkey for Thanksgiving is the same thing as eating your Jack Russell terrier. 

I think PETA speaks volumes about modern rebellion.  In previous days, rebellion was all about challenging authority.  Today, rebellion groups like PETA seek to impose a new authority.  PETA's utopia is a world where every single meat packing facility is closed, every slaughterhouse is demolished, and every meat-based farm is seized.  It is ego that fuels the cause of PETA.

Our perceptions of what constitutes an 'ego' are changing, and many now see 'ego' as a way to impose a power structure.  If you do not think PETA is influential, think again.  The New Democratic Party of Canada, Green Party of Canada, and the Liberal Party of Canada have many members who are either vegetarian or vegan.  Vegans influence the policies of these political parties, and the dairy farmers, beef farmers, fishermen, and meat packers all pay the steepest price when PETA-influenced policy gets implemented to the fullest extent.

If a person who is oppressed believes that he is exceptional, he will become the oppressor.  The same rings true for those who call themselves 'animal liberationists'.