Powered By Blogger

Friday, December 3, 2010

Brainwashed Nation

When we come across the term "brainwash," most of us instinctively think of North Korea, or perhaps the cultural revolution in China. But is it possible that in this day and age, the same acts of "selective information" pervade our lives?

Communism is an evil institution that strips people of their humanity, is it not? If you said yes, then you are likely in agreement with much of the Western populace. Should such a statement be accepted as fact, or merely a sentiment of the people? How did this knee-jerk reaction become so embedded in our minds?

Anti-communist sentiments saw its rise during the harrowing years of the Cold War. In the US, the Red Scare had a powerful hold on the people, best underscored by the rise of McCarthyism. The Eisenhower administration's policy of brinkmanship further marred the relationship between the West and the Communist bloc.

Like a bad breakup, the West has never gotten over communism. Needless to say, the failures faced by the United States in North Korea and Vietnam were of no help. Although the Cold War is over, fear and loathing of the communist states are still dominant. Disguised as a moral crusade, the West is on a never-ending rampage to undermine the image of those nations that possess different view and policies than itself. Its weapon? Media and our gullible minds. Its motto? The convenient lie, the whole lie, and nothing but the convenient lie. We are all human, and that's why we are susceptible to the media's antics and the convenient lie. We like to believe that we are right, and they are wrong. Well, who is "they." Heck, anybody just as long as they are not ourselves right? Think about society. Are there not always those outcasts, rejects, those who we label as being "different?" To prove that we are superior, we need to show that somebody else is inferior. The world is not so different. In order to prove that they are superior, Western media feeds on incessant attacks towards any nation they deem to be "incompatible." Similar to the aggressive propaganda in warfare, the passive disinformation by the media exaggerates any peccadilloes of other nations, but appropriately "forgets" to mention its own wrongdoings. Let's take a moment to examine one from the profuse list.

(1989) Tiananmen Square June 4 - Protests led by students and intellectuals escalate into violence as the military is brought in to quell the upheaval. Allegedly, thousands upon thousands of people are "massacred." Although the exact figures of the death toll cannot be determined, news broadcasted around the world depicted the Chinese government as a cold machine "slaughtering" thousands of citizens. If we look at current reports (not from China) of the incident, we see that the Politburo was divided in regards to martial force. Furthermore, the central military command lacked unity in regards to this issue. The soldiers were ordered to clear the capitol and maintain order, not "slaughter your countrymen." However, protestors set fire to APC's and beat soldiers, who in turn opened fire. The international media decided to exploit a tragic day and turn it into a field day for criticism of the newly consolidated Chinese government. The causes were overlooked, the numbers exaggerated, and the results amplified. Soon, because it walked like a duck, and talked like a duck, it became a duck. I am not denying that it was a horrifying incident, nor do I forgive the government, but I do see that they did not set out to kill their citizens; the latter of which Canada strongly disagrees.

"The External Affairs Minister Joe Clark described the incident as 'inexcusable' and issued a statement: 'We can only express horror and outrage at the senseless violence and tragic loss of life resulting from the indiscriminate and brutal use of force against students and civilians of Peking.' "

What can you see in here that seems to suggest the statement does more than "sincerely" mourn the tragic incident? Does it promote a certain bias, or put itself on a moral pedestal? To me, it screams out, "Look everybody, we're civilized and they're not."

How can North America denounce this with such fervor? May 4, 1970. National guardsmen shot into a crowd of 35 students, killing 4. These students were at one point a group 2,000 strong, demonstrating against the Vietnam war at Kent State University. Basically, 11% of the demonstrating students were shot dead. During the Tiananmen Massacre, there were 100,000 protesters. As the official government body count is 241, let's take a liberal count at 1,000. So, out of all the protestors gathered there that day, 1% was "slaughtered." Isn't it just a little bit hypocritical for such "disgust" when the same events essentially occurred on its own soil? Should a thief judge another for stealing? Should a murderer judge someone else's act of killing?

Let's take a look at some fairly recent news. The problem with Japanese whaling has been going on for quite a while now. However, there is this new TV show on Discovery Channel about a man "crusading" the Pacific, trying to put an end to the horrible practice. I personally think that this TV show could create a lot of problems. I'm sure that many people who watch this, will instinctively label the Japanese as cold, condoning, and immoral people. Worst of all, we are allowing such bias to perforate the minds of Discovery's dedicated peanut gallery; children. Moreover, who is to say that whaling is the 11th sin? How can the world impose upon a people their moral standards and then denounce that nation's cultures? Where is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Is there not a statute in Canada that permits Native Americans to hunt a certain number of orcas? So why can't the Japanese? I think that as a society, especially one living in North America, we too often see ourselves as the "city upon a hill." We denounce people who eat cats, dogs, rabbits, and anything different. We denounce North Korea for having nuclear power plants when we have hundreds upon thousands of nuclear warheads; enough to destroy the world 10 times over.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Ehtay Edestrianpay

Years fly by, propelled into the future,

Unversed readers find paper incisions.

For now seems only a tidy suture,

Reveals the evil of televisions.

Solitary sashays, now forbidden,

Gloomy houses flank the deserted path.

Android police, take heed hunched and hidden,

Peek out from layers of plaster and lath.

Perpetual twilight envelops the scribe,

In reminiscing some forlorn zeitgeist.

Locked up and can't break free, cannot describe,

Wherefore is it deserved such jaundiced heist?

Thy bleak age, hark, humdrum humanity,

Therein lies no fix for fraternity.

Friday, October 29, 2010

For The Ladies - October 30, 2010

We are becoming an increasingly conformist society, where people are afraid to break rules and increasingly susceptible to the power of The Man, thus allowing fear of advancement and the possibility of "undifferentiating differences." We are haunted by the prospect of anything new, and deathly afraid of those who are "different" from ourselves.

Although the instinct to nurture in women and the physical aptitude of men are very much primeval, it has been over the centuries, blown out of proportion. In the earliest of times, women were more valuable, as they could continue caring for offspring even in old age. However, when the usefulness of men expired with old age, they would only be a burden. Therefore, it makes sense that men traditionally held more importance, although maybe not value. As women were constantly tied up with the work of child-rearing, the heavy-duty jobs of protection and hunting eventually fell to the men. Society inevitably instills in people thoughts and preconceptions that they did not have when they roamed freely in Northern Africa. So over an epoch of many millennia, it soon came to be a generally accepted fact that men fit certain descriptions, and women did the same. Keep in mind however, that all of these only exist in organized society.

Who said that men and women are different (besides the obvious)? Your parents, teachers, and most importantly, society, says that men and women are different. Most people agree, because most people conform.

Therefore in this day and age, it is almost impossible to rid society of "discrimination." It is psychologically impossible in this frame of mind, as we humans automatically "thin slice" every situation we are confronted with. The quote "don't judge a book by its cover," is an attack on human tendencies. We are very judgemental beings, thus the need to separate ourselves from each other.

But what are the guidelines we use to "judge" a book, or judge a person? What are the guidelines Sports Illustrated uses when deciding wether to put a magazine in the men's section or the women's section? All of these rules, people take for granted. As we can see, people generally tend to think like the big marketers, that sports magazines should go into the men's section. Why? Really when you ask yourself why, you will find that there is no reason except for the fact that we were brought up that way. Well, you might say that girls on average don't read as much sports magazines. I will not contest that point. But once again why are those statistics prevalent? Maybe because the girls were brought up to read from the girl's section, and when they were young and accidently ventured into the men's section, they were kindly guided by the clerk back into the girl's section. It's the right thing to do.

The separation of men and women, has shocking similarity to that of black and whites. It is nothing but a view society holds. When we hope to see the difference, we will see it. We hold on dearly to that difference.

There are too many examples of this reoccurring phenomenon, such as the color pink and its relation to gender. However, I will not dwell on it as that would take an expose to cover.

Everything is in perspective. There is no right and wrong, or even grey areas. There is only truth, which is not truth. The deceiving word truth, is really what the majority has decided to be that word. Whoever controls the gold, makes the rules.

Only in utopia, can humans reach a level of consciousness and control over the Id so high, that not only can humans survive without a government of oppressive majority, humans can also learn to accept the fact that there are no differences, except when others tell you there are. Actually, the perfect world reaches beyond that of communist utopia. The perfect world is a world with a government that does not govern. A world where racism, sexism, anti-semitism (although Jew jokes makes the world go round), and everything else from Pandora's box is left racing to find a home, but finding none. Of course, for humans to reach such utopia would take a couple millennia after the destruction of the Earth.

So in conclusion ladies, don't blame the men when we ask you to make us a sandwich, blame society's successful teachings. Because you know that we love you, no matter how much more incompetent we may find you.

The First Thought- October 29, 2010

Once upon a time during my tweenage years, I found myself slipping from reality. I felt as if every moment I lived was a dream. As I grew older, the world opened up every complicating doors. I wanted to touch, smell, and feel everything, but everything was just out of reach. I saw politicians on the news, and dreamed of one day debating in Senate over some hot issue. I saw singers rocking out on the VMA awards, and wished that I had been born white, handsome, and taller. I wanted to devote my life to quantum physics, while exploring the deepest chasms of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. I wanted to live my life wallowing in the quest to find a meaning to life. I wanted to make a difference, but was told over and over that I could not change anything. I was told to be REAL. How can I live with the fact that despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the constitution setting every man to be equal, there is still rampant racist bigotry around the world?


I had always possessed a strong conviction concerning the term justice. As I grew older, I realized that there is no such thing as justice. As with most of the other things in the world, it is only relative. Justice is what you fight for, and if you win, justice.


Democracy, when examined from many angles, has existed ever since the neolithic era of homo sapiens. The whole inner-workings of society can best be described as democracy, where the minority is oppressed by the majority. Every fact and truth we have is only relative. It is relative to who spoketh. If the majority speaketh, he speaketh the truth. When the minority speaketh, he speaketh lies and and deceit. Is he really wrong? Maybe, but maybe not.