In recent years the phenomenon of the “broken family” has become front page news. If you believe what you read, the broken family is responsible for crime, depression and even rioting. However, when looking across the animal kingdom promiscuity is by far the most common mating system, and as a result of this system we certainly don’t see juvenile rabbits committing crimes and rioting, so why is it different for humans?
We as a specie are 1% different to Chimpanzee’s. Everything that makes us different to a Chimp comes down to just 1% in DNA. Within this 1% comes our ability to enter inter-stellar space, to create nuclear power, to create weapons of unparalleled destruction etc etc. Is there really room in that 1% to undo millions of years of evolution which dictated the primates mating system? Yes, but it seems very unlikely.
Monogamous mating in nature largely occurs when the chance of survival of offspring is greatly improved by having a married couple supporting them, an example being the Jackal. The jackal is not a pack animal and the chances of it being hunted or starving when alone is much higher than if it were to be in a pair. Humans are not like the jackal, we exist in packs.
Through living in packs, the need for monogamy is practically extinguished; young can be supported and protected by the pack, removing the necessity for a marital pairing. So, what is the necessity of marriage in human species? Biologically, there appears none.
The sheer fact that prostitution is our species oldest profession indicates that we are not a monogamous animal, and the massive increase in divorce in recent years (now that it is accepted in society) shows that as a specie, monogamy does not work.
As humans, we seem intent on distancing ourselves from the savagery of the animal kingdom. We enslave other species (despite their marginal differences), we pretend we are the only specie capable of thought (despite other primates being able to learn sign language and manufacture tools) and we import social conditions upon ourselves which make us seem more “civilised”.
The broken family is not the problem with society, it is the natural order of us as a specie, the problem is that for so long we have convinced ourselves that we are a monogamous animal, which is simply not true. We have fabricated the idea of “love”, which, by all intents and purposes, is just a trick of nature to make us fuck, and turned it into something it simply is not. Hollywood films condition us to believe that we have a “soulmate”, which once again, is simply not true.
We are not special, we are not unique, we are in no way significant different to our animal counterparts. We all descend from the exact same organisms so why are we trying to convince ourselves we have some privileged position on Earth?
Through enforcing Monogamy, we risk losing the very attributes that have led us to where we are today. As a pack, we are strong, with our immense minds, we can change the world for the advantage of all species. But if we divide apart into tiny groups, squabbling with one another, we can only change the world for the worse.
We must stop lying to ourselves, and accept what makes us so truly beautiful.
Is there any way to reply to replies on Tumblr? I can’t seem to work it out.
Language is a very peculiar concept. Whilst other members of the animal kingdom have their own form of languages, as humans we have, arguably, the most complex lexis. Language is the tool we use to express ourselves, the tool to turn our inner feelings into something others can understand. However, what happens when there isn’t a word to express a feeling? If we don’t have a word to express a particular feeling, does that feeling not exist within society? Is it like an invisible object buried beneath our feet where it doesn’t matter how massive or widespread it is, it can never be found? If there isn’t a word to explain a feeling, can we even understand that feeling within our mind? Or does it exist as an uncomprehendible chemical reaction or electric pulse in our minds? If society does not have a word to explain something, are we completely ignorant to this “something”? Are we ignorant to Psychopolitics?
Any person of any intelligence understands that advertisements use techniques to convince an audience to buy into a product, whether it be through repetition, slogans or even colour schemes. As much as we dislike this, we accept it as part of a Capitalist society. But what happens when politicians use techniques such as these?
Society is often described as akin to the human body; each part of the organism has to work towards the same goal for it to function effectively, after all an organism at war with itself is doomed. But how can an organism with 60 million (in Britains case) independent factors work towards the same goal? How can we be convinced to spend 50 years doing a job we hate? How can we be convinced to send our own brothers, sisters, parents and children to a foreign land where there is a chance they will never come home? Why, even though we live in a country where for decade after decade we have been constantly lied to by people who are supposed to represent us, do we continue to vote for the same political parties? It defies logic, it defies belief and it suggests there are other factors at play.
Whilst many would like to believe that they are not being brainwashed by politicians or the news, evidence would suggest the contrary. Psychopolitics is far from a new phenomenon, and the word technically exists, but it has been shrouded from public view, resulting in the public never analysing a political parties psychological techniques it employs in order to gain a vote. Psychopolitics was a technique implemented by Russian agents in America during the Cold War, and Cold War logic often dictates, whatever the Russians have available to them, the Americans must have too.
Whilst many, if not most, of the population are either sceptical or unaware of Psychopolitics, to gauge their effect, all that you have to do is look back to recent elections. The Conservatives campaign slogan in their successful 2010 election bid was “Vote for Change”. This is an instruction. Telling you simply and purely not to vote for Labour, and with Conservatives being their own true competitor, who are you going to vote for? Think about the effect this had on voters who had yet to choose their political allegiance, everywhere they go they are instructed to “Vote for Change”. Now if we look at Obama’s campaign, one of his slogans was “Change we can believe in”, effectively telling the population that they believe in him.
Both of these campaigns were successful and both made particular use of the word “Change”. Dictionary.com defines Brainwashing as “any method of controlled systematic indoctrination; especially one based on repetition or confusion”. So by repeating the word “change” for month upon month, have we been brainwashed into voting for a party we otherwise wouldn’t?
There is a simple answer to that question, look at both America and England today. Obama is less popular than ever, despite eliminating America’s number 1 enemy. While the Conservatives are despised by vast numbers of people, including ones who voted for them. People have woken up to the reality of who they voted for and what they actually stood for. It’s fair to say that many people didn’t really understand what either Obama or the Conservatives actually stood for, after all, politics is unfashionable and many people aren’t actually interested in it, despite it dictating every moment of your waking life. However, if wherever you go you see billboards/posters/leaflets telling you “CHANGE”, eventually you’ll start believing it. A lie told often and convincingly enough becomes true.
We’re living in an era where Psychopolitics play just as great a role in elections as policies themselves, and this is catastrophically dangerous. If we leave our countries in the hands of whoever can formulate the best advertising campaign, how long will it be until Ronald McDonald is sat in the White House or stood outside 10 Downing Street?
Imagine, a world where you can no longer be certain whether what you are seeing is real or an object placed in your vision, it’s a concept which is terrifying, to have reality put in a permanent state of limbo, a world called Project Glass, aka augmented reality eyeglasses, aka a computer in your eye, are you scared yet?
Project Glass is one of the scariest things I have ever seen, and in a world full of predator drones, cancers and pollution, that‘s not something one can say lightly. Whilst some of this fear undoubtedly stems from the obvious parallels between the project and the likes of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, Orwell’s 1984 and Zamyatin’s We, the majority of the fear stems from the true reality of the product. Whilst we have happily surrendered our privacy to corporations and governments through our continued indifference to how our every movement can be tracked through our mobile phones, whilst every waking thought can be followed through twitter and every question we have about, well, anything can be found in our internet history, we have yet to surrender our mind to the greed-driven bougiouse sitting counting their ever expanding piles of cash. It’s one thing to have a record of what someone has willingly entered into a computer, but to actually have the power to look straight into someone’s entire life is currently beyond the corporations and governments. Project Glass has the potential to change this.
Whilst for most people, the only information the likes of Google have on their soul and personality is their sexual fetishes they love to “Google” on a lonely night in/day at work, Project Glass would allow Google to see your world, saving every fragment of information; whether it be the subway sign, or the poster on your wall, the book you’re reading, your sleep pattern, the reaction when you see our governments launching us into yet more wars and the anger when its all too clear that the media is just spinning up lie upon lie. In the past, the likes of the Gestapo had a fairly difficult job in finding people who opposed a tyrannic system, yet despite what History has shown us, through the endless stream of vicious, mad leaders, we’ve sleepwalked into oblivion, we’ve fooled ourselves into believing we live in a “Democratic” society, we’ve allowed men who speak for their own profit to soar to prominence, whilst the majority of people exercise sheer indifference, failing to realise how important these issues are on their lives. (http://cynicon-the-left.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/threat-of-indifference.html a great blog on the issue of indifference)
These leaders do not speak for us and given the opportunity, I have little doubt that they would happily remove anyone who threatened their continued success. An action which Project Glass could facilitate nicely for. To quote Bradbury “”With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers, and swimmers instead of examiners, critics, knowers, and imaginative creators, the word `intellectual,’ of course, became the swear word it deserved to be. You always dread the unfamiliar.”
Our society is travelling towards a junction. We are faced with one important question. “Do we carry on, or do we escape this path we seem set to follow?”. We’re no longer travelling to dystopia, we entered dystopia a long way back, dystopia is now what we call home. We’re now travelling to a world in which we have no control, where our very sight can be altered. Imagine if Orwell or Marx had seen this, a machine which can distort your vision and show images that aren’t physically there. Take a moment to consider just how terrifying that is. It’s one thing to have a record of your internet searches, but to actually change the way a person see’s the world is morally and ethically irresponsible. With virus’s still riddling modern technology, how can the likes of Google think it is responsible to create a product where a virus could alter the mindset of the entire population?
Project Glass has the potential to revolutionise our world, to compliment our already soaring intelligence. But are we ready for a machine like this? If you turn on your television you will be met with either pictures of war, famine and evil, or another banal figment of fiction to distract you from your struggles. We see politicians being bought by media moguls, we see newspapers fabricating lies to enhance profits and we see men and women in jail for crimes they committed in virtual worlds.
As a specie we are young, and with our youth comes inexperience and with inexperience comes mistakes. Mistakes which could plunge us into a position of misery. To quote Chaplin, “greed has poisoned mens souls”, we live in a world where millions can’t afford to live, yet corporations like Google siphon wealth from all corners of the globe at the expense of the vast majority so just a few men can enjoy more money than they could ever possibly spend.
Do you want these men to know everything about you? Do you want them to alter how you see and interpret the world? Do you want a machine which can force you to see and believe things which aren’t true to control your life?
You may say, “it’s fine, I just won’t buy it”, like many people said about the television, the computer and countless other inventions which were met initially with suspicion. However, these items have become so engrained in modern life they become essential and before you know it, you’ll be seeing things that aren’t really there.
Welcome to Airstrip 1, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.