You might be a propaganda victim if…

You agree with what the talking heads in the corporate media are saying.

You think the educational system is about education.

You think Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly want what’s best for America.

You think capitalism is all about working hard.

You think without capitalism everyone would sit around and get high, like Cheech and Chong.

You think free markets lead to a utopia.

You think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are sincere.

You think Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee are sincere.

You think police officers are there to protect you.

You think corporations should be private because it’s nobody’s business what they do.

You think corporate lobbyists are just fine because “it’s their money and they should do with it as they please”.

You think poor people are lazy.

You think people starving to death is fine because “those who are dying deserve to die”.

You think the American military liberates the people of other countries and brings them “democracy and freedom”.

You call desperate, hungry people in a flooded city who loot stores to survive “scum” and say they should be “shot on sight”.

You think George W. Bush is a noble cowboy who wants to protect Americans from terrorists.

You think Dick Cheney is grim because he takes the task of saving America so seriously.

You think the Democrats in congress will save America, so you voted for them in 2006.

You think you can change the system from within.

You think George Orwell had mental problems and Noam Chomsky is a “bleeding heart”.

You think Oprah Winfrey is wonderful, and deserves her fortune.

You think most people in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere are terrorists and deserve their torture.

You think anyone who criticizes the policies of the Israeli government is an anti-semite.

You think anyone who criticizes the Neoconservative commander-in-chief at a time of Neoconservative war is a terrorist sympathizer, or maybe a terrorist.

You think anyone who criticizes capitalism needs to work more hours – they obviously have too much time on their hands.

You think Judge Judy is on TV in order to give good advice, and Jerry Springer is just showing us real Americans.

You think Dana Perino’s constant condescension is because the press is so silly and deserving of it.

You think American Idol is the true face of America.

You think Bill Kristol is a liberal mugged by reality, instead of a sad empty man mugged by ideology.

You think Fox News is the antidote to the liberal media.

You think reality TV shows are about reality.

You think the War on Terror is about fighting terror.

You think TV executives make the decisions they do primarily out of the profit motive.

You think Milton Friedman is a hero.

You think Ronald Reagan is a hero who ended Communism.

You think everything would be just fine if government got out of the way and allowed businesses to do as they pleased.

You like Disney movies because they evoke a “simpler” time.

You like the funny sidekick in films because the hero always needs someone to amuse him and play second fiddle.

You think Disney is about entertaining children.

You think the Disney-themed town is wonderful, safe, and “the way America should be”.

You think people are worth as much as their paycheck plus their wealth.

You call this blog entry “bullshit”.

11 Responses to “You might be a propaganda victim if…”

  1. mad dog Says:

    “You agree with what the talking heads in the corporate media are saying.” — agreed

    “You think the educational system is about education.” — agreed. It is about indoctrination. It is about turning citizens into subservient workers for big corporations, especially those with close ties to government.

    “You think Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly want what’s best for America.” — Rush Limbaugh wants whats best for himself. If he really cared about Conservatism, he would have endorsed Ron Paul long ago. I bet he would rather have Hillary win, just so he can get some attention by criticizing her.

    “You think capitalism is all about working hard.” — It’s really about letting people make their own decisions with their lives, and not having politicians or bureaucrats bully them around.

    “You think without capitalism everyone would sit around and get high, like Cheech and Chong.” — In many cases, they would actually work harder, out of fear of severe punishment.

    “You think free markets lead to a utopia.” — Nope. No Libertarian or free marketeer says this. They only say that Utopia is not possible. Since Utopia is not achievable by any means, why push people around? Why not just let them live their lives?

    “You think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are sincere.” — agreed.

    “You think Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee are sincere.” — agreed. HA HA HA

    “You think police officers are there to protect you.” — They are there to serve the interests of government first and foremost. The people come second.

    “You think corporations should be private because it’s nobody’s business what they do.” — What about small businesses and non-corporate medium sized businesses?

    “You think corporate lobbyists are just fine because “it’s their money and they should do with it as they please”.” — agreed

    “You think poor people are lazy.” — only sometimes. Other times, they have bad habits, are ex-convicts, are immigrants, got a shitty education, were not raised properly, have serious handicaps, victims of unfortunate circumstances, or any combination of the above

    “You think people starving to death is fine because “those who are dying deserve to die”.” — No one thinks this. They only want people to be able to depend on themselves. Does a father expect to feed his child all his life, or does he expect the child to eventually take care of him/herself.

    “You think the American military liberates the people of other countries and brings them “democracy and freedom”.” — Right on the money. Ron Paul 2008!

    “You call desperate, hungry people in a flooded city who loot stores to survive “scum” and say they should be “shot on sight”.” — Those people had every opportunity to leave. But a lot of the folks down there were quite stubborn and refused.

    “You think George W. Bush is a noble cowboy who wants to protect Americans from terrorists.” — agreed

    “You think Dick Cheney is grim because he takes the task of saving America so seriously.” — agreed

    “You think the Democrats in congress will save America, so you voted for them in 2006.” — I don’t think this anymore

    “You think you can change the system from within.” — you might be right

    “You think George Orwell had mental problems and Noam Chomsky is a “bleeding heart”.” — If you like George Orwell, you should remember that he was a serious critic against socialism.

    “You think Oprah Winfrey is wonderful, and deserves her fortune.” — she’s actually boring, self-righteous and corny.

    “You think most people in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere are terrorists and deserve their torture.” — agreed

    “You think anyone who criticizes the policies of the Israeli government is an anti-semite.” — Agreed. *cough* Michael Medved *cough* William Kristol *cough* Leonard Piekoff *cough* Glen Beck *cough*

    “You think anyone who criticizes the Neoconservative commander-in-chief at a time of Neoconservative war is a terrorist sympathizer, or maybe a terrorist.” — agreed

    “You think anyone who criticizes capitalism needs to work more hours – they obviously have too much time on their hands.” — nah, just read things from economists points of view

    “You think Judge Judy is on TV in order to give good advice, and Jerry Springer is just showing us real Americans.” — More like showing us the bottom of the barrel

    “You think American Idol is the true face of America.” — I was thinking more along the lines of ’50 cent’

    “You think Bill Kristol is a liberal mugged by reality, instead of a sad empty man mugged by ideology.” — I think he is a closet communist mugged by Israel

    “You think Fox News is the antidote to the liberal media.” — Agreed. Rupert Murdoch is actually a Liberal.

    “You think reality TV shows are about reality.” — They are actually just game shows with shiny new ‘Reality’ packaging.

    “You think the War on Terror is about fighting terror.” — It seems to be more about CAUSING terror

    “You think TV executives make the decisions they do primarily out of the profit motive.” — I think ‘ratings’ would be a more accurate motive

    “You think Milton Friedman is a hero.” — I’ll take him over the democrats, marxists, keynesians and the other republicans (except Ron Paul) any day of the week. But yeah, Rothbard was more sincere, as well as more knowlegable.

    “You think Ronald Reagan is a hero who ended Communism.” — Ronald Reagan was a pretend Libertarian who betrayed everything he claimed to have stood for.

    “You think everything would be just fine if government got out of the way and allowed businesses to do as they pleased.” — Not completely, maybe just 50 to 75%.

    “You like Disney movies because they evoke a “simpler” time.” — Agreed somewhat. I think a more accurate criticism would be that the person prefers them in order to escape reality.

    “You like the funny sidekick in films because the hero always needs someone to amuse him and play second fiddle.” — ?

    “You think Disney is about entertaining children.” — Only for a profit

    “You think the Disney-themed town is wonderful, safe, and “the way America should be”.” — ??? Are you saying that Disney World is actually a dangerous haven for gangsters and terrorists?

    “You think people are worth as much as their paycheck plus their wealth.” — What people are worth is quite subjective, all based on perspective

    “You call this blog entry “bullshit”.” — Getting a bit pretentious there.

  2. briankoontz Says:

    “You think the Disney-themed town is wonderful, safe, and “the way America should be”.” — ??? Are you saying that Disney World is actually a dangerous haven for gangsters and terrorists?

    I’m referring to the town in Florida (with a road that leads to Disney World) called Celebration.

    http://www.celebrationtowncenter.com/ee/

    Disney offers a sanitized version of history, where America is happy, peaceful, and loving. The extent to which people long for that fantasy gives Disney it’s power.

  3. mad dog Says:

    Sounds like something from ‘Brave New World’.

  4. briankoontz Says:

    No, the people don’t come second with police officers. However, it’s in the interest of the state to serve the needs of it’s subjects, just like it’s in the interests of corporations to serve the needs of it’s customers or it was in the interests of kings to serve the needs of serfs. It’s very inefficient and bad for business to enslave everyone. Look at how expensive the prison system is to maintain. It’s a lot more effective to have a soft cage where citizens are “free” unless they do something that bothers the state. Kings did, for example, protect their serfs (to some extent) from invading armies. They did so not “because the serfs came second” but because the serfs were valuable to them (they produced the food that fed the king’s army, for example) and therefore it was in the king’s interest to keep them alive and operational but also entirely under his control.

    If any one of those serfs had threatened in any way the king, the king would of course have killed and/or tortured the serf without thinking twice about it. Only if at least a large number of serfs rose up together did they have a chance against the king, and even then many of the serfs were killed (with writers playing along by ignoring the event and hence not being killed themselves) prior to the king changing in any way his behavior toward them. You know how Hollywood portrays kings? Forget all that.

    We are not free people in the United States. We just like to think we are. We exist not in a hard cage of gray walls, stale bread, and iron bars, or an all-white soundless cage of electric shocks, bruising, and insanity, although many of us do exist in one of those places. The rest of us know that those places lie in wait for us, like a shark in the ocean or a snake in the jungle, and we know or at least can estimate the behavior we might undertake in order to arrive there. It’s US, the ones in the soft cage, who are the most terrorized of all. Because unlike those in the gray or white cage, we have the most to lose. We have our many colors, our many pleasures, our manufactured needs. It’s the state’s goal to provide us with all that we want: “Life, Liberty, and Happiness” after all not in order to make our lives good but in order to make taking all of that away all the more painful. That’s how a small set of elite thieves (the state) controls a vast population.

    That’s why during the 1950s in America the population was at it’s most brainwashed state. Those were the glory years of the American economy, there was a lot of “life, liberty, and happiness” going around, and people knew that *therefore* they had to behave the state particularly well, because otherwise a gray cell (there weren’t white cells back then) awaited them.

    That’s why we’re seeing more and more clarity from the American people today. It’s not that Americans are smarter than they used to be, it’s not that they are wiser, or more knowledgeable. It’s that they are being mistreated, therefore the gap of difference is narrowing between life in the soft cage and life in the hard one, therefore they are seeing less and less *reason* to obey the state.

    This is why Chomsky is correct, and the existence of the state is *never* justified, even the relatively benign state of the New Deal (benign except to racial minorities). Living in a state is always living in a state of terror, an invisible terror that lives in your bones so it doesn’t need to live in your mind.

    That’s why the Neoconservatives are socialists. If you’re a believer in Capitalism you want the New Deal because it makes the population happy, and a happy people is a successfully terrorized one. The best way to doom capitalism is under a capitalist system to make the soft cage indistinguishable from the hard one. Then you’ve lost the control mechanism of your subjects obeying you in order to not be moved from one to the other cell.

    This is why, in turn, the white cell was necessary and formed a core basis for the Neoconservatives. They recognized that they would be merging the two cells (soft and gray) so they needed to invent a new cell to give them additional control over the population. This is the real reason behind torture – to control the subjects. It’s never those being tortured who are being controlled, it’s those who are aware of torture taking place and who are unable to stop it who modify their own behavior in view of the possibility that they will go to the white cell, from which they will never leave intact. It’s what keeps the serfs tending their fields and giving most of it to the king. It’s what keeps slaves ignoring me or calling me a “troublemaker”.

    When they shifted from the gray cell control mechanism of the New Deal to the white cell one of Neoconservatism, the entire population suffered a degradation in their quality of life. It affected the whole country, and is the beginning of the end of American culture. THAT is why we are living in a state of spiritual darkness today, and that that state began in the 1970s with the rise of the Neoconservatives and their white rooms. As a more articulate Travis Bickle might say, “We are all taxi drivers now”.

    Before you return to your relatively happy life, consider life in a ghetto. Due to the poverty the food is bad (in some cases being stale bread). Just like life in a gray cell, one has a reasonable chance of being the victim of violence. About the only advantage living in the ghetto has is hope. Oh, wait… centuries of oppression against blacks throws that out the window.

    So for blacks to come to the understanding that there is minimal difference between a gray cell and a soft one is for the state to lose their control mechanism over the behavior of blacks. At that point the state has two choices – either change themselves to no longer oppress blacks and therefore improve the quality of the soft cell and reinstate the control mechanism of the gray cell or invent a new, worse cell. Voila, the rise of torture. It’s probably coincidental, but certainly darkly amusing, that the cell is all-white.

  5. mad dog Says:

    What I meant was is that police officers tend to be servants of the mayor and other local politicians first. After that, they tend to be quite obedient of middle-aged and elderly people, especially if they have money. In the eyes of the police, teenagers, black people, mexicans and immigrants are at the bottom of the food chain. They police have the least amount of respect for these people.

    I am no friend to any king, queen, prince, princess, emperor, pope, sultan, etc. , alive or dead. I am unfooled by any myths of noble aristocrats. They are fine examples of what happens when one achieves too much political power. Unfortunately, there are too many saps who think that giving a few people as much power as possible is the solution to life’s problems.

    I agree that we are not free in the USA, but this line starts off with a bad premise: “It’s the state’s goal to provide us with all that we want: “Life, Liberty, and Happiness” after all not in order to make our lives good but in order to make taking all of that away all the more painful.”

    You seem to think that freedom is provided by government. No such thing is possible. Real freedom is to trust no one enough to provide the majority of your needs. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not a set of laws that bind the people, rather, they are a set of laws which bind GOVERNMENT. The founding fathers correctly predicted that if government were to overstep those basic bounds, that it would become tyrannical. It is as if they had crystal balls.

    I don’t want the New Deal. The New Deal was an economic disaster. It prolonged the depression rather than curing it. To top it off, FDR modeled his ideas after Stalin. I would not care if it makes the people happy. It would only prove that they are ignorant and naively trusting of government.

    The idea that the 1950’s was some golden age of capitalism is a myth. It was highly socialistic and Keynesian. It also happened to be an era of extreme conformity. The 50’s has very little for me. However, there was a decent amount of manufacturing, innovation and increasing wealth. Eisenhower was perhaps one of the last decent (but not good) presidents of the United States.

    “THAT is why we are living in a state of spiritual darkness today, and that that state began in the 1970s with the rise of the Neoconservatives and their white rooms.”

    The spiritual darkness is a symptom of the destruction of freedom, and the widespread apathy towards it.

    When blacks understand that the state cannot save them, and that the only escape is self-reliance and willful cooperation with their fellow brethren, then things might begin to improve.

  6. briankoontz Says:

    The state is shaped by the people in the absence of the people having direct power. The government is trusted to the extent that it is controlled.

    How do you figure that the New Deal prolonged the depression? Kindly reply with facts rather than rhetoric. I’ve heard decades-worth of Libertarian Right rhetoric – enough to last a lifetime.

  7. briankoontz Says:

    “What I meant was is that police officers tend to be servants of the mayor and other local politicians first. After that, they tend to be quite obedient of middle-aged and elderly people, especially if they have money. In the eyes of the police, teenagers, black people, mexicans and immigrants are at the bottom of the food chain. They police have the least amount of respect for these people.”

    That’s false. Oppression isn’t about a lack of respect, it’s about control, power, theft, and subjugation. For the police to “respect” you isn’t a sign of their respect, it’s a sign that they don’t identify you as someone they have to oppress. It’s a sign of your own position within the hierarchy of power.

    The police are the first line of genocide – they are the ones who keep oppressed people “in line” so that they don’t threaten the power structure. Oppression always ends with genocide, because people never accept subjugation. Oppressors prefer oppression to genocide in cases where it is more profitable, as it often is. Also, genocide takes many forms. The african culture in black chattel slaves was nearly destroyed – the point was to weaken slaves so that they would be more fully subjugated and therefore more amenable to long term exploitation. Of course, this was only one *more* heinous war crime which in turn made blacks all the angrier and less amenable to simple oppression, which in turn made the white elite seek to commit further genocide, etc. War is always a cycle. The white torture rooms are just the latest ploy in control, domination, and genocide.

    “I am no friend to any king, queen, prince, princess, emperor, pope, sultan, etc. , alive or dead. I am unfooled by any myths of noble aristocrats. They are fine examples of what happens when one achieves too much political power. Unfortunately, there are too many saps who think that giving a few people as much power as possible is the solution to life’s problems.”

    Power isn’t “achieved”. Most people don’t want power over other people. Most people want to live in symbiosis with the world, including other people. We aren’t angry at kings because we are resentful, but because kings by definition are abusive and monstrous. The ones people sometimes call “good kings” are only good because they don’t kill as many serfs as “bad kings”, or they have better policies. It’s like saying Saddam Hussein is better than George W. Bush because he only killed hundreds of thousands of people and oppressed tens of millions instead of killing millions of people and oppressing billions. It might well be true that Hussein is better but what’s much better yet is for none of the institutions to exist that give rise to monsters like Bush and Hussein. Make a monstrous institution and a monster will fill it.

    The only real solution is when the world develops to the point where people cannot seize and maintain the kind of power that Bush wields and Hussein wielded. A world utterly without kings, without royalty, without celebrity, where those who wield specific power are controlled by the people.

  8. mad dog Says:

    Regarding the New Deal:

    – Because FDR had thought that the lowering prices were the cause of the depression, rather than the other way around (which was reality), he implemented price

    controls to artificially increase the price of goods, especially food and farm products. This, of course, increased the cost of living and created artificial

    shortages.
    – The NRA (National Recovery Administration, not those gun guys) implemented stricter controls for businesses, and imposed higher fees. This had an effect of

    cartelization, meaning that many smaller businesses went bankrupt, because they were unable to deal with the costs of the new legislation. This, of course,

    left behind the wealthier big businesses. Fewer businesses around means less competition.
    – The cartelization of business under FDR was said to be a major boost, if not an outright start for coporatism:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Deal_and_corporatism
    – FDR concentrated most of his benefits in states where his support was fairly weak or lukewarm, a strong indication that he did what he did to buy votes
    – FDR’s responses to economic shortcomings was “need to try something”

    – The First 100 days:
    The First Hundred Days

    At the beginning of his administration, Roosevelt convened Congress in a special session and launched the New Deal with an avalanche of bills. Historians refer

    to this period as the “Hundred Days.” Roosevelt introduced a new notion of the presidency whereby the president, not Congress, was the legislative leader. Most

    of the bills he proposed set up new government agencies, called the “alphabet soup” agencies because of their array of acronyms.

    AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act)
    Designed to help American farmers by stabilizing prices and limiting overproduction, the AAA initiated the first direct subsidies to farmers who did not plant

    crops. The United States Supreme Court later declared the AAA unconstitutional and an unnecessary invasion of private property rights.

    CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps)
    A public works project, operated under the control of the army, which was designed to promote environmental conservation while getting young, unemployed men off

    city street corners. Recruits planted trees, built wildlife shelters, stocked rivers and lakes with fish, and cleared beaches and campgrounds. The CCC housed

    the young men in tents and barracks, gave them three square meals a day, and paid them a small stipend. The army’s experience in managing and training large

    numbers of civilians would prove invaluable in WWII. Wisconsin was a beneficiary of the CCC; one of the organizations many local projects was trail construction

    at Devil’s Lake State Park.

    TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)
    One of the most ambitious and controversial New Deal projects, the TVA proposed building dams and power plants along the Tennessee River to bring electric power

    to rural areas in seven states. Although the TVA provided many Americans with electricity for the first time and provided jobs to thousands of unemployed

    construction workers, the program outraged many private power companies.

    NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Act)
    The NIRA established the NRA (National Recovery Administration) to stimulate production and competition by having American industries set up a series of codes

    designed to regulate prices, industrial output, and general trade practices. The federal government, in turn, would agree to enforce these codes. In return for

    their cooperation, federal officials promised to suspend anti-trust legislation. Section 7A of the NIRA recognized the rights of labor to organize and to have

    collective bargaining with management. The NIRA was the most controversial piece of legislation to come out of the Hundred Days and many of its opponents

    charged it with being un-American, socialist, even communist, even though it did not violate the sanctity of private property or alter the American wage system.

    Within two years, the Supreme Court declared the NIRA unconstitutional.

    – After 5 years of New Deal implementation in 1937, there was a recession (in comparison to previous years)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Recession_of_1937

    – After 7 years of New Deal implementation in 1939, the following had occured:

    — Real Gross Domestic Product Per Adult went from 39% below trend in 1933 only improved by 12% to 275 below trend
    — the unemployment rate only went down from 25% to 17.2%, after extensive economic manipulation by the Roosevelt Administration
    — the per capita GDP (or average income of each person) actually LOWERED, from $857 dollars in 1932 to $847 dollars
    — yet, personal consumption expenditures went UP, from $67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion, which meant that people were paying more for necessities using less

    money
    — net private investment went down by $3.1 billion from 1930 to 1940

    Other references:

    http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/23.2/gillman.html
    http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=176
    http://libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/us-the-new-deal.html
    http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515

  9. mad dog Says:

    “That’s false. Oppression isn’t about a lack of respect, it’s about control, power, theft, and subjugation.”

    People do not oppress others that they respect. They always have a low opinion of their victims. I think the rest of your criticism here is basically just rewording what I said, but trying to make it look as though you what you just said was different. Kinda reminds me of how Romney and McCain try to prove how different they are from each other on Iraq, despite being 98% identical with that issue.

    “Power isn’t “achieved”. Most people don’t want power over other people. Most people want to live in symbiosis with the world, including other people. We aren’t angry at kings because we are resentful, but because kings by definition are abusive and monstrous.”

    I am no friend of power, nor was I trying to imply such. The only power that I propose that a person should have is over his/her own life, plus what ever power people voluntarily entrust to another. Even in that circumstance (entrusted power), I feel that it should be kept to a minimum.

  10. briankoontz Says:

    Respect is an outcome of a relationship, not a cause of it. The same goes for hate, and perhaps all other emotions (such as love).

    What you’re saying is wrong about respect and oppression. I suspect if you replace “respect” with “don’t sufficiently fear” that would be right. People do not oppress others that they sufficiently fear. It’s always the socially weak who are oppressed. That’s why Jews have received such sustained oppression over the centuries, not because they “aren’t respected”. Additionally, that’s why Jews are so comfortable in the United States, because the U.S. has blacks and hispanics to abuse so the Jews are no longer needed for that purpose.

    If oppression is successful it forms the first stage in genocide. The point of oppression is to weaken a group and make them easier to control, whether that control takes the form of slavery or killing.

    Oppression, terrorism, and slavery/war are different points on the same line – a line that always serves the purpose of theft, subjugation, and exploitation.

  11. briankoontz Says:

    Here’s an example of your use of “respect”:

    In the 1980s the Mujahideen (Arab fighters) were trained by the CIA and the ISI to fight the Soviets.

    Now the CIA (and the American government as a whole) is fighting the Taliban, who are what the Mujahideen turned into.

    If this war against the Taliban becomes intense enough, the American government will “hate” the Taliban, just like they hate the Iraqi insurgents, with names like camel-rider and towel-head.

    So, again, hatred, love, respect, and all other emotions, are outcomes of relationships. Hatred makes killing more pleasurable. Love makes kindness more pleasurable. Respect makes friendship more pleasurable.

    Take a look at the German people’s relationship to Jews for an example. They “hated” the Jews during WWII. In other words, they hated the Jews to make it easier for them to steal from and subjugate the Jews (and finally, then, exterminate them). After WWII they magically “no longer hated” the Jews, which is to say their relationship changed such that hatred was no longer a useful outcome, and hence no longer occurred.

    So here’s how emotion works:

    Oppressor seeks additional wealth. Oppressor finds possible victim. Oppressor implements the first stages of oppression (name-calling, light oppression). Oppressor is failed to be stopped. Oppressor “loses respect” for the victim. Oppression escalates (light theft, additional psychological abuse). If again the oppressor is not stopped, the emotional outcome is darker, more abusive. Eventually the emotional outcome is hatred. Enough cycles of this and the final result is slavery and/or killing.

    At the beginning there is no emotion whatsoever. All there is is a desire for additional wealth and power. Then the victim is selected, and the rest is history.

    Emotions are very useful in determining the status of a relationship. For example, to see the hatred of American soldiers for Iraqis and Iraqi insurgents for American soldiers is to see the guns in their hands and the blood on the street. But again, that emotion is an outcome of the social structure in which killing is taking place, not the cause of it.

    Or take such a misunderstood thing as love. People rarely love each other prior to having sex (despite elite propaganda to the contrary), but often love each other after having sex. Sex denotes a change in the relationship and *therefore* a change in the emotional outcome of that relationship.

    The complexity and ambiguity of emotion is based on the complexity and ambiguity of relationships themselves. So for example an American soldier might weep after killing an Iraqi civilian, and the next day after his friend is killed go on a hatred-spewing rampage of mass killing. Ignorant humans would call this “contradictory”, but that’s false. He simultaneously cares for and hates Iraqis and depending on specific circumstances one or the other (or occasionally both) emotions surface.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: