Letters From Facebook Jail: Day 12

“As some Frenchman has said, ‘The stairway of time is ever echoing with the wooden shoe going up, the polished boot descending.’” -Jack London

The story of humanity is no different from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is the story of evolution. And evolution typically occurs at a pace so slow as to be unobservable by the ephemeral human being. It is human nature to desire that progress will come swiftly, so that the lifespan of a human can observe the entire story. But in truth we are individually only able to witness a brief chapter. Only the very wisest are able to see beyond the current events and characters of the day and catch glimpses of the overarching narrative. We call them prophets, philosophers, spiritual leaders. By heeding their words, and acting in faith that our behavior matters, we play our part in helping humanity towards a brighter day.

We are continually frustrated by the slow march of progress, so much so that we attempt to rush it, force our naïve and simplistic ideas of progress upon a world that is indifferent to our desires. We invest our emotions in convenient and simplistic movements, and turn to despair when they have not led us to the promised land. Or worse, we resort to violence in the hope that we might force the pieces into place. But to use violence to make the pieces fit is to hack at the pieces to make them unnaturally conform to our simplistic view of the world. It does not place the pieces where they are supposed to be and only makes the overall picture more chaotic and ugly. Not to mention the damage done to the individual pieces.

Nevertheless, we evolve. Those who cry out against the injustices of today are quick to point out that the conditions of slavery and tyranny still exist, merely under a different name, a different narrative. And they are of course right, but they ignore the bigger picture.

The staircase upon which the wooden shoe ascends and the polished boot descends is a spiral staircase. So that as we struggle to climb upwards we often find ourselves in the same spot we were before we began our efforts. We do not always see our progress, and indeed our progress does not always proceed in a straight line. Our progress is not always as undeniable as we would like it to be because the battle we wage is an existential one. The enemy we face is ignorance, and any pause in our fight against it leads to relapse.

It is our belief that we can go to war against the enemies of humanity and evolution and put a simple end to them. It does not work that way and never has. It is like going to war against the tide and declaring victory when it recedes. The battle is timeless.

It is only when we realize how vast the battle is, how insignificant our individual struggles and sacrifices are, that we can play our greatest part in a human evolution that began with the simplest single-cell life and may yet grow to what the ancients called the promised land. The sacrifices we make and must make will appear futile to us until we realize how immense and beautiful is the story of which we are a part. There are no star roles, but there are ample opportunities to make your mark. Divinity, like the devil, is in the details.

We are in a moment now that seems to be returning us to past examples of ourselves we had hoped to have left for good. But by obsessing over our fears, we neglect the opportunities that now present themselves that never existed before.

Social media is one such opportunity. Social media has allowed true grass roots leaders to emerge. On a personal level, any artist or thinker in the last twenty years who has gained my attention has done so through social media and the online communities that are interested in promoting new ideas, new voices, new art, and new ways of viewing the world. As the printed word once enabled humanity to share thoughts across vast geographical areas and vast stretches of time, so too does social media permit humans to spread ideas in ways that were previously unthinkable. As the printing press enabled thoughts and perspectives to spread out not merely to the elite but to the average person, the internet places such opportunities in nearly everyone's hands.

But as I have mentioned, the evolutionary struggle is an existential one. Just as those who wish to do away with primitive and violent means of organizing society work towards progress, those who desire to rule through force seek to control the means of communication. Censorship is nothing new, it is amply evident throughout history. But humanity’s desire for progress has historically been greater than its fear of where it would lead. Social media has always been more or less under the control of the elite, but they are becoming increasingly aware of the dangers that social media presents to them. They will do what they can, as people who desire to wield power over the masses have always done, to maintain control over what opinions and attitudes are available to the people whose approval is needed for their continued grip on wealth and power. I do not expect them to succeed in suppressing this newest method of transmitting information any more than they did when they tried destroying printing presses. But neither am I so naive as to believe that the struggle for progress will come easily or once and for all. Evolution, after all, is a struggle for the survival of the species. We need to be aware of that, and that is not an idea that the shapers of public opinion are eager to share with you.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Letters From Facebook Jail: Day 11

Nearly two centuries ago, Charles Mackay wrote a book called The Madness Of Crowds, which described the way crowds are capable of falling prey to manias, fads, and the leadership of demagogues who persuade them to commit to the most absurd ideas.

It is undeniable the depths of folly to which unthinking mobs of people can fall. The Salem Witch Trials, The Red Scares, and every major market bubble stand as testaments to groups of people surrendering their individual common sense to the momentum of a mob that seems to move in an unthinking fashion. The fact that Mackay’s book has been in publication for so long shows how aware we are of this flaw.

A book that is less well known is James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom Of Crowds, published in 2004. This book could not have been written much earlier in history because the world was not ready to latch onto the idea he puts forth. To quote from the dustcover, “James Surowiecki explores a deceptively simple idea: Large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant—better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future.”

This is a rather radical notion to even conceive of, that the masses are better at guiding society than an elite few. The history of civilizations is one of great people guiding their nations through important moments. It was not until Howard Zinn published A People’s History Of The United States that someone was willing to put forth the idea that history should deal with the lives and interests of the ordinary people. Nearly every society that has existed with a written language has been one with a hierarchical structure. Although monarchy and aristocracy were gotten rid of by the American Revolution, the unconscious mindsets of long-ingrained ways of doing things were not so lightly tossed aside. It is hard to rid yourself of mindsets when you are not even conscious of them. Much of what influences the way humans behave occurs at the subconscious level.

Humans have evolved an intelligence beyond any other in the animal kingdom. But in possessing such an intelligence, and in identifying so closely with that self-aware intelligence, we tend to forget it did not replace the brain of evolutionary ancestors but more or less placed itself atop of more primitive aspects of our brains. Those less sophisticated, more primitive ways of relating to the outside world still not only function but have an integral role in the way we deal with others and with society at large.

It is hard to see it in ourselves, but we can see these other kinds of intelligence at work when we observe other species interacting or working together as a community. We are told that birds and fish have an incredible ability to find specific breeding grounds far away, we can watch a colony of ants working together without requiring managers or politicians, can see dogs learning about each other merely by sniffing one another. There is genuine intelligence, one might even say wisdom, in creatures far less sophisticated than ourselves. Here’s the thing: the animals themselves aren’t even aware of the way they are communicating one with another, could not explain the way their relationships and societies work. The only thing we need concern ourselves with here, is that they do.

And human beings behave in many of the same ways, communicating and giving instructions on sub-conscious levels. To read Desmond Morris’s The Naked Ape is to have the veneer of sophistication peeled away from our perception of ourselves in order to see how much we behave like our simian relatives.

There is a sophisticated way humans interact which we are for the most part unaware. And that’s okay. We need not understand it anymore than an ant or a salmon, we need only calmly observe as we let it do its thing.

This may sound like a mystical idea, and in a sense it is. Perhaps what people have referred to as mystical experience has been the tapping into this subconscious but genetically innate way of interacting with each other. And as can be seen in The Wisdom Of Crowds, science is increasingly discovering that large groups of people putting their two cents in on a given problem can actually predict outcomes or devise strategies better than even the greatest experts in a given field.

Which brings me back to the central focus of my thoughts on communication: social media and the need for open and honest conversation on the internet. While the science is not yet in on this relatively new line of study, the potential is great enough that this approach should be thoroughly explored. And the internet is an amazing new way for humanity to communicate with each other on a scale never before imagined. My personal experience has been that the ability of people to change the lives of others they have never met and who they live far from is nothing short of amazing. The internet has provided a way for individual people to ask a question of utmost importance to them to total strangers and have many caring people give useful and even life-changing advice.

But let us not forget the madness of crowds, which is an undeniable potential danger. There is much room for mischief when we speak online with unknown people. How can we tap into the wisdom of crowds while shielding ourselves from the madness of crowds? The difference between madness and wisdom is that madness is led by strong emotion, whereas wisdom exists in calmness and the feeling that you do not need to control things. Learn to recognize that when you are feeling strong emotions, you are most likely slipping into madness. Learn to understand that so long as you are able to detach yourself from turmoil, you leave yourself open to wisdom.

Closely associated with emotional thinking is ego. Perhaps the two are inseparable. So long as you feel the need to assert your ego into a conversation, your emotions will inevitably flair up. So long as you view a discussion as a battle to be won, and others as foes to be defeated, ego will be served.

Be aware not only when you feel emotion and ego within yourself but also when you spot it in the narratives of others.There are people, those driven by ego, who will attempt to make social media an extension of the hierarchical society that still exists today, a society that is an echo of the authoritarian, aristocratic, and monarchical past from which we are still freeing ourselves. 

Indeed, that is why the freedom of social media is under attack at this moment, because it presents a very fundamental threat to those who now rule in the place of those who were once kings and queens. It is not merely an intellectual argument against hierarchy, it hits deeply into the visceral, subconscious level of the power structure. Those that rule, which is to say, those who feel it is their right to sit above humanity as a whole, cannot help but feel threatened by that, and they will forcefully react against it. They will warn you against the madness of crowds. It is your job to find the wisdom that exists in the mass of humanity sharing their unique ideas, opinions, perspectives, and their desire to make things work. Remember, just like other societies of animals, we are biologically programmed to make the system work.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Letters From Facebook Jail: Day 10

How To Be A Force For Positive Change On Social Media

My nephew is an atmospheric scientist. Yes, I am bragging, but there is also a reason I bring this up. The other day I was involved in an online discussion with him and he expressed his frustration with the fake news that spreads faster than he and the scientific community can respond to. I not only agreed but have often felt the frustration of trying to stamp out lies and misinformation only to have someone ignore the evidence I’ve shared with them and simply pile another piece of misinformation on the discussion.

As someone who has spent his life studying weather (from a young child he kept a daily weather log), my nephew shows a remarkable amount of restraint and patience in discussing the subject of climate change. More than I could muster, I confess. But as it is me who is the one most loudly crying out against censorship, I thought it my duty to take his frustration into consideration. Which got me thinking about how the whole idea of free speech in the age of social media is supposed to work. Therefore I share below my ideas for how to most effectively spread truth, good will, and positive change through social media. While my nephew’s frustration was the genesis of this article, my suggestions are not directed at him but to a larger audience.

-First, accept that this is the task that is before you. You may consider yourself a scientist or a teacher, a poet or a naturalist, but whatever you are, you are involved in a propaganda war. It is your job to sidestep the propaganda of powerful interests in order to connect on a human level with others. This should not be the way things are, it should not be your job to make people aware of the narratives implanted in society in order to advance the agendas of powerful and selfish groups, but it’s reality. You have to get over the idea there’s some great truth-telling machine out there that is going to do the work for you. Only humans can connect with other humans on a truly human level. And don’t think it’s too hard or someone else will do the job, because it’s a job that must be done and you are an important part of creating a better future.

-Speak with whatever authority you possess. Everybody has some area of expertise in which they know more than the average person. I’ve been involved in plenty of climate change discussions where people who are not climate scientists nevertheless throw out all kinds of statistics I am not prepared to refute. But I’m fairly researched in the area of propaganda and marketing and will stick to this area when arguing science. The fact that energy manufacturers admitted in internal documents they knew their product was causing climate change is pretty damning evidence against climate change denial. At the bare minimum, you are a human being earnestly searching for truth in a respectful manner. This alone demands respect and decency from anyone you engage with, and puts you a step above those who are mere cogs in a corporate machine pushing a corporate agenda. Call people out whenever you hear them uncritically regurgitating talking points from corporate think tanks.

-Speak honestly. If you are disingenuous in your argument, even if you win a battle you will lose the war.

-Speak courageously. You must let people know the depth of your commitment to your cause(s).

-Speak lovingly. You’re on the side of the good guys, right? Good guys don’t hate. Good guys don’t want to “destroy” people in an argument, they want to build consensus.

-Refuse to accept that there is an “us” and a “them”. Again, you are on the side of the good guys, or so you say. Good guys believe that we can all get along by respecting one another and basic principles. Even if you believe some people can never get along, believe in the majority of humanity who will help keep them adhering to general norms of decency.

-Stick to issues, not people or parties.

-Make respectful conversation the norm. Do everything you can to elevate the conversation and convince people that real dialogue is not only possible but expected.

-Invest in everyone you have a conversation with, but know when it is time to cut your losses. In other words, let people know you will give a fair listen to their thoughts, but realize when they are not doing the same for you. Some people will sap every last ounce of energy from you without ever really listening to what you share with them. Seek to engage with people, but avoid coddling them. As it says in The Bible, “But whoever does not receive you, neither listens to your words, when you depart from the house or from the village, shake the sand from your feet.”

-Remember when engaging in conversation on social media that you have no idea who you might be reaching. I’ve had conservatives love something I’ve posted with liberals in mind and liberals love what I’ve posted with conservatives in mind. Give honest insight into any topic and there will be someone you’ve reached you were not reaching for.

-Remember that you are not only speaking for yourself but for those who have no voice of their own: those who are silenced through fear, those who are imprisoned, future generations, those who do not speak English. Only you can give voice to the trees, the animals, the Earth. Open yourself up so that they might speak through you.

-Speak through example. Some people will never be convinced by argument. They may, however, be swayed by the way you live according to your beliefs. If you argue that something must be done about climate change, you better be able to show what you are personally doing to combat climate change. The solution may not be through individual actions, but we must do what we can to eliminate any stumbling blocks others might encounter in our personal conduct.

-On a related note, if you are doing your part and making sacrifices to combat a problem, don’t be shy about sharing it. Let people know that you are doing your part and that it is necessary for others to do their part as well.

-If you are speaking from a very real and honest conviction, there is no shame in arguing from a position of strength. Use whatever skill you possess to put your case forward as convincingly as possible.

-When engaging in conversation, be always willing to learn. Realize that whatever you say is but a part of a larger conversation. Communication, at its best, is a melding of minds. Being able to lose yourself in a conversation is one of the great joys of being human. Whenever possible, bring that childlike part of you that engaged in late-night conversations with friends during sleepovers. Convert people to the joy of real, open, communication.

-Be aware of abusive behavior so that you do not fall into the traps of abusive people, mindsets, and institutions. Nobody believes they’re capable of being manipulated and bullied until it’s too late. Learn the signs. Much of the destructive narratives in society are there because of gaslighters.

-Educate yourself on logical fallacies and look for them being used.

Those are a few ideas for making communication through social media more productive and maybe even more pleasant. Just as there is a potential for madness in crowds, there is also a potential for genius. But I have 20 more days to go in my Facebook ban, so I will save that for another night.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Letter From Facebook Jail: Day 9

The Excuse For Censorship

No matter how convinced I am of a narrative, I always take time to listen to reasoned opinions and uncomfortable facts that run contrary to my convictions. If I did not take the time to do so, I’m afraid I would fall back on lazy and/or emotional thinking. Let your emotions take control of your ability to reason and you are in serious danger of being manipulated by others who are only too willing to feed the narrative that speaks to your emotional needs.

I bring this up because I am going to discuss the reason, or should I say excuse, used to justify a sweeping tide of censorship. In truth, as corporations and those who use the military to further their interests overseas grow more powerful, and internet communication between ordinary citizens has grown more sophisticated, the need for censorship was inevitable. There was just no way that the powers that be could continue to make life more unmanageable for the average person while increasing average person's ability to work with his fellow man/woman.

Those who control the narrative pushed it an amazingly long way through propaganda alone. By bringing out an articulate African American with style, they were able to extend the narrative for one last go round. In a lot of ways, simply knowing that we had elected a black president spoke to our beliefs in the innate goodness and unstoppable progress of our nation. Nobody else but Barack Obama could have pulled off eight years of Americans feeling good about themselves, while in real terms things were continuing to proceed in the way they had under George W. Bush. And Clinton. And Bush. And Reagan. The illusion of progress ended with Obama. With the narrative of progress played out, a new narrative of fear and outrage must be woven. And with fear and outrage would come the unfortunate but necessary call for censorship.

But first, an excuse would be required. 9/11 went a long way in forcing Americans to give up on ideas like privacy, but given that the Patriot Act was pushed by a Republican administration, a lot of Democrats were leery of assaults on our civil rights. And besides, freedom of speech had long been a main tenant of the liberal class, who fought against warning labels on music and proudly announced during National Banned Book Week that they were reading 1984 or Lolita. Something special would be required to have liberals cheering for censorship, something that would appeal to their fear and loathing rather than their intellect. Enter Donald Trump.

Donald Trump’s being elected president was not met with stoic acceptance by supporters of Hillary Clinton. Liberals were in no mood for self-reflection when it dawned on them that the American public, at least in the states that mattered, would rather reject the reliable running play up the middle and instead choose to try a Hail Mary pass to the receiver that was so incompetent that nobody bothered to guard him. When the bumbling oaf managed to hold onto the ball and take it over the goal line, nobody on the losing team was willing to accept that they lost fair and square.

Imagine it’s the Super Bowl, the other team comes from behind and scores at the last second, and you realize you will have to wait another year and go through all the agony of the season for you to even hope to get a chance to win the big game. You’re not exactly going to be in a rational state. Now imagine someone in the recall booth says the guy who caught the pass had his feet out of bounds. Does your heart not leap at the prospect?

Now imagine the anonymous guy in the replay booth tells you the guy’s feet were clearly out of bounds, and the only reason it was ruled a reception was that the guy who called it a touchdown was handed a big wad of cash from a Russian mobster. Are you going to call him a liar?

A lot of you people are going to want to believe, especially when The Fox Channel, who will be losing a lot of football fans now that the season is over, uncritically accepts what the guy in the booth is selling.

Never once will they show the replay, but that won’t matter to you. You know in your heart of hearts that you didn’t really lose that game, that you were too good and noble and the receiver was too incompetent to make that catch fair and square. And besides, The Fox Channel wouldn’t be bringing it up if it weren’t true. They have reporters there that met with the guy in the booth and they all swear that he saw what he said he saw. Even though they themselves didn’t see it. You just have to believe the guy in the booth. Americans would NEVER mess with the sacred game that is the Super Bowl, only the dastardly Russians, with wanton disregard of all that the Super Bowl entails—The Puppy Bowl and the Clydesdale Horses and the Halftime spectacle—would stoop so low.

And so the opportunity that the forces of censorship have been waiting for has arrived. People who care so much about their country that defeat has aroused their emotions at the expense of their better nature. In the heat of the battle, they’ve abandoned one of the very principles they were fighting to defend, the idea of free speech. The idea that truth, if allowed to battle it out on the playing field, will win out even over the best-crafted lies. The Left, which I had always considered the team that would fight for freedom of speech even when the Right was willing to make exceptions, is now—if not the driving force—at least the willing accomplice of the push for censorship. Of course, there’s a really good reason for it. There are always good reasons to be found when betraying sacred principles.

And by the way, it’s a stupid game, I hate the team that won, the guy’s an oaf that doesn’t belong on the field, but his feet were in bounds for once. Instead of complaining that the other team cheated, maybe you should ask why your team benched its star player.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Letters From Facebook Jail: Day 8

The Artist In The Age Of Social Media

Around the time that I was finishing up the first draft of my first novel, I started trying to figure out how I could get it published. While until recently there really was only one option—find a publisher—my research led me to meet many people who were self-publishing and making a good income doing so. After weighing the options, and mainly being impatient enough to want to get my work in front of readers instead of sitting on desks of uninterested publishing houses, I opted to self-publish.

Don’t get me wrong, there are many advantages to having a publisher and a team of professionals making sure your work is as good as it can be. Many are the times I wistfully think of how much easier it would make my life to have someone do the layout for book covers, have people be responsible for proofreading, editing, marketing, etc. But I learned from other writers who had gone the traditional route that the job of marketing is, for most books, mainly in the author’s hands. Publishers are in the game to make money, not to advance the literary culture. I kind of knew that already, but it was nice to have it told to me by people who had been there.

The reason I chose to take the self-publishing route more than anything, though, was the desire to stay true to my own vision rather than be forced to change things by someone who just didn’t understand what I was trying to accomplish. I leave open the option of one day finding a traditional publisher, but if I do I want to be in a position of power where I can prove that I understand my audience and what they want to read, rather than conform to the formula of whatever is in fashion at the moment.

I knew this would not be easy. I knew it would take years to build up a catalog of work. At least equally important, I learned from others the necessity of having an internet presence. Blogging, Tweeting, networking, these were all things I’d have to do in order to build an audience from scratch simply by writing about the things I was most passionate about. In truth, it has been more difficult than I’d hoped. But I’ve come to appreciate the journey even more than the goal itself. Where once I would have considered myself a writer because a publisher gave me their approval, I now feel myself to be one because of the time, effort, and diligent search for truth I have put into my art. More than that, I have heard from people who have related to the thoughts I've expressed. At last I feel I can call myself an indie-writer and take pride in that label.

But the long struggle to build up a group of people willing to regard my opinions as worthy of reading has hit upon an unexpected snag. In the last couple of years, censorship has become a reality in social media. Anyone who is at all involved in anti-war activism is aware of the clampdown on those who advocate for peace, point out the horrors of war, or suggest that our next attempt to overthrow another nation’s government will cause untold suffering. The most obvious, of course, is Julian Assange, who sits in jail as his physical and mental health deteriorate. Then there is Max Blumenthal, a journalist for the Gray Zone who was recently arrested (in a SWAT-team-style apprehension) for an alleged assault charge relating to his coverage of the siege of the Venezuelan embassy. Any indie journalist will tell you that questioning the stories that are used to promote militarily involvement in another country will get your video demonetized on YouTube, if not banned. And then there are the countless people I’ve heard about and know personally who are being banned from Facebook for sharing information that is contrary to the official pro-war agenda.

Let me also remind you that as I write this, I am serving day 8 of my 30-day ban from Facebook. My crime was sharing a picture of Christmas ornaments from the Nazi era, one of which had a Swastika on it. I shared it not because I’m a fan of Nazis but because we all need to be reminded of what societies are capable of turning into. And let me tell you, censorship is not a good sign of where we’re headed.

Over a year ago, I came across the story of Peter Van Buren. An author of several books and someone who speaks frequently against war, Peter had managed to collect an impressive amount of Twitter followers. I don't recall the number, but I remember thinking it must have taken in him years of hard work to amass so many followers. Peter was permanently suspended from his Twitter account. I do not know exactly what the reason was, and it is impossible to speculate because all traces of his account have disappeared. He was not merely banned, he was vanished. 

This sort of thing must give artists pause. While most of us want to stay true to our vision and beliefs, at some point we start questioning whether compromise might be preferable to not being heard at all. Many artists are fearless and respond forcefully against such tactics, heedless of the costs. But many are rather fragile flowers that will wither under such conditions. It will do no good in the fight against evil to make a world where artists are not encouraged to blossom, to be open and honest and reveal those thoughts they have been nourishing within. 

I am currently writing book 3 on a series that has a very anti-war message. Whereas the first book dealt with the leadup to World War I, and the second book dealt with the war itself, the third book deals with the leadup to World War II. This will unavoidably involve Nazis. Researching this book made me come across the picture I was banned for in the first place. The book cover I had planned involved an image of the Earth with a Swastika behind it on one side, a peace sign on the other. I have to seriously rethink my cover now for fear that if I share it on social media, I might get banned for the image that’s on it. And part of me fears it is not the image of the Swastika they are most concerned with but the peace sign.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Letters From Facebook Jail: Day 7

Freedom Of Speech...If Corporations Say It's Okay

In times past, much of public life was conducted in the public square. Should someone feel the need to share something with his fellow citizens, he would literally get up on a soapbox to address the people who were there. Assuredly, a good amount of them were cranks, and a good deal more were simply annoying, but by and large, it was an accepted practice. If the speaker was speaking nonsense, the people wouldn’t hesitate to talk back to him, as one would a performance one did not appreciate. In this way a public speaker could be booed off the stage, as it were.

Walmart is probably the closest thing we Americans have nowadays to a physical public meeting place. The next time you are at a Walmart, try this experiment: stand up on an empty packing crate, try speaking your mind to fellow shoppers, and see what happens. I’m guessing your behavior won’t be tolerated for very long. You see, Walmart has bought the property where the public square once was. And was given a tax subsidy to do so.

Facebook is the virtual equivalent of the public square. The only difference between the public square and Facebook is that a corporation decides who your message goes to and what you are permitted to say. It is like a public square where Mark Zuckerberg rents out megaphones to those who can afford them and shouts into a megaphone at those who are not approved by Facebook.

There are other places you can go to speak of course, places where mega-corporations are not deciding who will be heard. But few people ever go there. Just as the public land has been mostly bought up, so too are the prime internet hotspots controlled by corporations that have interests in spreading corporate narrative. You still have freedom, it just doesn’t mean much anymore.

The authors of the Bill Of Rights sought to protect our freedom of speech. The fact that the First Amendment specifically states that it protects our freedom of speech from government and not corporations is because our Founding Fathers could not have imagined the kind of power that corporations now wield in our society. In fact, they were rather careful not to give undue power to corporations in the first place. The power that exists now in the hands of corporations is beyond anything our Founding Fathers would have dreamed of. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state that the rights of corporations were paramount in the minds of those who wrote it. Clearly, clearly, they were concerned with the rights of individuals.

To say corporations have the right to silence you is to say the rights of corporations supersede the rights of individuals. Which is to say that the rights of capital supersedes human rights. As it now stands, you have the right to the pursuit of happiness, so long as your happiness does not conflict with the interests of corporations. Should your pursuit of happiness be in opposition to the pursuit of profit of a corporation, even a corporation that does not pay any taxes, guess whose interests are going to win out?

It’s pretty self-evident that corporate interests would want to control the means of information dissemination, isn’t it? For the same reason they spend billions of dollars on advertising, it is in their best interest to control what information we receive. Jeff Bezos didn’t buy The Washington Post because he saw newspapers as a growing market. While Facebook is a different situation, it is still in the best interests of corporations and those who most profit from them to insure social media is in the hands of billionaires, because to be in the hands of billionaires is to be under the control of billionaires.

We need democratic media. If we do not have that then we cannot pretend to have democracy. It might seem somewhat paradoxical to state that if we want open and democratic media we have to speak up for it, but it is perhaps more clearly understood if it is stated that should we neglect to demand our rights, our rights will surely be taken from us. 

Corporations DO respond to the people. But they do so in the same way wolves responds to people, because their interests are the same. They are by nature predators, and they will take everything they can from you. If you are not vigilant, they will sneak up while you are not looking and take from you everything they can. Do not delude yourself on this essential point. The only difference between a wolf and a corporation is wolves do not seek to control the means of communication.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Letters From Facebook Jail: Day 6

There are certain narratives that go unquestioned in Corporate media. There are certain explanations, that if you start to think openly about them, appear not merely untrue but absurd. I therefore present to you some of the more bizarre ideas the media has presented to us without ever seriously questioning their bizarreness. And let me remind you, you heard about it on social media.

-Early in Barack Obama's Presidency, he came out with the Cars For Clunkers policy. The idea is that people could bring in their older but still perfectly good cars, and they would be destroyed. These people would then be given what would amount to a down payment on a new car, funded by tax-payers (themselves) so that they would then have even more personal debt and less money for savings. This was an attempt to stimulate an economy that was destroyed by lenders. In what kind of Bizzaro economy do we exist where destroying perfectly good products in order to go into debt to buy unneeded goods makes sense?

-After 9/11, we were told the most patriotic thing we could do was go shopping. George W. Bush told us this and nobody pointed out the absurdity. Imagine following Pearl Harbor if FDR were to tell the American public the most important thing they could do would be to go shopping. Rather than conserve our resources, we were told to consume them. No tin drives or paper drives for us.

-The idea that The Dow Jones is an honest reflection of the health of the economy or our planet. The DJIA is flashed across the news screen in real time throughout the business day on news channels, as if a 10 point fluctuation means something to the average worker. In the last decade, The Dow Jones Industrial Average has done nothing but point out how much money the 1% have, so much that they don't know what to do with it but buy up more stock. Meanwhile, the environment is being destroyed as the Dow rises. No hint of eventual climate catastrophe can be seen in the magic numbers, as the Dow continues to break records.

-The idea that mainstream news is “real” news. That news can only be official when it is owned by a corporation and receives money from corporate advertisers. This, by definition, means that only corporate news is considered credible. And corporate news, by its very nature, will always put corporate interests above the interests of people. Not so oddly, this point is never brought up on corporate media.

-On a related note, the idea that Julian Assange is not a journalist but Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity are. Because Julian Assange is not receiving a paycheck from a corporation.

  

-The idea that NATO is an agency that works for peace and democracy. NATO is a military alliance that exists to advance the interests of those within the alliance, principally the United States. Its mere existence lessens the democratic aims of the United Nations and its founding principle of sustaining peace through democratic means.

-The idea that Conspiracy theories are the domain of the demented. We are told that either conspiracy theorists are knowingly lying in order to win support for radical internal groups, are created by foreign powers to weaken your trust of the government, or they are the product of social losers sitting in their mothers’ basements. Most people have a shared understanding of what the word theory means. It is an unproven set of assumptions that seem to fit well together and might point to a greater truth. Similarly, we all know what a conspiracy is, it is when two or more people get together to plan and act in secrecy. To think that people conspire together in secret is somehow an absurd belief is...absurd. We know that it happens. All the time. To automatically accept explanations to unusual occurrences (e.g. the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein) is not rational behavior but the response of a indoctrinated cult member. Considering the facts of a possible conspiracy does not make one crazy, it makes one capable of looking into a matter without committing to one specific interpretation. And speaking of conspiracy theories, 

  

-The idea that $100,000 of Russian Facebook posts, only 39% of which were posted BEFORE the election, should in any way be a subject of conversation, let alone an unprecedented 3 year obsession. This is the grandaddy of all conspiracy theories, and the only reason it is not called a conspiracy theory is that those who are pushing it also happen to have control over the media and the intelligence agencies. Instead, they use the word "collusion". Look up the word "collude" in the thesaurus sometime and tell me what synonym comes up first. And on a related note:

-The idea that conjecture and narrative are now worthy topics of discussion in news shows. Rachel Maddow's show has survived off of that for...has it been three years already? 

So once again, let me be clear that there are in fact dangerous ideas floating about on the social media. The good thing about social media, however, is that few people take things they read on the internet as gospel truth. Most people, when reading something on the internet, seek to corroborate the narrative and conjecture by looking for a logical argument and indisputable evidence. Certainly not as many as we like, but we are all learning social media literacy as we go. We are, on average, far more sophisticated than we were a decade ago.

Establishment media, however, is able to rest on its reputation, so that it is capable of putting forth narratives without convincing evidence. Because they have a fancy set, and because they have airtime on a network, they must be credible people doing honest work. Again, not to harp on her too much, but take a look at Rachel Maddow as an example.

But news institutions can no longer be pointed to as bastions of responsible news. Take a look at Mother Jones if you want to see a publication whose reputation has been worn to shreds. The fact is, the only reason any news agency ever had any credibility is because they had credible journalists in their employ. Name me one journalist in the mainstream media. A few still exist, Matt Taibbi comes to mind, but they are working outside the mainstream much more than they are within it. And I fear their days within the established media are limited.

If you want to find a journalist with integrity, you are far more likely to find one outside the mainstream media. Very many of them are respected establishment journalists who have had to find a place outside mainstream media in order to do their job with integrity. Examples of this are Chris Hedges, Greg Palast, and Krystal Ball. Many more are making a name for themselves by reporting stories that are not being covered by establishment media, people like Kyle Kulinski, Max Blumenthal, Michael Tracey, Sam Sader, Jamarl Thomas, and too many more to mention.

Check them out while you're still able, while there are still alternatives to the official narrative. Each will tell a story similar to mine, of how alternative voices are being throttled subtly and otherwise. I'm afraid their ultimate success or failure will not be determined by their integrity and courage, but on our choice as skeptical consumers of news to speak up for voices outside the corporate media. Please don't be afraid to step outside the mainstream enough to view things from another angle, and please find the courage to speak about what you see.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.