Keeping Up Appearances

Planning one of the best days of your life should surely be a joyous and exciting experience; finally the freedom to have things how you want it, having the people you love around you. But no, not really. Again and again, society intervenes and circumvents our expectations- hinders our freedom and inundates us with irrelevant and ridiculous expectations of what it should be:

You should wear white, your dress should be long, you should be thin and beautiful, your hair should be impossibly perfect. You should cover up those tattoos: they're unsightly. Your face should be blemish free, dewy, baby-skinned. You should wear minimal make up. You should have a wedding band, you should have this engagement ring. Your cake should be this colour, this brand, it should be this flavour. This person not this person should be a bridesmaid. Oh no, you mustn't include that in your invite; that is not correct wedding etiquette! Your groom should be impeccably groomed- no pun intended. His suit should fit perfectly. You should invite these people and not those. You should say this in your ceremony and not that. You should serve this wine, this food, and have this type of music. Your bouquet should be this colour. Your toilet paper should smell like chocolate and be hand crafted out of silk. He must have a stag do and of course he should invite those people who have jumped on the bandwagon because their own pathetic lives are so unfulfilling that they have to impose themselves on others. He must succumb to all that stag-like debauchery, and so should the bride: but doesn't that 'celebration of the final days of freedom' completely undermine the marriage, isn't it a little archaic? Why get married if you don't see yourself as free afterwards?  Of course, it's what you want, because why would you want anything besides the normative?

This isn't cynicism, or narcissism. It's a plea for free will- to not be confined by society's expectations (which might be slightly ironic as marriage is an expectation of society). Do we even know what freedom is? Can we even make our own decisions, because it seems like everything has a way it should be, or at least what it shouldn't be.

After all, freedom is an illusion in this society, we are so indoctrinated by images of how things should be, what ideals we should adhere to, and what we shouldn't, that we struggle to see a life outside of these binding constraints. I want to see it.

Freedom Is An Illusion

Sometimes it'd just be easier to eradicate the necessity of decision making. Remove freedom. Wipe the slate clean of guilt and second guessing and those formidable 'what ifs?'. To be pre-programmed, wired, robotic; emotionless. To drift through life carefree. Robotic-robust-mundane. 

''Robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes''

- Richard Dawkins

I'd condemn this as being painfully and poisonously cynical, but really are we anything more than robots? Does freedom even exist in reality or is it just an idyllic concept?

What even is freedom?

To summarise the Oxford Dictionary, freedom is:

1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants- absence of subjection, independent of fate or necessity
2. The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved
3. Freedom from the state

The absence of restriction: does that really equate to 'freedom'? How can absence correlate to things that we have been granted, for instance; the right to vote? It's logically impossible for absence to equate to something: the absence of sadness does not revel the subject into happiness.  'You can't prove a negative' (James Randi) so can a negative be 'something'?

Freedom from the state: can you call a society that is so heavily stipulated by money, and the media, free? Why if we are free to do as we please do we all aspire to such similar ideals, why do we follow the same path and conform to the same standardised expectations? Complete freedom from the state would entail a society whereby aspirations were based purely on happiness rather than social, political or economic factors. Where people had the opportunity to do whatever they wanted to do rather than being pigeon holed, spoon fed and indoctrinated into a 'career' prescribed to them by their socio-economic status- and nothing else. Why do we feel obliged to do things that we don't want to do? It still feels like we need to break free from the constrictive chains of society, the cyclical 9-5 ominous clock ticking lifestyle- if that's the sentiment how can this adhere to 'freedom from the state'?

But do we even want to be free?

All we seem to do is restrict ourselves. Walking the same paths over and over again although there's nothing stopping us from wandering off in another direction. It's as if we all know we're free but there's some mental incapability to allow ourselves to fully embrace the freedom that we've been granted or to overturn the constraints of society. We enjoy being comfortable, not having to worry, eradicating decision making is so much easier- but then nothing seems worthwhile. We can't have it all.

Are we free by nature but extrinsically restricted by our own surroundings?

Intrinsically free- extrinsically constrained.

Vaingloriousness

"There's nothing wrong with an enlarged gap between rich and poor"

Said a privately educated middle class university student.  An enlarged gap between rich and poor is evidence of the failings of society, politics and economics. The fucking failings of mankind. The urge to retaliate to this imbecility is insatiable, to name and shame, out this idiot for his close minded naive opinions; but he's not the only one.

I, for one, didn't realise we were living in 1920s America where economic prosperity was stipulated by narrow minded money obsessed bankers with no understanding of the poor such as Andrew Mellon. I didn't realise it was every man for himself. I thought we'd evolved somewhat past that point.

Do milestones such as the Great Depression and the Financial Crisis not signify that the 'every man for himself', hierarchical, money obsessed economy model doesn't work? We're still in a deficit, there are still people living below the breadline. Really- what is the point?

But we've got out own Andrew Mellon, our own big money-big business-crush the poor chancellor of the exchequer: George Osborne, who fails to understand over half of the population.

In light of the public shock facing the Philpott case Osborne claims:

"The courts are responsible for sentencing, but I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state, and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state, subsidising lifestyles like that. I think that debate needs to be had."

It isn't a fucking lifestyle issue. It's an issue of evil. Society can produce 'bad' people. But not evil. It's intrinsic. It's not due to the benefits system and the welfare state that Philpott to murdered his children- it's because he was intrinsically evil- anyone would have to be to do that. Nature not nurture: fucking naivety. Maybe rather than looking at reforming the welfare state it is the judiciary system that needs to be analysed; because really, is his 'life' sentence good enough?

Society is unjust. Rather than punishing Philpott adequately for his crimes, MPs are calling for the welfare system to be analysed and thus punishing the poor. It's blatant stereotyping and it's completely uncalled for. As it stand only 3% of the total cost of welfare goes to the unemployed including the Philpott family and 40% is spent on the elderly- how does it seem right then to claim that the welfare state needs reforming due to this case? A reform that would simply widen the gap between rich and poor, desecrate equality and destroy lives. Statistics and figures should have no prevalence over people's quality of life. Money should mean nothing but it consumes fucking everything.

In a society based on logic the concepts of 'underprivileged' and 'deprived' would not exist and people would not be perceived as either rich or poor

-but simply people.

Welcome to the Jungle

The mistreatment of animals is a daily occurrence: something that is necessary to continue our selfishly homogeneous lifestyles. Animals are used on a daily basis for our own benefit: food, clothing, medicine, souvenirs and most of all for monetary profit. Basically the exploitation of animals aids our filthily greedy capitalist society. This 'profit' currently exceeds $10 billion annually. Is it worth it? This includes 26.4 tons of ivory hacked from 2760 elephants. 2760 lives destroyed. In no way is that justifiable. In no way can 'profit' be worth a life... of any species. I can not stress enough how money is a symbol of nothing but our own HUMAN greed. Why should animals suffer at the hands of our selfishness? For what? So some egotistical human with more money than sense can own a nice rug, a trinket, a souvenir. Degrading a corpse- or part of one- basically. Animals are not disposable.

The WWF campaign speaks for itself -literally: 'I am not medicine', 'I am not a trinket', 'I am not a rug'. This is either personification or fucking true. If you reject animal rights, then you must reject the idea of animals as a 'conscious thinking thing' (John Locke), otherwise this is genocide. The use of speech in the campaign hardly raises an eyebrow on first view, however it is clear that to reject these claims one must interpret the advertisement as purely anthropomorphising animals and giving them attributes, such as thought and speech, that are not applicable to them. In contrast, by accepting the opinions and voices of these animals as advertised, one is accepting the fact that animals are in fact a 'conscious thinking thing' in the same way as humans, and thus, should be treated equally.

How is there any hope, though, for equality between species if there's not even equality within species?

Our monetarist, capitalist society, is devoid of any concept of equality; women are still fighting for equal rights across the globe, racism and discrimination are still prevalent in every sector and ageism is illustrated daily by government policy. Of course, if we can't even respect our fellows then we are going to exploit other species. 

In both evolutionary and religious terms animal rights are prominent. In evolutionary terms, the human race is derived from animals, the history of animals including us is an intricate interlaced web of development- should we abuse our ancestors? Materialistically, without a psyche, there is nothing to distinguish the human race from animals other than an alleged 'higher intelligence' and this is no justifiable reason to exploit and abuse: we don't mistreat mentally disabled humans as they have a lower intelligence, do we? - rather we care for them more. Religiously, animals were created by God and therefore hold the same sacred attributes as us with the idea of stewardship also being highlighted in the Bible: 

"The righteous care for the needs of their animals"- Proverbs 12:10

Although there is a sense of ownership here, it is still clear that animals have certain rights that should be respected and this is our responsibility. Arguably, this is rather outdated as the Bible usually is on the topic of equality and rights; even so the general message completely conflicts with the current treatment of animals in our society. It seems evident also that the mistreatment of animals correlates with morality- 'righteous'- the mistreatment is morally wrong. This raises the question: where does the current mistreatment of animals derive from if not from science or religion? 

Our ravenously selfish vaingloriousness. 

We're the brutes, the beasts, the animals- it's not fun and games.

Social Apocalypse

I feel like all I write about are fucking paedophiles and shootings. Does this not just reiterate the fact that something radical- revolutionary- needs to be done to rectify these social problems? Society is decrepit, with hateful acts rotting away at it's score, seeping hate, disillusionment and resent. The stench is impenetrable. The cause lost. Where does family, friends, love and happiness stand in a society that secretes paedophiles and murderers?

Society is perverse. There is no saving what we have become. Bring me social apocalypse because that sounds like fucking salvation from where I'm standing. I'm sick of languishing in a society of hate and greed where innocent people's lives are corrupted by the immorality of other's. It's not fair that one person has the power to inflict torturous, unforgettable pain on someone else. There is no justice. No punishment could ever rectify the abhorrent memories stored in one's mind, those memories that resurface like clockwork- daily. As much as I think rot in hell to those paedophiles and murderers and rapists and all those other immoral cunts out there their acts can never be rectified.

There's no fucking point in anything. There's no rosy, hazy future of rainbows and sunshine just the grim reality that we are falling deeper into this abyss of immorality where nothing can save us.

I am fucking angry- we should all be fucking angry.

The Green Light

"He stretched out his arms toward the dark water in a curious way, and, far as I was from him, I could have sworn he was trembling. Involuntarily I glanced seaward—and distinguished nothing except a single green light, minute and far away" (The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald) 

The American Dream; an ideal that was, and still is, inexplicably unreachable.  However, was this ideal in danger of being on an even more unreachable precipice in the last week? As with Gatsby, there's always that object, the dark water, blocking our ability to fulfil our dreams, be that the restrictions of society, our own fears or the actions of others; it is arguable that this dark water, this object preventing us from reaching our dreams and fulfilling our desires was going to have a face: Mitt Romney's.

Romney's political stance, the political stance of GOP in it's entirety, jeopardises any hope that the American Dream still exists. Like Gatsby's world, the proposed policies of Romney involved money, and money alone; reminiscent of the laissez faire-minimal government-maximise profits ideology of the 1920's, with one difference: economic state. The idea to maximise profits and minimise government policy seems justifiable in a society where social issues are non-existent, however, this utopia is purely fictional. Similarly to the 1920's, 2012 America has many social issues; issues of welfare, rights and still, race. Romney condemned Obama's social policies as 'extraordinary financial gifts', citing free health care and contraceptive medications in particular, things that we, in Britain, perhaps take advantage of. Nonetheless, doesn't the fact that we take advantage of these things, show how essential they are to our welfare?

Romney claims that the 'big issues for the whole country' are: military strategy, foreign policy and a strong economy. But what about freedom, education and healthcare? Surely these are greater, and more widely applicable issues for the population of America. The foundation of every society should be personal liberties: freedom of speech, press, the right to vote and so on. But, even in America, these liberties are still not established. Romney's stance on social issues projects anti-abortion and anti-gay rights and therefore anti-freedom, setting back the progress of the last 60 years. Is this really in the best interests of the American population: imposing on, rather than granting further rights?

The loss of, or lack of such rights seriously imposes on any ideal of the 'American Dream', an ideal dependent on the ability to choose, and hence the availability of freedom. The loss of our, the common people's ability to achieve their 'American Dream' allow people, like Mitt Romney, to achieve theirs. This is unethical, at least, according to Kantian Ethics: an act that uses others as a means to an end is wrong. The eyes of a Dr T.J Eckleburg looks over us judging our morality, or lack of, placing our dreams on a precipice.

And so, the dark water ebbs onwards between us and our dreams, until disillusion forms and we are left with nothing, hardly a glimmer of hope.

All in the name of political ideology.

Teleological

Is everything just a means to an end?

Is life merely a succession of milestones that we pass and then die?

We all seem to be heading the same way. We start off with dreams and hopes and an idea that there's something out there worth living for. Then we go to school, we're fed ideas that we can be whatever we want to be: but can we? Can the 4 year old little girl who's already had a difficult start in life really become prime minister? The reality is that she can't and it doesn't take long for even her to realise that.

We follow the current and find ourselves at university, studying a degree that someone else has told us will be useful, meeting someone else's expectations but not our own. We graduate, resigned to the fact that our dreams have turned to ashes, with no flickering embers of hope left that we will somehow achieve greatness and we wonder 'now what?' We find someone, fall in love if we're lucky or just settle. The resounding ticking noise in your head gets louder telling us it's time to get married and start a family, or is that just the familiar noise of society pressuring us to follow the norm?

You plough on, you're not an individual any more you're a family, part of a unit. You've settled, 'this will do' says the voice in the back of your head whilst the 4 year old version of yourself screams that this is not enough.

 Is that really it?