Category Archives: Articles

Why Facts Can Never Defeat Post-Truth Politics


Exposing Trump’s lies is irrelevant since truth for him is besides the point. Here is a better way.

1 kphp3ApfkImqcoxWAjm7rA.jpeg.jpg

This post first appeared in my new publication called The Discursive. It seeks to combine journalism with discourse analysis to explore a world we don’t understand. You can see the original article here, and here is a link to the publication.

A significant amount of chatter has been generated around this ‘post-truth’ era we all are apparently living in now. Dictionaries have anointed it as the word of the year. The sales of Orwell’s 1984 has been cited as evidence for popular interest in the subject. Conferences of philosophers, historians and journalists have been held around the world to deal with this ‘new’ challenge which all intellectuals face.

The question however is not whether we are in a post-truth era but when have human beings ever lived in a society where facts have been revered in politics and personal beliefs?

If we sense that something has changed in our polity, then it’s definitely not represented by a president lying on camera or his spokesperson citing ‘alternate facts’. The symptoms of this revolution are seen in the public’s response to lies and their apathy towards truth. The driver of this tectonic shift is not one person but the whole system of media and journalism.

BREAKING NEWS BROKE THE NEWS

The supposed ‘coup’ of lies on all mainstream discourses is not just a fashion fad but the end result of a media movement which started with television. 24 hours TV news with its incessant need for both content and viewers adopted a very specific model of electronic communication in the 1970s. This same model has transfigured into the monstrosity we now call as the fake news network.

In this model, the audience is defined as a reactive subject and the main goal of any media outlet is that of snatching attention and clutching on to it until the advertisements end.

This forms a loop where the media, especially news channels, package and select content to arouse people’s limbic systems and in return they are rewarded with TRPs and higher ad revenues. Since anger or anguish is the easiest and strongest emotion to elicit in people, negative news or outrageous claims now form the bulk of any TV content. Be it daily soaps, debates or even ‘historical’ documentaries about aliens, almost all of them employ an outrage loop designed to stimulate our reptilian brains.

THE INDUSTRIAL BULLSHIT COMPLEX

The rise of social media and wider penetration of the world wide web created new roles for the mass audiences who were usually voiceless. The anonymity and the absence of any social consequences granted by the internet provided a fertile ground for the expression of outrage which was earlier limited to the living room. Theoretically, these messages shared on the internet are public and freely accessible. However the algorithmic framework made sure that only people who would agree with it, or vehemently oppose it would generally see it. This echo-chamber technique perfected by facebook both distilled and intensified the outrage model invented by TV networks. Hence, far from being a challenge to MSM, social media is it’s perfect partner in terms of the end goal media owners seek to achieve — sustained attentions and ad revenues.

Trump says Mexicans are rapists, TV channels go run it all day, the audience quickly run back to their echo-chambers, ranting and seamlessly validating each others worldviews. In the end everyone makes mountains of money.

So where exactly is the problem?

The real post-truth crisis starts when people eventually realize that the system will not only work without any real journalism, but it will work better.

If journalism is all about reporting the truth, and truth is inconvenient for the hype machine, then it makes logical sense to divorce news from truth altogether. Breitbart, along with the whole network of fake news outlets, thus are the most evolved forms of main stream media instead of being their mortal enemies. They are most blatant and honest about their goal to generate outrage in their audience. The fact that they have massacred journalistic ethics does not make any dent on the reputation because they make money from eyeballs not truth. They are in the business of bollocks and their readers love it.

The shift here is not from journalism to lying, but from Truth to bullshit. This distinction is absolutely important in order to defeat the Bullshit complex. A liar is a person who knows the truth but consciously conveys information which contradicts it. A merchant of BS is not even concerned about facts or truth at all. He does not need to know it, he doesn’t need to refute it, all he needs is to induce the desired effect on his audience.

Bullshit is far more dangerous towards truth because exposing contradictions, revealing facts and even using logic does not cause any harm to it. Like the outrage loop, bullshit targets our limbic brain to induce feelings about truth, aptly called as ‘truthiness’. More importantly a person can bullshit even when he is speaking the Truth. Hence when Trump, Putin or Modi are stating facts they are still dishing out piles of horse manure. What is important here is not precisely the content of communication, but the intent behind it, the effects which are induced and the strategies used to achieve this.

THE ANTIDOTE

Journalism, where people act as transparent mirrors of Truth, where facts and opinions are separate and lying means instant death is perfect for countering falsities. However, it is completely impotent against bullshit. Passive presentation of facts barely make a difference since bullshit is not countering them but seeking to make them irrelevant.

When Modi talks about head transplants in vedic India or when Trump states that Obama is not an American, they are simply disregarding every criteria of Truth. This constant disregard and contradiction either confuses the audience or employs their selective attention to make themselves more appealing. Truth is thus rendered absolutely useless in political discourse.

The work of journalism then, in order to counter this, is not to reveal facts but strategies, patterns and scripts bullshitters are using.

This kind of journalism has to move away from the conception of a reactive audience, obsessed with breaking news, having short attention spans and forgetting events as soon as the debate ends.

This new journalism has to envisage a reflective reader and has to move beyond current events towards a long term analysis.

Most importantly, the new journalism doesn’t need to reveal facts, but expose discourses.

When I speak of discourses, I refer to a very specific definition often used in social science research.

Discourse here means:

1) A mode of organizing knowledge, ideas or experience that is rooted in language and its concrete contexts (as history or institutions).

2) A particular way of talking about and understanding the world or some of its aspects.

In these definitions, the power of language is supposed to be not just descriptive but primarily constructive. We form the world in our minds as we talk about it, which in turn directs our actions. This is specially true for identities. Thus, when Putin is talked of as the strongest leader in the western civilization or Trump says he will make America great again, they are constructing their identities along with a worldview. This process is an interactive and dynamic one. People draw on discourses and produce new ones continuously.

The work of discursive journalism is to mark out the discursive strategies used in a particular context, study its effects and suggest some counter strategies and possibilities of challenging and transforming them.

Only this kind of long term, analytical, research oriented endeavor can hope to defeat post-truth politics and its sudden omnipresence around the world.

This publication is an attempt to construct such a kind of journalism. Over the next few months, we will work on certain projects where we will understand how various agents used various discourses to achieve different effects in a particular event.

Our first project will analyze the demonetization policy undertaken by the Modi government in India in the month of November, 2016. After this we will take up Trump’s presidency and Brexit as our next projects.

If you want to connect with this project or have some suggestions regarding the topics we should look into kindly use this form.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , ,

Freedom: Beyond Rights, Towards Power


To be free is to be political. For we cannot escape the very power constraints which form us, but only transmute them according to our intent.

Unfortunately, we have been made to believe that freedom is something we are born with and need only to protect either by begging to our governments, or merely being aloof and apolitical — isolated from the world which sustains us.

We live in an age where freedom instantly evokes images of outrage and placards.

Incidentally, we also live in an age where states around the world are brazenly constructing precise machineries of surveillance and control — and we aren’t doing shit about them.

Freedom and rebellion have always been twins. It was the French Revolution which resulted in the Human Rights Charter in which Liberty became the inherent, inalienable right of every person.
Using this humanist doctrine all the European colonies kicked out their oppressors – – Gandhi being an emblematic figure of this kind modern rebellion.

This non-violent form of protest, with marches, sloganeering and placard-waving was soon picked up by civil societies around the world.

Although quite effective in the 20th century we see these kinds of protests fizzling out with no results in the 21st century. The Governments now know that a march, or a strike here and there barely dents their international power network.

The Occupy Wall Street, the Gender Equality protest in India, the so called Arab Spring – – all they could achieve was media hype, but none of their practical goals.

It is time we wake up and face reality:

If our Right to Freedom has to be granted by someone else, then that is no freedom at all. Liberty then is a slave to the whims and strategies of the government which rules us.

What the heck are we demanding out on the streets, in front of our parliaments? How is it freedom if it can be ‘granted’ by someone else?

The very idea of freedom as it exists in the current form is delusional.
Freedom is envisaged as this independence from the world which allows an individual to do what she desires.

This is simply a impossible. No one can be independent from the world simply because we are and always will be a part of it. Our food is grown by someone else. Our clothes are created by numerous unknown people. Our houses are constructed by others. We are bound by the laws of physics. Our bodies are made out of the food we eat, the air we breath.

Where the heck is any possibility of in-dependence? We can never be separate from the world. We can never be isolated, self-sustaining units, floating in the universe, powered merely by our free will.

Freedom is not a right. Freedom is an ability. It is a skill. It is a technique to interact, negotiate and mold our surroundings according to our intent.

Freedom is always an active, political act. It is the sum total of our abilities which form us and our environment in a cyclical way. It necessarily has to be a way not only to do what you desire, but to protect yourself, act against forces which intend to annihilate you.

Thus, our freedom, quite simply means acting according to political intent.

It is a fact that we are born into a network of relationships with our fellow beings and our environment.

It is a fact that we form our identities only in these constraints. I am whatever I am because I am no other person and I am also not a rock or a tree.

It is also a fact that these relationships are relationships of power.
Our parents are the dominant forces who decide our initial fate. We live because our immune systems constantly win every war against the pathogens always besieging us. We either mold nature to make it work like we want it to or nature shatters our illusions by sending disasters once in a while.

Thus to be free is necessarily to be political. The trend, especially in this generation, to be fashionably apolitical is something which is destroying our collective freedom.
In our relationship with the world we are either politically victorious or politically oppressed. Being apolitical simply means to be a passive recipient of other people’s politics.

Power has been usually seen as something dirty which intends to annihilate freedom. But it is only through power that freedom can be exercised in the first place. Power is not only domination but it can also be a positive force which results in growth, happiness and productivity.

Power is the medium of our being.

More importantly, it is the only way, in our current situation, that we can ever escape from universal, flawless dictatorship.

Rather than acting as if we already have the ‘Right’ to freedom, we should consider freedom as intent combined with the potential to act on them. Something which is both inherent in us and yet has to be learned and perfected like language, logic or art.

Freedom then is not some Right, but a life skill which has to be practiced, exercised, honed and implemented by all of us.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Why My Atheism Doesn’t Need The Absence of God


Atheism

We have been told that there is some supreme being up in heaven who looks after us and is all good.
Supposedly he is all powerful – – the master of the cosmos.
He sees everything – – all our crimes and acts of kindness.
Also, he is omnipresent, existing everywhere, all at once, always.

And yet, despite this grand claim of religion, the amount of human suffering only seems to be increasing as the centuries pass by.

Wars have gotten deadlier as humanity learns to create newer and better Weapons of Mass Destruction.

After a brief waning of religious fundamentalism in the middle of 20th century, our dear god has returned to become an excuse for genocides and terrorist bombings.

We live in an era in which the amount of absolute poverty is highest in the history of humanity. Despite this fact, there seems to be a consensus that the fight against an economy of inequality is trivial or boring.

As if these human-made atrocities were not enough, our dear god seems to be particularly keen on gifting us more and more disasters of the natural kind.

In the middle of all this shit, some people see the divine will at work to do good. They say it is god’s own mysterious way to redeem humankind. The disasters, genocides, mass rapes and child prostitutes are all part of the plan. They are a symbol of divine grace, according to the religious nuts.

And this is what, I think, justifies 21st century Atheism. If God exists, then he is a criminal. And that is why I reject his demand to be acknowledged and worshiped.

If God is omnipotent, then he is responsible for the millions of live lost in earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis everywhere in the world.

If he is omnipresent, then he just stood by when millions of women, children and men were raped, ripped apart and destroyed throughout history.

If he is omniscient, then he just watches passively as thousands of infants starve to death everyday around the world.

I know religious crazies have justifications for this as well. “Wait for the judgment day or Karma,” they say.
But a being who can stop and prevent these mind-numbing atrocities through his divine powers cannot excuse himself of his responsibility. Giving judgments after the beings he created have committed their crimes barely lessens the suffering of the innocents.

One who stands by even though he can prevent a crime is as guilty as the criminal himself.

And thus, I refuse to believe in the existence of God simply because I don’t see this divine being making a difference. Even if god exists so what? Humanity still has to deal with the world on its own. Praying and worship have never prevented a tragedy. Nor it ever will.

Thus, my atheism is purely a political rebellion. It is the negation of god even if he exists. It is the act of spitting on his face. It is the slap which he deserves if he exists.

Militant atheists like Dawkins simply waste their time debating with theists about the non-existence of god.

Firstly, the concept of God itself is unscientific. God is (cleverly) conceived as something which can’t be completely known. Thus, God can’t be disproved. And despite the claims of physicists, just because science works doesn’t automatically mean that God doesn’t exist.
E=mc2 has no logical connection to God=Non-existent.

Secondly, if God exists then it is even worse for religion. Because in the center of their belief system lies a being who is the most perverted criminal in the cosmos.

Thus, I think atheism should give up the time consuming, elaborate debates about the absence or the existence of the oldest imaginary friend humanity ever created. It should simply position itself as a political rebellion — something which makes much more sense in the present scenario.

Nietzsche said:

“…if God did exist, we would need to kill him off.”

However the 21st century atheist should say:

” God has survived, let’s kill him better in a better way. “

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Truths, Experience and the Return of Falsity


When I was a kid I always thought that the deaths in films were real and that the actors who died were actually born again to star in their next blockbuster.

My fantasy fell apart when I actually saw the video of a film shoot in which the hero died 5 times within the span of fifteen minutes.
It was one of my first encounters with the failure of Truth.

It’s amazing how these early life lessons are buried under pretentious, fallacious theoretical bubbles.
How can people — scholars, intellectuals and activists — actually accept that everything we believe to be true actually becomes our reality? (Yes, I am talking about the post-modernists.) If the world really worked this way there would have been no disappointments. Expectations, faith and hope would have never crumbled as easily as it usually does.

Thus, even if there is no ultimate Truth, there sure exists some kind of falsity. There exists a difference between what we think or consider as the Truth and what we experience as reality. The problem simply is that we can’t demarcate between the two — the nature of our ever-changing knowledge doesn’t allow any permanent dichotomies.

And this is precisely why I think we should approach knowing in a different way than we usually do.

The base of Human Knowledge is not knowing.

Our quest for knowing is fueled by this partial or complete void; because, if we already know everything, then why seek anymore?
Remembering this fact is intensely liberating.

Let us not pretend that we uncover some hidden truth in the ‘outside’ world which we can’t even be sure of (as the world, for us, only exists in our perception).
I don’t mean to exclude the possibility that we have indeed discovered some thing which is universal, permanent or objective. But we just can’t be sure of them. Our knowledge is still in process, and this process includes change,rejection and return of truths which were previously rejected. The world was once flat and now it’s round. Who knows if it won’t turn into a triangle or not?

Knowledge and Truth will always be something which we put in. It exists only as Human knowledge. It is an act of our minds.

So let us pretend  instead that Truth is a story we tell which makes sense.
But does this mean that everything proclaimed as Truth becomes real?

Based on our collective experience of the world, Truth seems to be multiple and fluid. But not everything seems to be true. Not every medicine system cures the disease which it itself claims to cure. Not every hypothesis is proved right even when the person conducting experiments believes in it completely.
Newton is reported to have been much more interested in Alchemy than Physics. Why is it that all his time spent in the search of knowledge, only his experiments with physics bore fruit but not his alchemy?
There is a reason why newton discovered the laws of motion and not the philosopher’s stone.

Truth is the narrative which works as Truth.
For any story to become reality, it has to correspond to experience.
If I believe that the sky is green and I myself see it as blue, then that belief fails as my own personal reality. Similarly, collective narrative has to reasonably correspond to a collective experience.

We don’t necessarily need an outside structure of comparison to judge the narratives — we can use their own claims and predictions to discover their Truth value.

By the same logic, Truths can be hierarchic.
Any Reality Narrative which fails less is obviously better than the ‘Truth’ which fails more in experience.If harvest rituals promise bountiful crops and they don’t as compared to the scientific techniques of farming, then the latter is a more reliable Truth for the society than the former. (Whatever anyone wants to believe.)

And the narratives whose claims lie outside the realm of experience by definition like the existence of God, life after death, heaven and hell will become less legitimate as a common reality when other narratives exist.
Narratives which can be judged inside lived experiences are always more reliable because we can check it’s falsity (or the lack of it). Narratives whose base claims are undetermined are dangerous because when it reaches its fanatic heights, people with other beliefs have no way of negotiation — you either have blind belief in them or you are branded a betrayer, heretic or a conspirator.

This in no way means that such narratives are illegitimate. They shouldn’t be completely excluded. They just can’t be relied upon as COMMON Truth, on the basis of which a WHOLE society can make its decisions.

I am not really suggesting that we create any rigid structures. All Truth, it seems, is probable. As we haven’t experienced the whole of existence, proclaiming any narrative as the ultimate TRUTH will be a fallacy of presumption (same applies for the rejection of the possibility of any permanent Truth).
Knowledge should always be open-ended because knowing is always in process. As long as we live we are experiencing beings.
Knowledge is merely a pattern we put into these experiences, which enriches them, binds them and in turn create new experiences in our consciousness.

Personally as a knower, my ultimate aim isn’t to find out the ‘TRUTH’. Especially when the existence of such a truth itself isn’t absolutely assured (although essentially the question remains open).
I see life in terms of experience and hence, to me such narratives are a way to gain a depth in experience.
To unite scattered feelings, events, memories and thoughts. To combine them in different ways. And to experience those different combinations in different ways.
Perhaps this is too much philosophy for one post 😛

–Dee


WHY SO MUCH PHILOSOPHY?

My first answer to that is — Why not?

But I understand why many people are wondering about this question.

We all are children of post-modernism now. We all have known the “anything goes” motto in some way or the other.
Initially it does feel liberating.
I was a fan too not a long time ago.

But then reality strikes.
The dark side of this is that no one can really counter the fanaticism which has slowly saturated our world. And I am not only talking about people with guns, scriptures and suicide vests.

There has been a general taking away of liberties all over the world. Our existence is in threat. Even the existence of our planet. And we don’t have anything to fall back on — to counter such threats in a substantial way.

One may question why this taking away of freedom is a bad thing.
To them I reply, that question’s answer doesn’t really lie in some high-brow theoretical argument, but in plain experience.

And yet until we put them into narrative, we will always be silenced by the fanatics.

The following posts are my attempt to at least try creating a position through which we can fight back —

Trying To Escape 21st Century Nihilism By Finding Out The Inherent Purpose Of Life
https://deerayolia.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/the-inherent-purpose-of-life-is-absurdly-clear/

Attempt To Create A Charter Which Isn’t Too Rigid But Which Gives Us Some Guidelines To Fall Back Onhttps://deerayolia.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/the-new-charter/

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Baboon Banter About Judging People


Judgement

“Never judge a person.”

We have all heard this phrase. We are bombarded by it in social media, popular memes, sit coms, our friends keep repeating this and even our judgmental relatives have started parroting the same fashionable advice.

Although I agree with the accepting spirit which informs the thought, but to follow it as a life-rule is absurd.

All of us have to judge if we can trust a person or not. We have to figure out if the other human being is friendly or hostile to have a meaningful relationship.

If you don’t, you may find yourself lying unconscious on an unknown street mugged, raped or even murdered.

Judgment is necessary for survival. It’s a life skill.

But there is a world of difference between judging and pre-judging.

The latter is about presumptions, prejudices and stereotypes.

It’s not based on the knowledge about the person per se, but about the ideas and formulas one has already imposed on them without checking if they are true or not.

Commenting on a person’s style on the basis of the clothes they wear is judging.

Labeling a person ‘slut’, ‘gay’ or ‘stupid’ on the basis of their clothes is pre-judging because there is no direct relationship whatsoever between the labels and the clothes.

Most of the arguments I hear against judging people is that every judgment is subjective.

It is. So what?

It doesn’t mean that we don’t judge people; it simply means we don’t treat our judgments as divine, permanent and universal Truths.

We keep the possibility of being wrong open and modify our judgments when we actually are.

I agree that we often don’t know from where people come from, their personal history, their internal struggles, demons and anxieties. We can never really know a person completely. We get to see only a part of their lives.

And so we should always be aware of this and remember that our judgments are only about that part of a person which we get to know and not their whole being.

I may criticize a person for having anti-liberal, conservative views about individual choice. It doesn’t mean that I see that person as a monster.

The judgment will only be about certain parts of her ideology. There is no reason why other aspects of her being won’t pleasantly surprise me.

The need for judgment is very clear. If we don’t judge terrorists and rapists we don’t have any grounds to stop them and we end up with a fucked society.

However, always judging other people for the sake of it is foolish, time-consuming and exhausting. Not everything is necessarily right or wrong, good or bad – there is a neutral zone when people are simply different.

Judging a person for having different tastes in music, clothes and ice creams will simply be stupid and is often not needed.

I firmly believe that our judgments should help us figure out people, life and ourselves. But if it makes us confused and miserable then it becomes counterproductive and cumbersome.

Lastly, to end with a cliché, I also believe that we should mostly judge ourselves first before judging others.

Tagged , , , , ,

Baboon Banter On Morality


mORALITY

 

The Baboon has been going mad-er day-by-day and his babbling is the only thing which has prevented his total mental breakdown.It is the special subject of morality which has baked his brains into a plum cake.

The Baboon realises that morality is relative. It is different for every monkey, slug and elephant.
Morality doesn’t exist in the world. It is created by our morbid minds.
That is precisely the reason why some cultures find human sacrifice as a way to appease Gods and some others define it to be an abominable crime.

What is good and what is bad for the society is based on which moral codes have managed to gain acceptance and influence with the majority.

But does this mean that anything goes?
Or should this subjectivism just lead to empty, meaningless nihilism?

Before the Baboon wrecks his head by banging it on a stone, or it spontaneously explodes, he should make something clear.

The Baboon agrees that moral codes have traditionally been used as a tool for power and control.
The interests of the moral codes preached by the society is often not good for the whole society, but the profit and privilege for the minority elites.

Moral codes frequently create social norms which seek to confine individuals in a fixed identity, creating group divisions while eliminating any difference.

The most efficient example of both of these are gender norms and the morality based on it.

In a patriarchal society, morality often has double standards which favours males — like the importance of female chastity is often paramount, while males are allowed more social freedom.  It is often OK for males to have premarital, or even extramarital, sex; a woman is often labelled as a ‘whore’ or even stone pelted in the same situation.

Gender and gender norms first divide the population into two genders, homogenise their identities and behaviours of individuals inside each gender, and finally exclude individuals who are different like the people belonging to the LGBTQ community.

Morality and moral codes of the society have never been good for the society.
But does this mean we abandon the concept of morality altogether?
Or does the subjectivity of morality makes everything right?

Does this mean Nazism, slavery, colonialism and patriarchy become al right?

In what the intellectual brains like to call as post-modernism, this seems to be exactly the battle call — “Anything goes”.

But this only seems to be true in arguments, debates and discussions.

Experience assertively differs.

Can we really justify the experience of those who were slaughtered under the Nazi regime? Can we justify the experience of  the slaves? Can we justify the experience of the colonised? Can we justify the experience of the victims of patriarchy?

At least, the Baboon can’t.

And this is precisely the base of the Baboon’s morality — experience.

It is only through the experience of a situation that we can ascertain the morality of the situation. There maybe nothing right in any situation, but there are things which cannot be justified, and hence, are wrong.

We have arrived at a point of moral emptiness only because of too much chat-chat and not much experience. Because most of our experiences are virtual we have lost our touch with life itself.

That is why some people can parody the 9/11 in an online image board, while people who had actually experienced it still get nightmares even after 13 years.

The Baboon rejects traditional structures of morality.
This in no way means that the Baboon doesn’t believe in morality.

The Baboon believes that every situation is unique in itself, and ethical theory is defunct because it often generalises situations and forms rules according to it like a wannabe science.
That is why moral codes don’t work.

Morality is an individual activity.

It should be based on empathy, rationality and intuition, rather than traditional bullshit.

This is because tradition ascribes the label of right to things which cannot be justified through empathy like marital rape, honour killings or burning people at stake.

Morality should be a reaction to a situation rather than blind following of rules.

The Baboon believes in the Moral Compass but not in Moral Codes.

Morality is subjective and may change from person to person, according to different situations.

This in no way means an individual should forsake morality altogether.

And here ends the Baboon Banter on Morality.

Eat your cupcakes!

 

— X —

The Baboon apologises for being late.

The world was on the brink of a nuclear war.

Or maybe the Baboon just had a bad dream.

The Baboon loves you.

Oink!

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Baboon Banter On Bestiality


Baboon Bestiality

Baboon Bestiality

The Baboon swears on his mountain of slimy bananas that it loves all kinds of filthy copulations. And that is why the Baboon is in awe of the unique ability of you base but creative creatures to fuck, suck, lick or sexualize anybody and anything.

What sours this strawberry pie is how some groups of prude humans reject and are disgusted by their species’ diverse sexualities.

So, when the Baboon encounters people who actually embrace these differences and work towards making them acceptable, he greatly respects them.

In conversation with such a person, the Baboon encountered a difference of opinion.

The human was a queer female — an LGBTQ-feminist activist.

The Baboon had asked a question about bestiality. She said one of the things about sexual liberty was consent. And since animals don’t speak human languages (except for the Baboon) they really can’t communicate consent.

So, that was why she did not support bestiality.

The Baboon of course disagreed, not only because he can ramble whole articles and not just consent, but also, because animals communicate regularly with humans.

The Baboon regards it a little naive to think that humans can train dogs to sit, fetch or sniff out cocaine from the pockets of sneaky smugglers, and still consider dogs can’t communicate something as basic as a desire for sex?

Sex is one of the three basic desires, along with hunger and thirst.

Every species has some way to communicate the desire to have sex, just like the desire to eat or drink.

If human pet owners can be told by their pets that they are hungry or thirsty, the animals are very well capable to convey they are horny (take the Baboon’s word for it).

But the Baboon also thinks that this may not be so simple.

There maybe (are) cases where the animals are really raped. And it is not such a gobble-dung idea to suppose in many instances that these animals are not able to communicate this to a third person.

Thus, the Baboon thinks bestiality is al right when done with consent.

But the Baboon will not encourage (nor discourage) this as it becomes difficult to differentiate between sex-with-consent and barbaric rape, for the human society (which is still really retarded as compared to the Baboons’, I must say).

End of Baboon Banter.

Now go fuck that pie!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Anonymous: A Short History


 

It’s unheard of that a politically active collective has its origins in memes, pranks and pornography.

But Anonymous is exactly such a collective which has, in recent years, created a storm in the cyber as well as the real world.
Using cyber attacks, information leaks and real world protests, it has not only made the world governments scramble, but also made a generation which was viewed as apathetic, take part in the politics of the world.

 

Origins

The womb and the cradle of Anonymous was the notorious image board called 4chan. In a section labeled as /b/ , where people posted anything random anonymously, the first members of Anonymous mingled. They shared porn, created memes such as LOLcats and ,rarely, provided emotional support to heart-broken /b/rothers (as they were called).

 

Its culture was rude, vulgar and ruthless. Its members were trolls, cyber-bullies and hackers (although very few were actually technical hackers). Its unity was forged by executing pranks together — making fake phone calls and emotionally blackmailing naive victims with the threat of leaking their nude photos.

 

Its language was homophobic, racist and sexist, although it didn’t necessarily mean that they were actually any of these.

 

4chan was the dark underbelly of the Internet where people could anonymously encourage someone to suicide without revealing one’s identity.

 

It was this moral-less culture and anonymity which gave birth to Anonymous.

 

Project Chanology

 

Anonymous’ first mass attack was against the church of Scientology, which made the group enter the real world for the first time ever.

The Church of Scientology is a religious organization with a  bizzare set of mythos and a controversial record of corruption, ruthlessly crushing criticism and destroying critics through intimidation tactics and litigation.

 

On January 14, 2008, Scientology published a video of Tom Cruise extolling the  the virtues of the church.
In it, the manic looking cruise talked in hyperbolic sentences, with the music of mission impossible running in the background.

 

The video was rather ridiculous and its effect was contrary to what was intended. And so the /b/rothers loved it — it was the perfect fodder for their lulz (a corruption of LOL).

But after getting trashed by media houses like The Times and the Daily Telegraph, Scientology started to take down the videos with the threat of litigation.

 

Upset about losing their source of  the lulz, the /b/rothers termed it as Internet censorship.

And hence, project Chanology was born.

 

It was a large scale attack against the Church of Scientology and it derived its name from 4chan itself.

 

A video entitled “Call to Action” appeared on 28 January, 2008, calling all the people involved in Project Chanology to protest outside the Scientology centers on February 10, 2008.

It featured an electronic voice speaking British English and stock videos of clouds in the sky.

 

By January 30, 2008, 170 protests had been planned worldwide. People in Guy Fawkes masks, holding placards with meme references gathered all around like a flash flood under the name of Anonymous.

 

The media went into a frenzy. Regular activists who had been protesting against Scientology also joined in.

 

The issue came into the forefront along with the church’s various Human Rights Violations. The hype and the excitement had eventually fizzled out, but it had established Anonymous as a collective and had reinvigorated the protests against Scientology.

Project Chanology still continues on the Internet.

 

Operation Payback

 

The fight against censorship and the freedom of knowledge reached far bigger proportions in Operation Payback.

 

It started with the Indian company, Aiplex Software, which was hired to take down sites which didn’t respond when they were asked to take down Bollywood related content.

 

Anonymous along with other pro-piracy activists launched an operation against Aiplex.

But someone had single-handedly taken down their site already.

 

Anonymous then launched several Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on various high profile pro-copyright, anti-piracy organizations, law firms and individuals like Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) etc.

A DDoS attack basically floods a website’s server with so much traffic that it collapses. Every minute that the website is down, the owner of the website accrues huge losses.

 

Many websites which Anonymous attacked were down for more than a day and had to bear losses exceeding thousands of dollars.

 

When some countries tried to block Pirate Bay, one of the most popular torrent sites, Operation Payback was joined by hordes of new people to avenge this censorship.

 

But Anonymous reached new heights of fame and importance with its avengence of Wikileaks.

 

In December 2010, after Wikileaks started publishing confidential US diplomatic cables, it came under immense pressure to stop its operations.

Corporations like Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard and other online services refused to work with Wikileaks, paralyzing it.

Anonymous launched attacks on many of these sites.
But the most famous of them all was against Paypal.

The website was brought down by a DDoS attack which costed the company a whopping 3.5 Million Pounds!

Operation Payback also leaked many confidential data of the various companies it attacked, causing immense losses and effectively deterring Internet Censorship.

 

Arab Spring

 

During the 2011 Arab Spring, Anonymous provided immense support to the revolutions and many of the protesters even joined Anonymous.

 

The ruthless censorship of the internet all over the region was aimed to stop people from organizing large scale protests. Also, there was considerable manipulation and censorship of the media.

 

Activities like Operation Tunisia helped distribute anonymizing software to overcome Internet censorship and Anonymous helped in sharing videos and information to the world outside.

 

It was the time when Anonymous truly matured as a political collective.

 

 

Some might say that Anonymous is all hype without substance. But its true power lay in information.

It’s major leaks, like that of HBGary security firm which uncovered a plan to discredit Wikileaks by providing fake information or that of the LulzSec which leaked many documents of the FBI or CIA, are its true weapons.

 

They also act as a force to keep the Internet free and clean and often target sites with pedophilia.

 

Their power to create hype also helps to highlight relatively ignored issues in the mainstream media.

 

But their biggest contribution is their ability to transform an apathetic generation of youngsters into politically conscious citizens of the world.

Tagged , , , , ,

We Have Survived


We have survived.

We have survived your gas chambers and your World Wars.

We have mutated and lived through your nuclear explosions.

We have taken bullets to our heads to fight the ignorance you preached.

When you decided to bifurcate our homes and cleave our hearts to suckle your emaciated, infantile egos, we were the bridges across your borders.

In your carnival of riots which celebrate your manufactured hatred, we provide sanctuary to the refugees of sanity whom you betray.

We are the ones who pick up the pieces and bury them in our bosom after you decide to smash the head of that 5 year old in the name of your religion.

We are the rumbling in the streets and the roar of hope which you seek to suppress with your pitiful water canons and your police.

We are the geniuses whom you behead and later on uphold as the icons of your religions which we rebelled against.

 

We have seen you destroy our world;

And we have lived through it all.

 

We have survived.

We will thrive.

Beware!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Forest


It has been here forever.

 

A narrow strip of trees, caged by two walls on the either side – the remnants of the forest which gave way to the city.

 

It stands stubborn, arrogant and indestructible.

 

The bulldozers never touched it.
The axes were all impotent.

 

In its bosom it holds a parallel civilization.

 

From the windows of the high-rises all around, one can see the birds – its airforce – keeping a vigil.

 

Often peacocks come out of hiding, weary of the incessant love-making.

Often they will fly towards the city, peering through the windows at sexual violence and erectile dysfunction.

Their call rings like laughter.

 

They can see through the hollowness of your eyes.
The systematic draining of your soul has made you incomplete.

What happens when you realize that with all that money you can only buy Lamborghinis and 12 Storey Palaces – but these are far from enough.

 

You sleep with a hundred people, but the sex is dead.

 

You peer into the eyes of your lover and your lover needs another cigarette to stand you.

What happens when you waste your life to get to the top and realize that you’re already dead.

 

What happens when even your death is just another event, even for you?

You blame the concrete and the machine.
But it’s you who is broken.

 

The forest knows.

And that is why it refuses to abandon you.

 

The walls on the either sides have gaping holes with open arms.

 

Take all your drugs and alcohol and cigarettes there.

The forest will let you intoxicate yourself.

It will let you vomit and spasm and even let you die of an overdose.

 

It will let you mourn, for you should mourn your death.

Its mosquitoes will suck away all your blood.

Let them.

 

If you die she shall bury you in herself.

 

But if you survive, find a lover.

 

Make love in the forest.

 

Feel the skin instead of the designer clothes.

 

Kiss with love and not with technique.

 

Taste and not just lick.

 

Do it with love and passion and not for duration or achievement.

 

You will know pleasure and not just a fake orgasm.

 

Do not sleep in the forest.

Stay awake and watch the trees.

 

They will shower their dew on you.

 

Look at the stars peeking from behind the canopy.

 

Let the dogs sniff at you when they come.

 

Know that you exist and you are not your name, or your position, or your popularity or your money.

 

You are worth the labour of the Universe even without those things.

 

Go home.

 

Take a bath.

 

But don’t forget the forest.

Tagged , , , , , , ,