The Anti-Soapbox: Collected Essays Page 2
* * *
One final note.
This book’s title is meant to be a statement in itself. I attached the “anti-“ because typical soapbox oratory has strings attached: an agenda to be pushed, an ego to be stroked, a donation box to be filled. Also, it tends to be rather contentious and inflammatory. Today’s soapboxes—be they lecterns, pulpits, microphone-studded podiums, or actual crate-board crowning a street corner—are more like violent weapons, instead of founts for goodwill and ideas.
This book, on the other hand, attempts to fulfill the soapbox’s original ideal. It is presented as humbly, candidly, and transparently as I know how, without stake in its approval. Consider everything in it open to debate. Take it or leave it, accept it or reject it, love or hate or indifference—it’s all the same to me. I offer these views in the spirit of casting bread on the waters, and I would hope my reader approaches them with a similar detachment. Feel free to close this book at any time.
I. P.R.I.M.O.: FIVE TERMS TO KNOW
Greetings, fellow citizen of Earth. Did you know there’s a perpetual war for your mind, waged in clever and invisible ways?
In much of the world today, we are constantly bombarded with a flurry of information, symbols, and images; and, unfortunately, a significant percentage of this flow originates from unscrupulous sources seeking to influence your thinking. So powerful is this influence, it can alter your perception of yourself, those around you, and even the very reality in which you live and breathe. That is to say, this influence allows highly questionable people to “get in your head.”
To keep this as an essay rather than a book, I will not address the great many individual forms of this influence, those various lies and misconceptions that flow through our society’s psychological underbelly. Instead, I will familiarize you with five vital terms, to imbue you with the scrutiny necessary to independently identify such influence yourself—so much teaching fishing, rather than distributing fish.
Term number one: platitude, defined as “a flat, dull, or trite remark, especially one uttered as if it were fresh or profound.”
Ask yourself: How many times have you been forced to consider a given piece of information purely because it was offered in a loud, imperious manner? And, how many times have such empty remarks been used as substitutes for real substance, such as evidence and objective debate?
All too often, we are blasted with platitudes from the likes of media personalities and other attention-seekers, usually as persuasively loud sound-bites being substituted for strong, substantial argument. To amplify the effect, platitudes are often supplemented by heartwarming music or cued fits of applause (think political campaign speeches). If the speaker is a bit more rough-and-tumble, the platitudes might include manipulative tactics such as psychologically punishing rhetoric, designed to inflict the greatest sentimental impact and exert the fullest amount of control. The platitude is, thus, a good friend of sociopaths and manipulators, used as a psychological weapon.
Suffer enough platitudes, day in and day out, and one runs the risk of being conditioned by them. At such a saturation point, we can be affected and influenced despite conscious effort not to, even when aware of what’s at play. Such is the nature of the subconscious mind, vulnerable to the attrition of simple, brute-force repetition (see term number three).
To defend oneself against the dastardly platitude, train the mind to respond only to clear, understandable, and demonstrable ideas, not to thin tripe that sounds good but, in reality, is all show and no substance (if not an outright manipulative attack).
Now, term number two: ridiculous, defined as “worthy of ridicule or derision.”
“Ridiculous” has a broad range of meaning in today’s lexicon, but here I use it in the literal sense, as “something or someone that should be ridiculed.” Why is this term included in this little guidebook for mental warfare? Because ridicule is a potent weapon in that war; namely, as it relates to social control. With public disapproval being one of modern man’s utmost phobias, ridicule gains use as a manipulator’s tool, leveraged against others as a quiet, yet highly effective, measure of control. It’s why some people fear public speaking more than death.
The psychology behind the fear of ridicule is a book or two on its own, but it can be summed up as a powerful subconscious complex. When activated, the complex will, generally, distort one’s self-perception and other psychological parameters, resulting in a potent, paralyzing sort of mental pain, as to dictate one’s behavior to a degree where other control schemes fall short. In a culture rife with social neuroses rooted in disapproval, fear of ridicule has gone viral, almost to the point of ubiquity; thus, the fear of being labeled “ridiculous” is, in many circles, the equivalent of social excommunication, nothing less than a scarlet letter. Whether deserved or not, the effect has its impact (if one lets it); and therein lies the source of ridicule’s power, which is immense enough for public speaking to sometimes rate worse than death.
Defending against control-by-ridicule can be either very hard or very easy, depending on the individual. With this particular fear depending so much on a need for the approval of one’s peers, then the solution is, naturally, to rid oneself of that need (which is not a need at all, but merely an acquired condition—completely reversible, in other words). Of course, when it comes to kicking mankind’s approval-addiction, there’s no better case of “easier said than done,” for approval is threaded quite deeply in many societies and, thus, the bedrock of our psychology. Regardless, the world’s manipulators will hold power over anyone who clings to this “need.”
Defend against ridicule by withstanding disapproval, as to prevent any reaction on your part, thus derailing the whole control scheme.
Term number three: inculcation, defined as “to cause or influence someone to accept an idea or feeling through repetition.”
Inculcation and psychological conditioning are not foreign concepts to most people, yet the two are commonly disregarded as unimportant. Ironically, one of the reasons for this unconcern is conditioning itself: through daily exposure to the manipulative inculcation of media and one another, the mind can be conditioned into believing that it isn’t being conditioned. I’m not here, says the inculcation, and, after enough repetition, that statement just might start feeling true, against all logic and self-evidence. It all goes back to the tried-and-true concept of The Big Lie: repeat something often enough, loud enough, and punishingly enough, and society is prone to accept it. After all, screeching microphone feedback can still get a response, despite saying nothing.
Another question to ask yourself: How many times has something seemed true purely because it has appeared in multiple media outlets? We see here another quality of inculcation: serving as a substitute for truth and evidence, much like the platitude. Repeat a fact or image in enough separate, reputable-seeming TV shows and newspapers, and a sense of consensus is formed in the viewer’s subconscious mind, with it an illusion of truth. It’s the same principle that makes something feel right because enough other people are seen doing it (damn the old adage about jumping off a bridge).
To defend against inculcation and conditioning, train the mind to judge truth based strictly on fact, actuality, and merit, instead of how many folks on TV echo the latest piece of glorified gossip.
Term number four: misdirection, defined as “a wrong or incorrect direction, guidance, or instruction.”
How often do you hear a news headline stating one thing, but come away with impressions about another subject entirely? Furthermore, how long does it take you to realize this discrepancy and its effect on your mind?
“BREAKING NEWS: BIG EVIL FOREIGN DICTATOR THAT NEEDS DEALING WITH BUYS PACK OF CIGARETTES FROM LOCAL VENDOR.”
Dissect that fictitious headline. Is it about a head of state buying some smokes, or are we receiving some covert political indoctrination (about a crummy piece-of-garbage dictator we should nuke to hell right now)? We see here an example of linguistic assault, where ke
y terms and wording combine to exert a profound psychological effect, much like that of a sociopath’s incisive platitude. This is the essence of misdirection.
When it comes to misdirection, it is as often of the unintentional variety as the intentional. After all, the media people producing this stuff aren’t immune to the manipulative mind-war at hand, the way we all breathe the same air. Some misdirection is as blatant and laughable as the mock headline above; other instances can be subtler and less-obvious, if not downright stealthy (such as simple condensation of the news, or ignoring something entirely). In any case, unless one is readily on guard and looking for it, misdirection will misdirect, often subconsciously, under the radar of one’s conscious, topside thoughts. Then, the result is mental “programming,” which can lie dormant and unsuspected for long periods of time—until suddenly, when the original subject comes up in conversation, that programming is triggered, and certain thoughts and feelings emerge. “Why does that big foreign dictator appear so evil as he buys his cigarettes? And how do we deal with him ...?”
To defend against misdirection, train the mind to see and hear what is really seen and heard, not what you’re supposed to see and hear.
Term number