The price of true honesty.

I don't lie. 

Not to make things easier, not to protect myself, not ever. I mean, I played along with the Santa Claus experience when my kids were little, but very little else knowingly false escapes my lips. I can lie, I just choose not to. I've not yet figured out why I go to such efforts, but I do know that it's just easier to tell the truth. I try to do well in life as well as do good. I try not to sin by silence while also trying to be tactful in my advice. I try to do all this humbly. Honesty isn't always easy. It has cost me many friends.

Often when I get to know someone, or rather they get to know me, there comes a period where my acquaintance ends up feeling judged. But I'm not judging them by living my life a certain way, I think they just become disappointed in themselves. This occasionally can be expressed as anger, with the acquaintance lashing out hurt, ultimately they feel that I am arrogant, elitist or an ego-maniac. They argue that I think I'm better than them, ironically, because I'm being what they consider better than them. Usually this behaviour is limited to folks of limited intelligence and/or experience. These are things everyone can do something about. Not everyone will. However there is one outcome of getting to know me that seems to be universal amongst everyone, even very close friends. 

They stop telling me things. 

I think because again, they feel judged and don't want to be. "I drove home drunk on the weekend. Was lucky to have made it," admits my silly friend. "I guess so was everyone else on the roads or sidewalks," I offer. Now my friend feels ashamed rather than proud. "I cheat on my wife, I get away with it all the time," admits my promiscuous acquaintance. "Hey, I'm a man!" he offers as if this is a natural thing for men to do, as opposed to women. So I ask, "How would you feel if you found out it was true that I was fucking your wife?" Now my acquaintance feels like the person being cheated upon. I'm travelling with a co-worker who is driving. A woman cuts him off so he follows much too closely and aggressively, I presume to extract some form of revenge by scaring her. "Maybe next time she won't cut somebody off," he says. "Maybe," I say, "but her bad driving could have been unintentional and your bad driving is intentional. Besides, we're one car length further back than we would have been if she hadn't cut you off. It really makes no difference to anyone but you. Why get upset and go to all this trouble?" In all of these instances, I am not judging the individuals, I'm just pointing out facts in the real world that make them feel judged. They are, in fact, judging themselves.

They, like many, are living a lie. I'm only trying to help them discover their authenticity and perhaps develop some empathy. Getting drunk, making poor decisions, cheating on your wife and getting angry in traffic are all things that happen. It would be silly to think we could eradicate these things, but we damn well better be honest with ourselves about them. 

Such is it that, given enough time, those who know me discover their authentic selves whether they wish to or not. This is the price of penultimate honesty. Their only recourse is to stop expressing their inauthenticities. Which they do, readily. I believe the most obvious reason for doing so is to not have to address the fact that aspects of their personalities need work. And here again, I sound like a pompous asshole, but I'm beyond caring if you can't see what is simply true. Expressed as a syllogism it might sound like this: I know people who make their lives difficult by being inauthentic. I know people who make their lives easier by being authentic. Easier is better than more difficult. If the preceding three sentences are true, do you now feel better about the word "better?" If there couldn't be a better life, how do we have something to strive for? Also, if there is a better life, then it must also be true that there are people living a better life. If authenticity leads to that better life and I am my most authentic self, then I must be living a better life. Don't think I'm better than you, I don't. Think I'm living better than you because I'm living more authentically. I'm not an asshole, I just always tell the truth. It just so happens that you're full of shit and I've got a shovel. I'm here to help, I've rolled up my sleeves. Don't hate me for it.

The Authentic Self, which nerds have been talking about since philosophy was invented, is achievable to varying degrees. Nerds, by the way, in my estimation are folks who have an appreciation for intelligence and understanding. Nerds are one social group that I feel have the healthiest approach to living, simply because of their authenticity. I might even say there is a moral superiority to nerd culture that is attached to intellectualism and such things are healthy. Spokesnerds John and Hank Green attribute this to thinking complexly and they are right, empathy requires complex thoughts, but I'm digressing to the point of requiring a new essay. (What else is new?) The point is, authenticity has been a concern for thousands of years, there is no easy path to it, but every path to it comes to a vast ocean of personal responsibility. We must do the work necessary to be authentic and there's a reason it's called work. It's so much easier to be inauthentic. 

 

Whenever I tell people that I don't lie, I'm sure they think, although they rarely express it, "Well, I don't lie either." But that's a lie. You lie all the time, ten times before lunch on a quiet day. If you truly never lied in the same way that I never lie, you would know how very difficult it is.

Hollywood feeds the 21st Century Enlightenment

(This essay was originally published at the now defunct Disinfo.com)

The 21st Century Enlightenment is simple. In much the same way as the Enlightenment of the late middle ages, when the printing press was invented, (amongst a multitude of other "modernations") technology has once again brought us into a new paradigm of existence. In this so called "network intelligence" we become an amalgam intellect. In the old Enlightenment we shared books. In the new enlightenment we share each other, in real time. If this is not hyperreality, it doesn't exist.

However, this revolutionary sharing of the global experience is merely the "how" of its existence. It is causally self-referential. I think the topic of interest on the matter should be directed at our actions. Our actions make the changes that take place in the world. It is true that the internet can organize revolution quicker than the printing press, but we are not revolting because such technologies exist. We revolt because there is cause for revolt. This realization is the second part of the 21st century enlightenment. (This too we share with many aspects of the original Enlightenment.)

Just like in ye olde Enlightenment we have politicians telling us one thing and another, sides to choose, ideologies to ponder and artists commenting on the times. In ye olde Enlightenment we had books, plays and paintings. Today we can add moving pictures and Hollywood is rife with social commentary. As part of my writing workload I am a film reviewer for my local newspaper, so I see all these films, whether I want to or not.

See any film about a dystopian future and you are seeing the left over fears from the end of the 20th century extrapolated into a plausible totalitarian outcome. The real world hasn't ended, the apocalypse remains nigh. All these films feature a corrupt and misguided government and a peoples revolution. These films are aimed at teenagers and are carefully crafted vehicles of effective social engineering. They even introduce the idea of world shaping to very young kids now, with animated movies about Plato's cave, the downfalls of societies, perfect psychologies inside, perfect philosophies outside. This engineering via art is not a new phenomenon, but it is currently rampant in entertainment. As a reflection of society, art's commentary is a wish for change. In the 21st Century Enlightenment such wishes come through loud and clear, instantly.

Like the french Revolution had JJ Rousseau and his Social Contract, we have a new standard by which we measure that which we consider fair and just. We can know no better than Rousseau as to our correctness in our times and places, but we both agree that something stinks about the state of affairs we find ourselves inhabiting. It seems too, that in our new enlightenment as in the old, the problems come down to the machinations of (perceived) money and (perceived) power. However, now, unlike then, we don't imagine such noble futures for merely France, or any other nation, but we dream globally. Furthermore, in the old enlightenment such imaginings we're left to the educated, some would say, elite of our societies, the Rousseaus of the world. Whereas now, anyone with a computer can become a philosopher.

What these new age philosophers are discovering, uncovering and beginning to act upon is a key correlation of the 21st century enlightenment: The gap between the elite advantage and the rest of us is not dissimilar to the gap between the "western world" and the rest of the globe. It's not just the rich that are the problem, because, on a global scale, Canada is rich. I am rich. We are all guilty in our affluence. We owe our wealth to inappropriate institutional realities, systemic dichotomous beliefs and misguided intentions.

Nation of Idiots Wins/Loses

This essay was originally published on the now defunct Disinfo.com, before Trump was elected...

If reasonable people don't vote, an army of idiots wins out.

In a few days Americans will go to the polls and elect a new president. Barring some unusual outcome, it will be either Hillary Clinton, a lifelong politician or Donald Trump, a "wealth celebrity." I think if Clinton wins you will have eight more years of business as usual, circling the drain. I think if Trump wins you will circle no more. 

Everywhere you look in modern life, there is a divide. We are much more apt to notice and appreciate differences rather than similarities. This is the hyper-manipulated self. It no longer matters if you are the generation that wrote the programming (dead), the generation that bought and sold the packaging (dying), the generation that wished for the programming to be correct (writing essays), or the generation that keeps their programming dynamic (not reading them): We are all aware that the people in charge are going to do whatever they see fit, in order to keep conditions in their favour. Thus, we peel back the curtain, revealing the shrivelled old wizard, bellowing commands into an ancient machine. We know it's a shit show, so we don't care, so we don't vote. In this scenario nobody wins and in this case, not winning could mean dying.

I understand the appeal of Trump, because I can appreciate wanting to shake up the system. There are a great many things wrong with America and with western society in general, but Captain Hair is not the answer. Most of what Trump says is incoherent and the things he uses as his selling points are imbecilic. Anyone who is smart enough to understand that Americans are enslaved by the elite, yet dumb enough to think that Trump is going to share the wealth is missing the point. It's true that Trump would make a difference, perhaps becoming the most radical president in history, but none of the things that he could accomplish would detract from business continuing unabated. If it did Trump would simply be killed, like JFK. Perhaps no president will be able to make the changes required to create a true democracy, because of money, greed and entitlement.

Americans are having to choose between an evil bitch and an evil bastard, which is difficult in any scenario, but with voter apathy threatening an intellectual shortfall at the polls, we might end up with the crazier of the two, rather than the saner. Plenty of former presidents have been a little bit crazy, but Trump's particular brand of crazy might be more dangerous than useful. If you're gonna go for crazy, America, you need someone who wants to desalinate oceans, go to Mars, end oil, provide free energy, food, water. Or rather you need someone able to stand up to the real powers that be, so that ideas like these can be taken from absurd fantasy to concrete reality. At any rate, Trump is not the person to deliver good change, neither is Clinton but she is at least safe. Just vote her in and the next time some crazy weirdo starts talking about good change, pie in the sky, save the world type stuff, listen. Don't vote for a guy whose solution is a bloody wall. Trump is a giant step backwards.

Trump Makes America his Bitch

(This essay was previously published on the now defunct Disinfo.com under the title, "Political Incorrectness.")

Merriam-Webster defines political correctness as "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated."

This isn't the first definition available to me, upon my Google search but the other two were not really correct. This is because "political correctness" as a "thing" shifts, grows and changes. Dynamic definitions are not a particularly new phenomenon. In ye olden days, for instance, one might conspire to collect faggots with a gay friend, with nary an eyebrow raised. Such is it with ours, or any other language. Things change. Tastes change. Meanings change. ("Faggots" are bundles of kindling and "gay" means happy.)

I would be remiss not to point out the other two definitions of PC I googled, they're relevant:

"The avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

Well, that's pretty telling. I bet that "often considered as taken to extremes," part was added to the original. It's also a non-committal definition, "action(s) that are perceived to exclude..." and "socially disadvantaged" are unclear. It also takes our intentionality out of it by saying we "avoid" such "expression or action" rather than "conform to a belief," as in the first, more proper definition.

Our final definition is, "A way that we speak in America so we don't offend whining pussies."

This is from urbandictionary.com and while incomplete, it is the apparent consensus in America today. If you took a poll of which of these three definitions was most aptly suited to define PC, I'm sure the latter would win by a landslide. Philosophically, of course the first definition is the best. In terms of day to day life, we shall do the best we can, one day at a time, etc. (And we may have to define "aptly.")

Now we have Political Incorrectness: the attitude or policy shown by someone who does not believe that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

Such is it that we now find ourselves awash in the noxious rhetoric of a moral degenerate. Why is beyond me, (haven't we more interesting things to do than watch Rome burn?) Yet Donald Trump continues to bluntly fly in the face of all things politically correct at every chance. And the trucker-hatted masses eat it up. If Mr. Trump is asked about his derogatory comments, (toward women, Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, insert group here,) he simply throws up his eyelids and announces political correctness is ruining the country. I'm not surprised that Trump has stupid answers, I'm surprised when audiences applaud them.

Political Incorrectness, as illustrated by Trump, (although he is not alone in this,) is easily enjoyed by ordinary folks who have been walking around biting their tongues since the 90s. Are people sick of PC? Do they now see it as going to far, or being BS or "not working?" Yes they do. In fact, so do I, in may ways. (If you're playing a sport and you're not keeping score, you've gone too far. If you don't want to learn about the Holocaust because it hurts your feelings, you've gone to far.)

However, thinking that a group of humans have taken things too far doesn't necessarily mean we should combat that by going too far the other way.

Even if political correctness is the number one contributor to what George Carlin called the "pussification of America" you still can't combat it by reverting to the basic bigotry of bygone eras. Unless of course, that is what you want. And if you want it, then it is you and you are it. This is how political incorrectness makes you its bitch. It asks you to announce your prejudices proudly, as if it is your duty to save the country by being an asshole.

Donald Trump beats bigoted drums to the sad ears of republicans, happy to be free of their muzzles. He makes money doing it.* Did you know that? Not only is the Donald paying for his own campaign, he's turning a profit. The more voters who jump on board and buy a trucker hat at $25 and $35 bucks, the more millions he puts in his pocket. I don't think Trump has winning the nomination as his goal, he just wants to shine in the light, have a bit of fun. So really, he's wasting time, except that he's shining light on crowds of people who think like him and that's a scary thing.

*SOURCE: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-october-campaign-finance-report

The hallmarks of the left/right debate do not even enter into whether or not your find yourself on the PC or PIC side, Americans feel that people like Trump are just being honest, some of them find it refreshing. In a way, they are right. It's still not a solution.

This is the product of political and ideological extremism, moderate republicans are not drooling over Trump, moderate democrats are not decrying political incorrectness, because they don't take idiots seriously. That this conversation is even taking place is the result of a crafty weasel knowing some tricks that take advantage of a base ignorance.*

*SOURCE: http://www.bendbulletin.com/opinion/3865233-151/column-political-incorrectness-is-scientifically-bogus#

If Trump is popular because "he's saying the things we want to say and can't, " what does that say about PC, or PIC, or freedom of speech, or people's mindsets, intelligences and abilities? The answer seems to be "a great deal." For movements, (of any size from any place) do not grow from nothing. So if you are a nation of pre-emptive bigots, then you will get an appropriate leader to follow, who leads you where you want to be led. You won't because you're not. You're just a little confused because you haven't yet figured out that the people you desire are the enemy.

It's okay to like that Trump doesn't bend to the bullshit, or "is speaking honestly about his feelings," but wrong thinking is still wrong. Hitler spoke passionately about his beliefs, it doesn't make them right.

"All things in moderation," they say. If life is lived in the middle, the center is where all things meet, the hub of the wheel, Trump has no business there, neither does political incorrectness, or correctness for that matter. These things belong in the fringes of society. The extremity of desires are mislead and counterproductive. This will all go away by way of caring less, not more.

The Chill American

(Disinfo.com previously published this essay, but has since shut down...)

I am a dual citizen. In Canada, I am allowed to be a dual citizen, Canadian and American. I was born in Illinois. We moved to Canada when I was very young. My Dad was Canadian, a leftist liberal. My mom was American, a republican. Both came from blue collar homes, as did I, as did my children.

Being a dual citizen has little benefit, I still have to wait at the border when I go to a Mariners game, I still have to wait when I come back. I only bring it up because I wish to make it clear that I have experienced the differences between an American and a Canadian. I'm not educated on the matter, I've lived it. I've also heard all the jokes. Today these differences are no laughing matter, for I believe that America, on the whole and in general, needs to chill the fuck out. Of course, I'm a socialist Canadian, what else would I think? Hear me out brothers and sisters, for you all can take a big clue from your nerdy upstairs neighbour, maybe even stop killing one another.

1.) In 2015, America was the ninth richest country in the world (by GDP PPP) and the fourteenth in average ranking of its educational system. By comparison, Canada, a very similar nation culturally, was the fifteenth richest country in the world and seventh in its educational system. Our national IQ's are 98 in America, one point higher in Canada. From these fact we can deduce that wealth doesn't necessarily beget an education and that an education, while nurturing intelligence by exercising thought, doesn't necessarily enhance intelligence testing. IQ tests, it turns out, are always calibrated to average 100. Meaning, that if I could transport 50 average subjects from the year 1916 and give them today's IQ test, they would score lower than they would taking a similar test from their year. Oddly, if we were to take an intelligence from their year, we too would probably also score lower than we would taking our own time's test. This is because of the differences in language and fortunately, reason. It is the same reason that I find it hard to understand Shakespeare, or read Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. While I don't have much faith in IQ tests, I do hold out hope, both for myself and humankind, for if it is true that our species is experiencing an overall intellectual growth, it has to be due to improvements in our ability to be logical creatures. Reason always wins because it must.

2.) America is the most armed nation in the world. Not everyone in America has a gun, but there are enough guns in America to accommodate its citizenry. With 112.6 guns for every 100 Americans, I think we should all feel confident that there will never be a moment in history where Red Dawn comes true and any force should paratroop into suburban neighbourhoods. Such a farce would end in corpses gently floating to the ground in a rain of blood. If we again compare ourselves (being Canadian) to our neighbours to the south, they have ten times the deaths caused by gun violence per year, but they also have ten times the population. I think the more telling stat is while they have more than a gun per citizen, we have three for every ten.

3.) Everyone is afraid. It might be because they know everyone is armed. They react from a place of fear, combined with a substandard education, an inability to cope with the stress of change. If they react, it too will likely take a violent form. The cycle has been socially engineered into their lives: you have the right to perpetuate this existence, perhaps even the duty. You have it all and want to keep it. You are correct to fear terrorists, criminals and nut jobs, they have weapons and ideals. You have ideals too, luckily you're in the right. Quick kill that guy before he kills you! Of course the problem here is that you don't have any really valid reason for killing that guy, in exactly the same way he has no valid reason to kill you. You're both programmed to believe the things you do by a system that wants you to do it. If you happen to be hungry, you're in possession of what I consider a valid reason to take action. Also, if you're: oppressed, violated, or otherwise damaged by the actions of others. But if you are killing people for things other people have done, there's something wrong with you, not them.

If your populace is entitled, armed and afraid, with a poor education, misguided since birth, it should come to no surprise that by way of competition rather than cooperation, we should end up killing each other rather than those who make us do these things. Wouldn't you rather just put down the gun and party with your neighbour, the gay, black, policeman. (You know he's got all the good drugs.) I know I would. What the world needs to see right now is the Chill American. Said American, having taken a moment to chill, might have a second to think about what is going on around them, what everyone is doing and more importantly, why? I fear that the only Chill American is a Canadian.