Well, then, that's final - I had enough with the said word. It pours down the pages of every magazine, drops out of the TV screens and floods out of the radio. Really, it's even a good tone to have the word appear on various webpages in various contexts. It's the new - well, a little old now - hip word. And where, then, might I ask, is the actual freedom attached to the word? Where's the freedom of choice, morality, action, word, preference? What we're given to look at and perform is nowhere near the actual freedom, which, in essence, would count as a perhaps somewhat more ordered version of anarchy. But even if we ignore the implications that the word freedom gives (thank you, Merriam-Webster), we do not even have the basic freedoms that the democracy is meant to offer. Everything is restricted and constrained, everything has limits, buts and strings attached. In essence, being free either means possessing vast riches or wielding enormous power. Which, I'm pretty sure, about 98-99 percent of the global population do not have. Another option is living as a hermit or a nomad - or somewhere in Siberia, where other people might appear once in ten years to ask for direction to somewhere where people actually live.
The pretty word, this "freedom" is merely a nice-sounding concept that the governments and the corporations are using to goad people into complacency and illusion of happiness and self-importance. But to be quite honest and frank, unless you have wealth, fame or power, you're not going to influence anything. Anything on the major scale that doesn't regard cosmetic difference, in any case - unless a whole great body of nobodies actually decides to have had enough and displays it accordingly - either by a dramatic vote change, or by the much more violent means of revolution. And to be quite honest again, neither is going to change anything, either - the candidates are pre-picked and the leaders of the revolution are not idiots.
So... When people like G.W. Bush or some "liberal" press representative gives nice phrases about freedom and liberty, I feel more and more like gnashing my teeth. It may have once meant something. Today, its value is so low, it won't get you even a piece of bread.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My thoughts exactly. On some days it frustrates the hell out of me.
ReplyDeleteFreedom... Yeah, the freedom to drive to work (e.g. sit in a traffic jam) every day to get through a day of suck-arse work to make my boss rich.
The freedom to vote... when there's no one you even want to vote for. Bunch of 'tards.
And ofcourse the freedom to go wherever you want to go, unless it's someone else's property, fenced off, protected nature areas or simply too dangerous to go (e.g. highways and military testing zones). Which makes 95% of the netherlands unwalkable.
Freedom is a farce.
Well, there's really freedom and freedom, and I'm pretty fine with the way things go until someone starts breathing down my neck, but when all you hear is "freedom freedom freedom" and what you see is awesome lack of it, kinda makes one irritated once in a while.
ReplyDeleteIn short: There's not a country in the world where people live free (to my knowledge). The only difference between countries is how much stuff you can pull before you get shot.
ReplyDeleteI agree. In general, any country with a government already presumes a certain level of lack of freedom, since one has to give up certain freedoms to get the things offered by a governed state. Then again, ultimately, freedom wouldn't exist even in a desert or a mountain peak - you still depend on weather and landscape.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what to say. Sure, complete freedom is a farce, but there isn't anyone on this planet who has absolute, complete freedom.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, am glad I don't live in the US - for the "land of the free" freedom sure is a scarce commodity there.
Ofcourse. We'll never have complete freedom, like, I want to fly out into space but I can't. *sulk*
ReplyDeleteBut it's not nature's limitations that frustrate me. It's the limitations created by moronic minds.
On the other hand, some of the said limitations are actually meant there to be for your own good! *grin*
ReplyDeleteTotal freedom in the society would only lead to anarchy and chaos. In order for us people live together we need rules and regulations to a certain extent. And even chaos is not free but strictly regulated within itself.
ReplyDeleteThe word freedom though, I have to agree it, and the meaning it holds, has suffered serious inflation.
- Inny.
Mmm, the meaning assigned to "freedom" by the dictionary really is unattainable without total anarchy and a tech level of, hm, well, about god-like - so that the people can be free to either work or not work without negative consequences, et cetera.
ReplyDeleteThe inflation, though, is something that's been going on thanks to "liberal" media and people like Geedubbuya and his close associates. As well as the lapdogs all over the world.
Now, what I don't get is why they have to so blatantly lie about it. I understand and accept government lying in general, that's what governments do, and not necessarily because they want to create something Matrix-like, rather, to keep peace about and chaos from breaking out. But *why* keep on yapping about "freedom" that people don't have? Since, uhh, if I noticed that - and that there's no freedom, I'm pretty sure others have, as well (as the comments here show, too).
To a regular American citizen and tax-payer, the word freedom sells just about anything. The great American dream, and everything it includes, is still very much alive and deeply routed in that society. And you have to remember, to a common American the world outside of the US of A is pretty much inferior. Freedom is the greatest American export.
ReplyDelete- Inny.
I agree on that - and I suppose the question should've been "Why are the world's media giving that rubbish too" and/or "Why is Finnish media so hooked on the word too now?"
ReplyDeleteNato-compatibility. Need I say more.
ReplyDelete- Inny.
Ew
ReplyDeleteThe old discussion of freedom or the fact of having a free will.
ReplyDeleteDo we have a free will? Do we really do what we want or are we controlled by society?
Well, you're free not to go to work everyday, but you have to face the consequences. You're free to chop that pesky neighbour's head off, and again face the gallows.
For me, there is no complete freedom, we are a product of our upbringing, society, environment etc. But that doesn't make it all bad.
Problem with the whole freedom slogan, is that it is most of the time used to push the Western civilization ideals into the throats of other cultures.
End of rant.
Freedom? Don't think Bush had heard of it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
At CC - says "File not found" - though the in-focus articles are fascinating enough on their own. Of course, considering that the Cold War-created decisions like Article 63 (or whatever number it is, urgh, too tired to remember and too tired to start looking through my notes/intranets) which essentially states that NO OTHER COUNTRY SHALL BE ALLOWED TO BE EQUAL TO USA IN POWER. Military or otherwise. Any country to try to push it there is to be knocked down. That's why you have North Korea and Iran on the list of "axis of evil" when they conduct nuclear-related research and implement it to practice. That's why any country that tries to do things their way gets embargoes, economic sanctions and diplomatic penalties. Oh, and then there's the interesting fact where USA's government essentially declared Latin/South America for their little backyard, where it's free to practice their own politics and start revolutions against unfavoured regimes. Which eventually brings about people like you-know-who that push the barrel too far and declare drug manufacture legal. Can't say I'm surprised though. Of course, mah own "motherland" can be as good, but it ain't quite in the position for such at the moment, and hasn't tried to use "freedom" as their shield since 1920ies or so. Brotherhood, communism and friendship of nations, yes, freedom, no. But again, this isn't quite the post about US. USA's governmental propaganda is obviously going to be fascinated in "freedom" and other rubbish, there's no surprise in that. It's when the "relaxed" Europe and a lot of other regions follow the same retarded doctrines and spew the same statements that I go "Uhh, what the?". And I don't mean government/media alone, some of the so-called "laymen" also go for it in vast amounts - like that recruitment poster I showed you, CC. Monkeying? What is that, really?
ReplyDeleteMacifer - Free will/consequence bind is always there and freedom of actions implies being prepared for consequences. That *should* be obvious to any moderately sane, moderately adult human being that grew up in some form of society. However, for a society that cuts further and further down on freedoms, our leaders sure shout the wrong words too much. That is, I mean, there's an enormous level of hypocrisy involved. So as you say, Western civilization goes stomping on others' throats with nifty slogans like "Freedom to all" while taking away *their* and *our* freedom.
Case in point of losing freedoms - political correctness, which technically overrides freedom of speech. While being masked under some lofty goals, what it really does is take away the right to use certain parts of lexicon. Which, I suppose, is nice from one point of view. But would anyone explain how a racist that is forbidden to use racist lexicon suddenly *stopping* to be a racist? The issue itself is not addressed *at all*, it's simply swept under the rug.
On the subject of possible jumpiness - just got home from a night shift.
Hehe, that's why I never discuss politics, unless I'm drunk.
ReplyDeleteWhat I never am .. *shrugs
I'm generally naturally high, so is it any wonder I talk about politics when sober? *grin*
ReplyDeleteWell, speaking as one of those Americans, I think there are some misconceptions about the "common" American. Most of the "common" people are far too worried about what's coming to them to worry about others. Seriously. Most of those in the lower socio-economic groups only care about here. They don't even think about other countries. It's Kinda hard to look down on something you're not even aware exists.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for the middle class? They've bought into the negative propaganda so much they're so "ashamed" of being Americans they don't even think of other countries. Too focused on the "horrible Bush government".
Now as for freedom... Let's not confuse freedom with anarchy. Freedom has limits. Anarchy does not. Freedom does NOT mean you can do whatever you want with no thought to the laws of the land or the societal mores of your time/area. So many people call for freedom, when what they want is really a form of anarchy. "Whatever I want, no matter the consequences."
That's not what Merriam-Webster says about "freedom"!
ReplyDeleteTechnically, societal freedom is an artificial construct - there's no such thing as actual freedom in a society, since actions are always dictated by norms, laws and regulations, and stepping over the said things commonly brings about a certain type of punishment. Of course, breaking norms can yield positive results (like the results I seem to yield with my somewhat odd-ball behaviour at the working place) as well, but generally speaking, deviation is considered negative. Now, that's not the actual problem, though, we wouldn't want to live in a society where everyone does whatever they want to anyway, the problem is that the modern society induces more and more regulations and artificial norms, often in fields that don't need the said induction, and yet, it's all done with a broad smile and a lie about how doing so will further our freedoms.
Pfft. Who cares about what Webster says anyway? :P
ReplyDeleteDunno, the Inuits might. Anyway, adjustments to my earlier reference to the "Article Number Something" and US's plans to be the only uberpower in the world - it's called NSC-68 and details on it can be found in the Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC-68
ReplyDeleteTo explain that this wasn't pulled out of some undergraduate's behind, we had a series of lectures a year or so ago with an american professor that told us about this one in one of the lectures.
After reading the Wikipedia on NSC-68 I'd say it's mainly obsolete now that the Soviet Union no longer exists.
ReplyDeleteIs it still on the books? Who knows? I would like to think it's been withdrawn, but it is the NSC.
Have USA's foreign policies changed a lot since USSR's untimely demise? I think not, but that's my personal opinion. Well, okay. It's more blatant now, not having to worry about some crazy bear-riding Russian sending a nuclear-armed armada as a retaliation or a warning for something. All that's really changed is that there's no more balance of power.
ReplyDeleteBut as I said earlier, I'm not intended on criticizing US politics here, the whole thing with coming up on the link again was just to correct my previously memory-flawed name recalling. And for all I know, if it would have been USSR that won the Cold War, the results would be quite the same, just with a slant on communism and brotherhood rather than democracy and freedom. Same "evil", different "mask".