Fascism and Freedom

There are two extremes: Laissez faire and absolute fascism. Middle ground between these is where many people reside, however most can be boiled down to favoring one or the other. People can support having some aspects fasciszing and others be more siding towards freedom. Everything affects everyone- In some minute way or another, all actions have a connection with all other actions. Now, Fascism doesn’t work unless it’s absolute fascism- The fascism of the Leviathan. The Leviathan’s control dictates everything as according to one ruler, which has nothing to do with the freedom of others. However, with absolute freedom, one being’s freedom is curtailed and infringed upon by another’s freedom. For example, if I had the freedom to cage a man, my action would take the freedom of that man away. All actions, in some form or another, require some investment of a force or tangible object, and either this investment or the results of the action itself have echoing repercussions upon all other actions. The concept of true freedom is impossible unless there is a single being in a vacuum, and even then the limitations of said vacuum would prevent absolute freedom. If true freedom is an impossibility, then we must look at absolute fascism. Absolute fascism is just as much of a fantasy as absolute freedom is- by the definitions of fascism you must have the Leviathan to control others- And then the Leviathan isn’t affected by fasciszing, and instead has absolute freedom. It’s the paradoxical relationship between freedom and fascism that makes the plurality so intriguing. You can’t have either in absolutes, and each only holds meaning when compared to the other.

Scotland Forever

With the Scottish vote to secede coming up this week, the American media has been plastered with various polls and speeches about the pros and cons of Scotland secession. Over in the U.K. (Or, what WAS the U.K. at the time of writing this article), David Cameron's desperately rallying for Scotland to remain a part of the U.K. " So let no one in Scotland be in any doubt: we desperately want  you to stay; we do not want this family of nations to be ripped apart.". Cameron also indicated that the U.K. had always been at the forefront of history, and that they were there 'together'.

Together isn't exactly the word I'd use. Together tends to have the implication that all parties are there willingly. This isn't so much the case for the U.K. Britain, by all measures, is the most colonial state in pretty much all of history, brutally controlling a large portion of the globe at one point in time. Despite their various underhanded economic tactics used in Asia (Like that time they got China addicted to opium), and their navy used to strong-arm other countries into submission throughout the world, I'm going to focus closer to home. Britain is not a good neighbor. They routinely exploit and straight up shank those nearby them (Remember that whole great potato famine thing in Ireland? Yeah, the British caused that.). Their violent history gives Scotland nothing but justification for seceding from their union. Hopefully, a successful secession establishes a foothold for Northern Ireland to secede as well.

Disaster Porn

Ukraine- The name brings up images of fire, marching armies, rubble, and guns. Everything that the current American concept of Ukraine contains is negative, focused on destruction. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, Americans payed very little attention to it, just knowing that it was that place that looks like Russia but wasn't. However, immediately after the disaster of the invasion occurred, it became America's favorite eastern European country. Why? Why is it only in the moment of crisis that we pay attention to Ukraine? Why did we only care about Haiti when the earthquake struck? They're all symptoms of an addiction, an addiction to disaster porn.

Disaster porn is harmfully affecting America, it draws all of our attentions to the overwhelmingly negative aspects of a situation instead of recognizing the positive things about an area as well. We don't think about the way that Ukraine used to be now, we only think about the burning ravaged land that the media portrays over and over again. America's addiction to disaster porn changes our perception of other countries into an apathetically concerned scenario. We portray disapproval of the events going on over there, and yet we keep consuming them as quickly as the news can pump them out. Some of us urge our leaders to get involved in Ukraine, and yet the sluggish movement on the part of the US belays our true apathy towards the situation.

Our addiction to disaster porn is a harmful result of the media's relatively new transition to overwhelmingly visual medias. Pictures and videos became the new words, transmitting much more excitement and "in-the-momentness" that Americans have come to crave. This consumption of disasterous imagery doesn't need to be bad, so long as it spurs appropriate response to it. However, it doesn't. We care about the afflicted area for only as long as we can see imagery of how much it's damaged by whatever events are occurring over there. We never have a long-term investment in the country. And that's something that's got to change.