Honesty, Full Disclosure and the Book of Faces

Facebook is an extraordinary phenonmenon.  Originally ocnceived as a 'social network' that would be, above else, the very 'coolest' of 'cool' institutions, it has become a veritable hydra with a thousand heads.  Over the course of its fairly brief existence, it has developed, inter alia, as a gaming platform, social connection for family and friends, dating platform,  advertising platform for corporations and cottage industries and a political platform for activists. 

The powers that be attempted to require users to limit themselves to a single account as well as making full disclosure of their identities.  For a gamer, this is the kiss of death.  For the various governments worldwide that seek to obtain as much information as possible about their citizens and inhabitants, it was an incredible windfall.  Instead of being forced to rely on wiretaps and traditional forms of surveillance, all any government agency needs to do is monitor Facebook.   The account of a single user can net a multitude of like-minded individuals literally through their Facebook 'Likes'.

My daughter refers to Facebook as the 'Book of Faces' and, apart from being more lyrical, the title is very apt in a philosophical sense.  Of all the groups that use the platform, gamers probably are the most innocent in their motivations for having multiple accounts.  They do so not to trick any individual into unwise attachments or revelations but simply in order to play the games more effectively.  When Facebook embraced gaming as a lucrative addition, it should have recognised the NEED to be lenient with respect to gamers and their use of more than one 'identity'.   The fact that an individual who registers as a Facebook user still must promise not to have more than one account means that gamers have to be slightly dishonest.  This is couterproductive to every one.  Instead, Facebook should allow more than one account as long as the indivdual makes full disclosure of his/her actual identity, not to other users necessarily but to Facebook itself.  This effectively would divorce the gaming world from the seamier world of potential predators who engage in false identities for the purpose of their own financial, sexual or other gain.

I came to Facebook initially to see photographs posted by a friend and then to interact with my daughter.   I became involved with Facebook games as a form of relaxation and diversion from severe chronic pain and physical disability.  Although I was a political activist much of my life, I initially decided not to engage in political posting on Facebook.

A number of considerations persuaded me to remain silent in the political arena.  For a start, actual family and friends often have views that are diametrically opposed to mine.  Add to that the political views of gaming 'neighbours' and 'friends' and I probably would alienate 95% of my Facebook 'friends' if I were to engage in political posting.  This could have an extremely negative effect on my gaming activities as my 'neighbours' might 'unfriend' me for oo other reason than my political views.

The arrogance of Facebook users in terms of politics never ceases to amaze me.  They post bald declarations of unqualified support for 'God' or 'Country' and attempt to dictate that all their 'Friends' 'Like' their declaration, adding their support to what usually amounts to blind obedience to the Will of the Government and whatever religious authorities they espouse.   I have learned to 'hide' these declarations now, after enduring them initially, because I actually find them rather offensive.  Even when a user's political position coincides with my own, I often find the actual posts slightly arrogant and offensive.  Kind of an 'in your face' throwing down of the gauntlet...

I never was the sort of person to 'bite my tongue' at society events when some one made a political claim.  I immediately would make my position clear, whatever the consequences.    I would do so politely and I would not be willing to come to blows over any political differences, but I always believed that silence was a crime in such circumstances.

Enter the 'Book of Faces' and a sudden attack of moral cowardice on my part.  I realised that I was silent mainly because I didn't wish to lose my gaming 'Friends' and 'Neighbours'!  It is shaming to confess this but on the other hand, a part of me finds it rather interesting in a sociological sense.  Could World Peace be achieved through 'social gaming' and the need to accept diverse political opinons in the interest of obtaining necessary 'building materials' for online games?

In the early days of the internet, I joined political chat groups and discovered that one invariably became involved in a verbal cul-de-sac, reiterating the same arguments to the same opponents over and over.  My own desire always has been to educate.  I remain an idealist to some extent, despite the evidence of general apathy among the masses where anything that does not affect them directly is concerned.  I believed that facts and figures might sway the ignorant and turn them away from their blind acceptance of their governments' domestic and foreign policies.  Above all, though, I believed that friendship and love always should be more important than politics and that however much I disliked or even was disgusted by a friend's political stance or actions, I would be loyal to that friend or loved one outside the political arena.

Alas, my idealistic approach to politics and friendship was unshared by my friends and loved ones.  I have lost more than one REAL friend because of a difference in political attitudes.  Even if I remained silent after making my position known, the individual often would DEMAND that I change my views to correspond with his or hers.  He/she would threaten an end to friendship should I refuse to capitulate.  This is emotional blackmail of the worst sort and naturally I would not betray every ounce of moral fibre that I possessed, however much I loved the individual or however important he/she might be to me.  The person then would end the friendship.

I still cannot understand why any individual would repudiate the real for the imaginary.  'Imaginary' may be the wrong term of it, but in fact, I am referring to the actual effect and influence a person's political views have on the affairs of the world.   In fact, it is an immoral test of friendship rather than anything to do with real politics.  Political views tend to be held fiercely.  To force a person to relinquish his/her political opinions in order to retain love or friendship may have fewer real effects than an attempt for force a person to move a thousand miles from home or to give up his/her pets for a relationship but it is nonetheless an act of subjugation of the will and cannot be justified.

To any one who would attempt to forced a loved one or friend to relinquish his/her pets for a relationship, I would say: 'How can you ever be certain of that individual's love if he/she was willing to sacrifice beloved animals to the altar of your ego?   If that person can surrender helpless creatures who depend totally on him/her, it should be easy to relinquish a relationship with YOU when some one more attractive appears.'

In any event, this is irrelevant to the issue of Facebook and the images we project there.  It is the 'Book of Faces'  because we usually have the sense not to make full disclosure of all of our attitudes, emotions and actions.  Those who are foolish enough to do so may find themselves social pariahs or at worst, in gaol!

Nonetheless, when Gaza was attacked once again by the Israeli military machine after being subjected to almost 2000 days of an inhumane siege, I felt that continuing silence would be a crime.  I had to speak out or be guilty of complicity in the attacks.

How many of my Facebook 'Friends' and gaming 'Neighbours' are aware of the facts about Palestine.  How many of them know that the original Charter of the PLO declared the aim of creating a 'single, democratic, secular State'?    How can any fairminded, objective human being believe that the idea of a 'wholly Jewish State' imposed on Arab land with a 95% Arab population and only 5% Jewish population can be just or right?  Yes, those are the facts.  The idea of a 'Jewish State in Palestine' was forced upon the native population by a foreign power.  The Jews have spent over a century now attempting to make the 'dream' a reality by dispossessing, imprisoning and killing the native Arab population yet the Palestinian people have the effrontery to continue to EXIST and to demonstrate that the old Zionist declaration of 'a land without a people for a people without a land' never represented the truth.

Furthermore, the idea that Palestinians are a Muslim people is erroneous.  There are Muslim Palestinians certainly but there are Christians, Jews, Druze, agnostics and atheists among the Palestinian people which is why the idea of a 'single, democratic secular State' is the only one that makes any sense.  Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity, as a matter of fact, and the Palestinian Christians are an ancient enduring presence in the land.  Those Christian fundamentalists who support the Israeli State have no knowledge whatsoever of the facts but that should be no surprise.   Politics usually relies more on propagnada and emotional manipulation than facts.   Many of the truly religious Jews repudiate the very concept of a 'State of Israel', declaring that it should be a spiritual entity and not a physical one.  Look at the manifesto of 'Naturei Karta' if you doubt me.

Regrettably, although I myself am part Pagan and part Roman Catholic but deeply spiritual for all my distrust of organised religions, my own family does include some Christian fundamentalists.  In fact, one of my cousins is devoting herself to a study of the 'Book of Esther'. 

The 'Book of Esther', if viewed objectively, would horrify any individual who believes in justice and peace.   Although it includes allegations of plots against the Jews, it primarily is a tale of political manipulation by a beautiful woman and her ambitious uncle, betrayal of guest rights and ultimately the massacre of a native population whose only crime was to empower the Jews who lived in that land.

I have little respect for politicians or 'leaders' of ANY nation.  I believe the old adage that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.  I cannot idealise or idolise ANY human being, except perhaps a few who have been in their graves for centuries and therefore cannot change the course of events unduly at this point in time.  My admiration for T.E. Lawrence and Napoleon are examples of this and, despite my sometimes flowery expressions of admiration for these individuals, i am well aware of their feet of clay.  I always have declared that I believe in a constitutional monarchy, mainly because I think that a figurehead who is born and educated to the role and who has very little real authority is a better symbol of any nation than a real politician.  

I was brought up to believe in the Left, to believe in socialism and the rights of every human being to shelter, food and medicine.  I still believe in these principles to some extent.  I find greed, especially corporate greed, extremely distasteful.  I never dreamed of being rich or of controlling the fates of the masses.  I dreamed of having a home of my own and enough money to survive comfortably.  Yes, I love little luxuries but I would not ride roughshod over other human beings to obtain them.

I believe a person's political beliefs should have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH PERSONAL INTEREST.  I support Palestinian rights and aspirations for no other reason that the cause is right and just.  Freedom and self-determination for the Palestinian people  never could nor would benefit me personally.  As a matter of fact, my political stance has been a liability again and again.  Perhaps my small post about the current attacks on Gaza will result in 'unfriending' on the Book of Faces'.   I sincerely hope not.  I hope that my gaming friends and neighbours have enough decency and fairness at least to respect the right to differ even if they refuse to investigate the realities of the situation in Gaza.

Ultimately, I long for a peaceful life.  I do not thrive on arguments the way I once did when I embraced the study of the Law with enthusiasm.  There is a residual part of my soul that continues to believe that education is the answer, if only people cared enough to learn the facts.  Political realities from the results of national elections in which all contenders are corrupt and self-seeking to wars based upon false propaganda such as 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'terrorism' constantly demonstrate the fallacy in my idealistic beliefs.  I retreat to farming and fantasy games partly on the Book of Faces partly because Neighbours and Friends in that arena help one another...  if the aid is limited to imaginary building materials and animals, it nonetheless shows a positive side to human nature.  Furthermore, when Facebook friends who do not know me in the real world still wish me a Happy Birthday or comment sympathetically when disaster strikes, is that not reality of some kind?  I would like to believe that the Book of Faces can point the way to world peace....  why not?  I certainly prefer that vision to that of many people I know who spend their days in total negativity, cursing their teams when they lose a bet, cursing their (real) neighbours when a dog barks and cursing every one on the roads...  My own body generates more than sufficient pain to drive me towards despair.  Anything that can combat that is a blessing.