Remember when those words were the start of some of the stories you liked the most? Or maybe you don’t. Are you old enough to remember fairy tales? Perhaps the stories you grew up with were more modern versions of the fairy tale. Stories that went by the label “Science Fiction” or “Fantasy”. Stories that suggested some past or future time with imaginative happenings. Stories with a strong character involved in a conflict with something dark and sinister that had to be overcome. Or stories of technological advances beyond those of the real world, and how they could help or hinder people’s lives. Stories of fantastic creatures from other planets or planes with which we contest, or with whom we make friends. Even modern fairy tales: stories that go further to codify the abilities and limitations of those unearthly creatures we’ve come to know as elves, fairies, “fair fold”, “Lords and Ladies”. Creatures against whom we strive or with whose aid we advance. In short, stories that examined one or more elements of society and how it interacts, usually with some sort of moral code attached to it. Depending on the complexity of the society and the abilities of the author, the moral or ethical code might be blatant or might be disguised in the workings of the characters. But it was there.
Moral stories have been part of the development of civilizations and societies all the way back to pre-historic times, perhaps even including pre-historic times. But, of course, being pre-historic (or before history began to be documented), we may never know for sure. But more modern than pre-historic ones still exist, and are still read. Everything from the tales of Greek Heroes or the collected stories of the Brothers Grimm, through the more futuristic stories of Verne and Wells, to the writings of Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein, and on to those of Lackey, McCaffrey, Modesitt and others. They all have one thing in common. They all take one or more aspects of society as we know it and examine it. Some do so in an effort to tell the reader how to live – how to be a better person. Others poke holes in strongly held beliefs in an attempt to show where civilization has gone wrong or where it can be improved by those things in which we believe and by which we live. The stories may use adventure or romance as the tools through which the lives of contemporary people are examined, but placing the events in future, past, or alternate times. But they are moral stories just the same. The intent is to cause the reader to examine, even subconsciously, the moral and ethical values by which one lives.
Why? Why this obsession with how a person should live, or what a person should believe? Could it be because there is no set, standardized way to live or absolute codification of what to believe? Look around at the variety of religious beliefs that exist and how there is often no way to combine them because of the way they negate each other. Look at the number of laws created by the vast number of countries and how they often conflict with each other. Even within any particular society there are conflicts of belief and “interpretations” of law, sometimes “interpretations” that appear to be directly opposite what the written word would indicate.
There are people who have tried to pare down language in an attempt to avoid confusion: inventing new words and/or restricting words to only one meaning. Some of them have been philosophers, such as Wittgenstein. Others have been Psychologists like Freud and Jung. But you see this same attempt to nail down language in many specialties, too. Lawyers have their own language that they manipulate to their needs. So do many businesses. And, of course, there’s computer programming with its array of programming languages. To make it worse these languages have a tendency to use common words, words that are used in ordinary communication, in uncommon ways. Trying to explain a concept or function that is found in a specialized language to a person that is not part of that restricted environment or society becomes extremely difficult because of the double meanings. Double meanings. Double-speak! Very Orwellian in its complexity. Thus 1984 came and went “not with a bang, but with a whimper,” and left us all On The Beach. To make it worse, the practitioners of such splinter groups tend to look down on outsiders as illiterate or unintelligent, and view their narrow niche as the “one true way”.
Authors are a little different. They see all this complexity and diversity, and use it as a means of entertaining people. Of course, the entertainment has a purpose: making money. Writing, after all, is like any other profession. The purpose is to earn money with which to purchase food, clothing, shelter and entertainment. And what they write must be entertaining else the general public won’t buy it. So they take as their stock-in-trade the conflicts that their target audience can dimly see but are associated with, and manipulate them into entertaining stories. By this method they acquire gilt by association.
There is another category of fairy tales, though, that is insidious, dangerous to individuals and societies, and should be fought with everything that one has and is. It is the “disinformation” that those who would have power over you use to obtain that power. The tools used are words. Common words that they twist to their purposes. Words that make them appear good and virtuous – but the key word there is “appear”. Appearances can be deceiving: I’m sure you’ve heard that before. Disinformation – deceiving appearances – basically lies.
One sub-category is in advertising and salesmanship. Building up a product or service, making it appear to be the greatest thing or relying on flash and dazzle to influence one to purchase it. I’m sure you’ve seen sex used to sell a product: Buy THIS car because you’ll get the girls; drink THIS beer because the girls will think you’re manly. You’ve seen advertisements aimed at children, especially in the realm of sugared cereals and fast food. These advertisements ignore the fact that the cars promoted are gas-guzzlers; that beer isn’t good for you in large quantities; and that the cereals and fast foods contribute to childhood obesity.
Some religions are nearly as bad, though they use more words and less hard-sell. Boiled down to their basics the religions are saying that they are the ones that respect family values, or are the most popular, or are the religion that intelligent people follow. Popularity can be dismissed immediately simply because it is based on figures that can be made to lie very easily, depending on the comparisons one choses to use. Family values is almost as easy to dismiss: WHOSE values are you espousing? What are they? What constitutes a family? And as for the argument for intelligence, well, this is the most insidious of all because one is only intelligent in that religion’s eyes if one follows what they believe.
Politics is another area of belief. Politicians want people to vote for them based on promises that they make – sometimes such far-reaching promises that no rational person should believe that they can accomplish them. Or politicians want people to vote for them because they are “better” than the competition. Oh, really? Then why are all politicians classed along with “Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves”?
Belief – why didn’t my mother list that as one of the dirty words when I was growing up? People can believe just about anything, but that doesn’t make it right. I can believe that I’m a millionaire, but my bank account will quickly convince me otherwise. Yet there is another category of modern fairy tale that is entirely destructive. It is a three-pronged attack on a product, service, or belief structure. It utilizes fear as one prong, as in, “If you don’t do this the bad guys will get you.” Or, “Nice place you have here. It would be too bad if something happened to it.” A second prong is uncertainty: “Are you sure that’s going to work?” is one form of lack of knowledge being exploited. Another is to suggest that one has something with which to threaten another, without specifying what it is that one has. The third prong is doubt. Like uncertainty it is an element of lack of knowledge. But here the lack, the uncertainty, is used to cause a possibly fatal pause in taking action by actually lying by direct or implied methods, without supplying concrete information to back up one’s claims.
And with that, we come to the only sure cure for FUD: knowledge. Notice I didn’t say TRUTH. Of all the definitions I’ve heard for that word, the only one that came close to a comprehensive explanation was philosophical, and way to lengthy to put in here. Knowledge, though, was the heart of the definition and one which anyone can understand. Knowledge combats FUD by demonstrating that FUD is simply a lie – a statement without any factual backing, and used to create divisiveness and distrust. It is a means by which individuals, companies, organizations, religions, politicians and any others who wish to control others apply their will. An author of a particular set of fairy tales designated as Discworld, Terry Pratchett,wrote a book entitled “TRUTH”. In it he used as the motto of a newspaper the phrase, “The truth shall make ye fret”. Knowledge, evidence, performs the same function on FUD. It shines a light on the dim, murky shallows of the FUDsters exposing their comments for what they are: LIES. It also serves to lower the respect one might have for such individuals or organizations.
So, the next time you hear some comment, first ask for verification – knowledge. Then verify the verification – ensure that what information is supplied is as accurate and appropriate as possible, and supplied by a source that is not aligned with either side of the issue. Would you believe the statement of a drug company (one that is in a position to make money from a drug) that it is safe to use? Of course not. Their information might be tainted by their interest in making money. The same goes for other organizations.
This same sort of thing has actually been demonstrated in the SCO Group vs. Novell trial that has just finished. The SCO Group had maintained, over the course of 7 years, that it owned the copyrights to UNIX. The verdict of the court was that they did not. The verdict was supported by evidence – knowledge. There, the SCO Group was attempting to take away rights of Linux users by claiming that portions of UNIX were incorporated in Linux illegally, and wanted to charge Linux users for what was essentially free for the users to use and change. Without the copyrights to UNIX the SCO Group has no standing to support their accusations. Their entire argument was nothing but FUD.
So watch – be ever observant. Whenever someone wants to take something away from you, whether your money or your rights, ask for knowledge – ask for verifiable evidence to support their claims.
