Oppressed,

 

In today’s divisive, political, separate universe, people, in Western-Democratic-Judeo-Christian societies are either classified as colonizers or colonized or as oppressor and oppressed. What nobody is paying attention to, however, is that there is a great difference between Embodied Language (EL) and Disembodied Language (DL) and that all politics – yes, all politics – is DL.

 

To be clear, in DL, speakers, who do not listen to themselves, actively, deliberately, coercively, yet unconsciously, dominate, manipulate or exploit the listener or the audience. In EL, on the other hand, speakers hear themselves, which means, they are their own listener. Consequently, EL speakers treat those who listen, like they treat themselves, that is, they are in touch with their audience. That connection is felt and continued,  because in EL, listeners can, at any given time, without any predetermined rule, become speakers and speakers can become listeners. In other words, in EL, communicators experience, for the first time, truly the freedom of speech.

 

Obviously, in DL, there is always an oppressor and someone else, who is feeling oppressed. And, the attention-demanding, intimidating, forceful DL-speaker, is always imposing him or herself on his or her audience. Therefore, the DL speaker – who is, supposedly, in charge of the so-called conversation, who determines what we talk about, who may say something, when and for how long – is the colonizer and those, who don’t have any power or ability to change the conversation, they are, of course, the colonized. However, regardless of whether one is colonizer or colonized, whether one is the oppressor or the oppressed, everyone is in support of DL. Nobody, who views themselves and each other with colored glasses of colonizer vs colonized or oppressor vs oppressed, will be able to have EL, in which these categories have lost their meaning. Only during EL there can be equality, but the frustrated people, who scream about equality, have yet to acknowledge this.

 

Only when we are going to have EL, instead of DL, with each other, will there be a permanent end to oppression, which was normalized due to our usual way of talking, in which everyone is fighting with each other, to get the attention. Since the beginning of time, different groups of human beings have engaged in DL – which was never properly addressed with EL – and, thus, we have, basically, verbally, always been at war with each other and, of course, with ourselves.

 

It is meaningless, deceitful and gas-lighting, to say – with DL – we stand unequivocally against hatred, on the basis of religion, ethnicity, race, national origin or other categories, as long as these so-called other categories don’t include the DL/EL distinction. Once we know about the immensely important difference between our DL and our EL, we are all on the same page, as we will all be against DL, but in favor of our EL.

 

The big unaddressed problem with Freedom of Speech, as mentioned in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, is precisely this latitude for the expression of controversial and even offensive views. In EL, we never say anything offensive, hostile, uncomfortable or even controversial to each other. The reason this is so hard to believe, is because we have never had any deliberate, ongoing EL. The justification, that if we don’t put up with it (with DL), we would chill the freedom of thought or ideas, is, of course, actually a direct endorsement of DL.  

 

Any so-called intolerance of ideas, is always an indication of DL and our increasingly polarized societies, are the outcome of our unconscious participation in our, in violence escalating, DL. It is astonishing, that no scholars, no scientists, no freedom-loving individuals, have so far had the courage, to openly recognize the validity of the DL/EL distinction. And, this imaginary freedom of thought is of no importance, because we need to be able to say it, to hear it and to write it, to read it. Moreover, there is no inner language.

 

In DL, we can never say what we really want to say. In other words, in DL, we, unknowingly, oppress ourselves. Moreover, to escape from this horrible, miserable, embarrassing reality, we seek to oppress others, even if it is with victimhood. Also, in DL, there are many experiences to which we have no access, because our DL doesn’t allow us to get in touch with our true feelings. Our EL isn’t sentimental, idealistic or romantic, but it deals with what we truly feel. Due to our history of conditioning with DL, we have become dissociated from many of our own most intimate experiences. In effect, we have many no-go-zones. With DL, we have become our own worst enemies, as we keep ourselves endlessly pre-occupied with all sorts of distractive nonsense, so that we don’t feel what we feel, let alone say it to ourselves, and listen to it, as we would do during our ongoing EL.