Middle Nation Book Discussion: No Logo | Session One

Okay. Wonderful. Wonderful. So welcome, everybody. Today, we are flying to Naomi Klein's No Logo.

We're going to start with chapters one and two. Basically, we are supposed to kind of discuss the relationship between products and brands today as that is what these chapters are about. Know, earlier when I was trying to figure out how to divide the the sections, I thought we could have, like, mega talks, like, I don't know, three hours, and we discuss 100 pages or something like that. But then rightfully so, I was reprimanded. So we're going to focus on, you know, like sixty, seventy pages.

Right? So I'll just give a very, very brief summary of chapter one just to kind of remind everybody what it is about, and we'll go from there. Basically, Klein argues that in the twentieth century, corporations shifted from producing products to manufacturing brands. And it wasn't really a matter of the quality of the product, the features, the characteristics, etcetera. It was more about designing a brand that will appeal to people worldwide, that will be incorporated into the culture, into the society itself, where products are no longer about the products themselves, but about what they signify, okay?

And that's more or less the summary of chapter one. I mean, she goes on in more detail, obviously, about how that whole thing came about, the process. But I don't really want to dwell a lot on the details themselves. So what I'd like to do is invite our speakers to kind of present their points of view. We did talk about this in our Middle Nation Telegram group as well.

So we have a couple of speakers here. I would kindly invite them to share their thoughts about this chapter and what their biggest takeaways are.

I'll I'll go first if you don't mind.

So Go ahead.

I did not read chapter two, so my thoughts are purely on chapter one. And what I noticed, like you mentioned, you know, she she does touch on the fact that brands and products, you know, especially from the Western side where it's more focused on branding as opposed to production, and that is 100% the truth. Because when you look at corporations, their marketing budget is far higher than a a lot of the times than actual production. They do spend a lot of time on creating narratives about themselves, creating perceived value about themselves. And she the the things that she touch on, you know, the different logos and the images that they present as well as how it makes people or the consumers think about themselves.

You know, that is interesting because we do know that a lot of the times you have people that just want to wear name brands. For example, like clothing or whatever, they just wear name brands because they think that it makes them more valuable or that people will see them as more valuable. And that has a lot to do with the way that the brand itself has packaged itself and told consumers who they are about themselves. So it is not that people really perceive that as valuables because the brand has told them, we are valuable because I'm telling you that we are valuable. And that is something that we as people need to actually we need to see the difference between what is real value and what is what is when somebody's telling us something, a narrative, what is a real narrative, and what is real value.

We must be able to discern between the two. But that doesn't mean I'm not saying that brands itself or wearing name brands itself is an issue, you know, in in and of itself. It is your behavior and your relationship with that type of brand. And the way that you see yourself through that brand, that is what is problematic sometimes in the way that people behave. That's that's basically what I wanna say, you know, just off the bat right now.

Well, you know, it's a it's a it's a remarkable sleight of hand and and trickery on the part of of companies on so many levels. I mean, one, they decided instead of, as you say, and as she talks about in that in that chapter, they're basically replacing manufacturing products and and focusing on the quality of the product to manufacturing public sentiment about the product via branding. So it's it's it's it's sort it's sort of more efficient for them in terms of all of the expenses and whatnot that go into trying to improve their own products and and and their and their production. Now you're you're just working on people's attitudes and their opinions. And then that that's one level of it where you're you're convincing people that your product is very valuable and important even though you're not actually paying that much attention to what you're producing anymore.

You're you're mostly interested in producing sentiment in in the population. That's one level of it. Then the other level I was thinking about was it's really kind of like the colonization in a way, corporate colonization of of identity because you're basing your your branding and your marketing on what you perceive people's sense of their own identities. And then you sort of commandeer that or appropriate that and make their identity associated with your brand so that then in order for them to express their own identity, they have to buy your product. So you've now sort of colonized their own sense of identity to where they can't even feel their own identity and express their own identity without buying it from you because your the the the brand now is supposed to express who you are and what your, you know, hopes and dreams and aspirations are and what your values are and what your culture is and so forth.

And the only way that you have to express that now or the most valid socially validated way to express that about yourself is if you buy it back from the company. Buy the brand. Get the logo on your on your hoodie, on your T shirt, on your clothes, on your watch, or what have you, or your phone. So now your your identity has been parsed out according to the products and the brands and the logos by these companies. So it's it's really kind of like, you know, in a in an almost esoteric way, I suppose, the the the colonization and the extraction, just like with natural resources, but they're doing it actually with identity to where they're taking it from you, and you you have to buy it back from them.

They're refining the product of your identity, and then you're buying it back from them. It's really quite insidious.

And and there's the element in a just a kind of follow-up on that a little bit. She she talks about I mean, the the name of the chapter, the the part one is no space that, you know, everything that surrounds us now has become prey to these mega corporations. So what they want to do is flood our reality with their brands, you know. So it's like you you talk about identity. I I remember growing up, there was this huge peer pressure of, you know, wearing the latest Nike shoes or, I don't know, hoodies or whatever.

And if you shape a population like that, you really create this, you know, ultra consumerist mentality in people where I mean, your not only identity, but your behaviors are shaped in some office in the headquarters of Nike, right? And you can live thousands of miles away from them. They're going to dictate what you buy, how you buy and why you buy, right? So that really is something remarkable because essentially, what these companies did was create cultures and subcultures. And people just don't really think about it.

They follow along as mindless consumers. At 100%, I think that has changed a little as far as I can see with the rise of, I mean, for the lack of a better word, like hipsters or like people who have this, like, counterculture. So Alejandro, I think it's better now than it was fifteen, twenty years ago. But still, there's this huge element of stolen identities, really, where you live your life according to some standards set by some, I don't know, American British company. And you don't really know who these people are, right?

I don't really want to hog this too much. Adrijman, maybe you'd like to add a few words. You you have your speaker.

Yeah. Sure, brother. I might go a bit off topic here, but since we're talking about manufacturing identity and manufacturing cultures, the biggest manufactured identity of them all, of course, is the LGBT movement. And a huge part of its success is because of the corporate backing of for big pharma, pharmaceutical backing. It's also really if you look if if you break it down, it really follows the same footsteps of just praying or targeting people who want a sense of community, a sense of belonging.

And it's very, very, very wicked, any any to really think about. Because when you look at the statistics, most of these people are people who had, like, like, childhood trauma, some issues, and you are basically targeting them with this, I guess, ideology that it's an act. At the end of the day, it's just desires. It's just temptations, and they have the most successful propaganda campaign is turning it into an identity. That's become pretty much accepted for this value.

You know? If you don't accept these things, then you are not you're not civilized. You're not modern. You're not tolerant. You're not etcetera, etcetera.

Like, they really took this and and and run with it.

Yeah. I mean, that's the thing. When you when you I'm sorry to to jump in, brother Nal, but what I was talking about and what really what we're all talking about, I suppose, is is this idea of how they first, they identify unique, distinct identity groups, and then they market to them. And then there's this weird sort of switch around that takes place where now you are looking to the company and to the brands for defining your identity. Because once you make the brand itself a means of expressing expressing who you are, now that gives the brand and it gives the company the ability to start defining who you are, and then you start take taking dictation about your own identity from them.

And then they start to drive the agenda even of any given identity. So they they even solidify and sort of it cause a a sort of a sort of congeal and and make a cohesive identity and emphasize certain aspects of that identity that actually are driven by their own, obviously, their own profit driven corporate agenda. As I said, it's it's it's incredibly nefarious and insidious the way this the way this works. And and it's sort of you get kind of hoodwinked into it because you have a certain identity. You have certain priorities.

You have a certain way that you think about yourself culturally in terms of your values, your beliefs, or even just your style. And it's that originates from you, from your sense of yourself and what have you. But then when you start to associate that with a particular company or a particular brand or a particular set of brands, then suddenly you kind of lose the power over that because they now have the power to define what what your what your identity is, what your expression is, what matters to you, what makes you you. Because now you're like, you know, the the the classic example is the difference between an Apple person and an Android person. You know, Samsung or iPhone or what have you or Pepsi or Coke or whatever, where you are now defining yourself according to the brand because the brand has already told you all of the, the aspects that that as I say, your aspirations about yourself, your self image, and so forth, the brand and the and the the marketing and the advertising is giving you a picture of a type of a person that you originally, it started with you.

But now they're telling they've they've co opted that, and now they can dictate it to you. And the way that they're dictating it to you and defining it for you is obviously not for your interest, and it's not actually legitimately even about expressing yourself. It's about telling you who you are, and who you are is a loyal slave to the brand. And, obviously, they're only going to be drawing the parameters of that identity according to what's in their profit interest. So you've completely lost control over your own self identity, your own self expression, your own self identification, and who you are as as a person or as a community.

I was going to add, actually. I mean, that's a pretty good example in Apple versus Android. When was the last time an average person really did their research on the specifications of their laptop or phone or tablet or whatever, really? It's more about what values those products project, modernity, progress, being in line with the times, etcetera. So let's say you are an Apple person, and you are supposed to embrace the community.

One of the things that the author also talks about is how we have replaced actual communities, like physical communities, with these communities manufactured by brands, by companies, really. Where if you live especially if you live in a big city, for example, somewhere in the West or increasingly globally now, you may not know the name of your next door neighbor. You may only say, hi, hello, good morning to them. But you will you will know everything about the community standards of, let's say, the Nike fitness app. Right?

It's today, it's not really enough just to buy, you know, sneakers, shoes. You have to belong to community because your real, like, true community is is is lost. There is no community in most of these spaces. So it is a perfect example really of how the corporations are replaced, like human relation, like genuine human relationships with relationships based on just hot air, fog. It's nothing really.

I mean, if you think about it objectively, what kind of community is that? I mean, you're just buying the same shoes. I mean, that's not really a a real value. But we have been convinced. So, you know, like you are I don't know, these three something like that.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. It it sort of reminds me of, like, there's that what's it called? There's there's a comedy, Tim Robinson, about a guy showing up to a place, and another guy is at the place, and they're both wearing the same shirt. And so now they they become shirt brothers.

It's this completely completely superficial and meaningless sense of connection between people, And that also obviously sort of reflects the the complete absence of real connection between people. It's you know, you can say that there's an interplay between it, what caused what, which came first, whether the the sort of the the the isolation or the atomization of communities, the, you know, the the rugged individualism and so called of the West that that that already enforces isolation and atomization and alienation from other people. And then once you have that, then you can now create these artificial, completely irrelevant and and lacking in any depth, completely superficial senses of bonding, a sense of relationships, or senses of community that are completely dictated by material, you know, possessions or branding or which which brand you identify with, it suddenly creates this completely false sense of community that that has has no no basis in anything substantive whatsoever.

Yes. I'd I'd I'd like to also add to this, and I'm glad you actually mentioned this because how they do this is by because you don't belong to a community in in you know, already in within your life, so so you are yearning for some sort of belonging. And that's exactly the the pain point that they stress on. And then they put you in this exclusive club. That's what they call it, exclusivity, you know, the type of automobile you in that exclusive club.

Only certain type of people can drive a certain type of car or only certain type of people can drive or wear a certain type of shoe, whatever the case may be. And they get people because people are looking for that community to belong to a community. Yet at the same time, in order for you to belong to a community, you need to work so hard and so many hours to make money so that you can belong to the community. And like Rashaeed said, it's about enslaving you with a false belief that you are actually belonging to some community, but it's not. It's a false community.

Yeah. Absolutely. Well, I mean, given what we have just discussed, going forward, do you think that branding will evolve to kind of become a bit more normal? Or will it metastasize into this cancer that we cannot get rid of? Because the issue, I suppose, isn't the brand or the brands themselves.

It's about what they do to our culture. So is there a way for to be a positive relationship between the consumers, the customers and the brands?

Well, I think, you know, at least you know, there's there's many different layers to this, I think, and there's there's so many different aspects to what branding and corporate culture consumer culture has done that we sort of have to to take it piece by piece. I mean, the thing that we're talking about now, for example, the idea of corporations and brands first identifying communities or senses of identity that exist even among individuals, and then sort of collectivizing that and then appropriating that and then setting the definitions and the parameters of that and and attaching it inextricably to the brand, that that's that's something that can be hopefully responded to, but it's a struggle because you actually have to build your own communities that have their own definitions that define themselves, that define their own priorities, that define their own identities, they pry that that set their own priorities and set their own values and base their community and their identity and their solidarity, their their group cohesion, base it on something substantive, and the the brand is tertiary to that. If the brand is is peripheral to that, and it's it's more or less an irrelevant thing to that.

But that's something that has to be defined by the people themselves, that has to be defined by the individuals, and has to be defined by the by the group. If a group forms around a certain identity. You know? You can't you can't be like like, for example, if you if you scroll social media for any length of time, eventually, you're gonna see some video or some post telling you what your shoes say about you, what your phone says about you, what your car says about you. It says nothing.

None of these things say anything about you. They're they're trying to to to define for you who you are and and and how your material possessions define your identity. And as long as you're allowing the the corporations to do that, you're you're mentally enslaved to them, and you have no autonomy, basically, in terms of self definition and and and defining the parameters of yourself and your identity. So this is obviously something that, individuals are going to have to do, which is a struggle, especially in the West. I think it's much less of a problem, in in global South countries and in Muslim countries.

It's not that it's not not a problem at all. It's not like it doesn't exist, but I think it's it's much less dominated by that sort of a culture. But if you're living in the West, if you're living in Europe, if you're living certainly in The United States, good night. You you barely know how to define yourself. You barely even know what your identity is until the, marketing tells you what it is.

So it's it's really gonna be a struggle for for individuals and for communities. But, of course, it can be done, but it's something that has to happen from the bottom up. It certainly isn't going to happen from the top down.

You know, on on on that topic, what, bothers me a little, and I don't want be a hater because ultimately, I think these people are trying to do a good thing. But if you have people I mean, when you see people who want to resist their culture and to create a sort of like counterculture, right, They go to the extreme as well. So their own resistance becomes a brand. Like people who, I don't know, who live in the woods, who who don't who only buy secondhand clothes or like who who go to the extremes to prove they're not really corporate driven influence, whatever, it becomes a brand. And it is exploited actually in popular media, like in you see in the movies, in music, gaming, whatever.

So there's really a fine line there between becoming what you you hate, I suppose. And like, from from my point of view, it just really is about like I think COVID really taught us a lesson that it reminded us of what is really important. And you saw how during the COVID pandemic, sports viewership plummeted, like one example I could cite. And I think that like if people truly reflect and stop caring about the brands, like on a more on a deeper level, they will not really allow themselves to be defined by them or they will not even think about it. But some some people think about it too much.

It becomes their whole identity, which is, you know, the exact thing you wanted to defeat. So I I I just wanted to share that, you know, that insight with you. And and, obviously, if Nisa or Samir or Abdulham would like to ask something, go ahead. I mean, you don't have to wait for me. Alright?

If you don't mind, I don't I I wanna I don't wanna hog the microphone. I'll give probably, I think sister Nisa will have something to say. But with regards to that, there's a there's a couple of things I would say. First, it's unhealthy for the for the person to allow this to become their own now that that's their identity. I'm against corporate brands.

I'm against materialism and so forth, and this now becomes the defining characteristic of your personality. That's also unbalanced, but it's also still good on one level. Because if you are getting your things, for example, from secondhand stores and so forth, at least you're not supporting the brands and you're not supporting the corporations. It is on a practical level, it is an effective countermeasure against corporate hegemony. For yourself internally, it's not particularly healthy for you to define yourself in this way.

I I would think that we should look back at maybe the for example, the quote from when he was talking he was talking about wealth and talking about possessions, material possessions, and he said the the things that I own don't own me. So it's not a it's not a thing about defining yourself by what you have, defining yourself by your material possessions, or defining yourself by your wealth, or the rejection of that. It's just these are things that I have, and they that it's it's inconsequential. And I think that that maybe a beginning point for that also would be to because what what the brands are doing is not only redefining who we who we are, redefining our own identities, but they're also redefining for us the use of the items that we're buying, the the the practical reason why these products exist in the first place. They're making you overlook why you have a jacket, why what what's the purpose of shoes?

What's the purpose of, you know, whatever the case may be, toothpaste or cologne or what what have you. You're you're now not thinking you're you're you're you're buying the product not because of what the product is practically supposed to do for you, but you're buying the product because of the identity that it validates because you own it. And if you start if you return to a a practical definition of what these products or what these items are supposed to what's their what's their function supposed to be, then you can move yourself away from placing any importance or investing any importance in what the brand is. So for example, I don't know, just I'm I'm not particularly up on brands myself, to be honest, but say a Gucci bag or something. Well, let's look practically at the actual quality of the thing.

Does it serve the function? Does it serve the purpose? And does it serve the purpose so well that it's worth this amount of money? Or could I get something that was made, you know, in in in Vietnam or China or in Mexico or what have you by someone who is actually, you know, coming from a line of craftsmen who is very good at making these things. And I can get it for a fraction of the price, but it's gonna last me twenty years.

So if you start thinking practically about what's the actual purpose of this product and defining it that way, then then you'll make your choices according to a much more reasonable, more rational basis for your judgment about what you buy and what you don't buy rather than buying on the basis of how this product validates my own self identity, which is just so incredibly dysfunctional and so incredibly unhealthy, and it means you're just a hollow person. And then you can that will also save you from going to the other extreme where now I'm defining myself as being someone who just absolutely on principle will not buy brands. No. I don't mind buying a brand. If it also fits the criteria of being a superior product, and and the the quality level is actually worth it, then, yeah, I'll I'll spend the money.

And it has nothing to do with it being a brand. It has to do with the quality and that it's gonna serve its purpose better than something else.

I agree. I I I think that as consumers that we do participate, we are we're not victims. We're co creators and collaborators because we willingly or partially willingly participate that partially by design and partially because opting out of of completely participating in, you know, a branded world is unrealistic. It's not possible anymore. We love in branded systems.

We're not just alongside them. So participating becomes less about, consent and more about navigation. It's unrealistic to think that you are going to reject every single brand. Like what I said, if the quality is worth it, it's not even about the brand. It's the low value that you actually receive from it and not what the brand told you, what makes you valuable.

Because those are typically abstract value that they give you. You know, it makes you look good amongst your peers, etcetera, etcetera. Instead of just saying, it's a car that takes you from point a to point b. That is the value that you want from a car. So, when you see it for its practical sense, then, you know, there is nothing wrong with with with, branding.

And and branding and marketing is not evil, or or even being influenced by marketing is not evil. You as an individual, as was mentioned earlier, need to be able to discern yourself. It is up to you, to have the right mindset to make conscious decisions about your own, the way you're going to spend your money, what it is that you're gonna buy, and why it is that you are choosing something, and not because Nike said you must just do it. You know what I mean? So that is what what the difference is between influence because we all need to be influenced also because we don't always know.

And when I say influence, I mean, if you know what the the the product does for you, x y z, then you are influenced into buying that because you know when you make the decision, you haven't been making an informed decision about the practical use of it. So there's nothing wrong with being influenced by marketing when it is done in that way. So, yes, we we we also need to make sure that, we cannot operate, like, on either experience just in a branded world or just what our brands did in the past. We live in a normal society where we can decide either or what it is from every minute we make conscious decisions. And it doesn't mean that we have to let go of one and not the other and and and keep the other.

I just want to add one more thing, if you may. I don't know if this is appropriate or if it's related, but if we say, for example, like, from what you've just talked, what came to my mind is, you know, how cultural appropriation works and how, you know, they adopt, you know, some elements from other people and they brand it. For example, a good example I can give is something like yoga. You know how yoga is supposed to be a certain thing and yet they market it in a certain way and they they basically try trivialized what it was supposed to be and it became kind of a marketing or well, a means to they commodified it, basically. And it it it's I don't know if this is also part of a branding.

Is is it because they are trying to brand it in a certain way? And so if I think of yoga right now from what I have been exposed to, it's it's certain type of people. It's certain you know, because of how they trivialize it, how they you know, and and how it was commodified to certain extent. I just want to, bring it up in the discussion if it's appropriate.

No. I think it is relevant. Like, it's all about creating culture. It's all about creating culture. I agree with that.

Absolutely. I just want to mention one thing before we move on to kind of the next next discussion topic. This is a Middle Nation Book Club discussion group. So we're not really going to accept mic requests from just random people who are listening. We value that you're here.

We know we like that you're here, but we are kind of exclusive like that. So if I don't approve your request, I just want you to know why. Okay? So no hard feelings there. Now the next thing I'd like to talk about, and it's actually quite connected to what Middle Nation often talks about, is the influence of corporations on governments and public spaces, on on, you know, like schools, on education, health health care, sorry, etcetera.

Well, one of the themes of of both chapters, chapter one and two, is that in most notably in The United States, corporations fill the gap left by federal government, for example, in the sector of education. And the author mentions how many schools have to resort to sponsorships and private funding just to stay afloat because of cuts, right, of spending cuts. What is the healthy relationship between corporations and these public services? Should we allow branding to occupy those spaces? Or is it totally fine that we get to see we get to be bombarded by brands as children in school, when we go to to take some medicine, or when we want to go and visit a doctor because, obviously, they are, you know, essential services.

Sorry. My my connection is sort of cutting, so I I didn't get the last part of what you said. Or

Well, I mean, it was more about it was more about, like, what kind of relationship should we have going forward between public services, public spaces and corporate funding, sponsorship, branding, etcetera. Because that's one of the prevalent themes in chapters one and two, really. It talks about there's no space, meaning no space for ad free world. Right?

Right. I mean, you know, the the the you have to again, this is one of those chicken and the egg type of issues because, you know, pragmatism is real, and and and institutions operating in the public sphere have needs. Communities have needs, and you you need to get your your funding and your sponsorship from somewhere. And if you're not getting it from public sources, then you're gonna end up getting it from private sources. But, of course, that was engineered.

The the the lack of funding for institutions in the public sphere, schools and whatnot, this this was engineered precisely so that they could be delivered over to corporations. So the question becomes what's being purchased with that sponsorship? Because, obviously, you know, when you understand that the the whole modus operandi of of corporations is profit maximization, they're not charitable organizations. So if they're sponsoring a school or, you know, say, a clinic or what have you, anything in the in the public sphere, any activity in the public sphere, whether it's an institution or an activity, obviously, that's not driven by a sense of concern for community well-being. They're they're mining for profits.

It's it's a form of extraction, but through the guise or or through the camouflage of support for some sort of a public institution or public event or public activity. But, obviously, the the whole driver for that is maximizing profit. They they're literally not allowed to do anything else. That's the nature. That's their operating system.

So, you know, we you call it a sponsorship. It's referred to as a sponsorship, but in one way or another, it's either a purchase or an investment, and it's a form of marketing. So, I mean, you this really has to be very carefully looked at. But then you but then, like I say, it's a chicken and the egg issue because you actually have to address the address the mechanism and address the dysfunction in the in the society, governmentally and economically, that allowed for this to even take place, allowed for these needs to develop when they are public sector responsibilities, or at least, you know, either they are or are not public sector responsibilities, and that's a decision that that the society itself has to make. Do we want the the the government, the public sector?

Do we want the government that's taking our taxes? Do we want them to be responsible for sort of the basic needs of our communities, or are we gonna say that communities are just on their own, in which case we want everything to go to whatever private sector players are willing to sponsor our activities and our institutions. And then that would lead you to a discussion about, well, what are we gonna do about taxes then? Because if we're not actually getting something back from the government and the the government isn't using our taxes for our own basic needs, then it begs the question, why are we paying them? With with with the corporations, we know what we get when we give them money.

We're getting some kind of a product. Yes. Of course, there's a huge markup, and we are paying to make them more powerful when we pay them far above the actual cost of the production of the of the goods. It is, as I talked about many times, when you buy a product from a from a corporation that's been marked up, you know, five, six, seven, ten times or even more, the actual cost of production, that's a political donation that's funding that corporation's political power and their power in the in the in the the public sphere. But at least you're getting something.

If you're paying taxes to the government and then the government is also leaving your schools derelict, is leaving your infrastructure derelict, then, you know, it begs the question, what are they taking my taxes for in the first place? So it becomes more of a discussion rather than just talking about let's navigate now. Obviously, you have to navigate the reality of needs that exist in communities because of this dynamic where where they're being hollowed out, where the funding is being hollowed out, and that that hollowing out of funding has been engineered by corporate lobbying and corporate interests and the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street, but the the the needs exist. And so, yes, you do have to deal with those needs by one way or another, but at the end of the day, you have to get to the source of the problem. The source of the problem is that these private sector players have basically captured legislation and regulation in your government that that create these needs, the the engineered needs in communities when the obvious option would be for those needs to be met by the public sector.

Those needs will be met by the by the by the budget of the of the city, of the state, the municipality, or the federal government because you're the ones who are taking our taxes, and presumably those taxes are supposed to come back to us in the form of goods and services one way or another. So eventually, you have to get back to the to the original problem, which is already that you have the the corporate power, which now brings you back to you're the one who gave them that power. So we come right back to the beginning to where you have to redefine your own individual relationship with with these brands and with these companies and actually start setting the definitions of yourself and your communities and your identities and your priorities and not having it be set for you. That's why that's and I can see how insidious it is. Just the branding itself ends up leading to the complete overturn, the the the corporate revolution and overthrow of your government by the private sector that you yourself enabled?

I think brands within for example, like schools, you know, local government level institutions don't have much impact. So for example, if a brand advertises as a billboard or something on school property, that isn't the same as the brand going to the school and changing narratives, changing these textbooks, and dictating what needs to be taught. That is different. But if you find that brands and corporations are actively working with politicians, lobbying governments, then you need to actually be wary of that because that is obviously where they are dictating their policies, what it is that needs to what they want to see happening within the country. That's where their power lies.

So I don't think there is much of that much influence. Yes. A billboard there that you that you see every single day, eight hours a day as a child. You see this billboard often. It does somehow subconsciously does affect your thinking or or, you know, decision making because you see it.

In marketing, you need to see a product at least five times before you trust the brand. So that is why they keep repeating the same ads over and over and over because by the first time, you've gotten used to it and eventually you become curious. So that that is what happens there. But with branding and and and, you know, using brands as part of your identity comes from comes specifically from the home when you haven't been taught your own identity, as well as your community because your peers around you have all decided this is what our identity is as a community. We wear Nike and nothing else works.

So that is where the the danger comes in with, you know, adding your identity shaped by any sort of brand. But I I don't think corporations have that much power at school level or, you know, your your local government or anything like that. In fact, a lot of the times, when you find a corporation or a business or something displaying their brand at a school or it's probably just somebody. That's what I find in South Africa. Okay?

So it's somebody. You know the principal. They all band together. They just you they are making sure that they keep the money and their funding and their wealth amongst themselves. It's a a certain demographic that works together that way, and that's something different to what we're talking about right now.

So, yeah, that's that's how I see it. I don't think we, the global South, really have that much of a problem as much as what they do in The United States Of America. In the West, there is they constantly we all bombarded with propaganda day in and day out, but I think the level on that side of the world is at a much larger scale.

You know, I I would just I would just follow-up. Know brother Abdulrahman has something to say. Let me just follow-up real quickly with regards to the home and what what the what the children see in the home and from the families. Because, for example, if you're teaching your kids about about, you know, materialism and consumerism and and advertising and marketing and so forth, then kids can learn very fast. Kids can learn very, very fast.

So even if they see a billboard or an advertisement or something at school for example, I'll give you an example. My own kids, like, okay, where I live, there's a a a really a watertight, airtight boycott of Starbucks because of the situation, obviously. So Starbucks has started advertising. We started seeing literally commercials on, you know, these LED screens and so forth that are that they have outside of elevators and whatnot. And when my kids see an advertisement for Starbucks, their reaction is, oh, wow.

They're really getting desperate. Starbucks is getting desperate. They're advertising. We never used to see advertisements for Starbucks before. So so my kids understand immediately that when when a when a brand or a company is advertising and putting a lot of effort into advertising, they're desperate.

They're getting desperate. Oh, they need money. They're not they're not going, oh, wow. Starbucks. That looks really good.

That's you know, it'd be so cool to go to Starbucks. No. They look at it like, Yeah. Okay. You're running out.

You're you're you're you're starting to fall off the edge of the cliff, you're you're desperate to try and grab on to something. So if you educate your kids properly, then that's the way that they will interpret advertising when when it comes across them, whether it's in the school or anywhere else.

Brother Abadrafem, you want to ask something? Go ahead, please.

Yeah. I just wanna follow-up on what is saying. I don't think the issue is really about the billboard being in a school. It's more about, like, what was saying, what is what exactly is being purchased here because sponsorship becomes ownership, really. So if you're okay, you want me it's not about the kids who are seeing the billboard multiple times a day.

It's about, oh, you wanna keep your sponsorship. They're gonna have to bend a few rules for me, maybe change a few things in the curriculum, etcetera, etcetera. But, yeah, this, again, all goes back to the idea of finding a sense of belonging, a sense of community. And if you teach your kids that from who they are and where they belong or what they belong to, what their ideas are, what their values are, then it becomes a lot harder for corporations to prey on them. But, again, that we circle back to the issue of consumer immunity that was briefly discussed in the book where, eventually, when you keep bombarding consumers with so many advertisers, and they they're like I think the author used something like they're like cockroaches or something.