I am referring to an enviromental blog called the Environmental that I discovered by reading the very interesting blog of my class mate called Bul Media Blog.
There is a post that discusses whether we should underestimate global warming or not. I don't have a certain answer. The only thing I am sure about is that because our society discourse is controlled by people who make money out of polluting activities, the view we have is an underestimation of the whole matter.
Then the blog discusses the issue of cows meat, which is one of the primary sources of pollution. Nobody knows about it because big money come out of meat production. And probably nobody would pay attention to this information while listening because the rule of listening is that we listen only to information that seems to be advantageous for ourselves. This one is not very good. We would have to feel responsible for polluting the earth while eating beef if we paid attention to this information. I am afraid we should do it.
The fact that liteners listen only when information seem adavatageous for themselves make of them pray of speakers who use nice metaphors to make their own interests. And they do it by making their interests look like something that sounds good for the listeners, just as if they were making the listeners' interests. This is the key of advertisement.
We should stop doing it and listen only to things that look real, that sound moral and right.
AND THEN GO AND CHECK IT!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Is the world real?
Our minds are so biased after all that hearing business men's talk that we ended up having ideas that fit their purposes very well.
Like, for example, after studying at school I ended up believing that reality does not exist. What? John Searle in his book "Language, mind and society" discusses this issue. These business men have managed to make us believe something so foolish as that reality does not exist and everything is realative...Oh my. I understand what is the purpose of this belief. It serves their interests very well: reality does not exist...then there is a soldier dying in Iraq, but there is not a soldier dying in Iraq...it is relative. What?
What is relative here is their discourse...their discourse is relative and biased and serves their own purposes...reality exists...They even managed to fuck up philosophy.
The same is true for moral relativity: it is unfair to kill but it is fair to kill sometimes. It depends. Hey! It does not depend at all!
Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Press Dinner (17 mins)
I knew all these things before growing up, they were obvious. Every child knows that reality exists and it is not fair to kill and that the king makes his own interests. And they knew them at Dante's time. But then all our culture was financed by business men and we ended up like that. Trapped in Matrix. Believing foolish things that go against our interests. My brother was killed...but it was not. It was unfair...but it depends.
The only thing that is not real is language.
I was in the newspaper today. I did not know before that I was a Spanish major and I don't remeber saying those things...but probably reality at that time was being relative and what is written on the newspaker is right. I should change my memory and conform it to what it is written there. I am a Spanish major and I said that the voices of Spanish people in the USA can be heard only if we are able to know about the facts. No...not even like that...I quote " It is important that our voices should be heard because there are things we need to know about"
You can imagine what I really said instead. I do not blame who wrote the article. What I said acquired a new meaning...or maybe no meaning at all when she tried to make my words fit her mental schemes.
This is a song I will give to my students. It is about real morality. The French singer Brassen's song Dom Juan criticizes our false sense of morality talking about a soldier that spares his enemy's life when he has been defeated. In this song De Andrè, an Italian singer, talks about the story of a soldier that decided to die not to shoot the enemy when he saw him, because he did not want to see the eyes of a man dying.
Songs like that cannot be found everywhere.
Expecially in Italy, where after Dante the whole litterature was sponsored by the rich and wealthy of the nation...and fosters this kind of distorted morality. And then we had Mafia. The climax.
In Naples now they ended up buying the toxic waste from the factories in the north or abroad and put them in the garden of common people who would accept to have them for a little money and then die of cancer. A big business..I can tell you. And I did not know anything about it before I saw the movie Gomorra, candidate to the Oscars this year. And the biggest dump of the region is just a few kilometers from my house.
I can tell you that that dump is real...
Like, for example, after studying at school I ended up believing that reality does not exist. What? John Searle in his book "Language, mind and society" discusses this issue. These business men have managed to make us believe something so foolish as that reality does not exist and everything is realative...Oh my. I understand what is the purpose of this belief. It serves their interests very well: reality does not exist...then there is a soldier dying in Iraq, but there is not a soldier dying in Iraq...it is relative. What?
What is relative here is their discourse...their discourse is relative and biased and serves their own purposes...reality exists...They even managed to fuck up philosophy.
The same is true for moral relativity: it is unfair to kill but it is fair to kill sometimes. It depends. Hey! It does not depend at all!
Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Press Dinner (17 mins)
I knew all these things before growing up, they were obvious. Every child knows that reality exists and it is not fair to kill and that the king makes his own interests. And they knew them at Dante's time. But then all our culture was financed by business men and we ended up like that. Trapped in Matrix. Believing foolish things that go against our interests. My brother was killed...but it was not. It was unfair...but it depends.
The only thing that is not real is language.
I was in the newspaper today. I did not know before that I was a Spanish major and I don't remeber saying those things...but probably reality at that time was being relative and what is written on the newspaker is right. I should change my memory and conform it to what it is written there. I am a Spanish major and I said that the voices of Spanish people in the USA can be heard only if we are able to know about the facts. No...not even like that...I quote " It is important that our voices should be heard because there are things we need to know about"
You can imagine what I really said instead. I do not blame who wrote the article. What I said acquired a new meaning...or maybe no meaning at all when she tried to make my words fit her mental schemes.
This is a song I will give to my students. It is about real morality. The French singer Brassen's song Dom Juan criticizes our false sense of morality talking about a soldier that spares his enemy's life when he has been defeated. In this song De Andrè, an Italian singer, talks about the story of a soldier that decided to die not to shoot the enemy when he saw him, because he did not want to see the eyes of a man dying.
Songs like that cannot be found everywhere.
Expecially in Italy, where after Dante the whole litterature was sponsored by the rich and wealthy of the nation...and fosters this kind of distorted morality. And then we had Mafia. The climax.
In Naples now they ended up buying the toxic waste from the factories in the north or abroad and put them in the garden of common people who would accept to have them for a little money and then die of cancer. A big business..I can tell you. And I did not know anything about it before I saw the movie Gomorra, candidate to the Oscars this year. And the biggest dump of the region is just a few kilometers from my house.
I can tell you that that dump is real...
American Democracy is not the Italian democracy
I am linking to an op-ed from the New York Times called Iraq Voted. Did Democracy Win?
Imagine I live in Iraq. I don't speak English. You come and tell me: "I want to give you Democracy". I see that you have good intentions and I learn the word giving to it a positive meaning. I don't really check its meaning on the dictionary to see what you want to give to me exactly. And I don't ask you to give me the exact definition. Words are there for this reason. Communicative economy. Saving the time and effort that would be needed to explain all the times something by giving its exact definition. And I am fucked!
Mirriam Webster's definition of democracy:
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Interesting is entry n. 3. And this is exactly the meaning of the word that is being exported. But the dictionary is not honest enough to tell you the truth.
What is being exported by the USA is a two-party system controlled by the richest people of the country, where people can only choose between two factions of the same party that makes the interests of the rich people.
The word 'democracy' is really misleading....as John Searle would put it.
Reading "Mind, Language and Society" by Searle I have noticed how many words have different meanings in American English and Italian. Demoracy, communism...and many others. When in Italy we will all speak English we will end up accepting the meaning these words have in American English. And what we will have in July will be Democracy in the American sense. Now I would define it as 'una dittatura', a 'dicatorship'. Because the Italian system is far more democratic, allowing different parties to be elected...even those who are closer to the interests of the people...
Then when we will learn Chinese the word communism will be used to decribe 'capitalismo', because what they have there is not very different from what they have in the USA. My Chinese flatmate is a shopaholic.
What was also intersting in Searle's book was the analysis of the word money.
Money at the beginning meant 'piece of paper that stands for a fixed amount of gold". Unfortunately we will still consider our money to have the same meaning. The truth is that the name has remained, but the thing has changed. Nowadays money is subjected to inflation and deflation, those processes used by the governments to abuse the private property of the people. Here in the States, where private property is so important, nobody complains that at the moment the state is printing money causing its value to decrease and taking away the private property of the people? No, because nobody questions the meaning of the word money.
Things change, words stay the same. This is how people are fooled.
Imagine I live in Iraq. I don't speak English. You come and tell me: "I want to give you Democracy". I see that you have good intentions and I learn the word giving to it a positive meaning. I don't really check its meaning on the dictionary to see what you want to give to me exactly. And I don't ask you to give me the exact definition. Words are there for this reason. Communicative economy. Saving the time and effort that would be needed to explain all the times something by giving its exact definition. And I am fucked!
Mirriam Webster's definition of democracy:
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Interesting is entry n. 3. And this is exactly the meaning of the word that is being exported. But the dictionary is not honest enough to tell you the truth.
What is being exported by the USA is a two-party system controlled by the richest people of the country, where people can only choose between two factions of the same party that makes the interests of the rich people.
The word 'democracy' is really misleading....as John Searle would put it.
Reading "Mind, Language and Society" by Searle I have noticed how many words have different meanings in American English and Italian. Demoracy, communism...and many others. When in Italy we will all speak English we will end up accepting the meaning these words have in American English. And what we will have in July will be Democracy in the American sense. Now I would define it as 'una dittatura', a 'dicatorship'. Because the Italian system is far more democratic, allowing different parties to be elected...even those who are closer to the interests of the people...
Then when we will learn Chinese the word communism will be used to decribe 'capitalismo', because what they have there is not very different from what they have in the USA. My Chinese flatmate is a shopaholic.
What was also intersting in Searle's book was the analysis of the word money.
Money at the beginning meant 'piece of paper that stands for a fixed amount of gold". Unfortunately we will still consider our money to have the same meaning. The truth is that the name has remained, but the thing has changed. Nowadays money is subjected to inflation and deflation, those processes used by the governments to abuse the private property of the people. Here in the States, where private property is so important, nobody complains that at the moment the state is printing money causing its value to decrease and taking away the private property of the people? No, because nobody questions the meaning of the word money.
Things change, words stay the same. This is how people are fooled.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Madame Bovary
How come that it took me one year in the USA, plus attending classes in politics and reading books in linguistics to understand what Madame Bovary was all about? This society we are living in has made me be very very dumb.
When I studied it at high school it was presented to me like a book written by an emmbittered man, who was living alone in a house and had nothing to do but writing a novel about a woman who cheats on her husband. So when I had to choose a topic for my final dissertation for my second BA in French Litterature I went for it. And I decided to deal with the central chapter, where Emma is seduced by a kind of Don Juan during a political rally.
I would have never immagined that Flaubert was describing exactly what is happening in our society...just like George Orwell in '1984'.
The whole story is that in France the industrial middle class, just like in the USA the Northern countries with the Civil war, was trying to get the power. In 1848 they organised riots involving the whole population to send away the king. Then they did not know what to do with the rest of the population, that expected changes. So they decided to fool them by introducing democracy. What they did was allowing everyone to go and vote for their representatives, but these representatives had to be rich middle class people who had to make the interests of rich middle class people anyway. And they sent people to speak to the peasants in the countryside. The speeches they gave are reported by Flaubert in his book.
They convinced the peasants that 'security' was their interest. To keep thier private property safe. This made sense to the people but they did not realise that security was the richest classes interest, not theirs. Because if they accepted this idea they would be sure to keep their donkey and their small house, whereas the rich would be sure to keep all the money that they had, continuing to exploit the peasants who would work to produce food for them for little money. The peasants interest should have been to ask the rich to make the system fairer and to get more money for their hard work. They should have questioned the concept of 'security'.
The concept is the same here in the USA: the poorest people vote Conservative because they are easily manipulated and are made to believe that it is right if there are no taxes. In this was they keep their few money but they don't get any access to education or health care and their children stay poor anyway. They don't understand that if they paid a small amount of taxes the rich would pay a lot of taxes and they could not but benefit from it. In Europe this concept is pretty clear to everyone. But here the wealthy of the nation have managed to create a system where they make believe the people anything they want by using the mass media.
What happened in France was that the first elections with universal suffrage ended up with the whole population voting to restore the empire. And this is what will happen in Italy in July: the whole population will vote to get a two-party system, like in the USA and UK, because Berlusconi is manipulating them with his TVs. This means that they would not have the communist party anymore, which is the only one that, by getting the 3 or 4 per cent, represents more or less the interests of the majority of the population (it is pretty logical!). Only having this small party makes it possible to journalists who are in favour of the people and against Berlusconi to speak in the public TV. Once it will be no longer possible people will stop having any information which goes against the interests of rich people.
To make Italy like the USA is dangerous because there are not enough money and I am not sure if the rich American people who are behind Obama (USA controls Italy after the II WW ) will allow Berlusconi to do it. Despite the constant moaning and begging Berlusconi is doing...I bet he calls them everyday...
Any system of this kind, where the rich have all the power and resources, has had to resort to get money from external sources to keep a kind of balance: see Hitler's expansionism, or Stalin's (what a rip-off was that!) or the USA, or Napoleon III in France at Falubert's times. They had to invade other coutries to get more money so that the rich could get richer without making the poor starve.
Going back to Madame Bovary: Flaubert wanted to show how the rich people were seducing the poor people to make them make the interests of rich people. And he compared the politician speaking to the people to a man who is seducing a woman just to sleep with her by convincing her that happiness is to cheat on one's husband and being immoral is a matter of freedom.
This is another key point. The politicians were saying to the peasants: Progress is the key for happiness! Go and get rich! (sounds like Stalin..sic) To educate people to immorality and to stimulate in them constant desire for improvement is another key to make the system work.
For example let's say that Napoleon III wanted to make a lot of money by invading foreign countries or that Berlusconi wants to make a lot of money by doing things which should be considered immoral and unaccpetable like lying or bribing people. A good way of making people accept this it to make them believe that it is in their interest that the system is like that, because in that way they are allowed too to do immoral things. And they foolishly believe it, without realising that in this way they are allowed to make 30 euros by cheating, and Berlusconi is allowed to make 4 billions by taking them away from the rest of the population. What people do not understand is that if they were living in a communist country like Cuba they would be just as poor as they are now, but rich people would be poorer, they would not pollute the environment and the world would be better.
Instead they are made believe, like Madame Bovary, that happiness lies in constant desire for improvement and they struggle to get more and more money, that they end up spending in things they don't need but that they are made to believe they need by advertisment. Like a big house. They indebt themselves like Madame Bovary and then they are not able to repay the debts (this is what happened here with subprimes). They do not realise that the system is made so that they cannot get as rich as rich people, because education is private and the access to important positions is limited to people who are already rich.
So people are constantly unhappy, trying always to make more and more money. And they want to keep the system like that, hoping that one day they'll dream will make true.
According to Orwell this also leads to being unable to feel any kind of pleasure, including sexual one. Because pleasure is not possible while being in constant desire.
Now I believe that this capitalist system is very wrong because it keeps poor people as poor as they would be in Cuba, but allows rich people to to things that are highly dangerous for the future of humanity. But people don't understand it and go on leading their unhappy lives, constantly striving for improvement.
This is probably because people are naturally cooperative when they listen and they naturally try to fool the others when they speak. So there will always be speakers who will make listeners go against thier own interests...What a foolish species are we!
When I studied it at high school it was presented to me like a book written by an emmbittered man, who was living alone in a house and had nothing to do but writing a novel about a woman who cheats on her husband. So when I had to choose a topic for my final dissertation for my second BA in French Litterature I went for it. And I decided to deal with the central chapter, where Emma is seduced by a kind of Don Juan during a political rally.
I would have never immagined that Flaubert was describing exactly what is happening in our society...just like George Orwell in '1984'.
The whole story is that in France the industrial middle class, just like in the USA the Northern countries with the Civil war, was trying to get the power. In 1848 they organised riots involving the whole population to send away the king. Then they did not know what to do with the rest of the population, that expected changes. So they decided to fool them by introducing democracy. What they did was allowing everyone to go and vote for their representatives, but these representatives had to be rich middle class people who had to make the interests of rich middle class people anyway. And they sent people to speak to the peasants in the countryside. The speeches they gave are reported by Flaubert in his book.
They convinced the peasants that 'security' was their interest. To keep thier private property safe. This made sense to the people but they did not realise that security was the richest classes interest, not theirs. Because if they accepted this idea they would be sure to keep their donkey and their small house, whereas the rich would be sure to keep all the money that they had, continuing to exploit the peasants who would work to produce food for them for little money. The peasants interest should have been to ask the rich to make the system fairer and to get more money for their hard work. They should have questioned the concept of 'security'.
The concept is the same here in the USA: the poorest people vote Conservative because they are easily manipulated and are made to believe that it is right if there are no taxes. In this was they keep their few money but they don't get any access to education or health care and their children stay poor anyway. They don't understand that if they paid a small amount of taxes the rich would pay a lot of taxes and they could not but benefit from it. In Europe this concept is pretty clear to everyone. But here the wealthy of the nation have managed to create a system where they make believe the people anything they want by using the mass media.
What happened in France was that the first elections with universal suffrage ended up with the whole population voting to restore the empire. And this is what will happen in Italy in July: the whole population will vote to get a two-party system, like in the USA and UK, because Berlusconi is manipulating them with his TVs. This means that they would not have the communist party anymore, which is the only one that, by getting the 3 or 4 per cent, represents more or less the interests of the majority of the population (it is pretty logical!). Only having this small party makes it possible to journalists who are in favour of the people and against Berlusconi to speak in the public TV. Once it will be no longer possible people will stop having any information which goes against the interests of rich people.
To make Italy like the USA is dangerous because there are not enough money and I am not sure if the rich American people who are behind Obama (USA controls Italy after the II WW ) will allow Berlusconi to do it. Despite the constant moaning and begging Berlusconi is doing...I bet he calls them everyday...
Any system of this kind, where the rich have all the power and resources, has had to resort to get money from external sources to keep a kind of balance: see Hitler's expansionism, or Stalin's (what a rip-off was that!) or the USA, or Napoleon III in France at Falubert's times. They had to invade other coutries to get more money so that the rich could get richer without making the poor starve.
Going back to Madame Bovary: Flaubert wanted to show how the rich people were seducing the poor people to make them make the interests of rich people. And he compared the politician speaking to the people to a man who is seducing a woman just to sleep with her by convincing her that happiness is to cheat on one's husband and being immoral is a matter of freedom.
This is another key point. The politicians were saying to the peasants: Progress is the key for happiness! Go and get rich! (sounds like Stalin..sic) To educate people to immorality and to stimulate in them constant desire for improvement is another key to make the system work.
For example let's say that Napoleon III wanted to make a lot of money by invading foreign countries or that Berlusconi wants to make a lot of money by doing things which should be considered immoral and unaccpetable like lying or bribing people. A good way of making people accept this it to make them believe that it is in their interest that the system is like that, because in that way they are allowed too to do immoral things. And they foolishly believe it, without realising that in this way they are allowed to make 30 euros by cheating, and Berlusconi is allowed to make 4 billions by taking them away from the rest of the population. What people do not understand is that if they were living in a communist country like Cuba they would be just as poor as they are now, but rich people would be poorer, they would not pollute the environment and the world would be better.
Instead they are made believe, like Madame Bovary, that happiness lies in constant desire for improvement and they struggle to get more and more money, that they end up spending in things they don't need but that they are made to believe they need by advertisment. Like a big house. They indebt themselves like Madame Bovary and then they are not able to repay the debts (this is what happened here with subprimes). They do not realise that the system is made so that they cannot get as rich as rich people, because education is private and the access to important positions is limited to people who are already rich.
So people are constantly unhappy, trying always to make more and more money. And they want to keep the system like that, hoping that one day they'll dream will make true.
According to Orwell this also leads to being unable to feel any kind of pleasure, including sexual one. Because pleasure is not possible while being in constant desire.
Now I believe that this capitalist system is very wrong because it keeps poor people as poor as they would be in Cuba, but allows rich people to to things that are highly dangerous for the future of humanity. But people don't understand it and go on leading their unhappy lives, constantly striving for improvement.
This is probably because people are naturally cooperative when they listen and they naturally try to fool the others when they speak. So there will always be speakers who will make listeners go against thier own interests...What a foolish species are we!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
On our mental schemes
I have never really understood what Derrida meant when he said that our minds are full of schemes that give us a completely distorted view of the world and that we should try to deconstruct for our own good. Until yesterday. When I could see deconstruction put into action. And I laughed and laughed...you cannot even imagine how much I laughed.
I went to see a conference on Cuba (held by the famous professor from Stanford University, James Cockcroft) at Ramapo and then we watched a movie.
Fresa y chocolate.
This movie shows the way Cuban people consider American and European people. There is a young man who is 'normal', a 'revolucionario', while the other one is a Cuban too but because he is homosexual he has ended up conforming to the stereotypes they have in Cuba about people in capitalist countries. Because he is homosexual, he identifies himself with the stereotypes they have in Cuba about people living in capitalist countries:
- he is homosexual like capitalists, who have no moral values and are all homosexuals
- he drinks tea like English people and not coffee like Cubans
- he has American newspapers all over his flat
- he likes litterature and art, all things that Cubans avoid because they are all capitalist propaganda
- he drinks and amokes
- he does not do voluntary work
- and....the funniest thing ever...HE IS RELIGIOUS...he has statues of Jesus everywhere.
During the movie they get to know each other better and the 'real Cuban' learns to accept the other one. They get rid of the stereotypes and become best friends. Both love their country very much, but they simply have different sexual orientations.
And now in Cuba they are trying to get rid of the stereotypes about western people and they are more open towards homosexuals and religious people because they found out that it has nothing to do with betraying the revolution...
But the same opening is not always true on the other side...as the movie Good night and Good luck shows: some American people still consider being communist an accusation, something negative.
What really made me laugh was crosses and statues of Jesus everywhere in the flat of the homosexual guy as a symbol of capitalism...while singers such as Woody Guthrie (that I got to know on Friday during the show at the Berrie Center at Ramapo) would identify Jesus with ideas which are just the opposite.
And all this shows that also my stereotypes about American people were not quite right.
I went to see a conference on Cuba (held by the famous professor from Stanford University, James Cockcroft) at Ramapo and then we watched a movie.
Fresa y chocolate.
This movie shows the way Cuban people consider American and European people. There is a young man who is 'normal', a 'revolucionario', while the other one is a Cuban too but because he is homosexual he has ended up conforming to the stereotypes they have in Cuba about people in capitalist countries. Because he is homosexual, he identifies himself with the stereotypes they have in Cuba about people living in capitalist countries:
- he is homosexual like capitalists, who have no moral values and are all homosexuals
- he drinks tea like English people and not coffee like Cubans
- he has American newspapers all over his flat
- he likes litterature and art, all things that Cubans avoid because they are all capitalist propaganda
- he drinks and amokes
- he does not do voluntary work
- and....the funniest thing ever...HE IS RELIGIOUS...he has statues of Jesus everywhere.
During the movie they get to know each other better and the 'real Cuban' learns to accept the other one. They get rid of the stereotypes and become best friends. Both love their country very much, but they simply have different sexual orientations.
And now in Cuba they are trying to get rid of the stereotypes about western people and they are more open towards homosexuals and religious people because they found out that it has nothing to do with betraying the revolution...
But the same opening is not always true on the other side...as the movie Good night and Good luck shows: some American people still consider being communist an accusation, something negative.
What really made me laugh was crosses and statues of Jesus everywhere in the flat of the homosexual guy as a symbol of capitalism...while singers such as Woody Guthrie (that I got to know on Friday during the show at the Berrie Center at Ramapo) would identify Jesus with ideas which are just the opposite.
And all this shows that also my stereotypes about American people were not quite right.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
I killed Berlusconi
Why Hamlet is the greatest play ever?
Because it talks about when we find out that the king is a killer, illegittimate and a liar, and feel really like behaving like him...in a very immoral way...and kill him straight away.
He speaks and speaks and convinces you that everything is true as well as its contrary. And he is building weapons and he tells the people that an enemy, who has been dispossesed by his land, is ready to get revenge and attack...but then it seems that it is not completely true.
And Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...even Tom Stoppard caught them speaking and speaking many years later...
Bla bla bla
Ble ble ble
How can you say that this is not true? It sounds so logical! How can you deny it!
But that poor Hamlet. Because of the ghost words he was caught in the spiral of rethorics and logics too and forgot about the most important thing: never do to someone else what you would not like them to do to you. Like Jesus and Confucius said. And like Chomsky said: do not forget to apply the same moral standards you apply to other people to yourself first.
So I have decided not to kill Berlusconi...wait I remember they did a movie called 'I've killed Berlusconi'...but I think it has been censored.
Because it talks about when we find out that the king is a killer, illegittimate and a liar, and feel really like behaving like him...in a very immoral way...and kill him straight away.
He speaks and speaks and convinces you that everything is true as well as its contrary. And he is building weapons and he tells the people that an enemy, who has been dispossesed by his land, is ready to get revenge and attack...but then it seems that it is not completely true.
And Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...even Tom Stoppard caught them speaking and speaking many years later...
Bla bla bla
Ble ble ble
How can you say that this is not true? It sounds so logical! How can you deny it!
But that poor Hamlet. Because of the ghost words he was caught in the spiral of rethorics and logics too and forgot about the most important thing: never do to someone else what you would not like them to do to you. Like Jesus and Confucius said. And like Chomsky said: do not forget to apply the same moral standards you apply to other people to yourself first.
So I have decided not to kill Berlusconi...wait I remember they did a movie called 'I've killed Berlusconi'...but I think it has been censored.
A dog named Bob and the cost of a referendum
Local news
On My 9 news tonight the local news were presented in the following order of importance:
- 10 min on a dog, a specific one named Bob
- 5 min on a local school that organized a cooking competition (the price was a trip to Italy)
- 5 min on the next Hannah Montana movie
- 5 min on how ‘going green’ means to make school children feel guilty about the paper they use
- 15 min on the weather, including an in depth analysis on the fact that a season called spring is coming.
I believe that the order of importance was quite good. I have recently been told that I am talking too much about politics and I should focus more on the weather, which is considered to be a far more normal and important topic of conversation. As a consequence I believe that to talk about it for 15 min is quite fair...I am joking, of course.
In Italy the same thing is going on. In July there will be a referendum on a very crucial issue, to make of Italy a two-party country like the USA and concentrating all the resources in the hand of the few rich people, and what politicians and TVs talk about is the cost of it and not its content.
This is called ‘game frame’: everything is a game, all what is said on TV is stupid and futile in order to avoid discussing real issues that could make people think, becoming aware of what is really going on and thus cause problems to the ruling class.
I have heard there is a movie called ‘State of play’ which has been released recently. I don’t know why but I suspect it is about the present situation. Another poor director who is trying to make people wake up from the Matrix.
On My 9 news tonight the local news were presented in the following order of importance:
- 10 min on a dog, a specific one named Bob
- 5 min on a local school that organized a cooking competition (the price was a trip to Italy)
- 5 min on the next Hannah Montana movie
- 5 min on how ‘going green’ means to make school children feel guilty about the paper they use
- 15 min on the weather, including an in depth analysis on the fact that a season called spring is coming.
I believe that the order of importance was quite good. I have recently been told that I am talking too much about politics and I should focus more on the weather, which is considered to be a far more normal and important topic of conversation. As a consequence I believe that to talk about it for 15 min is quite fair...I am joking, of course.
In Italy the same thing is going on. In July there will be a referendum on a very crucial issue, to make of Italy a two-party country like the USA and concentrating all the resources in the hand of the few rich people, and what politicians and TVs talk about is the cost of it and not its content.
This is called ‘game frame’: everything is a game, all what is said on TV is stupid and futile in order to avoid discussing real issues that could make people think, becoming aware of what is really going on and thus cause problems to the ruling class.
I have heard there is a movie called ‘State of play’ which has been released recently. I don’t know why but I suspect it is about the present situation. Another poor director who is trying to make people wake up from the Matrix.
Some politics-fiction
Yesterday a friend of mine went to see a play called 'Out of order' by Ray Cooney. It was about something that was obvioulsy out of order and it had to do with a politician of the British parliament sleeping with the secretary of a member of the opposition. That is obvious, you would say. Nothing wrong about it. Nothing wrong with the fact that in England there is a business party and the opposition is a party that defends the interests of a class that does not exist anymore, aristocracy. And that they obviously sleep together.
If you think that this is normal...well you happen to be another victim of what George Orwell called Newspeak: they make you forget the real meaning of words such as democracy so you don't fight for it.
He also talked about Doublethink: to believe that something and its contrary are both true. For example you are not a business man, so you vote for the party of aristocracy, but you work in a hospital. So you are a nurse and at the same time a duke.
Ok, after destroying England it is France's turn. There this doublethink concept is still developing. So the rich people had to come up with different ideas. Were the rich people of France that took inspiration from the rich people of the USA in finding out how to make a party lose, or vice versa? I think this time the Frech had the best idea first. The formula of having a dumb woman running agaist the man you've chosen seems to work very well. And when she is running for office together with an old man...then it is smashing. It cannot but work.
I bet they came up with this idea during one of their 'dinner des cons', like in the famous movie, when they invite common people to have dinner with them, in their houses by the Tour Eiffel, in order to make fun of them.
But USA, UK, France are all rich countries, they've had colonies, they can afford to have a big gap between rich and poor without the poor noticing too much. Italy tried to have colonies but we clearly chose the wrong countries...no oil, no diamonds...But still there is hope for rich people to become richer. Hoping that by the time poor people will realize the gap they have become so dumb by watching TV not to notice it.
I have an idea for when Berlusconi manages to convince Italian people to vote in favour of a two-party system in July.
And if he goes on moaning all the time that a small party that is part of his coalition and has neo-nazi views does not want this law I think he can make it...
Hey see...Orwell's doublethink again: if you are against neo-nazis you vote in favour of a law that will destroy their party together with all the other small parties and you make of your country a totalitarian country. So you are an anti neo-nazi and a nazi at the same time.
Yes...when he manages to have a two-party system I'd suggest that the rich people of Italy that are his friends push to put at the head of the opposition party, that they also give money to, a dumb woman. Well...there are so many good candidates in the Italian parliament...But to make it funnier they could pretend that the ex-show girl, Mara Carfagna, whom Berlusconi seduced on TV, saying in front of the whole country that if he had not been married he would have married her, and that after a few months became minister in his government, decided to go to the opposition because of an unspecified reason. Jelousy...so that the Italian housewives could support her.
They could make her become the head of the oppostion so that the very dumb people could vote for her, and the not so dumb could vote for Berlusconi. Berlusconi would win and they could go on sleeping together. Happy couple.
Then he could privatize schools, and hospitals...and make the dream come true.
I should write him a letter to suggest this brilliant idea I have come up with...and only after a couple of months that I have been studying politics...imagine with what ideas I could come up with if I could make money out of politics!
If you think that this is normal...well you happen to be another victim of what George Orwell called Newspeak: they make you forget the real meaning of words such as democracy so you don't fight for it.
He also talked about Doublethink: to believe that something and its contrary are both true. For example you are not a business man, so you vote for the party of aristocracy, but you work in a hospital. So you are a nurse and at the same time a duke.
Ok, after destroying England it is France's turn. There this doublethink concept is still developing. So the rich people had to come up with different ideas. Were the rich people of France that took inspiration from the rich people of the USA in finding out how to make a party lose, or vice versa? I think this time the Frech had the best idea first. The formula of having a dumb woman running agaist the man you've chosen seems to work very well. And when she is running for office together with an old man...then it is smashing. It cannot but work.
I bet they came up with this idea during one of their 'dinner des cons', like in the famous movie, when they invite common people to have dinner with them, in their houses by the Tour Eiffel, in order to make fun of them.
But USA, UK, France are all rich countries, they've had colonies, they can afford to have a big gap between rich and poor without the poor noticing too much. Italy tried to have colonies but we clearly chose the wrong countries...no oil, no diamonds...But still there is hope for rich people to become richer. Hoping that by the time poor people will realize the gap they have become so dumb by watching TV not to notice it.
I have an idea for when Berlusconi manages to convince Italian people to vote in favour of a two-party system in July.
And if he goes on moaning all the time that a small party that is part of his coalition and has neo-nazi views does not want this law I think he can make it...
Hey see...Orwell's doublethink again: if you are against neo-nazis you vote in favour of a law that will destroy their party together with all the other small parties and you make of your country a totalitarian country. So you are an anti neo-nazi and a nazi at the same time.
Yes...when he manages to have a two-party system I'd suggest that the rich people of Italy that are his friends push to put at the head of the opposition party, that they also give money to, a dumb woman. Well...there are so many good candidates in the Italian parliament...But to make it funnier they could pretend that the ex-show girl, Mara Carfagna, whom Berlusconi seduced on TV, saying in front of the whole country that if he had not been married he would have married her, and that after a few months became minister in his government, decided to go to the opposition because of an unspecified reason. Jelousy...so that the Italian housewives could support her.
They could make her become the head of the oppostion so that the very dumb people could vote for her, and the not so dumb could vote for Berlusconi. Berlusconi would win and they could go on sleeping together. Happy couple.
Then he could privatize schools, and hospitals...and make the dream come true.
I should write him a letter to suggest this brilliant idea I have come up with...and only after a couple of months that I have been studying politics...imagine with what ideas I could come up with if I could make money out of politics!
On taxes
On the blog called Huffington Post I read a post called "Sharing tea bags with Right-wing exptremists" by Bob Cesca. It was about people protesting because of the introduction of some form of taxation in the USA. The author clearly opposed this form of protest, being in favour of Democrats.
Everyone in the world knows that taxes are needed to avoid wealth concentration and preventing that 80 per cent of the resources are in the hands of 67 people.
Why then the less wealthy Americans are, the more they are against it?
Simply because they are manipulated by TV and made go against their own interests. They don't realize that if they pay a little money in taxes the rich will have to pay a huge amount of money and with that money put together universities will be free, hospitals will be free, and so on...In Europe everybidy knows it...here it sounds like an heresy!
But I must acknowlwdge that here in the USA it is not as easy as that, because nobody in the goverment defends the interests of the people. When you see that the only difference between the two major parties is that one uses the money of taxpayers to bail out big business and the other to build weapons, so they can sell them to other nations, or to send people to war so that they can control the world and make money out of it, this becomes clearer and clearer.
But what can they do? Obama had his campain founded by rich people. They even paid money to send him to Europe before he was elected (as if he was already the president) so he could see the Tour Eiffel, the Big Ben, the Parthenon...How can you betray the people who have given you so much money and even paid for your holidays and do things in favour of all the rest of the American people, who don't care, who are not your friends, who just want things from you and are not giving you anything...A president's dilemma. That is very easily solved.
Everyone in the world knows that taxes are needed to avoid wealth concentration and preventing that 80 per cent of the resources are in the hands of 67 people.
Why then the less wealthy Americans are, the more they are against it?
Simply because they are manipulated by TV and made go against their own interests. They don't realize that if they pay a little money in taxes the rich will have to pay a huge amount of money and with that money put together universities will be free, hospitals will be free, and so on...In Europe everybidy knows it...here it sounds like an heresy!
But I must acknowlwdge that here in the USA it is not as easy as that, because nobody in the goverment defends the interests of the people. When you see that the only difference between the two major parties is that one uses the money of taxpayers to bail out big business and the other to build weapons, so they can sell them to other nations, or to send people to war so that they can control the world and make money out of it, this becomes clearer and clearer.
But what can they do? Obama had his campain founded by rich people. They even paid money to send him to Europe before he was elected (as if he was already the president) so he could see the Tour Eiffel, the Big Ben, the Parthenon...How can you betray the people who have given you so much money and even paid for your holidays and do things in favour of all the rest of the American people, who don't care, who are not your friends, who just want things from you and are not giving you anything...A president's dilemma. That is very easily solved.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
America is not a democracy
Help! In Italy they will soon ask people to vote in a referendum to create a two-parties system like in the USA. This means that nobody will defend the interests of the people in Parliament and even on the public TV there won't be journalists allowed to speak for the people because there will be nobody representing the people in the Parliament that will control the public TV. Just like in the USA. This is a vicious circle with no return that will be very difficult to break and that will up in a dictatorship. And in Italy we are poor and we cannot afford it like in the USA...so far. Because if it goes on like this people of the USA will become poorer and poorer while the rich people will become fewer and fewer.
It is a law of nature that everybody speaks for their own interest while pretending to make the interests of the listener in order to be listened to. And with TV this bad feature of the human being has been amplified so much!
Only the voice of the rich speaking for their purposes and pretending to speak for the people's purpose can be heard nowadays. And people are free to speak to defend their interests...but nobody can listen to them. Or they have just become so dumb not to understand their interests anymore.
You watch too much Tv and you think you are Napoleon and vote for the restauration of the empire. This is what happened in France when they had a referendum with universal suffrage for the first time. No joking...And they managed to do it without TV, only by sending people to talk to the peasants....
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
On communism and capitalism
This afternoon I have been to a panel were American students discussed Communism. With my Chinese flatmate.
What I realised it that the word communism had a different meaning for all of us.
For American people it means having public schools and healthcare and a system where wealth is distributed by paying taxes each one proportionally to their wealth.
For me this is what is normal in Italy and we are not considered a communist country at all. However this things are ideal anyway because rich people don't pay taxes because they find tricks to fool the system.
Now if the guy who called himself a revolutionary and advocated revolution during the panel came to Italy and expressed these same ideas people would laugh at him.
I think it could be a good idea for the USA to become a normal country.
So people living in Italy would not be fooled by Berlusconi who managed to make us believe that there is a logic connection between being rich as the USA and having its system. The biggest deceit ever. Italy with the USA system is nothing but a dictatorship. We should have the same resources and sell more weapons and control other countries and taking their resources, or we should have had slavery or an empire like the British in the past: this is the key of being a rich country.
To put 80 per cent of the wealth in the hands of the rich people like it happens here without having too much wealth is just a dictatorship like any other. It is not the American dream. But if the world goes on without being aware of this deceit there will be very bad consequences. People getting poorer and poorer everywhere with just a handful of rich people around.
And another big deceit linked to the so called American dream is the idea of free market as a way to become a rich country. No way. At the beginning the USA adopted a very protectionistic system, as this article written by a Cambridge scholar says. Even the Civil war was fought not for abolition of slavery (????) but because the North wanted protectionism. And after years of protectionism (and the new slavery called immigration), when the economy was strong enough, it could become free. But imposing free market to poor countries now means just making their economy fall pray of the more powerful economies. A big deceit.
Talking about deceits. China. Well they are called communists but this means in reality that they have a totalitarian society where the rich people in power have ended up adopting a system which is even more capitalistic than anywhere else...almost as much capitalistic as slavery.
Communism should ideally mean that the interests that are put before anything else are the interests of the majority of the people. And this sound quite a lot like real democracy should be (did you know that democracy has never existed in the world because the rich people have always had the power and done their own interests preteding to be elected by the people?)
However I don't completely agree with the idea of Communism. It is still very selfish. Each one doing their own interests. This sounds quite similar to capitalism on a large scale. If we all the people in the world had the standard of living of rich Americans that would mean the end for everyone. Extintion.
The only interests human beings should be really pursuing are the interests of the children. Expecially those who are not born and cannot speak for themselves. This includes a fairer society were wealth is not so concentrated, but also a sustainable society, where happiness does not mean having money to buy useless things but living responsibly, trying not to do too much harm to other people and the planet.
What I realised it that the word communism had a different meaning for all of us.
For American people it means having public schools and healthcare and a system where wealth is distributed by paying taxes each one proportionally to their wealth.
For me this is what is normal in Italy and we are not considered a communist country at all. However this things are ideal anyway because rich people don't pay taxes because they find tricks to fool the system.
Now if the guy who called himself a revolutionary and advocated revolution during the panel came to Italy and expressed these same ideas people would laugh at him.
I think it could be a good idea for the USA to become a normal country.
So people living in Italy would not be fooled by Berlusconi who managed to make us believe that there is a logic connection between being rich as the USA and having its system. The biggest deceit ever. Italy with the USA system is nothing but a dictatorship. We should have the same resources and sell more weapons and control other countries and taking their resources, or we should have had slavery or an empire like the British in the past: this is the key of being a rich country.
To put 80 per cent of the wealth in the hands of the rich people like it happens here without having too much wealth is just a dictatorship like any other. It is not the American dream. But if the world goes on without being aware of this deceit there will be very bad consequences. People getting poorer and poorer everywhere with just a handful of rich people around.
And another big deceit linked to the so called American dream is the idea of free market as a way to become a rich country. No way. At the beginning the USA adopted a very protectionistic system, as this article written by a Cambridge scholar says. Even the Civil war was fought not for abolition of slavery (????) but because the North wanted protectionism. And after years of protectionism (and the new slavery called immigration), when the economy was strong enough, it could become free. But imposing free market to poor countries now means just making their economy fall pray of the more powerful economies. A big deceit.
Talking about deceits. China. Well they are called communists but this means in reality that they have a totalitarian society where the rich people in power have ended up adopting a system which is even more capitalistic than anywhere else...almost as much capitalistic as slavery.
Communism should ideally mean that the interests that are put before anything else are the interests of the majority of the people. And this sound quite a lot like real democracy should be (did you know that democracy has never existed in the world because the rich people have always had the power and done their own interests preteding to be elected by the people?)
However I don't completely agree with the idea of Communism. It is still very selfish. Each one doing their own interests. This sounds quite similar to capitalism on a large scale. If we all the people in the world had the standard of living of rich Americans that would mean the end for everyone. Extintion.
The only interests human beings should be really pursuing are the interests of the children. Expecially those who are not born and cannot speak for themselves. This includes a fairer society were wealth is not so concentrated, but also a sustainable society, where happiness does not mean having money to buy useless things but living responsibly, trying not to do too much harm to other people and the planet.
There is still hope in Italy
There is still hope in Italy. Recently the Prime Minister got very very angry because in a satirical show called Anno Zero, that is still being broadcast on the public television, they discussed the fact that 200 people died during the earthquake because the building constructors wanted to make money and save on the material. It is very important that they talk about it. Even hospitals fell down, killing people. Maybe people will understand and things will improve.
And it is great luck that our political situation is very transparent. We don't have a puppet president that look very good and delude people about the real situation of the country. In Italy the richest man is prime minister. Everyone knows and nobody is deceived. And maybe one day we'll understand that he cannot represent the people's interests. And this program on TV will help us. And it will also help us understand how the idea that making money comes before anything else, even people's lives, is very bad and does not make people's interests because we can just end up dying during an earthquake because of that.
And it is great luck that our political situation is very transparent. We don't have a puppet president that look very good and delude people about the real situation of the country. In Italy the richest man is prime minister. Everyone knows and nobody is deceived. And maybe one day we'll understand that he cannot represent the people's interests. And this program on TV will help us. And it will also help us understand how the idea that making money comes before anything else, even people's lives, is very bad and does not make people's interests because we can just end up dying during an earthquake because of that.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Don't speak, act now
Do you believe this is not cool at all? Do you find very cool, instead, the idea that we live in the best world ever thanks to progress. Or that freedom of doing whatever you want without worrying about the consequences is the best thing ever? Well, you are not alone. All of us do. And the reason why is just because the people in suit you saw in the video also own the televisions and they tell us and show us what is convenient for them.
For them it is convenient to pollute the environment because they make money out of it. Is it convenient for us? For our children?
If we listen to them night and day we end up believing in what they say. We believe that we share the same interests with them. Is it true? I personally don't earn anything from them putting toxic waste in my garden because they are so mean that they don't want to pay to dispose it properly or to avoid producing it at all. They don't give a damn about my health, of me getting a cancer and I don't give a damn about them not being able to earn even more than what they already earn. Which is a lot, believe me.
Or should I be compassionate...yes... feel sorry for them... "Yes, you can put toxic waste in my garden...How much you need to pay to dispose it? Ah, it's a lot. You need more money to buy that nice island in the middle of the ocean, with palms, and clear water...? Ok. What about my children... what can it do to them? Nothing you say...right...if you say so than it must be true. Go ahead."
Anytime I have an idea in my mind that I find very appealing I always ask myself: where did this come from? Does it serve the interests of someone else (expecially the rich people who own tv)? Could its consequences be bad for me or the human race in general and the future of the children?
If they don't talk about it on TV or even tell us that there is nothing to be worried about nobody worries about it and people don't protest, don't ask for new solutions. And not just for words...for real facts. And if things go on like this we might end up noticing that the temperature of the planet has risen before we hear about it in the news.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Butterfly effect
If a butterfly moving her wings
Somewhere in Cambodia
Causes the worst storm ever in another continent
The choice of someone in a western bureau
Affects millions of destinies
Especially if the bureau is oval
The polar bear is the only one who is worried
About the fact that the ice is melting
That does not astonishe anyone in our side of the world
When the business man catches a cold
It is the workers who are coughing
The ozone hole is far from here
But it is from here that we can feel its effects
This is the butterfly effect
A Small thing with big consequences
A quite beautiful expression
A small thing with big consequences
Lipsticks and make up are made with whales
When you buy these cosmetics
It is with a spear that you make up your face.
My boyfriend is French too. And he recently told me that he did not vote for that 'mechant' of Sarkosy which is good, but... that his country was spending so much in military (as you can see in the picture below) and selling weapons around.
Even though many people think that a country needs to be powerful from a military point of view to count something I believe that the only people who are going to benefit from the French government investing public money in weapons in order to sell them to starving children in Africa are the rich owners of the big companies that produce them, and their best friends Sarkosy and Carla.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Another idea for my small island (continuation of previous post)
I have got another evil idea for my small island.
I will start producing weapons that all the kings of the other islands will buy from me. They love shooting at each others...they are so dumb. But I need money to produce them so I can sell them. What can I do...mmm.
I got it. I will tell the stupid inhabitants that I need to produce weapons in order to use them to fight Bubu, so they won't question why I am using the money they give me to build them instead of using them for any other purpose.
I will tell them that Bubu hides himself in a cave in an island next to ours with a huge amount of dangerous enemies.
Two hundred.
And I need money to build weapons to fight him and to send my army of about ten thousands soldiers to fight them....Mmm maybe they will think that my army is to big for just two hundred cave-men. Noooo. If I use the machine I will invent, the one that tells them how dangerous and evil Bubu is while entertaining them, to tell them that this is necessary, absolutely necessary, no other solution is thinkable, I am sure they will fall for it.
They fall for anything, why shouldn't they fall for this one too? They won't notice that the cave-men are just two hundred. I will tell them that we need to protect our little island, our small paradise, from such an evil bastard. And at the same time we'll help the island that Bubu owns. We'll make of it a paradise just like ours.
I will start producing weapons that all the kings of the other islands will buy from me. They love shooting at each others...they are so dumb. But I need money to produce them so I can sell them. What can I do...mmm.
I got it. I will tell the stupid inhabitants that I need to produce weapons in order to use them to fight Bubu, so they won't question why I am using the money they give me to build them instead of using them for any other purpose.
I will tell them that Bubu hides himself in a cave in an island next to ours with a huge amount of dangerous enemies.
Two hundred.
And I need money to build weapons to fight him and to send my army of about ten thousands soldiers to fight them....Mmm maybe they will think that my army is to big for just two hundred cave-men. Noooo. If I use the machine I will invent, the one that tells them how dangerous and evil Bubu is while entertaining them, to tell them that this is necessary, absolutely necessary, no other solution is thinkable, I am sure they will fall for it.
They fall for anything, why shouldn't they fall for this one too? They won't notice that the cave-men are just two hundred. I will tell them that we need to protect our little island, our small paradise, from such an evil bastard. And at the same time we'll help the island that Bubu owns. We'll make of it a paradise just like ours.
Comment on Echoes in the warp post on China missiles
I agree. China will never send a missile to his best market. Why losing customers by killing them? I like the last sentence: Conflict is about as likely as Wal-Mart sending nasty letters to it's customers. China is like Walmart and the USA is its customers. Would they do something to annoy the customers?
They pretend to be communist but they are more capitalist than the USA: what's more capitalist than making profit by making people work 23 hours a day for a small wage to produce a cheap product that will be sold abroad because the people who produce it are too poor to afford it?
And what about all the American multinationals in China? If China hates you they should not allow it. I am sure the rich Chinese that lead the country secretly love the rich Americans if they give them money.
But they tell the Chinese people they hate the USA because an enemy is always good. Anytime people complain about human rights and so on they just start blaming the USA.
If one day I will have my own small island in the sea and I will be very evil I will invent an enemy called Bubu and I will tell the stupid inhabitants that work for me like slaves that he is the one to blame for their miserable condition. It always work very well. Then I will tell them that he supports slavery while I am an anti-slavery person. And they all sould thank me for protecting them from that evil bastard. That Bubu, bleah. Oh..how they will fall for it very easily...I will invent a machine that can repeat it to them every single minute of the day to make sure they remember it. I don't know how this machine should be like but I will find it out. Maybe it should look like something that entertains them so they will be more willing to listen to it. Oh, that's such a good plan... My own small island, and I will be sunbathing and partying all day long.
They pretend to be communist but they are more capitalist than the USA: what's more capitalist than making profit by making people work 23 hours a day for a small wage to produce a cheap product that will be sold abroad because the people who produce it are too poor to afford it?
And what about all the American multinationals in China? If China hates you they should not allow it. I am sure the rich Chinese that lead the country secretly love the rich Americans if they give them money.
But they tell the Chinese people they hate the USA because an enemy is always good. Anytime people complain about human rights and so on they just start blaming the USA.
If one day I will have my own small island in the sea and I will be very evil I will invent an enemy called Bubu and I will tell the stupid inhabitants that work for me like slaves that he is the one to blame for their miserable condition. It always work very well. Then I will tell them that he supports slavery while I am an anti-slavery person. And they all sould thank me for protecting them from that evil bastard. That Bubu, bleah. Oh..how they will fall for it very easily...I will invent a machine that can repeat it to them every single minute of the day to make sure they remember it. I don't know how this machine should be like but I will find it out. Maybe it should look like something that entertains them so they will be more willing to listen to it. Oh, that's such a good plan... My own small island, and I will be sunbathing and partying all day long.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Is Europe a strange country?
This is just a small space to express my cultural shock:
Is a country like Italy, with public education and public universities a strange country? No, it’s just normal there.
Is a country like the Spain, with a public TV not too much controlled by the goverment a strange country? No, it’s just normal there.
Is a country like the UK with a public health service a strange country? No, it’s just normal there.
Is it strange to regulate and moralize the global economy? No, it should just be normal.
Is a country like Italy, with public education and public universities a strange country? No, it’s just normal there.
Is a country like the Spain, with a public TV not too much controlled by the goverment a strange country? No, it’s just normal there.
Is a country like the UK with a public health service a strange country? No, it’s just normal there.
Is it strange to regulate and moralize the global economy? No, it should just be normal.
America’s next top model
TV programs like American next top model not only make women believe they are rich and famous while they are not, so that they would defend the interests of rich and famous women instead of their own, but they also make women believe they are dumb sex objects, always thinking about buying clothes and make up and becoming hysterical all the time for no reason. Which don’t serve their interest at all.
All throughout history men have told women: you are weak, you are dumb, you are hysterical, you are either a saint or a whore. And for this reason you have to work for us without asking money. You stay at home and work but no money for you unless we feel like giving you some. Or later, if you work, you do not very well paid jobs and obviously no politics…Women and politics? No way, this means that they could defend their interests…no…we, men are going to tell them what their interests are, which strangely correspond to the men’s ones, but men will make them think they are theirs…what kind of shared interests are those according to which men get all the power? And this has worked for centuries: women started really thinking that they were dumb, weak, irrational, emotive, superficial, and so on. Which are not very positive qualities to have if you wanted to count something. As Simone De Bouvoir once said ‘one is not born a woman, but one becomes one’, as to say ‘one is not born a dumb sex object like in next American top-model, but one becomes one as one watches too much TV. And this is the new trend…if all women dress like this or act stupid like this then there is no chance anyone is going to take them seriously…or vote for them in an election which is not America’s next top model. If they think only about their bodies then it is not good for the brain...
But nowadays women have the opportunity to have good jobs and take responsibilities and be politicians…but still they have to show very masculine characteristics to be successful, like being rational…so rational that in order to make money or get power you don’t care about anything…because emotions, feeling that some things are not quite fair,…no…they mean weakness…
So nothing has changed in the end. Only that some women are conforming themselves to the features men assign to them, others pretend to be men, and nothing changes. If all women decided to be as rational (i.e. no scruples at all) as men are supposed to be then the world would end sooner.
There should not be any dualism at all and feeling something …pity maybe…the voice of your conscience maybe…should not be considered a sign of weakness or something irrational but a sign of great honor, just like Homer teaches us at the end of the Iliad, when Achilles shows pity for the first time… an emotion… and only then he becomes a real hero.
All throughout history men have told women: you are weak, you are dumb, you are hysterical, you are either a saint or a whore. And for this reason you have to work for us without asking money. You stay at home and work but no money for you unless we feel like giving you some. Or later, if you work, you do not very well paid jobs and obviously no politics…Women and politics? No way, this means that they could defend their interests…no…we, men are going to tell them what their interests are, which strangely correspond to the men’s ones, but men will make them think they are theirs…what kind of shared interests are those according to which men get all the power? And this has worked for centuries: women started really thinking that they were dumb, weak, irrational, emotive, superficial, and so on. Which are not very positive qualities to have if you wanted to count something. As Simone De Bouvoir once said ‘one is not born a woman, but one becomes one’, as to say ‘one is not born a dumb sex object like in next American top-model, but one becomes one as one watches too much TV. And this is the new trend…if all women dress like this or act stupid like this then there is no chance anyone is going to take them seriously…or vote for them in an election which is not America’s next top model. If they think only about their bodies then it is not good for the brain...
But nowadays women have the opportunity to have good jobs and take responsibilities and be politicians…but still they have to show very masculine characteristics to be successful, like being rational…so rational that in order to make money or get power you don’t care about anything…because emotions, feeling that some things are not quite fair,…no…they mean weakness…
So nothing has changed in the end. Only that some women are conforming themselves to the features men assign to them, others pretend to be men, and nothing changes. If all women decided to be as rational (i.e. no scruples at all) as men are supposed to be then the world would end sooner.
There should not be any dualism at all and feeling something …pity maybe…the voice of your conscience maybe…should not be considered a sign of weakness or something irrational but a sign of great honor, just like Homer teaches us at the end of the Iliad, when Achilles shows pity for the first time… an emotion… and only then he becomes a real hero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
