Baldovin Concept censured on Facebook

(ro- for English scroll down) Baldovin Concept a fost pentru o perioada in imposibilitate de a fi publicat pe Facebook. Probabil ca unii dusmani ai sigurantei femeilor au fost deranjati de articolele scrse aici in ultimul an, si l-au raportat masiv ca spam, desi continutul sau nu contine reclame si nu vinde nimic. La rugamintile mele, dvs. cititorii ati contraraportat ca spatiu sigur care nu incalca standarderele comunitatii, pentru care va multumesc.

Eng- Baldovin Concept was for some time banned to be published on Facebook. Probably some women's security enemies were disturbed by the last year's articles I wrote here and received multiple negative spam reports to Facebook, although its content doesn’t contain advertising or any kind of commerce. But due to my asking for help, you the readers counter-reported this space as safe, not going against the Facebook Community Standards, so I thank you for that.

9 ianuarie 2009

“Terrorized into Being Consumers”- a hypocrite documentary

For those who have not seen it yet, the documentary can be seen here

Seen again after ten years, this documentary looks now very interesting to me first of all from an artistic point of view. The electro-experimental background music, the sequences and image items repetition under its rhythm, the joining of contradictory and exclusive elements are remarkable. Such sequences are very appropriate to a contemporary art exhibition or festival.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, for other visions), as is often the case in art, the discourse deeply lacks the political or scientific coherence. There are some bright ideas in it, which inspired me in the following articles of these years. I could say there is no other documentary that inspired me more over the years, in the sense that it made me look for coherence in this amalgam of contradictions. Because, when it comes to argumentation and development, the author/authors seem to turn against own ideas and inexplicably support the opposite view. I saw it for the first time at a party given by some dunderhead girls that played ecologist superstar selfesteem. That's why when I first saw it seemed to me perfect for a kind of spoiled adults that found themselves not enough grown up, looking for spoiling on.

Its authors somehow feel that consumerist society has something wrong. But they have no qualities either to describe the real problems or to propose something alternative to what we have now. They simply resume social solutions that have already failed or were already abandoned. It is almost senseless to point up the solutions that this documentary proposes for improving society. I don’t know if the author(s) realize that inside of it there are three contradictory and exclusivist one another solutions for that. First one is that offered by Fidel Castro &co, with “equality in sharing the goods”, like happened in 60-s Romanian “nationalization” and, later, “rationalization”. The second one is the destruction of technology and getting back to primitive way of life. The third one is the reloaded French Revolution, the violence. I would further on analyze each of them. But first, I will show what seemed to me politically good in this documentary.

What I found good in this documentary

The most valuable thing in this documentary is, in my opinion, the contra reason against the accusation of anarchism and violence that authorities used several years ago against antiG8 protesters in Italy. The violence against windows or cars that protesters show is not real violence but there is real violence that authorities use against protesters. This reason is unbeatable. But, in the same time, watching MTV and getting a job is not violence either, as the John Zerzan’s idea (min: 6:30). Of course, I could accept that hard and stressing work might lead to the same results as real violence does on people, because they could get ill and even die sooner due to that. But fortunately, the stressing jobs in Occident are still rare now.

Anyway, this is something to remember: the violence is not possible against things. This put in discussion the very Ju$tice concept itself, as a relic of classical imperialism that prevent some people access to community products. The stealing made by marginals, punishable by justice, is done by the state with papers, signatures and “legal procedures”. That means the state (politicians &co) has this right of taking away a part of your propriety as taxes, but if a common person does the same thing, without those papers, signatures and stamps, then that person is simply sent to jail. That is the lack of consistency in today social system! I am sure that none of us is happy if rubbed or propriety damaged, but that doesn’t mean that this reason gets weaker. The lack of humanity and positive discrimination for the marginal or excluded ones from the social contemporary system allows such thing to happen. If we don’t find out other solutions than fighting against that thief with violence to keep our propriety, this is because we go back to the surviving primitive resources of eliminating the rival when “civilization” fails. It is exactly what I was writing in another article: “I am sure that, if common people would suddenly refuse work any more, then the nowadays corporatists would give up the story of human rights and democracy and hire an army instead”. The bizarre mixture between technological superior modern civilization and such primitive reactions is a crude reality of today’s “wild education”.

I also found very valuable the second main idea of this documentary’, namely that we are intoxicated with commercials to become compulsive buyers, is very good. I've been working in advertising for a while before seeing this documentary, and I know enough about how commercials are being made out of ghoulish lies. As I later have shown in this article  , the capitalism new slavery consists in slave’s dependence on some products for which the system has a monopoly. Its need to consume these products brings the state to pay with the freedom for having them, becoming a willingly slave and not even understanding what is happening. It is a hideous thing, indeed, but it still is not terrorism. As pointed in the linked above article, there is a real terrorism on citizens used by the social system. But it has another shape than purchasing objects dependency. There must be made such a differentiation.

And, of course, the image of hysterical Microsoft employee is really amazing. Unforgettable!

Stupid ideas, attitudes and expressions

I was overwhelmed by the bad light that Bill Gates presented. Placing him among the politicians is stupid. I don’t think he is a saint, but he totally deserves his social statute. He is an innovator, a technology creator and deserves the wealth he achieved. He is one of the most reach persons on the earth, but he worked hard for this and produced objects that improved contemporary life. We speak freely now on the internet, thanks to him too. He didn’t parasite the society as politicians do, but produced real technology. Besides that, Bill Gates donates to poor a part of his wealth. I don’t know how much is propaganda and publicity for his company, but these are humanitarian acts, instead of politicians who just ruthless exploit people. That is a real difference. But indeed, the reaction of that Microsoft employee is really scary (min. 37) and unforgettable. That is indeed dehumanization! I wouldn’t like to have a boss like that person.

The most stupid scene in this documentary is about a multimillionaire guy that, suddenly, rediscovers simple life. He has the desire to become poor and, eventually, prefers a homeless person experience, cooking in the street. So what? What do you think you can prove with the fact that such a man is eating in the streets with cheery rust? It brings into my mind the ancient Romans custom to change their positions with slaves on a certain day of the year, rather than the fact that super-rich people could adopt the poor lifestyle. And anyway, why show it to the common people? They are not far from this way of life. The story itself is nonsense because social mutilation is rare in rich person cases, but very common in their victim’s cases, the poor, the slaves. Finding compassion for such guy, which cannot find a way of satisfaction in life, is a bloomer. The critical moment of such stupidity is the background sound: the Chopin’s “Funeral march”, remixed with ‘80s electronic game sound. Replacing the magic Chopin violins and violoncello, and his profound sufferance that produced such magnificent music, with superficiality of such a snoble person, sad because can’t find a way to spend his money, looks to me o rare haughtiness stupidity.

As I pointed out already, the whole documentary is full of ambivalences. The consumerism and hard work that makes it possible is criticized but some time to time in the documentary raises up the iron smiths and primitive agriculture workers images that synchronize their working actions with a kind of electro-industrial music. Hammering a spike and hand cutting some agriculture plants keeps up with this music. So what this scene means? Does it show how hard the common people work is, or it has aesthetic reasons? Such kind of work is representative to classical slaves but not to the modern ones. Always in bad light in this documentary, it is the very technology who allowed an easier work for the modern slaves. This kind of hard physical work happens to be specific exactly in that kind of countries lead by Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez. That is why the consumerism is much better than those half military dictatorships that this documentary admires. But it is not very clear to me: this documentary agrees or rejects such kind of work? If agrees it, then what is the point for criticizing the capitalism slave hard work? If rejects it, then is the absurd also to criticize the western capitalist societies because such work is not representative to their slaves but to the ones specific to couturiers like Cuba or Venezuela. But, considering the avalanches of contradictions in this documentary, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that both these ideas are accepted …

By seeing it, one gets the impression that it is a collage of reactions of 2 people arguing one another. After seeing the whole documentary is clear that its inconsistency and its contradiction of ideas is not a problem for them. For example, after making the apology of austere life, starting at the 28th minute, the documentary presents a young Cuban woman in blue, who talks about the shock of visiting the Western Europe abundance of products from the stores. We the Romanians are not surprised by this enthusiasm that this girl had in the middle of this commercial diversity. We also have been through such a thing until 1989. Unlike these documentary authors, we are the living testimony about the scarcity frustration in the communist space, deceivingly painted into rationalized consumption colors. This sequence that reveals this young girl memory actually demonstrates how absurd the politics of communist poverty is, rather than how it could be a solution for all mankind.

Consumerism versus communism

Too bad, however, that the documentary did not know how to develop only these ideas, and entered other realms. I could be a remarkable thing. I just can not help thinking how the author has sabotaged his own ideas. It is senseless to me. I will never be a fan of consumerism in the way it is today , but it looks really good comparing to communism poverty. That's why the min 28 girl is so excited about the capitalist abundance, like those who lived in communism. None tell me about “rationalization of products” unless experienced it for a long period, when there is not much to buy with money. In Romania today there are a lot of communist nostalgic people, but they didn’t experienced consumerism because still live under the limit of poverty. It is easy for somebody to admire totalitarian communist austerity, and living most of the time in wealth. But when experience poverty as a child for a long time, the things are more difficult. Do these people know what means not to be able to buy some chocolate, as the stores were empty? Do they know how is playing with naked feet and staying hurt for a week when the shoes are getting broken after 2 weeks since buying? Do they know how it feels to be really, really pushed on in school and wish you were dead? Do they know how it feels when the authorities come once in several years and steal everything from your house, because your grandpa used to have unofficial political ideas? Etc. These days things like that happen in capitalist countries also sometimes, but at least one could quit, one could choose an easier job, one could say just NO. Well, in communist totalitarianism one could be transformed into classical slave just like that and be guarded by the soldiers when working. If the soldiers would get bored, then they could take you as a target and get rid of you as simple as that. The solutions of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are unsustainable.

I have my own doubts about such military men as Che Guevara or Fidel Castro. They have no right to talk about contemporary society as long as they were using guns. No matter what was the cause, if they choose to be murderers as soldiers, then they went back in time and lost the contemporary mind. It is almost unbelievable the nerve that Fidel Castro had when talked about humanity as a “big family”, but dressed in military uniform. I wander what are guns for? Are they, by any chance, good for climbing the social positions by force that he kept talking about? Are they meant to sustain and maintain the world wide family bounds, right? How nice of it…

Fidel Castro and others say that the problem of capitalist society is unequal distribution of wealth. Well, I prefer a decent way of living than a “equal” distribution of poverty and an “revolutionary communist " aristocracy that acted like medieval feudal lords, as it is the system he build in his own country. Most of the communist dictatorship systems have found a group of dissidents in their own people that they have persecuted. China even tried to exterminate it. By ignoring the supply and demand market law the products were scarce and low quality. From this point of view, the poverty is not so spread in capitalist countries.

Fidel Castro’s speech is specific to communist totalitarianism with its big lies. These people don’t stop talking about “better world” but they hate competition and use a monopoly system in their own country. They keep talking about “better” but do not seem to realize that it is just this “better” and “more” propaganda that makes capitalist slaves die on the corporatist battlefield. How can a person like Fidel Castro fight against corporatism with corporatist ideas? This documentary does not seem to realize such contradiction. Later on, in this documentary, the austere way of life is encouraged and appreciated, artificially implemented by authoritarian communist totalitarianism. For Christ sick: how is it possible to want a better world but still to want a life full of restrictions? Is not there the meaning of better world related to more freedom and to breaking the restrictions in living and thinking? On the contrary, the austere way of life they preach is related more to Dark Ages than to a better world. Is it so hard to realize that? But don’t worry; aberrations do not stop here. At the minute of 39 the Fidel Castro’s voice is replaced with that pathetic slave of Microsoft that screams like hell of joy “I love this company”. Excuse me? Is it me or in this point the documentary turn back against Fidel Castro? What about his sayings from beginning of the film? Does it look a little bit senseless? Just in case, if the nonsenseness would really matter for such documentary… As an artistic idea, the sequence with Fidel shouting a typical corporate message is very interesting. Art was often contradictory and bizarre. But as a political message, such a sequence seems to also demolish Fidel, which was previously taken as a benchmark in the critique of consumerism. The feeling that emerges from such a sequence is that the austerity promoted by Fidel Castro and the communist systems are at least as negative as the capitalist commercial and political advertising itself. This is correct, eventually. But that's not the declared intention of this documentary.

For me it is as clear as daylight. I prefer having G. Bush as president and live in USA then having presidents like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Putin or Basescu. It is not the best option I have in mind, but it is better for me than these other options. Bush seems really kind among these despots. The humanist principles they keep talking about are more damaged by their actions than those made by Bush.

The difference between contemporary capitalism state manipulation and the classical state terrorism

I believe that the problem of contemporary people is that the politicians can’t keep up with social development. The common people are not helped but stolen by the contemporary political system. The work of common people are seamlessly robbed by some artificial institutions, like secrete (un)services, army, police, justice and still existing wild education into education system. This crime is hard to be proven, as is happening by convincing common people to do something in return for something it already has.

The today’s common people soul mutilation is basically different from that one of classical state terrorism or by today rebel passéists. This difference is not so radical but it is still a difference based on continuity. It means that the manipulation is continuing the former terrorism of classical system, like I later pointed out here . The manipulation is not possible without former guns threaten. The contemporary worker would not accept the story about hard working and getting rich if its predecessors had not been pushed by armies for centuries to do it. In order to have manipulation today one should had slavery yesterday. The blood of such worker is infected by slavery. The worker accepts his (wage) slavery as a form of salvation from death. Working hard is perceived as the way to survive for such a person. The liberty gives anxiety to the slave (or slaves’ descendents) and that is why she/he prefers working hard than doing nothing. For such a result one needs thousands of years of guns threatening. If one takes away this background, then it takes away the contemporary slave. The primitive laziness is immune to contemporary slavery manipulation just because this genealogic background of “education” is missing. The contemporary aristocrat and bohemian mentalities is also immune to manipulation and usually make fun of it.

Here is the difference between the original terrorism used by classical social system under the guns threatening and the “human rights” contemporary society manipulation. In primitive and classical society, a person could be transformed into slave no matter if its name might be Plato. Somebody just put the gun into your face and force you to become a slave. You have no choice. Today one has the choice to say “No”. Of course, for the “professional slave” that choice means nothing because the culture prevents that person from choosing something else than being a (waged) slave; accepting classical slavery was the only way of surviving, as it always was for its predecessors. But the manipulation is not yet terrorism.

The link between terrorism, whether amateur made by paramilitary groups or professional, made by state armies exists, as I will show in more detail here  and here . However, the documentary does not literally speak about the role of terror in accentuating consumption, nor does it bother to make clear examples of concrete terrorism in order to build a psychological link between the two social mechanisms. Thus the "terrorism" notion is somehow metaphorically used. And I could see how the official propaganda has manipulated this notion expansion towards the ecologist fighters.

The authorities have many interests to call terrorists those who oppose their plans of social organization in order to suppress them, but we must be precise in defining these concepts. There are similarities, but the differences must be pointed, also. (PS. After 10 years later I have come to the conclusion that the similarities between the classic slave and the modern order taker  , are bigger than the differences, but these must also be mentioned). I am convinced that the people who perceive manipulation as terrorism are people that hear inside of their soul the slavery’s voice. Inside of them live both a bohemian and a slave voice that struggle one another. The anxiety is projected outside under the pattern pointed out by psychoanalysis about sexual pulsion.

Primitive passéism: a wrong way

Sharing the goods to everybody, as the documentary says at a certain moment, is impossible now with this infrastructure. It was not possible in the past but now it would be possible only if there would be pressure on politicians not for dividing properties, but for building infrastructure that creates those goods. There is plenty of abandoned farmland on this earth for not causing overproduction and driving down the prices, according to the law of supply and demand. Even so, not all the goods of this world can be shared to everyone, but only some, the basic ones. Such “equality” was not possible even at the beginning of communism. No other ages knew it. It is not fair for some people to work really hard for their goods and gave them up to somebody else who rests and don’t produce anything in return. Of course, there were and still are huge proprieties , such as feudal, from the Middle Ages and even today, which can not be accepted. They are accumulated without a fair product exchange with the society, under on both sides benefit, but only with the manipulation of social mechanisms. Their role is precisely to bring poverty to others, and to manipulate and enslave them, as I will later state here:

Only future technology has the power to make it happen some day by working by itself instead of human work. Anyway, none should expect that the Occident slave should now sustain the third world also and should be exploited by primitive people after sustaining a lot of social parasites inside of capitalist civilization that mutilate her/him for centuries. It is not fair. Going back to the “stone age” preached now by John Zerzan is an old idea. The most well known thinker that sustained such an idea was J.J. Rousseau, the philosopher who was admired by entire humanist culture for his utopian visions. But the primitive passéists are full of contradictions. For example, although they admire the wild and primitive lifestyle, still they call “assassins” the policemen in order to show their inhumanness and primitivism, using modern culture and civilization of crime condemnation. How can such people live in primitive society if they miss their “mom” at a first confrontation with primitive facts? I think they do not really understand what primitive society is, in fact. That is because they spend most of their time thinking of reach people and getting them down and taking their place. Very few of them know indeed what primitive culture and civilization means.

NO to violence! The change should be made democratically and peacefully

The solution is not the violence, as John Zerzan let us believe at the end of the documentary (min. 45). On the contrary, the violence turns us back in history with several centuries in conquests wars age. I strongly believe that the modern society has inner mechanisms of development and feedback. Today’s parasites have learned the lesson of history and will do anything to prevent a second French Revolution. The problem is the majority that still buys politicians/secret services/media lies. The system goes on due to such credulity. Here we have to change. There are media consumers that must be convince that most of the people who protest on the streets against G8 are not part of “The axis of evil”. Until they are not convinced everything is in van. That is democracy! As long as the majority believes in the system, there is nothing to be done but trying to convince them.

On the other hand, using violence will never be favorable to common people. Violence is a lost cause from the start for slaves. They do not know how to organize and defend themselves. The taste of ruler previously exists in the blood of their masters. Their elegant gestures contain the worrier calling. The masters’ predecessors used to be such worriers and won the wars as slaves’ predecessors lost it. Common people will never win this war even they might win a battle. French Revolution is just a drop into the Ocean. Billions of slaves were killed during history in exchange for the head of a king.

The contemporary slave is not ready yet for full liberty

Unfortunately there are too many contemporary slaves that cannot use the freedom just like in the Plato’s cave myth. The liberty makes them deeply depressive. They are really afraid of this and, deep down their soul, just do not want it. The work is their dirty consciousness refugee. On the other hand, many rebels are themselves some kind of liberated slaves and all they want is to simply revenge on those wealthy/powerful for the sufferance of their predecessors. They cannot get over the genealogic traumas. I have later described this mentality here

If the social parasites would not comply with the majority, then we might consider a new "French Revolution". Until then, let's better to show that we want development and welfare of society and not revenge on some for our genealogical anxieties!

Watch the antipoliticianist movement image manipulation!

The violence is a reality of primitive and classical society; using it means getting back to such deep layers of human civilization scale. Unfortunately the most people that are at some point against the politicians and their system just lose interest about this criticism when in contact with such passeist radical avengers. I for one do not agree with goods destruction on the street, and do not want to be a part of such manifestation. But the media, under the command of secret (un)services, shows all the protesters in the light of those who destroy things. I have no way of knowing the percentage, but I am convinced that among them there were also undercover agitators who worked for these secret services. Their role is to create a picture of the protesters' violence so to be justified in the public opinion perception a possible future repression.

It is a very agile manipulation act from the system in order show the antipoliticianist movement in a bad shape. The passéist protesters are a minority among the rest. Most of them just show their opposition against system and nothing more.

It is very hard for the authorities to combat these people ideas. The politicians’ reasons could be seen from distance as infected by personal interests. So, the only solution for this situation is making a bad, devilish image for protesters. It is clear that authorities exaggerate in their reaction and infiltrate agents among the people for creating chaos. The secret services agents are now working in media and usually manipulate the information so that the home consumers will only see live broadcasts with “anarchists” that destroy everything they touch. Such a media spectator will definitely forget about antipoliticianist ideas and will concern about those vagabonds that might threaten their live. The spectator’s mind will be filled up with the image of a wild primitive society ruled by the low of the jungle, where the lazy dangerous people that just want things from community but do not work to give something in return. For a thousandth time the people’s anger is cooled down with the perspective of war. Here is a very ingenious way that the (repressive) authorities, using the media tool, manage to prevent some very sensible ideas from getting into people’s ears and eyes. It is very important to stop the violence and destruction so that rest of the people will get more rights from the politicians that desperately fight against loosing their privileged social position.

Niciun comentariu:
Write comments

Popular Posts