fredag 25 april 2014

The Emptiness of thoughts

I listen to Colin Stetson's "From no part of me could I summon a voice" and understand the anguish and frustration pouring out of the tunes. All is nothing, and existence is re-evaluated in every breath. Al Jourgensen was definitely right: The mind is a terrible thing to taste. The emptiness of thoughts is the symptom of our reality. We isolate ourselves psychically, yet we are interdepedent and interactive on a shallow and blatant level to an extent it only serves as an indulgence for the Ego, but has no productive purpose or altruistic worth. There's no real collective, only on slogans and campaigns. The individual and its untouchable freedom is the main concern of the politics, even the sacred will towards loneliness and the mental wilderness in perception and definition that follows in its wake. Survival is generic and boring.

tisdag 4 mars 2014

Eradication of Kreml

I feel bad for the Russian people. They have been fucked over and over by their government leaders in all known history. The Russians have never experienced real justice, real freedom or real including and constitutional democracy. Yet they are clinging to emotional crutches like history and patriotism, which always' been edited by the leaders of Kreml. And even if there's a nanosecond of opportunity for Russia to be an open, tolerant and including country in cooperation with the rest of the world, it is always hindered by paranoia campaigns by the isolationists in Kreml. And now:

Once more "the lecherous bear" seeks to take over another state by any means necessary. This has been the role of Russian leaders in all modern history: They're The Bully, plain and simple. Lenin, Stalin, Chrusjtjov, Breznej and now Putin. Jeltsin was never in a position to become the same kind of bully like all the others - there simply was too many chiefs present at that time, and Jeltsin was too dependent on many different business men to run it all on his own. So here we are again, The Bully can have its day in the sunshine, and no one will stop them from getting what they want by force and coercion.

The assumption here is that the never-ending misery of Russia must be explained in terms of its history, its connection to the global world, and its present democratic movements.
Historically speaking, there has been a lot of democratic movements, but all of them have shifted towards avantgarde elitists (like the Bolsheviks/Soviets) or have been crushed by the these avantgardes (what happened to the Mensheviks, the autonomous anarcists and syndicalists movements, the liberals and conservatives democrats). So the only one left standing are the Bolshevik elites, who force-fed the common people their own version of reality, history and democracy. And since the Russians have been used to autocratic rule for so long (like the Tsars) it wasn't much of a big leap to quietly accept the totalitarian Bolsheviks. In overall, it was a pretty stable system, but like any other dictatorship, it had so many flaws it was bound for self-destruct, especially if certain key figures lost control of power and communication or simply died without suitable heirs.

Russia's connection to the outside world has, ever since Lenin, been that of a reserved Bully, ready to raise the fist at any possible sign of political or economical resistance. And this is mainly due to the governments of Russia, and not the common people or their associations in various societal sectors. These leaders, and the backing of the key military figures are the main reason Russia has been on edge with the outside world for so many decades. Stalin always judged foreign leaders out of his own personal traits, so did Lenin, and all leaders after them both. They have all lacked the ability to think outside their box, for empathy alien to their own political culture. And like any other political extremism, the reason why they are so clueless to this is that they've embraced a notion of Elitism (i.e. the common people are too stupid and weak to make public choices of new rule) and isolated revolution, which brought all the paranoia and nationalism. All the dissidents who have been outspoken about Russias development have been silenced, with Trotskij been the first of many to come.

The democratic movements in Russia had some early progress and chance to build institutions among the common people after the collapse of Soviet and during Jeltsin's mandate. Unfortunately, they have met strong resistance from the leaders in Kreml. Over these last fifteen years, mass-demonstrations have always been met with police brutality, mass-arrests and even assassinations of peaceful opposition. And the man behind the curtain is as strong as ever. Putin and his entourage are the main concern for the democratic justice, tolerance and freedom of Russia, and the sooner the common people realise this the better.

So, what would alter the course of Russian history in modern times? If we simply remove Putin and all of his support out of the equation, what happens then? Surely there would be a power vacuum and a struggle for power among all the idiotic nationalist movements, but also peaceful and open-minded movements would have the opportunity to have their say among square meetings and other public areas. The ability to affect and inform the citizens increases rapidly for these movements once the police state is out of order.

And if Putin and his gang are the main problem in Russia, how can the people remove him? In older history, during coups, there have been documentations of whole families wiped out, down to the last child, to avoid any possibility for opposition to regain strength. Clearly, this is not an option. It would mean mass murder on an enormous scale, and you would be no better than the current leaders of Russia. It's also en extremely insecure way to remove one problem. Not only would it be a taxing and complex operation to wipe out all of these persons, Putin and his family, all of his political and military support and all of their relatives. It would also be very unsure whether or not everyone is captured and killed, down to the smallest cubs.
It would be a hideous act and just replace one brutal rule with a new one, since the new rule already would have their taste for blood. One can only hope the future opposition understands the crucial lesson: That violent revolutions always turns into shit. Look at all the other revolutions who went bloody, they've really gone backwards in so many ways it's a joke to call it a civilized and progressive country.

If not wiping out Putin and all of his support and so forth, what would political and economical sanctions do to the Kreml leadership? Only strengthening their leadership. They can with-hold public information about the foreign intentions and their speeches, shut down websites about this, and claim to the public that the rest of the world is The Bully, not them. They're just answering the call for help by their friend in the south.
What about peaceful, tolerant and democratic movements - what are their mobility and flexibility these days? Last time we heard of them they held a mass protest against the assassination of a journalist and persecution of an oligarch, who happened to be a liberal politician as well, but nothing changed the Kreml rule. They remained intact. And since then they have gained support for their intervention in Georgia, their handling of the terrorist actions in Russian schools and the so-called "seizure of funds" from "corrupt leaders", while really all they are doing is putting that money into their own pockets and make sure no one else can have capital to raise popular support for oppositional election.

måndag 11 november 2013

Moderaternas förakt för arbetare och arbetslösa

Än en gång slås jag av hur duktiga Moderaterna är på att prata om vad de vill göra med samhället och sedan se hur de gör någonting helt annat. De är oerhört skickliga på att föra fram vidlyftigt tal om det förflutna Sverige, där de ondskefulla sossarna styrde med järnhand och kvävde individualisterna, som bara ville främja VALFRIHET (för Högern är detta ett helgonliknande objekt) och utåt sett framstå som liberala i de flesta samhällsfrågor (men egentligen var och är konservativa i det mesta, förutom anställningsvillkor och skattesystem; där experimenterar dem för fullt).

Reinfeldt talar om möjligheten att medborgare jobbar till 75 års ålder. Skulle han själv kunna göra det? Vilken effekt tror han att ett sådant här uttalande har på en undersköterska, som har en årsinkomst motsvarande en bråkdel av Reinfeldts årsinkomst? Han kan göra sina tio-tolv år i Riksdagen och sen verka i det fördolda som konsult på deltid för resten av sitt arbetsliv och ändå leva gott på en lön dubbelt så hög som 20 000-befolkningen.

Anders Borg talar om behovet av att ha flexibel arbetskraft i Sverige, dvs. geografiskt rörliga arbetare. Skulle han själv vara villig att lämna sina släktingar och alla vänner till förmån för en helt okänd ort hundra mil bort, med återkommande transportproblem (eller nekad ledighet) som försvårar återförening med bekanta? Tror han att Jobbet, som ett egenvärde, är det främsta som motiverar människor att existera?

Både Borg och Reinfeldt har också talat om att visstidsanställningar, deltidsanställningar, bemanningsanställningar och delade turer m.m. är en inkörsport för många unga som behöver komma in i arbetslivet. Tänker de någonsin på kvaliteten i dessa jobb? Vilken effekt tror de att sådana här jobb har på den anställde? Skulle de vilja testa att ta ett sådant här jobb i några år för att själva uppleva det? Har de någonsin själva haft ett sådant jobb?

Ulf Kristersson hävdar i en DN-artikel, daterad 22 augusti 2013, att Sverige har haft en god löneutveckling, som gör att ”…nästan alla svenskar fått det ekonomiskt bättre under de senaste åren”. Hur går detta ihop med Moderaternas eviga syn på löneutveckling, dvs. att så länge löneutveckling inte rubbar INFLATIONEN så är de nöjda? Märk väl här att inflationen, liksom TILLVÄXTEN och valfrihet, är heliga kor. Statistiken för dessa Totempålar måste följa en viss utveckling, annars är allt förlorat – främst för Stockholmare med tyskt efternamn.

Kristersson sträcker ut händerna i en pantomim och vädjar om ödmjukhet från oss alla:

”Långsiktig och seriös fördel­ningspolitik måste därför handla om hur en växande ekonomi ska komma alla till del...[]… Frågan borde därför vara hur en framgångsrik svensk fördelningspolitik egentligen ser ut i det moderna kunskapssamhället. Men den debatten har knappt ens börjat.”

Här ser jag en uppenbarlig minnesförlust, eller ren lögn. Hade inte Moderaterna bestämt hur Sverige borde se ut i framtiden redan under glada 90-talets nedskärningar? Bildt, Hamilton och övriga aristokrater ville ha det på ett visst sätt, Reinfeldt var inte långt därefter.
Reinfeldts Det Sovande Folket är en Otto von Bismarckversion av Mein Kampf, en ytterst cynisk och pessimistisk samhällssyn, där arbetare har blivit lata och dumma får. De borde egentligen stå med mössan i handen och vara tacksamma för att de ens har jobb. Bismarck hade säkert lagt till att arbetare (läs: medborgare – en arbetslös är inte mycket värt i denne preussares värld) ska vet hut, iaktta självdisciplin och visa vördnad för auktoriteter.
Borg var en förvirrad anarkoliberal som inte hade sina makroekonomiska kalkyler och diagram indoktrinerade ännu men var på god väg. Och vart var Kristersson vid den här tiden? Förmodligen en lokal socialarbetare, som skapat en cynisk människosyn och var frustrerad på de återkommande missanpassades eviga problem.

Nuförtiden har de alla slipat till språket. Man pratar inte om de huvudsakliga orsakerna bakom fattigdom, utsatthet, panikångest, depression och missbruk i samband med ovanstående. Nej, nuförtiden pratar man om Utanförskap och vad det tydligen ska vara. Det är en form av Nyspråk, där Moderaterna och deras lobbyister kan sälja in en idé och själva välja innebörden i ordet för dem som vill köpa den. Och genom dessa slipade lobbyister och marknadsförare så får allting en prislapp nuförtiden. Vad är lycka? Uppenbarligen pengar och karriär för Moderaterna. Vill man inte studera 5-6 år för ett högavlönat specialiserat jobb så är man mindre värd som människa. Det säger deras politik och praxis av det i anställningsvillkor, arbetstvister och brottsmål. Hur behandlade Maria Borelius sin städare? Det är inte relevant, tydligen, utan ”… vi vänder blad och går vidare…”, citat av kungen – som mottar en skyhög lön i förhållande tills hans utbildningsgrad, kompetens och ansvarsområde (han fungerar också som en informell diplomat förutom sina marionettjobb).

Kristersson fortsätter:

”Hur ska förskolan och skolan ge alla barn de kunskaper som krävs för det moderna arbetslivet? []…”… Här finns frön till en ny svensk välfärdsdiskussion bortom ytlig partiretorik.”

Men grundskolans kunskapssystem fokuserar mest på betygen sedan flera år tillbaks! Hur kan Moderaterna och högerregeringen vara oskyldiga till en sådan utveckling? Mer betyg, mer omdömen tvingar barnen att vid speciella perioder om året bara tänka på betygen, men aldrig tänka på vad de egentligen lär sig. Betyg för betygens skull. Högerregimen är bra på att prata om vikten av politisk dialog när de själva har skapat problemet. Jag borde göra samma sak på mitt jobb. Men jag skulle förmodligen få sparken då. I det här avseendet beter sig Moderaterna och Reinfeldtregimen precis som sossarna gjorde under sina regeringar.

Kristersson avslutar storartat:

Det finns en fin värdegrund bakom den svenska välfärdsmodellen. Den måste bara återupptäckas då och då, och pragmatiskt anpassas till det samhälle vi nu lever i. Då duger varken nostalgi eller återställare.”

Men den Välfärdsmodell som vi kände igen är ju nedmonterad och borta, det är Moderaterna och högerregimen skyldiga till! Ökningen av privata sjukhus, skolor, olika vårdinrättningar, infrastruktur (lokal transport), bemanningsföretag och delade turer är ett direkt resultat av högerregeringens ekonomiska experiment. Det här är Liberalernas tidsålder, då De får ha sin sandlåda för en gångs skull (tidigare, när de inte hade makten, var de väldigt duktiga på att klaga på hur kommunister lekte med sina planekonomier utomlands). För varje gång högern tillåter till exempel riskkapitalister att ta ut en fjärdedel eller femtedel i vinst från något som Vi alla tidigare betalade och fick en stabil servicegaranti så tillåter de att pengaflödet ökar med osäkra anställningar, osäker public service och osäker skolgång. Men det vill de inte prata om, utan de vill poängtera vikten av Valfrihet (så extremt mycket viktigare än rättvis tillgång till vård, grundskola och utbildning?), och att det är viktigt att ha en politisk dialog om detta. Det är världens sämsta svar någonsin. Det är inte ens ett svar, det är ett helt eget språk, ett Nyspråk. Vi kan uppenbarligen inte längre kommunicera på samma sätt som förr, utan måste tillgripa nya verktyg för att få fram en mening.

måndag 17 september 2012

The concept of Self

The more experience, years and continuation one endures, the more complex the Self becomes. I have no problem acknowledging the boundaries of visual perception. Question is whether it's the Real I'm experiencing, or if it's an imagination. Indiscipline by King Crimson depicts the relentless confusion that's always there. Sometime it's entertaining at a distance, sometimes horribly superficial.
All is Matter and how we perceive Matter is subjectively processed through layers of nerves, synapses and braincells in such mass that the quantitative knowledge would drive you insane. Understanding the Matter is impossible to be universalised; it's only Real to the Self. Same logic should apply to the paradox of human interaction: How can you be sure you're not the only living creature in this universe (which is a mental storage for Space, detached from the Self)? In essence, how can you be sure that this isn't an illusion? But if your Self is the only Real, how would that explain your interpretations of the Real? Doesn't the social environment and development give some clues? Could it all be explained as to a prolonged start-run for the Self to rid itself of the notion of a Collective? But then, how did it all begin? This is a mindfuck, if you stop to think about it. Humans are gifted with the most terrible thing in all of evolution: Self-awareness.

Marcus Aurelius said: "...nothing is so productive of elevation of mind as to be able to examine methodically and truly every object which is presented to thee in life, and always to look at things so as to see at the same time what kind of universe this is...", and in an earlier passage: "Thou must now at last perceive of what universe thou art a part, and of what administrator of the universe thy existence is an efflux". In essence, Aurelius was a true stoic, constantly promoting notions of duty, loyalty, truth and honour. But his universal objectivity is something I'm having a hard time coping with. This kind of positivism is eating away the very heart of exploration, bot inwards and outwards. One could argue that there's many different aspects of the Real, that it all depends on the spatial dimension and how its subjects creates interaction and interdependence with it. If the majority of the people embraced suicide as the only viable option to end life then the "anti-suicidists" would be considered crazy. And that's making the assumption that there's more than one conscious operating at the same time. Outside of it, this all becomes an imaginary picture of small figures, frozen in a sandbox of a god.

tisdag 21 augusti 2012

East and West

When reviewing Brev till Prinsen av Mogadonien a book critic at the Swedish public television made some remarks about the Western culture and the Eastern culture(s). According to her, We the westerners don't consider the cultural exchange we could get from reading Eastern authors and artists. We the westerners stubbornly stick to our own culture of art and literature. This book critic also claims that Arabic people are more interested in western literature and culture than westerners are about theirs. I wonder if she has ever actually met an Arabic person in her whole life.

I've lived with people from all over the world for many years - Buddhists, Christians, Hindu, Jews, Muslims, Sikh, some indigenous shamanistic religions and so forth. When communicating with people from all these different places it's a reasonable and courteous thing to really listen to them each separately, to give them their space and time of expression and to respect them for who they are and not what you think they are. Assumptions like "that one is an Israeli Jew, I guess he's a crazy Zionist" is not really helping anyone in international socialising. Another thing you might consider is not to talk about yourself constantly. It doesn't get you anywhere, it can be rude and it's really egoistic and self-centred.

One thing I have noticed is that all the monotheistic people love to talk about their own culture. If you mention anything that aren't related to their own culture they listen to you for about 3 minutes, then try to switch back to the subject at hand, their supreme and overwhelmingly flawless culture. I had to listen to a neighbour go on and on about his Zimbabwe and Mugabe, which was grossly misunderstood by foreigners and beloved by his own people, of course. He also pointed out, with brows raised, that the Zimbabwe people are good Christians. Okay, good to know...
Another time I asked a neighbour how things were in Tunis (before the Tunisian Revolution, tension was rising in the country) and over an hour he raged about what a great country Tunis was and what a proud Muslim past it had, and what a prick Ben Ali was. I only asked him out of concern for his family - I didn't want a fucking propaganda speech.
Another time I was asked if I remembered my Old Testament, which I didn't (and don't). That rendered me a long speech on how fulfilling, essential and strong the message of God is, if you read it in Hebrew. Imagine if I give jackshit about the fucking Bible-thumpers nowadays. He also talked long and hard about what a special place Israel is and how history seems to (?) circulate around it.

At the same time, every time I've asked these neighbours, strangers, exchange-students if they know anything about Swedish culture, about Swedish musicians, about any kind of Western authors no one knew shit. Conclusion: They were all self-centred, egoistic and isolated idiots from monotheistic backgrounds. And I couldn't care less what happens to them.

They don't care about my culture, I don't care about theirs. Fine by me.

So, miss latte-sipping book critic, don't pretend that people from example the Middle East, South-east Asia or East Africa really know anything about Sweden, about Swedish authors and artists, because they don't. And they don't want to know anything. Their way of speaking to you makes it really obvious.
These Abraham-followers from Middle East, North Africa asf. only care about their own culture, their own religion and their own society. I don't have any problems with status quo - at least they're honest about their indifference towards us.

måndag 6 augusti 2012

The puzzle of DSBM

The suffering artist, the boxed self-mutilator and, contradictory, the emulator of depression has found its way to many listeners over these last ten-fifteen years through a scene of degenerate hipsters who add influences accordingly to their free-for-all experimental soup. The notion that it's a scene consisting of former black metal artists is questionable, to say the least. Rather it's a mash-up of persons and constellations of eclectic backgrounds, which form this web of unholy matrimony in music. The quality of this music ranges from pure hacks to highly developed artistry, and the quantity of the scene is, or has, swelled considerably since its dawn.

But what concerns me is one of the core in the lyrical contents in DSBM. Thematically it's nothing new, the old influences from blues comes first to mind, also there's many others beyond that musical era. But the mere quest to express deepest depression, to somehow find its core and thrive on it in its most negative ways perplexes me. If you're really that down, so fucking bored with life, how come you have any will left to create songs and record them? Real suicidal depression is a terrible power. It can swallow you whole and cut all bonds you might have to this world before you even come to realize it's an emotional dead-end, eating away at you. I've seen people vanish completely from the face of the earth, to later appear on the news, washed up on the banks under a bridge or hanging from their own ceiling lights. Before their disappearance they hadn't the strength to do anything, not even get up out of bed and make food to survive. The only viable option to rid themselves of their plight was to end their life. That's real suicidal depression. To try and emulate this mental black hole is to ridicule those people that actually didn't make it, who didn't manage to escape it. They were in dire need of assistance and we failed to help them in their most crucial hour.

If it was just a matter of trying to trigger that emotional feeling without any thematically strings attached I wouldn't have any problems with it. Many bands have done so in the past without any plump motives like DSBM bands. Or if you're out to gain energy from negativity, like Abandon (RIP) did, then it's also another thing - trying to create positivity, to progress something productive out of a benighted state isn't an easy thing but a honourable task for any worthy artist and in which case I salute those efforts.

torsdag 7 juni 2012

Prometheus sucks bigtime

Some years ago I heard about the planned prequel to Alien (1979) and I thought it would be awesome if Ridley Scott would direct it and allow his idea of the Space Jockey to bear fruit on a cinema. Sadly this would not be the case. He tossed that idea (with the usual pushing from commercial production retards) and set forth to direct a spin-off, namely Prometheus, which would tangent some elements of the Alien universe but not have the Alien creature actually in the movie. The synopsis is pretty lazy and are common ideas from older sci-fi, that humanity has been created from alien intervention, and evidence of that thesis is found in ancient dig-sites on separate places on Earth, showing a starmap to a distant planet. Scientist is sent to this far-away location in space to discover if these aliens were the ones responsible for creating humanity, and if so, ask them what the purpose of human existence is.

The end result? Pretty bad.

The movie had a budget of 120 millions USD. From that money stack you’d at least expect some well-thought and well-analysed script, character development, environment process and universal brainstorming to be made. But no, that’s not the case. With the amount of time the film crew has spent on this, plus the big budget, the following mistakes, flaws, sloppy handwork and overall amateur-like storytelling is beyond my comprehension.

The characters are, in 9 out of 10, quite stereotypical and shallow. Everything is served on the Hollywood smorgasbord, from the geeky scientist with glasses (Millburn), the bad boy with a Mohawk haircut and tribal tattoos (Fifield), the black captain working as a comic-relief (Janek), the strict businesswoman who plots for corporate power (Wickers), the pretty boy scientist (Holloway), and the weak, emotional female (Shaw).

When entering the planet atmosphere, the crew immediately finds what they seek for - alien structures, resembling buildings. No orbital scanning or similar necessity in order to pinpoint the location needed?

When entering the alien structure, the crew scans the atmosphere on the grounds, concludes that it’s breathable air, and takes off their helmets, Did they ever stop to think about airborne viruses or bacteria?

Millburn has to pat an alien creature, because it’s sooo cute. Imagine if that was a mistake. Once again the fuzzy scientist, who relies in raw data and Darwinism, dies first. Reprise of an older movie scene, perhaps? Also, with Shaw, being the single “survivor” AND a true believer of higher purpose (God, anyone?), this moves towards the notion that the faithful will earn success while the disbelievers will fall. More Christian infiltration in the media?

At least one of the crew has to freak out at a minor accident (Fifield), when they are all supposed to be experienced and has a professional payroll from a multi-billionaire company. Sounds feasible, no? I don’t think NASA would hire these amateurs.

Fifield, who is supposed to be a geologist and is mapping the alien structure, has no clue where his instruments are leading him when they are stranded in the alien structure because of bad weather. At the same time, no one monitors their situation from the space ship. Sounds like a bunch of professionals?

Shaw gets impregnated with alien DNA. The schizoid android David therefore restrains Shaw and has set his mind to freeze Shaw into stasis to analyze her, but she lures him that a sedative is working on her, so David leaves her alone. Shaw then breaks free and gets the alien DNA inside of her, which is a squid-like creature, surgically removed herself, staples her stomach wound and runs away from the operation table. No one follows her. She unexpectedly meets up with the old Weyland, who funded the scientific space trip and secretly tagged along, along with his personal watch and David. No one comments on her wounds or trials. Is this some kind of joke on inconsistencies, plot holes or just bad script writing? Anyone? I’m still baffled on how illogical and extremely irrational everything gets from this point on, at the same time keeping in mind that this is fiction and not reality. But come on, some coherencies would be nice.  

When you see a space ship comes crashing down, falling towards a specific location, you would do well to try and move away from that location. In Prometheus you obviously don’t. Wickers get (assumingly) crushed when she tries to run a straight line, the same line the shadow of the falling ship is casting on the ground.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Many other important flaws have been pointed out on IMDB, but if I would point them all out it would be a novel in the end. It’s that bad.
The movie is over 2 hours, yet it fails to focus on the story itself. Once again Lindelof is set loose to fuck up a generally decent idea of story and go Frank Zappa on everything, too much mad-hat ideas that I barely understand how the fuck Ridley Scott would hire someone like Lindelof, let alone allow himself to divulge in these kind of confused, schizophrenia behaviour in the story. Dozens of ideas are created, but nothing is followed up. I know the script style of avoiding answering too many questions, to leave some scenes out to public speculation, but this is far beyond that. Not everything has to be explained, but to constantly create more questions than answers are just the poor work of an amateur. 

This movie had more style than substance. A poor balance of production, and once again proves that a big budget doesn’t mean shit if you have hacks that are allowed to run amok with the script.

So, there’s too much idiotic behaviour from an already flawed script. Shame on you, Lindelof, you are truly overrated! Refrain from doing any more scripts ever and stick to production only! Do not direct either, who knows what you would let slip pass the radar!

2/5 in review. It's not as bad as Avatar or Alien vs Predator at least, but not far from it.