Why I am not suprised, that some are surprised about right-wing terror. Monday, Jul 25 2011 

My first intuition, as I heard from this horrible violence inflicted on the Norwegian society was : … a right-winger!. I did not exclude rationaly other options, especially as the insitence to point at islamists was obviously the first reaction of other, but later I was, like often, confirmed to have been right.

My thoughts go first, before I follow my analyse, to the victims, their families and friends who have to face their hurt . I remember holding the hand of someone who had expirienced such a violent intrusion in his life, and was reacting with fear, each time he heard a firework or other sound reminding him his traumatic expirience. I understand how hard it must be for them now, and probably for a long time. May they at least know, that many are feeling with them, and wish that they might find back to a trust into life, this person without empathy has tried to destroy.

The media goes on repeating flat statements about the scandinavian social peacefull coherence, neglecting the increasing destructuration of this concept through a disdainfull nouveaux riches egotism, the confusion assuming that more bureaucracy creates egalitarism, that social control neglecting individuality and social solidarity are the same, and the contradiction of love for nature and resource exploitation for a privileged way of life. Even the classical parties or the media are more and more inclined to use reactionary concepts imposing more rigourosity to hide the disatrous effects of a deregulated market . What is left, is often only the old shine of social concern, which mostly is a puritan vision of a non controvertial/confronterial community.This tendency can be observed in many countries.

The great blindness towards the potential of violence of the extreme right wing is not innocent, it is systematic for those in society who consider it as ethically acceptable to repeat the propaganda phrases of those groups for their own political or social careerism and those who join dehumanised visions dividing humans, out of their own pride issues.

How much is it a cliche to consider psychopathic violence as an unforseeable outburst?
How many look-away situations are included in this concept of destinity?

As long acting cool and careless, dividing society into winner and losers is
too often still considered as virile determinism serving a greed who legitimates herself as worthiness deserving privileges, even if it leads to destruction of democracys, neglect of human needs, social structures and environment for a bit of individual prestige build on vanity….as long this pretend normality is not seen as doing the evil it does, …it will remain difficult to recognise those who overfulfil this attitude sociopathically .

Let s have the courage, to oppose real emotions to violent behaviour.
Cynicism expects to be seen as witty, but our hearts knows that empathy, compassion and solidarity is our real intelligence.

Is a certain illusion of safety worth the neglect of essential human rights? Monday, May 9 2011 

Considering that the surveillance society who has been legitimated through the “war against terrorism” has succeed to put each citizen under suspicion, allowing the control of our privacy for this higher goal, I ask myself what has created the most damage on our democracy’s ?

The old adage seems still pertinent making us ask who profits from a certain atmosphere of fear.

About the difference between etiquette and respect Sunday, May 1 2011 

I see that many use the therm of etiquette, confusing it with ethic,  as if it was the appropriate word for co mutual human respect. Mostly the same who assume that being nice is the only appropriate attitude in communication. Wonders what kind of intellectual debates are possible on such a confluent soil.

Etiquette means label in French, and the therm got used as concept how to behave appropriate towards an elite . It fits a certain superficial  narcissistic era to choose such hierarchical mannerism as base of human relationship.

Even in  a society where many limits their vocabulary to describe the other with such words like awesome or troll, a bit of culture might inform them that their overused word nice, comes from the Latin word nescius/ignorant.

Dividing into positive/negative concepts by repeating simplistic phrases is not creating a respectful situation for human communication, but neglect that those new dogmas can be used as new forms of territory bullying  by many who consider the challenge of their reality concept already as an offence.

Can we not question ourself about the true philosophical ethical value of what we assume as the right way?  Real respect towards our co human is natural to free human. To limit the minds to obedience of arbitrary convenient rules  is an insult to intelligence, creativity , engagement and compassion. It is a form of reductionist violence. It mistrust philosophically the human capacity to care for other human and their needs thoughtfully and the ability to solve problems  out of the own motivation for cooperation even in divergence, without rules imposed by authority structures, who s interests in  self determination can be questioned .

Historically we can associate this artificial well behaving obsession to each nouveau rich/petit bourgeois middle class attempt to flatter upwards and kick out critical voices challenging their uncultivated short sighted success concepts. The absurd ridicule of such attitudes is evident and has inspired many fine spirits over the century’s, their non respect of brain blocking  concepts is the base of our culture overcoming bigotry and despotism.

Not everybody welcomes a word based on calming pills , diluted thoughts and scissors in the head neglecting the real dehumanising and destruction out of sight for the comfort of flat mainstream agreement.

As we could observe in the last, democratic processes are about sharing openly ideas and arguments, not about controlling them down to please regimes in need of resigned citizen fearful of free speech.

A vivid democracy and culture requires engagement, not an absolutist  posturing confusing  affectations with ethical values.

A society who wrap’s herself in the privileged avoidance of conflicts, during the human rights gets neglect to provide such a lifestyle , is hypocritical . The shallow resonance of such therms like etiquette or political correctness points towards the cynical missing of real ethical structures organising life. Do we hear about an etiquette of those instrumenting the internet for business  profit or citizen control? Do we see political correctness increasing ecological awareness or social justice?

This disease confusing the packaging with the substance, is rampant and has created already a quiet generalised disastrous over adjusted  mentality.  During this… real rough life exists on earth !

Work “ethic”? Tuesday, Oct 26 2010 

“Work ethic” is a protestant relict like capitalism. Philosophical very questionable in an era where a destructured turbo capitalism is on the edge to kill our specie. Since ever this meme has been used to divide between the “good workers” and those lazy hedonist devoted to the fire of hell and perdition. But seen from near, the ethical dimension is not that evident. Are workers truly suffering from a stupid work delocalised to cheap labour country’s, or from the sense of belonging to a myth of worth through this work. Do we need to keep industries destroying environment going, only because they are supposed to be ” a part of the own self “. In a moment were a gambling neoliberalism spreads illusions about a ” new economical boom” through austerity plans pointing backwards to a pre social capitalism, the time has come to rethink the whole game, instead of getting lost in finger pointing division between those who still have work, (too often go between work administrating the masses of “not winners” in “adaptation courses” who bring “new prosperity” to those inflicting on other the absurd positivist mantras!) and those who don’t, who are supposed to feel sad and ashamed and longing for work under whatever condition and to whatever wage.

Human work has first to make sense, and considering the amount of not pay work millions of humans do daily unnoticed in social or other situations, the main “worth” seems not directly connected to his money “worth”.

Like said before, base income would make us reconsider our vision of “work” not as a form of hierarchical post modern slavery accepted to survive where some work more to earn less for other owning the structures who might or might not work but can make other jump through their speculative greed moves decorated as “creativity&courageous decisions bringing salvation to all!”. Confusing “being a good child” doing his work earning “points” with pleasing an ending driven system could end as immature irresponsible disaster. Lets rediscover the creativity in each humans and see… his dignity too. Lets work on a common redefinition of work for the sake of all.