uanset man i vores alder hinsides de 60
kan føle sig lidt mistrøstigt over, at vores alderdom ikke vil være
præget af samme fremgang som vores ungdom, så må jeg indrømme, at
vi for fyrre år siden fik efterladt et samfund på vej til større
social retfærdighed og mere fred i verden – mens det samfund vi
efterlader til de kommende generationer – på trods af relativ
større velstillethed – er på vej i en hel gal retning. Derfor har
jeg væsentlig mere sympati (eller kald det medlidenhed) med den
ungdom som er på vej ind i en særdeles usikker fremtid end mig selv
og mine aldersfæller, Vi er jo alt i alt ansvarlige for miseren –
ikke nødvendigvis personligt men i hvert fald som en generation som
gik fra social engagement for helheden til Dansk Folkepartis
fremmeste støtter.
mandag den 5. oktober 2015
mandag den 8. juni 2015
Ideologien, der holdt op med at give mening
human globaldarwinisme
Ideologien, der holdt op med at give
mening
en efterskrift til ”Landet,
der holdt op med at give mening”
Den for oven nævnte artikel på
Berlingske National som er baseret på et interview med professor
Svend Brinkmann (interviewet af Line Holm) vakte jo så stor
begejstring og tilslutning i min "mediesociale" omgangskreds at
jeg blev fristet til at tænke videre fra den meningsløse status nu
til en forklaring af den store politiske og vælgermæssige
tilslutning til meningsløshedens overordnede ramme: kapitalismen
At kapitalisere og profittoptimere er
jo dens essens – og den har dermed via sin globale sejrsgang været
hovedårsagens til en accelererende udvikling i produktion og forbrug
uden sidestykke i historien.
Den imødekommer på denne måde også
en biologisk-psykisk grundstrøm i os alle sammen: ”Hvis jeg/vi
vokser så (over)lever jeg/vi – og hvis vi holder op med at vokse
så dør vi.”
Da det under et kapitalistisk regime
hverken er legitimt eller økonomisk at sætte så mange børn i
verden som muligt bliver formeringstrangen kanaliseret over i
akkumulation af penge, gods, prestige og succesoplevelser.
Især sidstnævnte fremhæves ligefrem
som den store chance for fortsat vækst i kultur- eller kundekredse
hvor de fleste allerede ejer langt mere end de har brug for.
De meningsløse succeser som som
livsindhold
Hvis det handler om at holde
konkurrencetrangen i kog ud over fornuftens eller den reelle
livssituations behov så er intet mere egnet end at flytte
”konkurrencestaten” ind i dagligdagen, hvor man i stedet for at
gå sig en tur i skoven kan løbe om kap med flere tusinde andre, i
stedet for at holde sin krop i rimelig form kan træne den til optisk
perfektion (med alle lovlige og ulovlige midler) for at se den i spejlet og vise den frem som et statussymbol på stranden, i fitnesscentret, på løbestien og sågar på de sociale medier.
Det som oprindelig bare handlede om at hygge med og omkring venner og familie kan nu blive til en tv-iscenesat og promoveret konkurrence med andre amatører i f.eks. madlavning, indretning af det smarteste sommerhus, krejlen med gammel stads, købe mest for færrest penge ….
Det som oprindelig bare handlede om at hygge med og omkring venner og familie kan nu blive til en tv-iscenesat og promoveret konkurrence med andre amatører i f.eks. madlavning, indretning af det smarteste sommerhus, krejlen med gammel stads, købe mest for færrest penge ….
Så længe det står på, er hyggen forvandlet til et
stresshelvede for de stakkels ambitiøse amatørkonditorer
m.m.
”Bare” at nørkle med ting som man
kan lide eller dyrke motionsformer som man kan nyde taber i
konkurrencen mod de fritidsaktiviteter der får mest mest
medieopmærksomhed.
I medierne ser vi mest til dem og det
som vinder – de går videre til næste runde..... eller det bliver
delt rundt på www.
Hvis man mest synger, fordi man håber
at komme langt med det
Hvis man mest bager, fordi man har brug
for ros af de flotte billeder man sætter på fb
Hvis man kun tager en bestemt
uddannelse, fordi man håber på at komme højt på strå med den
Hvis man kun dyrker sin krop for
udkonkurrere andre – optisk eller fysisk
Hvis …...
.... så har man internaliseret konkurrence
så meget, at al personlig mening og indhold bliver trængt til side
til fordel for en tom skal, hvis opretholdelse bliver til
livsindhold.
Lad mig prøve at illustrere det med et
sandsynligvis virkelighedsnært eksempel:
CW vil gerne være et godt barn for
sine forældre
Faren ville gerne være succesrig
tennisspiller men nåede aldrig så langt med det.
Det kunne CW mærke ret så tydeligt og
fra barnsben af blev livsindholdet tennisspil.
Der kom op- og nedture i den
professionelle verden men det blev dog til berømmelse og et ”hjem” i
skattely, megen presseomtale og mange reklamepenge …
Med sådan en karriere er der sikkert mange som mener
at CW er et fremragende forbillede for vores unger:
at træne og slide ufortrødent for at kunne tvære sine modstandere ved at slå med
styrke op præcision (omend til en lille bold), at tjene mange penge,
at blive rigtig kendt …. og at flytte med de tjente penge til
skattely
ER DET MENINGEN MED DET HELE???
p.s.
Hvis livsindhold/mål, som i ovennævnte
eksempel, (også) handler om at gøre forældrene glade, så skulle vi
forældre tænke os pokkers godt om, hvad vi selv udpeger som
livsindhold for vores børn.
onsdag den 27. maj 2015
STORE LARS FRA SCHWEIZ BAKKER OP OM LIBERAL ALLIANCE
STORE LARS FRA SCHWEIZ BAKKER OP OM
LIBERAL ALLIANCE
Han har sparet så meget i skat ved at
bosætte sig i Schweiz at han råd til sit eget (danske) parti
Lars Seier Christensen.
Hvem er han egentlig?
Han er klassisk-sproglig student og
stiftede sammen med Fournais i 1992 fondsmæglerselskabet
Midas, der senere blev til online-banken Saxo Bank. I 2001 fik
den status som en officiel europæisk bank. I 2008 ejede
Lars Seier Christensen og Kim Fournais 62 pct. af aktieposten i Saxo
Bank, der da havde en værdi på op mod 13 mia. kr. I 2005 solgte
stifterne 25 pct. af Saxo Bank til kapitalfonden General
Atlantic for 729 mio. kr.
Lars Seier Christensen er en
markant libertariansk debattør i dansk politik. Saxo Bank
og dets ledelse har således forbindelse til både partiet Liberal
Alliance, cykelholdet Pro Cycling Team Tinkoff Saxo,
netavisen 180grader samt den liberale tænketank CEPOS og
dets universitet.
Det man i dag med sikkerhed ved om ham
er, at han ikke har lyst til at bo i Danmark, og at han gerne vil
betale folk for at fremføre ultraliberale synspunkter i Folketinget
og i den politiske debat i øvrigt
parti på pengedoping
Liberal Alliances langt klækkeligste
støttebidrag kommer fra Saxo Bank, der hver dag omsætter for 100
milliarder, især i spekulativt køb og salg af valuta.
Direkte rettet til Saxo Bank erklærede
LA-partileder Anders Samuelsen:
»En tillidserklæring fra folk som jer
er uvurderlig.«
Samuelsen sagde også om forholdet
mellem sit parti og Saxo Bank:
»Vi lytter til hinanden.«
Farvel til Skattefar
I juni 2010 kunne Berlingske Business
røbe, at Seier Christensen og hans familie »i dybeste stilhed havde
forberedt en flytning til Zürich-området i Schweiz«. Samme måned
tog han bolig i skattelyet.
Han begrundede sin landflygtighed
således: »Vi er bekymrede for, hvor Danmark er på vej hen – både
økonomisk og politisk.«
Nu skulle man jo tro, At Liberal
Alliances øgede tilslutning ville dæmpe bankdirektør Seier
Christensens bekymring for fædrelandets retning, og at Seier ville
vende hjem og satse på endnu mere afkast af fortsatte investeringer
i Samuelsen. Men nej, Seier sætter åbenbart grænser for de risici,
han er villig til at løbe.
Da Lars Sejer Christensen var på ferie
i Danmark juli 2014, indlogeret på Hotel d’Angleterre, vurderede
han, hvordan borgerligheden havde det i Danmark anno 2014 - inden
han stak til søs med venner fra tiden i gymnasiet og Konservativ
Ungdom.
”Lige nu kører det bare i den gale
retning”
”Vi lever i en verden, der er meget
ufri. Der er utrolig meget indblanding i økonomiske forhold: Hvordan
du driver din virksomhed, hvad du kan mene, hvilken religion du må
have, og hvor du må komme fra. Frihed i traditionel forstand
eksisterer ikke længere,” sagde Lars Seier Christensen.
(kilder: Dagbladet Information og
Wikipedia)
torsdag den 12. marts 2015
UDKANTSOMRAADER OG AFFOLKNING
I og med at boligen ved at prioritere ejerboligen – også som boligen i byerne, er blevet et investeringsobjekt, hvor næsten enhver køber forventer en fortjeneste ved salget, som han/hun også skal have for at få sig en anden bolig, og bankerne låner penge ud til boligkøberne på den betingelse at de køber boliger som har de bedste økonomiske fremtidsudsigter dvs. sandsynligvis vil stige mest (eller i hvert fald ikke falde i værdi) er der sat en (døds)spiral i gang, hvorved det frie finansmarkedet afliver Udkantsdammark og globalt set Udkantshvorsomhelst.
Ironisk nok har vi på denne måde i vores (relative) velstillethed indført samme udviklingstendens som gør sig gældende i ulandene: sammenklumpning af befolkningen i storbyerne, med næsten alle sociale og miljømæssige problemer som følger med.
Men hvem vil politisk være med til at regulere/dreje boligmarkedet i en anden retning??
mandag den 2. februar 2015
WORKING CLASS NEVER GOT ANY GIFT!
Subsistence allowance was not a gift
from a rich uncle in America!
Wage adjustments were not introduced
The right to vacation was not a sponsor gift
from a Copenhagen brewery!
The working class never got any gift,
and no one will give us something
in times to come.
All those achievements have been paid
with laborious work, struggles, sacrifices,
disappointments, perseverance and defeat,
and only because some of us
never gave up, we moved foreward!
Carl Scharnberg.
tirsdag den 28. oktober 2014
politik uden figenblad
Humaniora er er kommet under stærk
pres fra regeringen og ledende økonomer da afkastet per kandidat
slet ikke modsvarer investeringen i uddannelsen.
Jeg vil her slet ikke gå ind i et
regnestykke for at modbevise dette – så som radioavisen var inde
på d. 28-10-2014, hvor man fortalte, at mange humanister faktisk har
samarbejde med erhvervslivet og andre aftagere...
Hvis vi som mennesker kun kan/vil gå
efter den viden, som muliggør mere konsum eller profit i sidste ende
– og agerer som om at erkendelse i sig selv intet er værd, når
den ikke kan udmøntes i økonomisk gevinst, har vi mistet den trøst
(eller det figenblad om man så vil) der lå i, at vi som art
adskiller os fra alle andre skabninger, ved at kunne reflektere og
tage hensyn ud over eller ligefrem imod den snævre selv- eller
artsopretholdelse....
Hvis, samfundet (staten, kommunerne)
ikke er til sinds at bakke op om uddannelse og forskning i kunst,
filosofi, religion, sprog som ikke bruges i verdens økonomisk
førende lande og andre humanistiske forskningsaktiviteter som er
”værdiløse” så er vi virkelig fattige – uanset under- eller
overskud på budgetterne.
Uddannelsespolitik er i denne ånd
blevet til en grådighedens logik.
søndag den 7. september 2014
Consideration to undermine the ethic of labour
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND GERMAN SCROLL DOWN TO THE ENGLISH VERSION
Überlegung zur
Untergrabung der Arbeitsmoral
Die Anekdote zur
Senkung der Arbeitsmoral von Heinrich Böll ist wohl vielen bekannt
(http://www.aloj.us.es/webdeutsch/s_3/transkriptionen/l_26_str10_trans.pdf)
Da geht es ja
hauptsächlich ums ganz individuelle Wohlsein – die größeren
Perspektiven muss man sich dazudenken.
Aber auch wenn viele diese
Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral wohl gelesen haben erscheint es
dennoch fast allen großartig, wenn man sich individuell hocharbeiten
kann: zu höherem Status, zu mehr Geld oder vielleicht sogar aus dem
Elend heraus.
Diese Möglichkeit -
illusorisch oder realistisch - hielt und hält die Menschen dazu an,
mehr zu geben als sie unbedingt hier und jetzt nötig haben.
WEITERKOMMEN ist
anscheinend wunderbar! Aber weiter als wer, und weiter womit? Wenn
wir mit der Erforschung unserer Welt und des Universums weiterkommen,
ist das ja unmittelbar zumindest eine Chance, mit dem neuen Wissen
viel Gutes oder Vernünftiges zu bewirken.
Aber eben nur die Chance.
Unsere Tragödie als
Spezies ist nun im 21 Jahrhundert die, dass wir bisher so
erfolgreich waren.
”Besser” und länger
leben zu wollen erscheint für jeden von uns legitim, aber WIE wollen
wir leben? Und was bedeuten unsere Ansprüche für die Mitmenschen
und die biologischen Mitbewohner der Erde?
Mehr zu arbeiten, mehr
Umsatz zu machen kann in diesem Licht direkt asozial sein – aber
wer will sich das selber eingestehen oder sogar eine
dementsprechende Politik machen?
Consideration
to undermine the ethic of labour
“Die Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral“ of Heinrich Böll is well known to many (read an English translation at the end of page)
This short story was mainly reflecting the very individual well-being – it's wider perspectives you have to think of yourself.
But even though many have red this “Anecdote to reduce the ethic of labour” probably it still appears almost great to most of us, if you can work your way through to to a higher status, more money, or maybe even out of misery.
This possibility - illusory or realistic - inspires people to work more than they absolutely necessary have to here and now.
GETTING FURTHER is apparently wonderful! But further than who, and on what? If we continue the exploration of our world and the universe, that's a chance to use the new knowledge good or sensible.
But only the CHANCE!
Our tragedy as a species is now now in the 21st century that we have been so successful.
To live "better" and to live longer appears legitimate for every one of us but HOW do we want to live? And how influence our claims other human beings and our biological roommates on this Earth?
To work more, to make more sales can in this light be directly anti-social - but who wants to admit that just for himself or even dares to make a corresponding policy?
besides to read Bölls short story I recommend to read: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/04/work-more-less-quality-of-life
“Die Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral“ of Heinrich Böll is well known to many (read an English translation at the end of page)
This short story was mainly reflecting the very individual well-being – it's wider perspectives you have to think of yourself.
But even though many have red this “Anecdote to reduce the ethic of labour” probably it still appears almost great to most of us, if you can work your way through to to a higher status, more money, or maybe even out of misery.
This possibility - illusory or realistic - inspires people to work more than they absolutely necessary have to here and now.
GETTING FURTHER is apparently wonderful! But further than who, and on what? If we continue the exploration of our world and the universe, that's a chance to use the new knowledge good or sensible.
But only the CHANCE!
Our tragedy as a species is now now in the 21st century that we have been so successful.
To live "better" and to live longer appears legitimate for every one of us but HOW do we want to live? And how influence our claims other human beings and our biological roommates on this Earth?
To work more, to make more sales can in this light be directly anti-social - but who wants to admit that just for himself or even dares to make a corresponding policy?
Anecdote to lower work ethics
In a harbor on the west coast of
Europe, a shabbily dressed man lies dozing in his fishing boat. A
smartly dressed tourist is just putting a new roll of color film into
his camera to photograph the idyllic picture: blue sky, green sea
with peaceful, snowy whitecaps, black boat, red woolen fisherman's
cap. Click. Once more: click and, since all good things come in
threes and it's better to be safe than sorry, a third time: click.
The snapping, almost hostile sound awakens the dozing fisherman, who
sleepily sits up, sleepily gropes for his cigarettes, but before he
has found what he is looking for the eager tourist is already holding
a pack under his nose, not exactly sticking a cigarette between his
lips but putting one into his hand, and a fourth click, that of the
lighter, completes the overeager courtesy. As a result of that excess
of nimble courtesy — scarcely measurable, never verifiable — a
certain awkwardness has arisen that the tourist, who speaks the
language of the country, tries to bridge by striking up a
conversation.
"You'll have a good catch today."
The fisherman shakes his head.
"But I've been told the weather's favorable!"
The fisherman nods.
"So you won't put to sea?"
The fisherman shaeks his head, the tourist grows more and more uncomfortable. It is clear that he has the welfare of the shabbily dressed man at heart and that disappointment over the lost opportunity is gnawing at him.
"Oh, I'm sorry — aren't you feeling well?"
At last the fisherman switches from a sign language to the spoken word.
"I feel fine," he says. "I've never felt better." He stands up, stretches as if to demonstrate his athletic build. "I feel terrific."
The tourist's expression grows steadily more unhappy, and he can no longer suppress the question which, as it were, threatens to burst his heart: "But why, then, do you not put to sea?"
The answer comes promptly and briefly: "Because I already put to sea this morning."
"Did you make a good catch?"
"My catch was so good that I need not put to sea for a second time. I had for lobsters in my baskets, caught nearly two dozen mackerel..."
The fisherman, finally awake, is now thawing, and slaps the tourist soothingly on the shoulder. The worried countenance of the latter seems to him an expression of inappropriate, yet touching, anxiety.
"I have enough even for tomorrow and the day after tomorrow," he says to relive the stranger's soul. "Do you want a cigarette?"
"Yes, please."
Cigarettes are being put into mouths, a fifth click; the stranger, shaking his head, sits down on the rim of the boar, and puts down the camera, for now he needs both hands to give his speech emphasis.
"I do not want to meddle in your personal affairs," he says, "but just imagine if you put to sea today for a second, a third, or perhaps even a fourth time, and you catch three, four, five, maybe even ten dozen mackerel. Just imagine that!"
The fisherman nods.
"You put to sea," continues the tourist, "not only today but tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, indeed, on every favorable day two, three, of perhaps four times — do you know what would happen?"
The fisherman shakes his his.
"In one year at the latest you would be able to buy a motor, in two years a second boat, in three or four years you may, perhaps, have a small trawler; with two boats or the trawler you would, of course, catch a lot more — one day, you would have two trawlers, you would...," for a few moments his enthusiasm leaves him speechless, "you would build a small cold store, perhaps a smoke-house, soon afterwards a marinating factory, fly around with your own helicopter, making out the shoals of fish and giving orders to your trawlers by radio. You could buy the fishing right for salmon, open a fish restaurant, export lobster directly to Paris without a middleman — and then...," once again his enthusiasm leaves him speechless. Shaking his head, saddened in the depth of his heart, and almost bereft of this holiday delights, he looks on the waters rolling peacefully into the harbor, where the uncaught fish jump merrily.
"And then," he says, but again his excitement leaves him speechless. The fisherman slaps him on the back, as one would slap a child choking over his food. "What then?" he asks in a low voice.
"Then," says the stranger with restrained enthusiasm, "then, without a care in the world, you could sit here in the harbor, doze in the sun — and look at the glorious sea."
"But I'm already doing that," says the fisherman. "I sit here in the harbor without a care in the world and doze — it was only your clicking that disturbed me."
And so the thus enlightened tourist walked pensively away, for at one time he had believed that he was working so as to someday not have to work any more; and there remained in him not a trace of pity for the fisherman in shabby clothes, only a little envy.
"You'll have a good catch today."
The fisherman shakes his head.
"But I've been told the weather's favorable!"
The fisherman nods.
"So you won't put to sea?"
The fisherman shaeks his head, the tourist grows more and more uncomfortable. It is clear that he has the welfare of the shabbily dressed man at heart and that disappointment over the lost opportunity is gnawing at him.
"Oh, I'm sorry — aren't you feeling well?"
At last the fisherman switches from a sign language to the spoken word.
"I feel fine," he says. "I've never felt better." He stands up, stretches as if to demonstrate his athletic build. "I feel terrific."
The tourist's expression grows steadily more unhappy, and he can no longer suppress the question which, as it were, threatens to burst his heart: "But why, then, do you not put to sea?"
The answer comes promptly and briefly: "Because I already put to sea this morning."
"Did you make a good catch?"
"My catch was so good that I need not put to sea for a second time. I had for lobsters in my baskets, caught nearly two dozen mackerel..."
The fisherman, finally awake, is now thawing, and slaps the tourist soothingly on the shoulder. The worried countenance of the latter seems to him an expression of inappropriate, yet touching, anxiety.
"I have enough even for tomorrow and the day after tomorrow," he says to relive the stranger's soul. "Do you want a cigarette?"
"Yes, please."
Cigarettes are being put into mouths, a fifth click; the stranger, shaking his head, sits down on the rim of the boar, and puts down the camera, for now he needs both hands to give his speech emphasis.
"I do not want to meddle in your personal affairs," he says, "but just imagine if you put to sea today for a second, a third, or perhaps even a fourth time, and you catch three, four, five, maybe even ten dozen mackerel. Just imagine that!"
The fisherman nods.
"You put to sea," continues the tourist, "not only today but tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, indeed, on every favorable day two, three, of perhaps four times — do you know what would happen?"
The fisherman shakes his his.
"In one year at the latest you would be able to buy a motor, in two years a second boat, in three or four years you may, perhaps, have a small trawler; with two boats or the trawler you would, of course, catch a lot more — one day, you would have two trawlers, you would...," for a few moments his enthusiasm leaves him speechless, "you would build a small cold store, perhaps a smoke-house, soon afterwards a marinating factory, fly around with your own helicopter, making out the shoals of fish and giving orders to your trawlers by radio. You could buy the fishing right for salmon, open a fish restaurant, export lobster directly to Paris without a middleman — and then...," once again his enthusiasm leaves him speechless. Shaking his head, saddened in the depth of his heart, and almost bereft of this holiday delights, he looks on the waters rolling peacefully into the harbor, where the uncaught fish jump merrily.
"And then," he says, but again his excitement leaves him speechless. The fisherman slaps him on the back, as one would slap a child choking over his food. "What then?" he asks in a low voice.
"Then," says the stranger with restrained enthusiasm, "then, without a care in the world, you could sit here in the harbor, doze in the sun — and look at the glorious sea."
"But I'm already doing that," says the fisherman. "I sit here in the harbor without a care in the world and doze — it was only your clicking that disturbed me."
And so the thus enlightened tourist walked pensively away, for at one time he had believed that he was working so as to someday not have to work any more; and there remained in him not a trace of pity for the fisherman in shabby clothes, only a little envy.
besides to read Bölls short story I recommend to read: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/04/work-more-less-quality-of-life
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)