Sonntag, 5. April 2020

Why we are personally affected by the Coronavirus?

The whole Coronavirus Crisis shows one thing very clearly: The Coronavirus has absorbed media attention (coverage and broadcasting time) like no other issue for weeks. Gone seem to be the world's other problems, issues and figureheads. Why is that?

Little to none airtime the climate crisis gets, the burning amazon, as well as the refugee crisis, and more and more people living at or under the poverty level even inside so many countries which consider themselves developed. Gone seems the constant broadcasting about US-President Donald J. Trump, the personal nemesis of so many in media. Gone seems the irk Donald J. Trump provokes for so many in media.

All of a sudden, the world seems to have no other problem anymore except the Coronavirus, of course. Please get me right, the Coronavirus is a problem, a huge one, but it is not the only one. The Coronavirus is one of the many problems the world has. So the question is, why the Coronavirus gets so much media attention, eclipsing even US-President Donald J. Trump?

The Coronavirus Crisis makes obvious that it is a crisis the elites take care of, and that's different from so many other issues. But how so, after the same elites have crippled the health care systems through financial cuts and rationalization?

Arguably the reason for this is that so many public figures, from politicians to celebrities, themselves are infected by the Coronavirus and it's not just a problem of the middle and lower classes anymore. And other than so many regional conflicts and wars - which anti-social personalities all around the world easily can wipe away and forget about - like Yemen (The Forgotten War) -, the Coronavirus potentially affects all of us, the whole world - therefore it's called pandemic and not epidemic.

Seemingly politicians, celebrities and figureheads around the world are outraged by the Coronavirus, because it affects them personally even more than US-President Donald J. Trump and his moves and utterances. It seems as the rubber hits the road with personal experience - when you are affected personally. Apparently elites only take action when personally affected, otherwise only paying lip service - only saying they would take care of the issue but doing very little about it. Here Sir Bertrand Russell's famous philosophical distinction occurs to me between the Knowledge by Description (i.e. reading books, being informed by media) which expands one's perspective versus the Knowledge by Acquaintance (personal experience) which outweighs the former, when it comes to affection and direct action.

So apparently, if politicians were personally affected by poverty, inequality, climate change these issues were elevated to issues of national emergency as well as soon as you can say Jack Robinson.
In other words, if not only the Coronavirus but also poverty, climate change, the burning amazon, you name it, would reach and affect the elites, those were just as engaged and personally motivated to tackle these and the many other burning issues of the world as well.

Fake news vs. news aside, that's not the point in this case, because the fact that the Coronavirus absorbs the world's attention for many weeks shows the very fact that there is a connection of the elites and the media, which are broadcasting mainly about the issues relevant to elites, the rich and powerful, meaning broadcasting chiefly about elites themselves and the content relevant to them which in this case coincides with the Coronavirus also affecting the people directly.

So having in mind media science, philosophers such as Vilém Flusser, Theodor W. Adorno and Max Scheler's differentiation in communicating content ("information", "selection" and "context of use" - "how, when, where and by whom content is processed and used") this Coronavirus Crisis makes one thing more than obvious: Fake news versus news aside - supposing we get the facts via the news - it is also a fact that we only get a selection of facts.

This means, right now so many things happen in the world we never get word of by media and most-likely we never will. In other words, as news time is limited, we only get the relevant content, which is the content news stations think are relevant. This is not necessarily a problem. But the problem is, in times before the Coronavirus Crisis the bulk of the content/facts which news media presented didn't represent the problems of the people, as by most media the burning bread-and-butter issues were mostly considered irrelevant. 

The Coronavirus Crisis is making crystal clear, how little the media cover the crippled health care systems in many countries - that consider themselves developed - in which even in times before the Coronavirus Crisis many people couldn't afford to get proper medical treatment. The Coronavirus Crisis shows that for decades we lived in a careless society, in which people cared less and less for each other - starting from top-down. Now it's a wake-up call for everyone.

In short, naturally only those contents which affect the rich and powerful are most relevant to the rich and powerful. The very fact that chiefly those contents/facts affecting the rich and powerful get the lion share of the media coverage indicates that media in general are too much in liaisons with the rich and powerful, meaning many media proponents neglect most of those facts and contents which mainly affect the underprivileged in society. This makes the media appear as the accomplice of the rich and powerful.

What's relevant? What does this all mean? Relevance is a filtering mechanism also in our developed world so many consider as developed and as information society, as knowledge society, you name it. What does the Coronavirus Crisis show? Our world is a media society, in which media by putting emphasis on certain topics are creating reality (Constructivism). In simple terms, we only get word of what media filtering systems considers relevant to us. And what does this mean to us? It all depends on, where you live and in which circumstances?

In times of Coronavirus Crisis even "liberal media" considering themselves humanist and seeing all people as equal, concentrate its attention on people dying from the Coronavirus in the Western Hemisphere than elsewhere, as if one at risk in the West was more important to broadcast about than someone anywhere else dying silently and uncovered by media. So even so-called liberal media are apparently discriminating against people via selection.

Therefore in effort to be aware of and take responsibility for society I perpetually emphasize the importance for media to self-reflect in order to compensate what media accuse politicians to lack of. 

So media has to refrain from clinching with the elites, celebrities etc. and detaching with those public figures into another sphere, into a bubble of their own. This means media has to constantly abstain from being overly focused with the privileged few and with their luxury problems, in order not to reserve the limited airtime for the privileged few. Otherwise the media's filtering criterion of relevance - what's relevant? - will have a strong leaning to overly focus to cover what's relevant to the rich and powerful.

So for the sake of democracy, participation and representation of all the people, it's important not to chiefly report about the rich and powerful and what's relevant to them, but about the people and their bread-and-butter-issues, otherwise Marie Antoinette and the French Revolution comes to mind quickly and media proponents degrade to underlings, to courtiers in terms of court reporters, even in democracies.

So from media philosophy perspective it's not so much a matter of fake news vs. news and facts - that's a side story, albeit an important one - but the pinnacle question is: Which facts do we get, and in fact the facts of whom? So of course in times of crisis and in effort to show compassion and solidarity we have to remember US-President Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous statement: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!" But as the actual Coronavirus Crisis shows clearly that for decades we have had the wrong priorities and now we are all in this together, I want to recall: It's on all of us to take care that society doesn't fall apart!

Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann
Systemic Analyst and Philosopher

Montag, 23. März 2020

Why Wi-Fi? - How Healthy is Your Mobile?

This article was also published on:

Our globalized world urges us to be constantly connected, with those we know and with those we yet get to know, via digitation, the Internet, the Internet of Things etc., fulfilling the basic human need to "belong to a group" - related to "the fear of missing out". But who benefits most from being connected 24/7?

Much we learn about 5G, its security risks, Huawei and Chinese government's interests. Being constantly connected makes you the pure transparent citizen, some even speak of "the perfect slave" of big-tech and government knowing you inside out, about every aspect of your life - preferences, locations, behavioral patterns...

Many people seem to have already accepted this as part of the deal. But mostly under the radar has stayed a different aspect I am outlining now.

All the great technological inventions we use in everyday life - many take for granted - are the brainchild of highly-talented, often hypersensitive people (remember, only the successful are called geniuses) feeling uncomfortable in crowds, as many hypersensitive people suffer from everyday group dynamics, mass phenomena (Bruce Tuckman's stages of group development - forming > storming > norming > performing).

So what's bad about Wi-Fi? Not so fast, please! Counterquestion: Why do we need to be connected all the time? It's common knowledge that it’s unhealthy to be on the call permanently. Smartphone Addiction and Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is widely known and accepted. But people with EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity) are stigmatized and marginalized, even defamed as anti-tech. How come?

Despite occasional EHS/EMF-documentaries our tech-loving and highly-power consuming world spearheaded by big-tech downplaying the fears of the people stultifies those sensitive to electromagnetic fields, since EHS is perceived as running against economic-technological interests.

It's not in big-tech's interest to respect the individual's sensitivity despite the considerable number of people suffering from EHS. Consider people developing various symptoms when exposed to radiation of electromagnetic fields intensified with every new standard - 3G to 4G to 5G.

How little we hear of the dangers of constant exposure to electromagnetic fields publicly. It's mostly downplayed, as people want to be up-to-date, not to be left behind by technological developments, and definitely not to be perceived as backward, ignorant by their social environment.

But jumping on this technology bandwagon has a flip-side, as we are surrounded by devices radiating day and night: Wi-Fi, cell towers, mobiles, tablets, cordless phones, notebooks, wireless headphones etc. The European EMF Guideline stated: "Common EHS symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, a lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms."

Despite big tech's marketing efforts to spin constant exposure to radiation as cool, hip, smart and healthy, exposing children - more vulnerable due to their dynamic developmental physiology - in elementary schools fully digitized to electromagnetic fields with Wi-Fi 24/7 as future of mankind, there are many studies published about this topic, such as the research of Austrian environmental epidemiologist univ. Gerd Oberfeld M.D. of the state of Salzburg, Austria, who gave many interviews making the public aware of the EHS symdrome.

So Dr. Oberfeld and his colleagues at the European Academy of Environmental Medicine recommend to reduce the exposure to radiation by electromagnetic devices to a minimum due to its carcinogen (cancer-causing) aspect.

Further studies have shown: "We hypothesize that these tumor-promoting effects may be caused by metabolic changes due to exposure. (...). Our findings may help to understand the repeatedly reported increased incidences of brain tumors in heavy users of mobile phones."

What's the point? It's not about the radiation itself but about the dose (the dose makes the poison), about the 24/7 exposure to radiation giving the body no time to regenerate. Therefore for years the Austrian Medical Chamber has published a 10-rules guideline for mobile, Wi-Fi and other electronic devices usage (in translation):
  • Limit mobile usage to a minimum! Use land lines if possible and write text messages instead of making/taking calls with mobiles. Under 16-years-old should limit the use of mobiles only to emergencies. Teenagers' physiological development is dynamic.
  • "Distance is your friend!" - Keep mobiles off the head/body. Use loudspeaker function or wired earbuds/earphones/headphones instead.
  • While using loudspeaker function or wired earbuds/earphones/headphones/headsets, keep mobiles away from the head/body! For men: Don't put mobiles near to the genitals (pockets) - infertility risk. For women: Special risk during pregnancy. Put mobiles in your bag. Individuals with electrical implants (pacemakers etc.) need to keep off from mobiles.
  • Don't make/take calls in transport (car, bus, train)! Mobiles will increase signal strength (radiation) to provide coverage in the cabin.
  • Don't text and drive, nor internet surfing, otherwise risking accidents.
  • Don't use Wi-Fi, if possible! Traditional LAN is radiating way comparably. Avoid radiating devices: Cordless phones, wireless data sticks, wireless cubes!
  • Go offline and use flight mode, when data connection is not needed, reduces radiation exposure! You don't need to be online for using camera, alarm, calculator, playing offline games or downloaded music.
  • Limit number of apps to the necessary! The less apps installed the less you are exposed to radiation. To lower your mobile's radiation level disable your apps' background activity and data connection when redundant. You still can make/take calls.
  • Avoid calls in locations with bad connection (basement, elevator etc.)! Mobiles increase signal power (radiation) to keep connection. Use wired earbuds/earphones/headphones/headsets or loudspeaker function.
  • Check SAR-ratings! The higher your mobile's SAR-value the higher its radiation, posing risks to your health.

Democratization in knowledge society aside, people still tend to only take for real what they can sense, unless it's hyped by media (corona virus). Seeing is believing, right? Consider the things you cannot see at first sight: The decades-long exposure of the public to asbestos, or the radiation of Three Mile Island (USA, 1979), Chernobyl (Soviet Union, 1986), Fukushima Dai-ichi (Japan, 2011)... catastrophes with global effects even when the news cycle moves on and people think the issue is solved - far from eye, far from heart. Sometimes science needs felt ages to deliver the proof for what common sense already knew - nicotine isn't healthy - which only the brave dared to say publicly risking to be sued to death by tobacco corporations.

In today's world topics may have changed, not the patterns: There are big tech's interests exposing us, the people, to technological experiments. Licence holders receive huge bonuses when advocating for new technologies - would they, if there was not a big amount of money in play? - while the overwhelming rest of us is nothing but exposed to these experiments.

So until the critical mass is reached many people understandably feel like guinea pigs of big-tech and their interest in profits. All I'm saying is, give health a chance: So for your health's sake, keep a critical mind, as it's better to be safe than sorry.

Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann

Systemic Analyst and Philosopher

Why We Don't Follow Science Anymore

This article was also published on:

Today many people ask: Why people don't follow science anymore? Why nowadays science is hard put to convince the people of its findings? Why more and more people don't listen to the facts anymore? Why are scientists losing their once undisputed authority? Why did facts lose their appeal?
Naturally, you can blame it all on (social) media, propaganda wars, politization and polarization of society etc. But that was too easy.

Recently I was stunned by BBC's Nobel Minds Debate, wherein invited Nobel Prize Laureates complainingly compared our times with the days of Galileo Galilei ca. 500 years ago in that sense, that then as now science has been disregarded.

You can now argue, that this comparison brought forward in this Nobel Prize Laureates debate is a really poor one, since Galileo Galilei wasn't recognized at all by then ruling elites other than today's leading scientists - Nobel Prize Laureates. But the point I want to make goes further.
I want to call your attention to ask why nowadays there is so much resentment among large parts of society against following science, even in the face of science relentlessly telling people being endangered by climate change.

Given that people were following science for long, even into war with the latest technology - as science financially in liaisons with the military always had a big stake in war games - why today people leave the flock of science believers and scientists lose their authority? When analyzing current developments, soon we get to one of the most powerful tools of democratization: social media.
Now more than ever before, via social media people are given a voice, enabled to organize themselves and group easily and quickly to challenge existing authorities.

But there is more to consider: These democratization processes are flanked by more and more people experiencing being squashed like lemons by multinational corporations whose profits skyrocket while large parts of society become impoverished and science does little against these developments.
It's hardly surprising, that people increasingly perceive scientists as underlings of multinational corporations, as agents of keeping consumerism going, continuously inventing new technology supposedly for the people while making the rich uber-rich and the majority population bleeding out financially.

Also IT-specialists have increasingly come under fire for eagerly working on firing more and more people by their inventions, since IT-specialists create algorithms making more and more jobs obsolete without creating equivalent jobs for the people whose jobs they killed, but cynically arguing: We only enable the people to feel free and follow their creativity. Creating jobs galore one cannot live on, even when working multiple low-paid jobs, is only massaging jobless figures to fool the public, eventually leading to the rise of the working poor.

This job-cutting mechanism called rationalization, streamlining under globalization is sold as "future of mankind" ignoring evermore working people dropping out of the job market, as their workforce isn't needed anymore. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that those mechanisms - making evermore people's workforce obsolete, disadvantaging large parts of society - are a "perfect" formula for raising social tensions right up to revolution, if unaccompanied by a sufficient unconditional basic income.

In times of emancipation and democratization - rather than asking, if there is intelligent life in outer space etc. - scientists were supposed to ask these questions: Do scientists intelligently take enough action to tackle global inequality here on Earth? Does the class of scientists take enough action against the accumulation of capital, in the hands of a very few corporations battling for planet-domination, undermining democratic institutions increasingly? Does academia invent technologies creating jobs the people can live on rather than inventing technologies enabling multinational corporations to kill well-paid jobs en masse?

Today too many scientists and technicians appear negligent of the bread-and-butter issues and the hardships of the people. So many people's perception therefore is, too many scientists and technicians - once highly regarded professions - are in cahoots with big business concerns, killing jobs galore, working against the people rather than for the people being entangled in another type of war, an asymmetrical warfare, a trade war multinational corporations wage globally against the people, against civilians, in a civilization declining.

As long as science appears to be in liaisons with reckless elites rather than siding with the people, science has an image problem and the people's reluctance against blindly following science grows. People followed science for ages when perceiving science and technology as improving the people's living standards.

Scientists and technicians are supposed to improve their battered image of being stuck in their ivory towers, following their curiosity only and working on luxury problems for big business concern. As long as science appears to be taken up in complex calculations while lacking empathy for the people's concerns and forgetting about humanity and its problems, academia will lose the people's respect entirely.

All this we have to factor in when analyzing today's complex situation of science losing support of society increasingly. New devices whatsoever need to benefit the people first, only then - as side effect - it has to serve big business concern. This understanding of social responsibility on top-level has been lost by corporate governance appearing more or less moralless. Company owners shifted responsibility to "nameless shareholders" in a society with shareholder value as only value left.

Therefore the people's faith in scientific facts and in science itself wanes. Today the process, once started with automation (machine breakers), isn't about bringing relief to all households by washing machines anymore - what eliminated washers - but about pushing people out of the market by digitization threatening every profession. That creates a dangerous cocktail. Growing social inequality is an ignited stick of dynamite for any society (dynamite's inventor, Alfred Nobel).

Why is all this important? History has shown, when people were robbed of their livelihoods by certain developments, demagogues have an easy job to recruit people for their wicked ideologies promising an all-too-easy solution. So wasn't it in the self-interest of science to work for the people rather than appearing as accomplice of corporations working against the people?

Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann

Systemic Analyst and Philosopher

Sonntag, 5. Januar 2020

Colonialism reloaded and the revolutionary factor

This article was also published on:

There's much talk about China's growing economic imperialism, its human rights violations and about multinational corporations' exploitation of humans and nature large-scale. But what about the West?

In the Age of Colonialism the West colonized the world, invaded countries abroad to bring "The Good Thing" by religion, to "civilize" the world while exploiting the hell out of other countries, their natural resources and people.

It's all different now. Western countries have evolved, learned from history... Really? Did they? Aren't the same underlying patterns still at work? Doesn't the West still feel superior over the world?
Take psychology/psychotherapy as analysis tool: "Feeling superior" originates from an overcompensated "inferiority complex" (coined by Alfred Adler, Austrian-physicist who participated in Sigmund Freud's "Wednesday Society"), meaning overcompensating one's own shortcomings (inferiority) to feel superior over others, which Adler called "superiority complex".

Isn't colonialism based on the collective conviction to be superior over others, in Christianity deriving from culturally-ingrained inferiority complex ("original sin") overcompensated to superiority complex?

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya etc. have experienced Western interventionism and "nation-building" offensives lately. In the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989) the USSR driven by superiority complex was defeated in bringing Communism to Afghanistan. Since 2002 Western allies have Westernized Afghanistan and the region with humble outcome - “History repeats itselfthe first as tragedy, then as farce.” (Karl Marx).

Western leaders have a history of shaping the world according to their ideals to save the world, to break with age-old traditions on-site and urge all to follow Western traditions instead.
Today, the West still feels superior over the "rest of the world" (a common phrase therefore) pushing the world to comply, this time not by religion but by democratization and science, appearing as "new religion".

While Western technology is well-adopted worldwide, why democracy and Human Rights are hard put to establish?

I strongly advocate Human Rights. However, undeniably many consider Human Rights as secularized substrate of Christianity different from e.g. Sharia law. But many argue: Almost all countries committed themselves to respect the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), beyond culture.

Sure, but in many countries Human Rights are respected in name only, rejected as "Western product" dangerous to traditions on-site.

Albeit applying to everyone universally many perceive Human Rights as "Western invention" based on the Age of Enlightenment which Western thinkers - in response to the horrors of WW2 - propagated first. And that's its weakness.

Resistance against Human Rights in the world originates from Human Rights perceived as new colonialism of Western powers spreading democracy worldwide while using Human Rights as fig-leaf for reckless exploitation of the world, similar to the Chinese model which operates without democracy and Human Rights.

Despite even in Western countries Human Rights aren't well-established (e.g. integration struggles, non-ethical behavior of multinational corporations...), remember the many domestic workers tortured by Asian bosses mostly educated at high-ranked Western universities as do the world's many Western-educated brutal dictators! Western education falls short when imposed. Apparently Human Rights as relatively new concept are outweighed by deeply rooted age-old cultures, where human rights aren't culturally internalized.

Who pays the price for Western interventions? The history of Western "nation-building" and interventionism - coinciding with Western economic/strategic interests - fuels critics like Paolo Sensini: "If you don't come to Democracy, Democracy will come to you", William Blum: "Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country!", even video-games: "Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated!" (Fallout 3 - Liberty Prime).

But does "spreading democracy and human rights abroad" even achieve the desired results? "Change takes time" advocates of installing Western values worldwide utter. True, it only takes generations.
US-sociologist Robert K. Merton's Law of Unintended Consequences refers to unintended consequences of interventions. Not to meddle might be hard in the face of cruel traditions. But remember: They are "cruel" from a Western perspective.

The West's self-image "The shining city on the hill" (see puritan John Winthrop and American exceptionalism) or "the envy of the world" is revealing, appearing as overcompensation driven by knowing better, urging the world to model oneself on the West to accept Western standards and westernize by creating Western copies worldwide - propagated by Hollywood, the media. India's widespread obsession with skin-whitening or Asia's frenzy for beauty surgeries to look Western is telling volumes.

The West spearheads a global cultural standardization process via the World Wide Web as new colonialism. A standardized world mainly benefits capitalist global trade. Western leaders often steamroller the majority population on-site not being asked, if democracy is desired. Therefore Western interventionism appears as foreign countries' endeavors to exploit natural/human resources.

This two-faced global Westernization process appears self-contradictory: While Western cultural imperialists - no longer spreading Christianity as the bible is widely "outdated" in the West - urge the world to adopt Western lifestyle, democracy, Human Rights etc. Western multinational corporations exploit people and nature recklessly worldwide and deliver arms to cruel regimes violating Human Rights...

Democracy installed top-down creates only superficial results and mounting resistance, when ignoring the majority population on-site with its traditions unready for change. Take the French Revolution (1789-1799) - none other than the French themselves toppled their regime, or in the American Revolution (1775-1783) the Americans themselves threw off the British rule...

Revolutions have lasting change only by "the power within" - coming from inside out, if the majority population wants change. That's the revolutionary factor. Without that foreign powers bringing change are perceived imperialist looking for securing their interests, ignoring the on-site majority populations' reluctance against interventionism. Imagine the French's reluctance against making revolution then, if perceived as foreign powers' interference in internal affairs.

Post-WW2 Germany and Japan welcomed change over its majority population. Psychologically speaking everything, even democracy imposed provokes reactance in those affected unwilling to change, losing much by Westernization - from tribes to Internet-filtering regimes preserving authority by withholding their people from freedom of information. Western cultural-economic-military meddling worldwide triggers and fuels anti-Western sentiment, even "global terrorism".

The revolution's driving force is "the power within", the majority population on-site ready for change. Only then the time is ripe, the groundwork laid by the people themselves embracing change which therefore lasts.

Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann
Philosopher and Systemic Analyst

Montag, 18. November 2019

„No border, no order – Why do we need borders?“

This article is also published on:

"Where's the middle ground" in evermore polarized and politicized times? To analyze this, we now outline the underlying patterns and dynamics of political extremes pitting against each other, threatening democracy and tearing society apart by accusing each other of being illogical, preposterous, outrageous, conspiracy theories-driven... albeit both sides neglect logics, arguments' "value basis" (Max Weber...), "situational determination" (Karl Mannheim...), "environmental determination" (Montesquieu)...

Many see extreme left-wing ideology opposing borders, order, orders, police, military, structures, authorities, hierarchies, individuality... led by the premise "all are equal" - not only legally. That's when law becomes ideology. To "feel one with everyone" even "weed" comes handy for "we-feelings" and "softening" mental structures. "Relax! Chill! No border, no order!" sounds the war cry of radicalized left-wingers opposing division, discrimination, segregation, geographic borders as "borders" in people's minds.

Drawing distinctions creates borders. Where you draw the line, how you frame something determines your perspective. Framing "creates reality". Systems science describes biological and social (man-made) systems. States are "social systems", constituted and maintained by borders, border control, and order within states. In order to survive, states need borders (self-organisation) - "operational closure". Keeping borders open throws states in disarray. Radicalized left-wingers strive for keeping borders open to destabilize governmental control for "permanent revolution" - transforming societal structures, classes, norms... No border, no order... No order, no border...

Isn't left-wingers' "new world order" - the secret plan of communists worldwide, singing the Internationale, unified in classless society without borders - as dangerous for governments as radicalized right-wingers rejecting state authority?

Disorder (chaos) irks especially hard-core right-wingers - associated with strictly obeying the law, police, military, structures, border, order, orders, rules, discipline... - discriminating against people by their origin, appearance... Dividing lines are (mental) borders: No border, no order... No order, no border...

Despite proclamations of non-discrimination radicalized left-wingers don't unite with those holding different views, but assess people by appearance, clothes, language... and differentiate between the left and the right, "Us" and "The Other". Sounds like radicalized right-wingers, right?!
Why calling left-wingers - fascinated by customs abroad but embarrassed by their "homeland's" customs - "liberals and progressives" when defaming fellow citizens for their attire, suits, dresses, brands, classic elegance, country music preference as "backward", "snobby", "class enemy"...?

Narrow-mindedness is detectable within any party and derives from in-group/out-group thinking. Tribalism is the essence of any group's ideology. Ideologies make their followers consider themselves "The Good Ones" to legitimize their thinking, behavior, actions, worldview... as "truthful", "meaningful", "righteous"..., and to group around making a bogeyman out of "The Other" for being different.

Which ideology's followers don't consider themselves on the right side of history? Sadly, even leading commentators on "Us", "Them", "The Other" neglect self-reflection and what constitutes "We".

Unlike right-wingers - broadly associated with strict border control, law & order, division, segregation... - left-wingers seemingly don't differentiate/divide people, whereas differentiating between "Us" and "Them", shunning "The Other" for being different, and seem to object "control" - regarding police, military... - unless it's: Gun control, environmental protection control, political correctness ("policing" thoughts, words, behavior, actions... on being "left enough"). Apparently, radicalized left-wingers oppose control only, when not in control.

Radicalized right-wingers - portrayed as divisive, hateful, bigot, fancying border protection, control, order... - follow a manichean "Us-vs.-Them"-pattern: "Good-vs.-Evil". What about radicalized left-wingers considering themselves morally superior, fancying open borders to destabilize state authority and order within states while fighting everyone different from their "tribe"?
Right-wingers and left-wingers are divisive when dividing people upon the biblical: "Whoever is not with me, is against me."

As if this wasn't enough, migrants are caught in the middle of this "culture war": Radicalized left-wingers use migrants to "change culture". Radicalized right-wingers combat migrants to "sustain culture". Both camps use the migrant issue to battle one other.

Any extremism is to condemn. While radicalized right-wingers use migrants for fear-mongering, mobilization and economic reasons get excessive media coverage, radicalized left-wingers fear-mongering against right-wingers use migrants for silencing their conscience and for system change: Destabilizing order, building pressure on rich countries' structures and borders via migrants - often more conservative than domestic right-wingers. This left-wingers frequently overlook while combating fascism.

Our world is so politicized and polarized that many praise celebrities helping migrants to reach safer ground, which critics consider as "selfish photo op" of stars' not further helping migrants exposed to xenophobia in "unwelcoming" countries of entry.
Today's world mirrors decades-long radicalization of society "sweetened" by consumerism and sensationalized content. Sensationalism silenced "the middle ground", considered not "sexy" enough to "sell".

Did any pragmatists, moderates, centrists survive the radicalization of the public, all the "framing", "putting-into-perspective", "putting-in-context" of watchful commentators detecting everywhere "distraction maneuvers" and "There is no there there" without naming US-author Gertrude Stein (Everybody's Autobiography)?

Is the only "middle ground" left, the arena wherein right-wingers "meet" left-wingers militantly: Fear-mongering, discriminating against people, unifying, reaffirming via dehumanizing the projected enemy: "The Other"?

Political tribalism goes viral on (social) media - fueled by craving for recognition and belonging to community - by sacrificing virtue in society. Being "digital" has replaced being "decent" in today's globalized world freed from religious restraints by liberalization. Everyone is to reflect underlying motivations...

Left-wingers battle with right-wingers over cultural identity, radicalized by (social) media propaganda machines, recruiting from disenfranchised masses. Karl Marx stated "Religion is the Opium of the People", yet communism - cultish itself - by eradicating morals formed the framework for boundless turbo-capitalism filling the power vacuum (left by nation states whose integrity is infringed by globally-expanded system borders). Bertolt Brecht's "Food comes first, then morals" neglects "well-fed" leaders' questionable morals, while strong morals exist, where people have almost nothing.

In today's globalized world - without religious restraints, but smart as hell - liberalism fuels globalism, science replaced religion and morals. CNN's "Go beyond borders"-mindset encourages people - "Hurray! Don't bother, if there's no border!" - while enabling multinational corporations ("free trade" open borders profiteers) to eradicate middle-class, recruit fungible workforce via social media (giving "everybody" willing to forgo privacy a voice), lower standards for everyone, and fill the power vacuum with vertical order, "corpocracy worldwide" fueling inequality, a "global pyramid scheme" powered by unleashed primal instincts, assuring "anything goes" beyond science, if profitable.

Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann
Philosopher and Systemic Analyst

Samstag, 16. Februar 2019

Waves of Social Change and its Systemic Ripple Effects

Asian scriptures have always influenced the West. Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist C.G. Jung analyzed the I Ching - Book of Change - (translated by befriended Richard Wilhelm into German), its hexagrams and Tai Chi Mandala for developing his archetypes.

Intellectuals e.g. G.W. Leibniz, J.W. Goethe, G.W.F. Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche studied Asian philosophical scriptures, influenced Western thought, but were shy of declaring their sources in Asian thought for scientific community's Western-centrism reasons.

Even today the repercussions on the West of the Chinese Empire's collapse in 1912 - after 2100 years of Imperial dynasties - are underestimated. But applying Jung's collective unconscious perspective on group dynamics and systems science an interesting dimension unfolds.

When in 1900 German Emperor Wilhelm II delegated a punitive expedition to China for killing the German ambassador in The Boxer War (Chinese Empire's effort to regain sovereignty from colonial powers), the Chinese Empire increasingly destabilized systemically leading to its 1912 collapse (after the Xinhai-Revolution) and a geopolitical chain reaction of social change in Europe.

In 1914 European aristocracies went to WWI, resulting in the Russian Empire crumbling in 1917 October Revolution (in Russian: "November Revolution"), and until 1918 also the German and the Austrian Empire had collapsed, parallel with China being in disorder, turmoil and entangled in revolutionary reorganization processes, resonating and partaking in the collective unconscious flux.

Since then in Germany and Austria democratic, socialist/communist movements have taken over, but haven't filled the power vacuum. So fascism took advantage of Europe's economic and political malaise in those days.

After in 1912 first President Sun Yat-sen had established the Republic of China, until the 1940s Mao Zedong - backed by Chinese society's disenfranchised segments - battled Chinese President Chiang Kai-shek and his conservatives with millions dead.

Parallelly in 1930s' Austria socialist Schutzbund skirmished with fascist Heimwehr, costing many lives.

Meanwhile in Germany, Adolf Hitler ascended and expanded his power from Munich to Berlin, taking over in 1933, via democratic elections. Hitler and the Nazis were obsessed by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) since Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche (Nazi sympathizer, head of The Nietzsche Archive) rearranged her late brother's texts, applied Nietzsche's individualistic "Übermensch" (enlightened Buddha-like being) to all Germans collectively, made it proper for Nazi ideology and reinterpreted the German collective unconscious: German "Herrenmensch" (master race) by eugenics.

After two atomic bombs eradicating Japanese cities had stopped the Nazi ally Japan, the Japanese had to experience their Tennō (Emperor) publicly denouncing from being a living God, a concept alien to Western understanding. General Douglas MacArthur urged the Tennō to abdicate from being a direct descendant of Amaterasu (goddess of the sun) and to declare himself a human being as head of Japan's modern democratic society. This US-dictate forced on Japan is still lasting as heteronomy undermining Japan's spiritual self-esteem and religious identity, leaving Japanese deprived from their age-old spirituality subliminally replaced by Westernized technology and consumerism.

A stark difference between Eastern and Western thought is the mystical presence of leaders as living God (Tennō, Dalai Lama, Chinese Emperor), while Western leaders, functionally adored as Emperors, die as normal human beings, as sinners.

After Tennō Hirohito's death in 1989 - who had spent part of his life as living God - modern-day Japan is stagnating economically, as if the death of Japan's last Shinto God had disorganizational effects on Japanese spiritual identity, its cultural core. Hirohito's son Tennō Akihito accessing in 1989 cemented US-masterminds' definition for the Tennō as normal human being with representative function, never being Japan's living God-like spiritual center his father was.

Why wasn't China weakened by losing its emperor? Different from their belief in the Tennō's God-like unbroken power, the Japanese feared the Soviets to invade in 1945 treating the Tennō like the Czar in 1917, while in China internal forces pushed late 1911 Chinese Revolution overthrowing the Qing-Dynasty in early 1912, after colonial powers had compromised Chinese Emperors' spiritual authority and Chinese people had considered their Imperial family unable to protect the Chinese people against Western imperialists, given 19th Century's British East Indian Company and The Opium Wars. Considering religion as danger later Mao even erased all Confucianist-Daoist structures, replaced them by Communist ideology and personality cult for Communist leaders. Who didn't surrender "vanished".

While in China Mao's class warfare raged against Chinese Republic's conservative President Chiang Kai-shek - who emigrated with his supporters to Taiwan (which the People's Republic of China perpetually claims) - in Austria aristocracy was forbidden in 1919 according to First Wave of Anti-Elitism following Russia. In Germany the Second Wave of Anti-Elitism peaked in absorbing many aristocrats by Hitler's Nazi regime directed against the Jews, an age-old spiritual and educated elite persecuted by Christians Europe-wide over centuries and systematically murdered in the millions under the Nazis within 12 years. FYI: The term "pogrom" (organized massacre) derives from 1880s' Russian riots against Jews.

After Vladimir Lenin's 1917 Communist Revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat, followed by civil war, educated people were considered dangerous for the revolution, spectacle wearers were killed immediately, not much intelligentsia able to administrate the Soviet Union survived, resulting in chaos, famines, and millions of deaths. Later Georgian communist Joseph Stalin, the party's General Secretary, ruled the Soviet Union with iron fist and further terror.

In the 1950s a Third Wave of Anti-Elitism unfolded with Mao's urge to erase all old Confucianist traditions by killing seniors considered knowledge bearers. So already in its run-up the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) - starting in a Fire Horse year -  subliminally stimulated the Youth Culture in the Western culture, possible via collective unconscious impulse. Western 1967/68's Student/Social Revolution was pushed via strongly Chinese-influenced California (ever since an origin of change and trends subliminally driven by resonating with China), with repercussions on civil rights movement, which Mainland Chinese still are waiting for and British-influenced Hongkongers fight to preserve.

According to my narrative of cross-continental interdependence and unconscious flux, I even see a Fourth Wave of Anti-Elitism around Beijing's "Tiananmen Square Massacre" (Chinese authorities' crackdown on Democracy Movement - known among Mainlanders: 1989s "June Fourth Incident") peaking in the Fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the Iron Curtain. Relevance for today? Eye-catchingly soon after China quakes, the world shakes.

Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann
Philosopher and Systemic Analyst

Freitag, 1. Februar 2019

Der Ruf des Wolfes - Die Realität der Mehrheit vs. Shiny Happy People

Warum ist aus mancher Zeit sowenig Kritisches bekannt? Warum gab's etwa im Mittelalter, in der Neuzeit oder Nazizeit kaum Widerstand? Wie steht's mit sachlich geführter Medienkritik? Häufige Fragen, aktualisiert durch Bundespräsident Frank-Walter Steinmeiers eingeforderte "gesunde Debatte"!

Die Geschichte zeigt, zu allen Zeiten war's gefährlich nicht mit den Wölfen zu heulen, Nicht-Opportunes zu tönen. Man teilte besser die Meinung der Mehrheit, jedenfalls herrschender Minderheiten.

Früher gab's wenig Kritik. Von Frauen, Kindern, Unterdrückten, Verlierern der Bevölkerung ist wenig bekannt. Gründe: Despotische Politik, Furcht vor Repressalien, Ignoranz der Macht, Geschichtsschreibung dominiert von Siegern und Mächtigen.

Vom technologischen Fortschritt geblendet wähnen viele unsere Gesellschaft zivilisiert, doch Weltpolitik, Machtgefüge, unserer Natur und Gesellschaft Zustand veranschaulichen, auch heute ist's heikel vom Establishment abweichende Standpunkte einzunehmen. Entscheider sehen Positionen kritisch, die deren Machterhalt und  Deutungshoheit gefährden, gewähren nur ausgesuchten Positionen das "Meinungsfreiheits-Privileg", missachten damit abermals Voltaire-Biografin Evelyn Beatrice Halls liberale Meinungsfreiheits-Definition: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Sie musste unter Pseudonym veröffentlichen. Meinungsfreiheit - auch heute nur Wenigen gewährt, Andersdenkenden dagegen nur solange ihr Beitrag bedeutungslos erscheint - ist ein zweischneidiges Schwert: Meinungsfreiheit ist JournalistInnen zuzugestehen sowie als Gradmesser für Objektivität der Medien-Welt anzusehen, also wieviel Meinungsfreiheit JournalistInnen der Bevölkerung gewähren.

Wer in neurotischer Suche nach Fake-News - zum Erhalt westlicher Demokratie - Meinungsfreiheit einschränkt, verkennt die offensichtliche Absurdität seiner Handlungen, die Bedeutung diskursethischer Meinungsfreiheit und verspielt Glaubwürdigkeit gegenüber Diktaturen.

Offizielle Meldung und Social Media driften auseinander. Kritik wird ins Social-Media-Reich verdrängt; führenden Medien mag's genügen, sie übersehen jedoch geflissentlich, dass "Polit-Talks" unrepräsentativ, vorhersehbar, eindimensional der Meinungsvielfalt ermangeln. Führende Medien betreiben mit Exklusion großer Bevölkerungsteile eine Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Psychologe Mihály Csíkszentmihályi bespricht "Gatekeeper der Wissenschaft". Auch "Gatekeeper veröffentlichter Meinung" klassifizieren Abweichende/s als gefährlich für deren Deutungshoheit (Pressure-Groups)...Veröffentlichungen abweichender Standpunkte sind daher handverlesen.

Die Bevölkerung war lange zum Schweigen verdammt. Kaum ist ihre Stimme durch Social Media hörbar, befleißigen sich zensurierende Gatekeeper die emanzipierte Mehrheit verstummen zu lassen.

Im "fortschrittlich-objektiv-liberalen Westen" wirken Standardisierungsprozesse auf veröffentlichte Meinung. Gatekeeper vereinheitlichen Meinungsvielfalt danach, was ihnen plausibel, genehm ist, weder sie noch ihre Unterstützer kritisiert.

Wer (medialen) Standardisierungsdruck bezweifelt, möge, sophistisch-experimentell auf eigenes Risiko, in seinem Freundes-/Verwandtenkreis, jedweder Menschenansammlung, erwartbar Unerwünschtes mutig äußern, etablierten Meinungen, Auffassungen, Überzeugungen widersprechen, und wahrnehmen, wie selbst Toleranz-Verfechter auf Abweichendes intolerant reagieren.

Stets war das Realität, was die Mehrheit glaubt bzw. herrschende Minderheiten die Mehrheit glauben ließen. Was die Mehrheit glaubt, ist nicht statisch, sondern im Wandel, wie Geschichtsbücher zeigen. Die Mehrheit glaubt das, was sie erfährt. Eine demokratisierte Mehrheit folgt den Medien nur insoweit sie Realität abbilden, Medienberichterstattung der Realität der Mehrheit entspricht. Daran bemisst sich Objektivität und Glaubwürdigkeit der Medien.

Seit Jahren ignorieren führende Medien die Realität der Mehrheit. Brächten sie die Realität der Mehrheit, müssten Medien ununterbrochen über Armut berichten, die spürbare Realität der Mehrheit, dass unsere Gesellschaft auseinanderbricht. Zunehmende Kinderarmut, Altersarmut, Jugendarbeitslosigkeit, Arbeitslosigkeit, Leiharbeit, Working Poor, Sklaverei erhalten kaum Medienaufmerksamkeit, deprimieren Medienmacher wohl zu sehr, die lieber verdrängen, für glitzernde Ablenkung sorgen - erinnernd an Propagandaminister grausamer Systeme.

Führende Medien wirken als Stabilisatoren gesellschaftspolitischer Machtverhältnisse. Sie agieren als Mittäter fragwürdiger Eliten, betäuben durch Werbeschaltungen, suggerieren den Kauf unleistbarer Produkte, treiben die Mehrheit in die Schulden, ins Armenhaus, in die Arme von PopulistInnen. Diese zu bashen ist Treibstoff für PopulistInnen, verhöhnt große Bevölkerungsteile.

Eine Kluft zwischen Medienfokus und Realität der Mehrheit folgt jahrelanger obrigkeitsschonender Berichterstattung führender Medien, die mit veröffentlichter Meinung fern der Realität der Mehrheit vermitteln nicht der Mehrheit zu dienen, sondern abgehobenen Eliten, deren Privatwirklichkeit/Bubble widerspiegelnd, gesellschaftliche Spaltung befeuernd entlang der Arm-Reich-Grenze.

Medien mit Objektivitätsanspruch sollten reflektieren, wie (selbst)kritisch, frei von Ideologie und Marktmacht sie sind, demgemäß prüfen, ob sie Ideologiekritik (Sozialphilosoph Ernst Topitsch) anwenden oder bloß einseitig, pseudo-objektiv sind, ob sie für die Realität der Mehrheit stehen, oder für die Verbreitung des Narrativs von Eliten, denen's kaum ums Gemeinwohl, vielmehr ums eigene Wohl geht, Mensch und Natur opfernd.

Seit Paul Watzlawicks: "Wahr ist nicht, was A sagt, sondern was B versteht.", geläufig als "Kommunikation ist das, was ankommt", oder Friedemann Schulz von Thuns "Nachrichtenquadrat" wäre bekannt, wie sehr das, was der Sender meint und das, was der Empfänger versteht, auseinanderklaffen kann. Doch führende Medien scheinen taub für Erkenntnisse dieser Kommunikationswissenschaftler und Psychotherapeuten.

Sinkende Auflagenzahlen führender Medien sind Ausdruck medialer Ablösungserscheinung von der Realität der Mehrheit. Gefordert wäre eine Kommunikationsverbesserung zur Entkräftung des vermittelten Eindrucks mit unkritischer Hofberichterstattung den Kontakt zur Mehrheitsbevölkerung verloren zu haben. Andernfalls kommunizieren führende Medien Objektivität, Verständigung, Verstehen geringzuschätzen, dafür Prestige, als Liebkind der Eliten Macht, Geld, Einfluss zu genießen, trotz verarmender Mehrheit.

Führende Medien müssten Abweichende/s vom Etablierten begrüßen, was "Soziale Mobilität" begünstigte. Exklusion der Mehrheit löst kein Problem, sondern erhöht gesellschaftlichen Druck hinwärts sozialer Spannungen, Unruhen, Aufstände.

Unruhige Zeiten müssten führende Medien motivieren der Mehrheit nicht als Sprachrohr abgehobener Eliten zu erscheinen.

Regimes entscheiden über abweichende Meinungen, Standpunkte, Auffassungen, ob Andersdenkende, vom Establishment Abweichende zugelassen und publiziert, oder redigiert, abgeschmettert, unterdrückt werden. Damit regimeimmanente Doktrin rechtbehält, muss gemäß inhärenter Systemlogik Abweichendes für unwahr erklärt oder verboten und Andersdenkende der Unwahrheit bezichtigt werden.

Meinungsfreiheit-Advokaten sind besorgt, wie trotz des Grauens im 20. Jahrhundert - gnadenloser Verfolgung Andersdenkender - heute Meinungsfreiheit abnimmt: Wer nicht mit den Wölfen heult, wird als unbequem, unangebracht, unerwünscht angesehen, unterdrückt.

Macht, Einfluss, Interessen, Geld, verhärtet-ausgrenzende Überzeugungen verleiten seit jeher Machthaber anzunehmen die Wahrheit gepachtet zu haben, dem demokratischen Diskurs abgehoben-entzogen über das Schicksal Andersdenkender, Abweichender zu entscheiden. Ausgrenzung, Hetze, Rufmord, Ächtung erinnern an Exkommunikation, Inquisition, "Verschwinden", Gulag, KZ.

Andersdenkende, abweichende Stimmen, sind nicht notwendigerweise Parteien, Gruppierungen, Weltanschauungen zuzuordnen, sondern dadurch definiert von etablierter Meinung abzuweichen, anders zu denken, anderes zu denken, als das Establishment.

Ähnlich einer Persönlichkeit - "demokratische Gesellschaft" als Persönlichkeit gefasst - vermögen starke Demokratien abweichende Meinungen, Standpunkte, Andersdenkende auszuhalten, zu integrieren - robust-resilient daran wachsend. Schwache Demokratien können das nicht, sehen ihre Stärke darin abweichende Meinungen, Standpunkte, Andersdenkende zu unterdrücken. Mit politisch Andersdenkenden, abweichender Meinung intolerant umzugehen, erinnert an vergangenes Grauen, den Ruf der Wölfe.

Führende Medien werden daran gemessen, ob sie sich mit Medienfokus und Berichterstattung hinter die zunehmend verarmende im neoliberalen Getriebe zerriebene Mehrheitsbevölkerung stellen oder mit losgelösten neoliberalen Eliten kollaborieren - mit dem von der Mehrheit entkoppelten Leitwolf heulen, der entsprechend dem altrömischen Dichter Plautus': "Der Mensch ist dem Menschen ein Wolf..." gnadenlos durchs Land jagt und lange vorm vielberichteten "Rechtsruck" begann die Fundamente der Gesellschaft zu zersetzen.

Jahrelanger Medien-Ansturm gegen Donald Trump zeigt, wie Psychiater mit ihrem Berufskodex brechen, Trumps Persönlichkeit ferndiagnostizierend auf die Couch legen, ebensowie führende Medien sich - lange vor realistischen Präsidentschaftschancen - über jemanden, den sie ablehnen, unaufhörlich empören können.

Doch selbige Riege der Empörten wirkt auffallend unmotiviert, ungezügelte Neoliberalisten gleichermaßen jahrelang ununterbrochen zu kritisieren, geißeln, pathologisieren, übt sich vielmehr im Wegschauen, in Zahlenspielchen, beschwichtigend konservativer Zurückhaltung, unkritischer Hofberichterstattung, trotz prekärer Realität der Mehrheit. Ist das mediale Objektivität? Ebensowenig wie "Kathedersozialisten" mit "Professoren-Prophetie", kritisiert vom Soziologen Max Weber.

Autoritäten, die ungezügelter Neoliberalismus kaltlässt, lassen tief blicken, zumal weder führende Medien noch Psychiater zu den Verlierern des Neoliberalismus zählen, sondern wohlsituiert keinen Anlass zur Empörung sehen. Konzentration der Marktmacht auf wenige Konzerne müsste "kritische" Medien motivieren unaufhörlich Sturm zu laufen, als "Vierte Gewalt" aufzutreten, nicht als "Vierte Geige" im neoliberalen Konzert, als unkritische Geschichtsschreiber von OligopolistInnen, die alljährlich in Davos Mitmenschlichkeit vortäuschen, während die Mehrheitsbevölkerung zunehmend zum Schweigen gebracht, der Ständestaat wiedererrichtet, die antike Polis, welche - obwohl Geburtsstätte der Demokratie - Wahl-/Stimmrecht nur Wenigen zugestand.

Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann
Philosoph und Systemischer Analyst

Dienstag, 4. Dezember 2018

Global Blackout - Are We Prepared?

Ministries of Defense of many countries are aware of a blackout lasting for several days or weeks.

What may sound hypothetical in today's tech-savvy world characterized by digitization, stored data in clouds, on external data carriers, hangs over our heads as many are  widely unprepared for this emergency, anytime possible for various reasons, given how highly energy-dependent our world has become.

Sure, data-saving backup systems do exist, but they all depend on electricity, and it's questionable, if your data is considered by officials important enough to survive even EMP emergencies?

As author publishing digitally I'm pondering not only about a local, but a global blackout? Sure, I do regularly backup my data but mainly physically, not on paper, since - like many - I find it convenient to write my texts digitally and I don't print them all the time. Many do save their data electronically, but few think about how to gain access to their data without electricity. A blackout with destructive effects on our data reminds of book burnings, this time digitally.

Power generators will provide electricity in emergencies, but during a blackout it's still questionable, how long and to whom? Regarding those relying on generators, who have their own power generator and who only rely on government measures?

Sure, there are generators run by the government and corporations but during a blackout for how long these generators will work, and would not the government give priority to public interest over providing you access to your data?

So, it's questionable if you are considered system-relevant to save your data, with granted access to your data at scarce electricity, or will they abandon your data not hanging in the cloud but in limbo then?

Imagine, coordinated cyber attacks suddenly cloaking wide regions in darkness. Are we prepared for this, given how we managed past disasters?

Are we only within a fair weather period, governed by well-paid "fair weather politicians" rarely tested on reality with bureaucracy and managerial competence to protect us during a broad, even global blackout?

Why so dark thoughts? Well, nothing in life is certain - well, death and taxes, but that's another story - neither dying before experiencing a broad blackout, nor being spared. But one is certain: Those never considering a broad blackout - or only trusting in their governments' preparations for this case - are taken by complete surprise how then things are handled, prioritized, reminding of those in blind faith never anticipated the once mighty USSR to collapse someday, not even on the eve of the fall of the Berlin Wall, though history shows, all empires fell someday.

However, those not being into anticipatory thoughts, but to live unburdened from "worst case scenarios" usually prolong their naivety with belittling those speaking out and raising inconvenient questions, not trusting in their governments' emergency plans. Trust is important, but what's wrong with precautions?

Many take precautions today, but is it really best to invest your hard-earned money in expensive home security, promising via the media prominently to protect your home against intruders, through modifying, upgrading your home - a "ring" at your doorbell, alarming you on your mobile of "uninvited guests" gaining entry to your property detected by installed sensors and cameras. Sounds great, right?

Another trend: Locking your entire home with one click on your mobile. Convenient? Not so fast. What about prominently advertised companies making money with luring people to fall for relying their security concept on their technology, making them think implicitly their home was save, while downplaying the dangers to them and their home during a blackout after replacing all mechanic locks by digital ones. Imagine a blackout, don't these "secure homes" stay unprotected then, meaning wide open?

Maybe I'm old-school - into real stuff, a kid of the '80s - not afraid of appearing conservative, individualistic, reluctant, but I don't feel like following every trend only because it's fashionable. Oscar Wilde, the Irish poet and playwright, once put it as follows: "Be yourself, everyone else is already taken."

Today many are busy jumping on the tech-bandwagon pushed by their environment and corporations advertising their products media-effectively. Personally, I don't feel more secure when spending much money on modifying my home to follow the latest security trend, run and promoted by geeks pretending to know they knew what they were doing, to have thought of everything but while they think their thinking was thoughtful and driven by wisdom and responsibility are only driven by making money fast. Seriously, am I supposed to entrust my home security to those money-driven and easy to enthuse, whose security concept only works with enough energy, whereas without electricity my home stays wide open inviting plunderers during a broad blackout?

Mechanical locks, as unsexy as they might seem, defy blackouts and plunderers, even extended electricity outages.

Not forgetting, how being "old-school" - rather "well prepared" - suddenly will be "sexy" again, as well as those still able to write with pen and paper - even when it's "dark" - when things created to make our life easier suddenly turn against us, making life hostile in seconds, as electronics don't work anymore. Books last for centuries, electronic storage for years. So it's handy to still master cultural achievements like writing in the old-fashioned way, knowing how to live without "intelligent devices", withstanding to feel "stupid" when not following the "smart" trend. I suppose, you will feel saver still locking your home the traditional way and your mechanical locks hold back looters coming after you during blackouts.

Instantaneously this becomes reality, when governments and corporations fail to protect you from coordinated EMP attacks (electromagnetic pulse) or even a "global blackout" caused by a major solar storm hitting Earth's magnetic field, wiping out our technology and data in seconds, a matter of "when, not if", and due anytime as scientists sound the alarm.

No electronic cash, paying with cards, smartphones, computers, no electric heating, lights, water supply, refrigerator, cooking, no electronic security, phones, elevators, airplanes, electric cars, trains etc. Shouldn't we prepare ourselves for such a life-threatening blackout?

Philosopher and Systemic Analyst
Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann

Sonntag, 9. September 2018

It Is Beyond Good and Evil

The universal remedy of so many is education. When asking: "What's education?" many reply: "Education stands for wealth and socialization, while transporting knowledge." Further asking uncovers: "Education is institutionalized homogenization of different levels." Especially from the left you hear: "Education for all!". A nice idea, right? But what does it really mean?

In many Western countries the political agenda to welcome people from abroad relies on education as remedy through which a common sense, a homogenized level of understanding is to be created, wherefore people are in education programs, the kids in schools, the grown-ups in vocational training, colleges or universities. Institutionally, students obtain an upgrade of what to think, what to believe in, to differentiate right from wrong, but mostly not critical thinking...

In contrast to religion and tradition, education is the maxim of many confident to handle any integration challenge while rejecting the maxim on the right of strong borders and closing the borders against "foreign" influences.

Ideology aside, when looking on education analytically - not ideologically and culture-centered - then via education not facts are transported but content, a propagated collection, a canon, meaning values and convictions, many considering themselves educated regard as facts.
Those willing and able to put ideology aside might realize: On the surface via education facts - often considered as truth - are transported, but subliminally values and convictions, since self-evidently the "best content" is without the desired impact, when not accepted by recipients with values and convictions deviant from the presented content.

Why is that left out even by the political left considering themselves educated in their ideologically ingrained analysis and approach? Further widely unreported: Many with different cultural backgrounds perceive Western education as left side and expansive economic endeavors of Western corporations as right side of a double-edged sword, often considered as cultural imperialism, self-evidently when taking groups into account such as Northern Nigerian internationally classified terrorist organisation "Boku Haram" (translated: "Western education is evil").

Analytically speaking, criticism of ideology is widely under-highlighted by the media perhaps for a "good" reason, as criticism of ideology scrutinizes 360°, therefore also the practiced propagation of democracy of a certain kind, meaning a worldwide forcefully and militarily installed (Western) ideology in liaisons with (Western) corporations exploiting natural and human resources of a region, cultural imperialists are "interested in", i.e. falling in, a model Asian regimes with expansive influence on other continents copied.

Many propagating democracy don't have democracy in mind, as many tribes worldwide can go on in age-old archaic traditions they are used to, live in stark contrast with human rights, without any public attention, as long these tribes inhabit regions, economically worthless, unattractive for corporations to fall in.

Exporting the American Way of Life worldwide has a long tradition, reminding dreadfully of US history: After cultural imperialists systematically took land and killed large parts of Native Americans, the survivors of this "ethnic cleansing" were expelled from their ancestral land deported to and "herded up" in reservations, without any economic interest for the government and companies, areas sans natural resources to exploit, only to be driven away again, once profitable natural resources were discovered in their reservations, which suddenly gained economic value for the government and businesses.

Moreover Native American children systemically were forced into Western education, meaning forcefully snatched from their parents, transported to boarding schools, wherein they were bottled with Western values and convictions in effort to make them "Good Americans", while prohibited from speaking their native language, wearing their traditional attire and using their genuine symbols.
This cultural imperialist US-doctrine against Native Americans - whereupon an area in the Black Hills sacred to Native Americans were chosen by US government for engraving in stone the heads of US-presidents (Mount Rushmore N.M., finished in 1941) - was still practiced in the 1960s, many years after the horrors of the Second World War with e.g. German/Japanese institutionalized terror and nationalism, as if those having lost WW2 were barred from developing nationalism ever again, whereas the victors flourished in their nationalism without regulatory.

All this reminds of the age-old conflict between good and evil, a battle based on binary friend-foe-scheme, Manichean logic, until today fought between ideologies, science and religion, a war, wherein conveniently each side considers itself good and the others as enemies, as false, as evil.
Many, heavily relying on education as cure-all seemingly forget: No matter how good they consider themselves, it's not truth or facts they transport with education, but analytically speaking, only content considered as truth or facts.

All sides rely on education to pass on content they consider right to their youth, filling the young with content beneficial for the continuance of the ideology, meaning values and convictions the given side - even on the left - considers right, as the truth, and therefore the others' position as lie, propaganda, false or even evil. Here, Philosophy of Science en passant, esp. "Paradigm Shift" in Harvard professor Thomas S. Kuhn's book: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962), wherein "incommensurability" describes rivaling paradigms, way too different to have common ground.

Referring to German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's book: "Beyond Good and Evil", it's beyond good and evil, it's about you, your self-reflection and emancipation from political power play, ideology, manipulative agendas of groups and parties - even in science and media - urging you not to reflect but to follow them in blind faith. Therein "impeccable" authorities claim to propagate "the truth" and to be always closer to "the truth" than you are, an undemocratic attitude awfully reminding of the very same religion those condemn while themselves demanding your followship and subordination to their propagated content, i.e. to believe them, adopt their convictions, share their values, and submit to their belief system only.

Analytically speaking, it's beyond good and evil, beyond truth or facts, it's all about you, what you believe in, what you sponsor with your attention and devotion. It's up to you, how you lead your life, whom you follow: Yourself or somebody else. You decide. One exit: Take the qualities working best for you from ideology, religion and science.

Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann
Systemic Analyst and Philosopher

Donnerstag, 12. April 2018

Ancient Rome Now

Looking to the United Kingdom and analysing the recent move of Prime Minister Theresa May reminds me of the Ancient Roman Empire. As for PM May it is currently obviously necessary to draw the Untied Kingdom into a quagmire in Syria militarily, seemingly officially, meaning according to the main storyline, because of the latest chemical attacks on civilians allegedly conducted by Syrian governmental forces in Eastern Ghouta just East of Damascus.

But unofficially this latest move of Theresa May - admittedly the violence against the Syrian civilians is outrageous - can be seen from a criticism of ideology point of view as effort to distract from bigger internal problems, domestic problems, political issues, which are current and overbearing in the UK.

PM May's move matches with many of the former PM ministers' moves, meaning mainly military interventions, but more interestingly these reminds of the Ancient Roman Empire and it's Caesars, Emperors, who often ruled as war lords, as tribunes, distinguishing themselves not only via wars and invasions, but also following the ideology of distraction (Ablenkungsideologie), one of the main ideology types one is aware of, if trained in criticism of ideology at university by Kurt Lenk and others, which in core is about distracting the public from internal, domestic problems, even often personal political struggles by leading the public into war, by war-mongering enough to manipulate the public to follow the very personal or political convenient interests of their leaders.

In other words these distracting moves by the government are intended to make the majority of the constituency to look the other way, in this case to Syria, and distract therefore the people from Brexit and its repercussions or from other burning issues.

So reminding of the years before the 1st World War, when so many were lured into war by people in charge having a benefit from it, I want to close with the question: Have we really progressed in contrast to Ancient Roman Empire, which is the basis of many countries' law system, our "modern" rule of law, or did we not only have advanced technology-wise, in terms of being more efficient and effective to invade, to exterminate, in others words to kill each other, but not at all advanced in becoming wise?

Systemic Analyst and Philosopher
Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann

Sonntag, 10. Dezember 2017

Das Wasser steigt - Die gefährliche Seite des Reichtums

Als Thomas S. Kuhn (Harvard University) in seinem 1962 erschienenen Buch "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" vom Begriff "Paradigma" sprach, meinte er das jeweils vorherrschende Gedankengerüst in der Wissenschaft, die Art und Weise zu denken, eine bestimmte Weltanschauung, und mit "Paradigmenwechsel", den Übergang von einem Paradigma zu einem anderen, das heißt, dass eine Art zu denken von einer anderen abgelöst wird. Doch warum sollte dies nur innerhalb des Fachgebiets der Wissenschaftstheorie der Fall sein und nicht auch auf andere Bereiche der Technik und Gesellschaft zutreffen?

Dies führt mich zu folgenden Fragen: Warum wohl engagieren sich im Westen so wenige Menschen für den Klimaschutz und den damit notwendigen technologischen Veränderungen? Warum ist es ein kaum aktiv gelebtes Mehrheitsthema? Warum lässt die Erderwärmung so viele im Westen dennoch kalt? Und ich spreche nicht von denen, die hierzulande tagtäglich im Strudel des Existenzkampfes sind und die soziale Kälte bereits in vollen Zügen erfahren, denen das Wasser bis zu Halse steht, sondern von denen, die vermögend sind und wirklich etwas tun könnten.

Eine Antwort auf diese Fragen ist sicherlich nicht so sehr an der Information, am Wissen um den Klimawandel, am Informieren der Öffentlichkeit, an der Steigerung des Wissens der Öffentlichkeit um umweltschutzrelevante Zusammenhänge gelegen. Denn mit der Schaffung und Schärfung des Bewusstseins für Umweltschutz hat man wohl in erster Linie die Menschen des Globalen Südens und nicht die mit viel Informationen versorgten und mit viel Wissen ausgestatteten Menschen des Westens, des Globalen Nordens und der sogenannten entwickelten Länder im Blick - von den Leugnern abgesehen. Es liegt somit, neben der unmittelbaren Betroffenheit, vielmehr an der Bereitschaft und nicht an der Bildung.

Denn sehr viele Menschen hierzulande aber auch andernorts in der sogenannten entwickelten Welt hält von der aktiven Beteiligung am Klimaschutz die auf Bequemlichkeit gebaute Furcht davor ab, es könnte sich durch ihre aktive Beteiligung etwas an ihrem global gesehen vergleichsweise guten Leben, das sie "angefüttert" in den letzten Jahrzehnten so sehr gewohnt wurden, zum Schlechteren hin ändern. Drum tun sie lieber nichts - unterstützen Umweltschutzmaßnahmen und dafür eintretende Bewegungen höchstens passiv oder dulden sie gar nur - frei nach der Devise: "Never Change A Running System!". "Doch für wen rennt es eigentlich gut?", müsste man fragen.

Was Umweltschutz anbelangt, geht es also in der "entwickelten Welt" nicht um ein Bildungs-, Wissens- oder Informationsdefizit, das so viele Menschen abhielte sich aktiv am Umweltschutz zu beteiligen, auch nicht um den mangelnden politischen Willen, auf den man sich gerne hinausredet, sondern um die teils stark ausgeprägte mangelnde Bereitschaft jedes Einzelnen, etwas an seinen liebgewonnenen Gewohnheiten zu ändern, - braucht es doch, wie aus der Psychologie und unserem eigenen Leben bekannt, nur wenige Tage um eine Gewohnheit zu entwickeln, doch häufig viele Jahre, um diese wieder abzulegen - verbunden mit zur Alltäglichkeit gewordenen Annehmlichkeiten, die der vermögende Mensch des Globalen Nordens wie selbstverständlich genießt, alltägliche Privilegien, in deren Genuss die vergleichsweise wenigen Globalisierungsgewinner kommen, auf Kosten der Legionen an Globalisierungsverlierern, die dafür schuften und tagtäglich bluten.
Es scheint sich also auf einen Endkampf zuzuspitzen zwischen immer weniger Globalisierungsgewinnern und den in der Zahl immer größer werdenden Legionen an Globalisierungsverlierern, wobei weltweite Migrationsströme aufgrund der durch Umweltzerstörung unbewohnbar gewordenen Zonen nur die Vorboten sind.

Das rückt den Otto-Normal-Globalisierungsgewinner in der sogenannten Ersten Welt perspektivisch ein großes Stück in Richtung der Globalisierungseliten, die die Führungsetagen multinationaler Konzerne bevölkern und eben nichts am bestehenden System, besser wohl an der für sie bestens funktionierenden Maschinerie, ändern wollen, und, wie sie auftreten und argumentieren, ganz und gar nicht umzustimmen sind.
Es ist nachvollziehbar, wenn auch nicht verständlich - da jene Eliten zu gut und zu lange Unsummen mit der alten Technologie verdient haben - das Gros der deutschen Automobilindustrie ist ein Paradebeispiel dafür, dass ganz bewusst Jahrzehnte lang auf der Bremse gestanden wurde, was den Übergang zu umweltfreundlichen Technologien betrifft - und es ihnen viel zu ungewiss ist, ob sie nach der Umstellung auf neue umweltfreundliche Technologien damit jemals wieder so viel Geld scheffeln werden können, wie mit der altbewährten umweltschädigenden Technologie.

Denn mit Raubbau, Zerstörung und Vernichtung lässt sich in den Köpfen jener Eliten antizipiert viel mehr Geld machen, als mit Schonung, Erhalt und Nachhaltigkeit, ganz zu schweigen von den auf Raubbau, Zerstörung und Vernichtung bauenden für einige Wirtschaftsführer lukrativen militärischen Konflikten, die alle Konfliktparteien zur Aufrüstung zwingen. "Der Krieg ist der Vater aller Dinge", hallt es aus der griechischen Antike.

Doch Moment! Das allein genommen wäre zu kurz gegriffen, denn dazu kommt noch ein entscheidendes psychologisches Moment, wonach die altbewährte Technologie, die im Wesentlichen Umweltzerstörung, Ausbeutung von Mensch und Natur in Kauf nimmt, nur Ausdruck sozialer Unterdrückungsverhältnisse ist, womit Raubbau, Zerstörung und Vernichtung, letztlich Unterdrückung und Ausbeutung vielmehr dem entspricht, wie jene Wirtschaftselite nach oben gekommen ist, groß wurde und nicht zu vergessen oben geblieben ist. Das alles entspricht jenen viel mehr als ihnen jede neuartige nachhaltige Form der Technologie und des gedeihlichen Zusammenlebens verspricht.

Da nun keine Technik vom Himmel gefallen ist, sondern jede Technik dem Geist der Ingenieure und jener, die diese gut bezahlten Mitarbeiter für ihre Dienste entgelten, entspringt und dem entspricht, was sich jene vorstellen können, ist die Technologie, die wir entwickelt haben, die Technologie unserer Welt, im Wesentlichen nur der Ausdruck der psychische Verfasstheit unserer Welt und Gesellschaftsform, angeführt von viel zu vielen nur auf Gewinn orientierten und daher sehr oft asozialen Subjekten. Damit ist unsere herkömmliche Technologie, etwa der Verbrennungsmotor, im Gegensatz zu anderen umweltschonenden Technologien, die jedoch aus guten letztlich schlechten Gründen seit vielen Jahrzehnten unterdrückt werden, nur der Spiegel der Erdenbewohner, nur der Brennstrahl, an dem die Welt verbrennt.

Demnach werden sehr viele in den laut Wirtschaftsstatistik entwickelten Länder - die letztlich durch Raubbau und Umweltzerstörung im großen Stil erst zu entwickelten Ländern geworden sind - weit weniger aus Gründen der Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf sie vom Umweltbewusstsein erreicht und ergriffen. Denn die Hauptlast der Auswirkungen der systematischen Umweltzerstörung tragen die Bewohner des Globalen Südens, denen das "Wasser" schon bis zum Kinn reicht.

So werden viele Bürger der sogenannten Ersten Welt und einstige Globalisierungsgewinner wohl erst von den Auswirkungen der globalisierten Umweltzerstörung erfasst, wenn sie feststellen müssen, dass sie sich aus sozioökonomischen Gründen vieles in ihrer Umwelt, das unseren Planeten schädigt und zerstört und in der Herstellung auf massiver Umweltschädigung beruht und damit unser aller Existenzgrundlage weltweit bedroht, nicht mehr leisten können. Das heißt, wenn sie finanziell abgehängt, aus dem Markt und an der Teilnahme am Markt gedrängt werden, weil die Produkte nur mehr für Wenige leistbar sind, die in ihren hohen Türmen und Gated Communities in den wenigen noch bewohnbaren Gebieten leben, in der "verbotenen Zone", wohin die übergroße Zahl der mittellosen Menschen aus den unbewohnbar gewordenen Zonen des Erdballs zu flüchten abgehalten wird, um sich in Sicherheit zu bringen.

Dann bedürfen jene Wenigen vor den Arbeitslosen und den immer ärmer werdenden "Working Poor", die "praktischerweise" für die Politik nicht in der Arbeitslosenstatistik aufscheinen, immer größeren Schutz, um jene Produkte und Technologien weiter zu nutzen, die so viele Ressourcen und so vieles schädigen und nachhaltig zerstören. Denn zynisch gesprochen verstehen genau das sehr viele Angehörige jener Wirtschaftseliten unter Nachhaltigkeit: Nachhaltige Zerstörung von Ressourcen und des sozialen Friedens, über die sie ihre Taschen füllen.

Um dem entgegenzuwirken, braucht es dringend einen Paradigmenwechsel, eine Abkehr vom verantwortungslosen neoliberalen Turbokapitalismus, der den Raubbau an der Umwelt und die soziale Ungleichheit weiter treibt und verschärft, hin zu einer verantwortungsvollen "Ökosozialen Marktwirtschaft", deren Modell bereits von der UN-Vollversammlung zur Korrektur der Auswirkungen des Neoliberalismus beschlossen wurde, zu dem leider viele an den Schalthebeln der Macht, vom Markt getrieben und auf Geldgier spezialisiert, im Sinne ihrer "Hinter-mir-die-Sintflut-Mentalität" nicht im geringsten ethisch bereit und dazu anscheinend auch nicht geistig im Stande sind.

Systemischer Analyst und Philosoph
Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann

Mittwoch, 29. November 2017

The Colony - Globalization Unmasked

Colonialism has never ended, proving most of historians wrong, since they have been trapped in the Euphemism Treadmill (Steven Pinker - Harvard University). Colonialism has never ended, only the words have, through relabeling. Colonialism has never ended, only the masters have, conducted by new - though not so new - players.

Today it's just called Globalization, working with the same power structures as in the heyday of the so-called Colonialism. So modern-day Colonialism is conducted by the new bullies on the block, namely the corporations, multinational corporations, which in former times - in terms of technology only less connected - were represented by the colonial powers, we can read much about.

Needless to say that so many of the corporations ruling the world today in our globalized world, ruled by global corporations, multinational corporations, are from the very same countries, which in the old days ruled over the world as colonial masters, exploiting local people and nature systematically, like corporations do in many regions globally today in our globalized world, ruled by multinational corporations, using the same power structures as in so-called Colonialism.

Since not the world has changed, only Colonialism has changed putting another mask on to deceive so many people, who think we improved as humans, delighted and fooled by globalization, overlooking that Colonialism only comes with new labels, new names, and new people using and filling the very old power structures and positions of Colonialism, ruling as Colonialism 2.0, to many people very well-known as Globalization, in which almost all the people worldwide are subjected to the new, but not so new, colonial masters, the multinational corporations, earning immense profits by ruling over their colony, the globalized world.

But there is a slight difference to former times: On the one hand these ruling corporations are truly globalized, in terms of coming not only from the West but more and more from the East, and on the other hand the scandalous human trafficking, nowadays peaking in slave markets in Libya, is just an expression of this Colonialism 2.0 connecting buyers and sellers in the blink of an eye.

Systemic Analyst and Philosopher
Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann

Mittwoch, 15. November 2017

Das geschundene Dorf

Der Ton wird weltweit rauer, nicht nur innenpolitisch. Die Menschen, die Völker und ihre Lenker wollen nicht mehr miteinander, entflechten sich.

Die Beziehungen werden abgebrochen, die Brücken zum Einsturz gebracht, genauso wie die Illusion, die Menschen, die Völker und ihre Lenker könnten miteinander, zerbricht, in sich zusammenfällt, zusammen mit dem Teppich, der einst ausgelegt, das Geflecht, das weltumspannende Netz, das von Globalisierungsfreunden vor langer Zeit ausgeworfen wurde, das sich nun mehr und mehr zurückzieht, ausfranst, zerfleddert, angezündet wird, weil der Rückhalt in der Bevölkerung für ihr Konzept Tag um Tag mehr und mehr schwindet.

Wird doch immer klarer, auch immer mehr gut meinenden Gutmenschen, die - wohl großteils aufgrund schlechten Gewissens - all die Jahre einer Logik der globalen Umverteilung folgend, den Reichtum des Westens in den Rest der Welt trugen und dabei (vielleicht bewusst) übersahen, dass sie sich dort in jenen Ländern nur eine kleine Elite züchteten, die ihnen als Statthalter dient, sowie dass sie somit als Gutmenschen großteils unwissentlich, also instrumentalisierterweise, nur den Weg bereiteten, nur der Zuckerguss, das Feigenblatt waren, für "die anderen Globalisierungsfreunde", die im Hintergrund agier(t)en. Sie waren nur die idealistische Vorhut von Konzernen. So entging ihnen als grüne Speerspitze der Globalisierung, dass die Globalisierung die längste Zeit immer nur den Konzernen gedient hat, auf die sie hereinfielen, Konzerne, die im Schlepptau der allzu schöngeistigen "Rainbow-Warriors" als Heuschrecken kamen, über das globale Dorf hereinfielen, wie Räuber einfielen und es auch jetzt tun, nachdem sie all die Jahre abgewandert waren, zu Dumpingpreisen - nicht nur aber vor allem - in China unter menschenunwürdigen Bedingungen produzieren ließen und die Produkte zu Höchstpreisen im Westen verkauften.

Das Resultat daraus kennen viele von uns: Von den Eliten in diesen vielen Ländern abgesehen, zieht das heutige durch diese Praxis erstarkte und erwachte China - und dort auch lange nicht alle - wie ein riesiger Magnet alles Geld der Welt an sich, erinnernd an einen übergroßen unersättlichen Schlund, der alles Kapital verschlingt.

So ist die Welt zum Dorf geworden, das wegen der Entgrenzung, wegen des politisch gewollten Wegfallens der Grenzen, des freien Markts, ohne auf nennenswerte Gegenwehr zu stoßen zur leichten Beute wurde, zur Beute von Konzernen, die früher, bloß unter anderem Namen und viel kleiner, die Welt schon immer zu schinden und auszubeuten wussten, nur eben weniger vernetzt, und es nun mal die letzten Jahrzehnte im Zuge der Globalisierung, des scheinbar perfekten Zusammenwachsens der Völker zum globalen Dorf, besonders leicht hatten, weil es teils "gutmeinenden" Politikern nicht gelang die Akkumulation des Kapitals in jene Konzernhäfen zu stoppen, der schamlosen Bereicherung der Konzerne auf dem Rücken von Mensch und Natur, in welchen schutzlos ausgelieferten Gebieten nun auch immer, Einhalt zu gebieten, also die Konzerne in die Schranken zu weisen, die nicht viel mehr als Verwüstung mit sich brachten.

Es scheint nun in vielen Ländern der Lack ab zu sein, sodass die Menschen ihren Politikern nicht mehr über den Weg trauen, die großteils tatenlos zusahen, zusehen oder gar selbst Nehmerqualitäten bewiesen und auch heute noch beweisen, fürstlich dafür bezahlt werden, dass sie wegschauen, sich nicht einmischen und bloß gebetsmühlenartig sagen, man dürfe den Markt nicht beunruhigen, die Gesetze des Marktes nicht stören, nicht verschrecken, wie ein Wild - verschleiernd, dass die Gesetze des Marktes bloß die Gesetze des Tierreichs sind, das Gesetz der Straße, das Gesetz des Stärkeren, das Naturrecht; aber vielleicht ist das ja manchen genauso recht. Und zur Empörung jener Politiker und des Establishments scheint die Illusion, die Menschen, die Völker und ihre Lenker könnten miteinander und seien zudem beliebig ersetzbar, fungibel, austauschbar, - die Ghettoisierung, die Grüppchenbildung der Menschen um kulturelle Identität herum völlig negierend - zu zerbrechen, während des laut ratternden Raffens der Maschinerie, welche das Geld der Vielen in die Kanäle der Wenigen spült.

Was mich nur wundert, ist - außer man denkt ans Verlustiggehen ihrer Privilegien und Pfründe -, dass es die Vertreter jenes Establishments wundert, sie sich empört zeigen darüber, dass es den Menschen, den ausgebeuteten Massen, der geschundenen Natur reicht, dass eben immer Weniger immer reicher werden im Zuge dieses globalen Imperialismus, auch bekannt als Globalisierung. Es ist eine Form der Globalisierung, in der lokale Kultur, die oft keineswegs ideal ist, ohne Rücksicht auf Verluste aufgebrochen und unter dem Titel "Demokratisierung und Menschenrechte" gewachsene Identität gebrochen wird, um sie zu öffnen. Und wofür? Um das Volk, die Menschen vor Ort, dem Westen zu öffnen, gefügig zu machen, und letztlich zu braven Konsumenten und Abnehmern der Produkte jener Konzerne des Westens (bis hin zu Waffenlieferungen) zu machen - wenn auch immer mehr über den Osten -, um alle Welt ins westliche Gesellschaftsmodell überzuführen, das, obwohl es vom "Moral High Ground" aus argumentiert alle Welt wissen lässt moralisch überlegen zu sein, selbst von Moral und Ethik nichts wissen will, befreit davon agiert, ganz dem Turbokapitalismus entspricht und ihm frönt. Die Chinesische Führung trägt dabei das Ihre dazu bei weltweit mitzumischen, nur eben auf ihre Art.

Warum es besser sein soll, anstatt von verachtenswerten nationalen Despoten von einem weltweit agierenden Geldadel, der auftritt, wie er auftritt, - ob er nun im Westen oder in Fernost in Palästen haust - auf Erden regiert zu werden, von einer verschwindend kleinen Clique, auch bekannt als Gewinner der Globalisierung, die durch den Wegfall der Grenzen in grenzenlos große Absatzmärkte einfällt und exorbitante Gewinne erzielt, die sie - anders als sie Verluste verstaatlicht - jedoch für sich behält, bunkert, nicht mehr durch Steuern ins Gesellschaftssystem einspeist, entzieht sich meinem Verständnis.

Denn das Argument des Establishments gegen systemische Schließung von Staaten, dass Protektionismus, Nationalismus und Kleinstaaterei zu Kriegen führe, zieht nicht, weil in dieser beschriebenen Globalisierung, die zu einer Gesellschaft der Gated Communities und Bunkern führt, zu einer Dystopie - wie in nicht überragenden Noir-Filmen - am Ende die Revolution lauert, der Krieg um Verteilungsgerechtigkeit. Also Krieg wartet in beiden Fällen am Ende, so eben auch in einer konzerngeleiteten globalisierten Welt-Gesellschaft, in der zwar erfolgreich alle Völker ihrer Kultur beraubt, vereinheitlicht, auf Linie gebracht wurden, auf Schiene, jedoch nur um dem Zug des Turbokapitalismus westlicher Façon zu folgen, ihm zu huldigen und die Wenigen, denen dieser Turbokapitalismus nützt, in ihren mahagoniverkleideten Vestibülen und Elfenbeintürmen auf Händen zu tragen.

Der Grund, warum ich überhaupt noch solch kritische Töne anklingen lassen darf, liegt wohl daran, dass noch Restbestände der freien Meinungsäußerung existieren, die dem jahrzehntelangen Glattschleifen des Geistes und Duckmäusern durch politische Korrektheit über etablierte Medien, zum Zwecke der Beschwichtigung der Massen und letztlich des Kleinhaltens der Kritik sowie der sinnbildlichen Eliminierung der Kritiker, standgehalten haben.

Die Medien und Experten, die nicht viel Mitgefühl und Verbindung zu den Menschen, für die sie angeblich sprechen, erkennen lassen, also nicht mit den Menschen - höchstens über vorselektierte Fokusgruppen, die ihre Vorurteile bestätigen - sondern bloß voreingenommen von ihrer Bubble aus über die Menschen sprechen, tragen das Ihre dazu bei und sorgen noch dazu für Spiele, bei immer knapper werdendem Brot, damit das Establishment konzerndienlich schalten und walten kann, bis zum Schlechterletzt, zum Gehtnichtmehr. Natürlich steigt auch die soziale Unruhe, weil der Prozess, dass Massen(jugend)arbeitslosigkeit in weiterer Folge nahtlos zu Kinderarbeit und Altersarmut für die übergroße Mehrheit führt, noch nicht ganz abgeschlossen ist, und sich wieder Widerstand regt - auch und gerade über schwer kontrollierbare Soziale Medien - nicht zuletzt, weil der Warnschuss der kleingeredeten Weltwirtschaftskrise mit Beginn 2007 - anstatt die Situation ernst zu nehmen - von den Eliten bewusst überhört und seitens des Establishments dazu übergegangen wurde nach Kräften weiterzumachen, wie gehabt.

Dass sich die Menschen, die Nationen, die Völker, die Kulturen, dagegen auflehnen, auf sich besinnen und beginnen sich wieder zu schließen, sich zu entflechten, der Ton weltweit rauer wird, wundert mich dabei nicht im geringsten, ist diese Entwicklung doch von Grund auf hausgemacht.

Systemischer Analyst und Philosoph
Dr. Dr. Immanuel Fruhmann