Lies with Long Legs. Prodosh Aich
Читать онлайн книгу.
became rich? How come that rich people always become richer, also within the rich countries? Why do the rich states hunt the militarily inferior states? Why do the rich states hide more and more behind different fronts like, for example, NATO, “International Community”, and commonly prey upon weaker states and other cultures? “International Community”? What is hidden behind this facade? The United Nations? The Security Council of the United Nations? NATO? What is it, this NATO? Which states have created the “International Community”? What for? Is it based on “International Law” or can it be derived from “International Law”? What is “International Law”? Why are these states not content with the United Nations”? Isn’t it essential to ask whether there is a relationship between the bombing of weak states and cultures by the “International Community” on the one hand and the hunts of foreign people within the territories of the “International Community” on the other hand? And then: Who hunts whom within the territories of this “International Community”?
Inevitably we wonder how the youth feels when “celebrities with bodyguards” urge “decent people” to show their “faces” in public and to organise a “revolt of the decent ones” against violence within our societies. In the 21st century? Would there be similar appeals in Germany, for example, if the Neo–Nazis there did not desecrate synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, but still go on hunting people of “inferior races”? Or if synagogues and Jewish cemeteries were also to be desecrated everywhere within the “International Community” – or even more so for that matter?
One is amazed by the variety of inflated explanations for such infringements that are created by the “media“. There is an ever-ongoing competition amongst celebrities to invent the most stunning, most striking and the most marketable slogans to win public image. In all kinds of areas. What a wonderful strategy! Don’t they talk about “occupying” themes? Unisono? Occupying themes? Or do they intend to occupy eventual answers as well? Do we have a chance to get a word in edgewise in the midst of “media“ blast in order to ask ourselves, in Germany for example: what had there been before the events “Hoyerswerda”, “Solingen”, or wherever else, could happen? Had there been “a revolt of the decent ones”?
Do we still remember, what the German lady film director Doris Doerries proposed on the occasion of “a revolt of the decent cultural celebrities” in the Hamburg–Thalia–Theatre after the murderous affair in Rostock? Her programmatic proposal? She explained that “looking away” has nothing to do with “decency” but rather with fear. We are afraid of being confronted with rowdies. Therefore, Doris Doerries proposed that we, the “decent” people, should always wear a visible sign in public (that day the celebrities wore a purple band), so that we would all know that we are not alone against rowdies. In all public places. This is what Doris Doerries proposed live on TV. Overwhelming applause. This was after “Rostock”. Do we really recall when “Rostock” happened? What happened there? Why do we forget events more and more? Faster than ever? Why is our memory getting shorter and shorter?
And now we are summoned by “celebrities with bodyguards” to show our “face” in public. Have civil courage. In 2002. Ten years after “Rostock”! Due to this cultural development and influence how should we be able to enquire what was there before Rostock happened? Before the “jokes on Turks “ started making the rounds? Before the “foreign workers” began being called “guests”? Before the “Reichskristallnacht”, before Hitler came into power, before “Mein Kampf”? Before the First World War? Before “colonialism”? Before the age of the “enlightenment”? Endless questions, no answers, of course. We are usually averse to questions, so we are not expected to put questions like these, are we?
But we may not stick to the rules of this game. We are learning and practising to ask questions. For example: Is today’s daily violence something new? We don’t mean the daily hounding of “foreigners” alone, but also of socially weak groups like children, the disabled, the needy and women. What are the fundamental traits of this culture? Why is it given such varied names every now and then? Who are the inventors? Why do they make up new names for the same culture and try to hammer them into our brain through the omnipresent media? Are they perhaps afraid that we could see through the fundamental traits of this culture? Are we able to do it? Or are we too stupid? Had we been stupid in the past, why this incessant hammering? Why is so much effort being spent on “political education” while simultaneously keeping back essential “political information”? Are we perhaps not so stupid? And therefore, the target of this uninterrupted brainwashing?
Why do we ask useless questions about the past? Is it not more important to try to grasp the direction of the speedy evolution of our time and contribute to make it a revolution? Is it not more important to put “marks” on the stages of development and label them by “names”? Don’t we get enough new names for this culture time and again? Is this exercise of inventing adequate names not lagging behind the development of culture and civilisation? We have not followed this path and internalised the rules of this game. We rather ask questions such as: Is it something new, this daily violence that confronts us? Why these daily violent attacks and abuse on foreigners, on strangers, also on weaker members of the society like children, women, the poor? What are the pillars, what are the fundamentals of this culture, which have been identified and labelled by clever and dynamic minds—of course well paid—over and over again? Why is the full power of the modern media being used to drum into our heads every new label of this new culture? Are these “scientists” pressured by this speedily developing culture trying to find new names to characterise its new phases? Do they manage to keep pace with the “progress” of this name giving ritual? Can we even remember all those names?
We can recall quite a few, however: Christian, occidental, European, industrial, western, post-war–, democratic, modern, humanistic, formed, solidarity–, leisure-time–, information–, risk–, media–, open, global, television–, Internet–, information–, interactive, fun-, media-, knowledge culture, etc. etc.. How can this ritual of attributing so many names to a single society and culture be interpreted? Is it an expression of a special fantasy, special accuracy or does it only express embarrassment and helplessness; a search for identity; or a desperate attempt to veil the essential characteristics of this culture and to try to divert the focus onto superficial changes caused by technological developments? Who is afraid that we would eventually find out for ourselves the fundamentals of this society? Are we not able to identify them? Are we too stupid and need help? Had it been so, why this continuous storming of our brains, and why is so much effort being made for “political education”? Are we perhaps not stupid? Is this the reason why we don’t get political information, but only political “education”? We must leave these questions unanswered.
We have started our search. Our means and ability are modest. So we have begun with simple questions. Who is telling us (hi)stories? How did the narrator get hold of his tale? Our questions, though so simple, seem to work like dynamite. We are also persistent and refuse to be fed the usual answers. Here is the report of our search and on our findings. We present them in detail in order to launch a discussion. And to learn how to ask questions more efficiently. Increasingly more efficiently. Perhaps we can find out ways not to be overwhelmed by the “scientists”, the narrators and the media in our daily life any more.
*****
Our daily life is organised by “information”. Worldwide. A continuously increasing flow of „information“ leading to more and more consolidated social and political order. „Information“ is brought to us not only through the so-called print and electronic „media“, but also by our environment, by the family, by educational institutions, etc. Quite extensively. But, where does „information“ come from, where is it generated, where is it produced, who puts it into circulation, what are the channels, how fast does it reach us from its source? Can we really find out? Is it important to know all the facts?
Apparently we do enjoy being the consumers of „information“, 24 hours a day. We long for knowledge. Knowledge? When do we find time for reflection, thinking and rethinking? Reflection and rethinking? Is this necessary? What is it good for? The warnings of „media“ critics like Neil Postman that we might be “entertained or informed to death” don’t actually help us.