Outmoded by the reality...

the work of beavers.

A Swedish writer, Maria-Pia Boëthius in a leader-chronicle:

Media is trying to make the debate apolitical, but she thinks this won’t be a successful strategy because the policy is on its way back. And this time not as entertainment – but as a necessity for life.

She wonders what the next bubble bursting will be. Presumably the blown-up entertainment industry, which during the mad-capitalism consumed “the most of it”: the policy, the literature, the societal debate and so on.

To make the debate apolitical and push it in the direction entertainment the Medias have employed a young, trend setting generation whose premier merit has been that it has cooperated with the power and Mammon.

The myth is that every generation is making revolt, but this Media-generation has “liked the situation” and been the power of assistance through uninterruptedly dramatizing the consumption and create debates, not least through attacks on different celebrities, half-celebrities and arrange distributions of prizes where they give each other prizes. What is their rebellion about? Against what? How?

In Sweden we have many established truths to get out of. One says that all political parties, except for maybe the left party – have accepted the market-economy. But now there is no consensus about what this market economy is or how it shall become designed in the future, so it is fairly uncertain what the parties actually are in agreement about. Boëthius thinks the parties don’t even know themselves.

She had heard an interview on radio with a sociologist from London School of Economics saying that we will now see nationalizing, socializing of – not only banks.

“Isn’t that leftish?”

the reporter asked.

And Boëthius was struck by the thought that she had never heard a public-service-reporter ask:

“Isn’t that rightist? Isn’t that neoliberal?”

in a challenging voice – as if public service instead of trying to be neutral make itself known as non-left.

The British sociologist laughed at the question and replied:

“If I had said that the British state would nationalize banks one year ago one had seen me as mad!”

The high-sounding empty phrases from media that “all political parties are alike” isn’t true she thinks. Does media has interests in that politics become that??

She thinks that politics is coming back, not as entertainment, but as a life necessity. And that the symbiosis between politicians and media is dissolving.

The experience-industry and the blown up entertainment industry suddenly seem outmoded and passed by the reality. The reality itself has shown to be far more dramatic than any manuscript-author could have thought out.

About the FRA-law, the need for power and control - and integrity violations...

a sea of meadow flowers.

The Swedish Riksdag or Parliament has voted a new law (what is called the FRA-law) through where authorities are allowed to check our emails, the text-messages we send, what sites at the internet we visit etc. and to store it. And we have a right-government and a right majority in the Riksdag…

The blogger Jenny W. writes that (a little freely):

“An important reason that this FRA-law is so horrid is that it can be used against dissidents and whip consensus forward through fright. For us who don’t see more than said diseases [everyday and everywhere] when we read the daily and evening papers and in our talk with the rank-and-file [gemene] journalist, the law comes out as a codification of the already present state of affairs than a real change of them (excuse me for not crying myself to death over the threatened protection of sources [källskydd], but it feels as if that isn’t really the obstacle for newspapers writing about ’dangerous’ things – but, fine, it’s sickly serious that the state has usurped this tool of controlling nevertheless, and of course I understand that protection of sources is important)./…/

Say something dangerous instead [she thinks the rage in the bloggosphere over this law is mostly because it is comme il faut, and for people to prove they stand on the little human being’s side], something dangerous, so it feels as if the law really can’t be imported without threatening values which usually ought to be important. Not this sort of copies' rattle against the power, so they can feel as part of the power.”

The need for power, and control from the power! See Bob Scharf’s essay “Leaders,” that

“…the more defended psychoclasses tend to lead.”

Yes, what we see in many (maybe most) politicians, and from where does the need for power come (be it on a familial level or a societal, even a global)? The power’s arrogance!!! And entire lack of feelings or empathy…

Another blogger at Motvallsbloggen writes that

“There is another reason, the more serious, to be critical to the FRA-law [than file-sharing] because it implies a great departure from democratic principles. Such as that this law is just another part of a pattern that becomes clearer and clearer. The pattern shows a strong will from the governing elites' part to control the populations in the West-world before what’s coming, namely the entire abolishing of the democracy and an even greater pressure on the populations, where it won’t feel as important in the future whether you can share files from the net or not. The FRA-law is only part of an even darker and disagreeable pattern.”

This blogger also writes that there is no real opposition today either! Not from the left either!!! True! And this is really scary...

What can this law mean? That we become careful about what we write and express without even being aware of it too?

And is this really a control-instrument against terrorism (as is said)?? Because the ones with bad intentions already have all means to hide their doings??

It’s violation of the integrity of people in general in the worst manner!!

I come to think of parents reading their children’s letters and diaries…

Yes, there ought to be reactions even from the surrounding world!??? Both on what’s happening here and what’s happening in ones own home-countries! It IS very important we try to influence the state of affairs?? By voting if nothing else!?

Once again, yes, we minimize and belittle, if not deny, that we are violated??? In a similar manner as stood in “The Prize we pay for shaming little boys”:

The reluctance of Germans to ‘know about’ what was done to them after the fighting was over reminds me of those three little monkeys: See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil. In my twenty years as a psychotherapist treating survivors of childhood trauma, I am familiar with this tendency of those who were once helpless to minimize the impact abuse has had on their lives. It is the same with my abused clients who trivialize the beatings of their childhood, saying they deserved to be hit, that they were very bad children. People who have been traumatized tend to normalize their traumatic situations.

It is hard for humans to accept that they were powerless to protect themselves from deliberate mistreatment. They are much more likely to take the blame for having been abused."

And that about obedience, instilling it in children, to be in advance of their supposed innate evilness... Arhur Silber has come back to the theme obedience in his Alice Miller-essays... That's what we see in too many of our politicians in our government today?