Monthly Archives: maaliskuu 2015

The Grim Repair

Normaali

Viikko 14


 

Motion: THW ease the plight of small languages by giving them sovereignty and/or govt. grants and assistance worldwide
Role: Chair (opp.)
Date: Aug 11th, 2013


Dear Assemblage, Chair, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I’d like to talk about ”Linguistic Death?”, which is the overarching rubric of my speech.

I was listening to a well-known TV personality speak about the doom and gloom and death of world languages in the nearest future, leading to the demise of about a half of the world’s 5,600 languages, most of which do not have the support of a working nation-state, printing presses and academia on their side. Namely, it seems that a language should have at least those three things to shore it up in order to make it a viable, vigorous rival in the contest for linguistic livability in the future. After all, most languages are just emotional crutches to their speakers, and they do not fulfill any other criteria.

I speak four languages, half of which are big and thriving and the other half globally speaking provincial and small, even though the latter do have those assets of academia, printing presses and nation-states behind them. I do not think that there are any thoughts in my head that I could not express in one of the said languages. So language(s) do not restrict my thinking (as I do it entirely on my own through mind-restricting substances or other factors). These languages are differing mutually, so that each one of them would cover a slightly distinct terrain in terms of usability. All have been coined and used by the white race, so in that sense they are all alike. But, at least the languages I speak have been able to incorporate e.g. the digital revolution with all its lexemes into their lexicon. The same cannot be said about tribal languages spoken in the jungle, where the colours of different parrots may play a bigger role, in all likelihood, when it comes to linguistic concerns.

What is more, there will also be enough to explore in those Four for the rest of my life, as there will always be hundreds of words that I do not already know, the learning of which would enrich my delivery, and make it smoother and more pleasing to the native ears respectively. What do I do with the riches and pleasures of strange, unknown languages when there are already enough riches in those at the same time familiar but foreign languages that I know?

People do not have the BALLS to say out loud that ”I do not care about the linguistic Holocaust/extinction/genocide”. Period. It would be fine. Why not? Maybe it’s the finality of it all that makes it so hard and frightening, but rationally analysing people should afford that statement without hedging. It does go against the grain of the gut emotional wisdom. Like a screenwriter’s decision, if in the plot an expedition group has gone to a perilous place and most of it has to die in the course of the film, to let the black guy and the white woman survive.

I’ll give a further example of why we do not have to speak the emotional language were were born into in order to be productive (and/or) happy. The Jewish state had to decide what language to opt for in its early days. They chose – ta-dah – Hebrew, which @ that point was a Biblical & clerical, unspoken language like Sanskrit is today. The decision was taken to incorporate all Jews into the state when the alternative would have been to choose spoken, living languages such as English, Russian or Jiddish. Hebrew did not have the historical baggage and burden of those other languages, and that’s why it was chosen. Choose Life. Choose a Language. Thank you.


Puheen kesto: 4 min 32 sek
Arvio: * * *. Puhe on hieman rautalangasta vääntämätön, joten se vaatii herpaantumatonta tarkkaavaisuutta. Siinä ei ihan päästä terävyyteen, jota oman puolensa ensimmäiseltä puhujalta edellytettäisiin. Siitä saa kuitenkin aineksia viedä tarinaa eteenpäin ja lisätä kierroksia.

 

They Have Put Love Into the Water

Normaali

Viikko 13


 

 

MotionTHB that Love is impossible to find in the contemporary West
Role: Chair (opp.)


Dear Assemblage, Chair(wo)man, Ladies and Gentlemen,

How to find lasting love? The trick is to have a humane, right attitude to the problematics of lovematching (not the same as love-making, if hastily heard/read). In the following speech I will give my own outlook on it.

(I write about a woman, but do substitute a male or female love interest according to your gender, which includes ”minorities”.)

The first thing is to understand the importance of the head. Listen to your prospective woman, how she talks and how she expresses herself, not forgetting what motivates her and what missions she does have. If she has no missions, she’s probably a whiney wahine. Stay away from her in that case. Under no circumstances commit to her in a familial-legal manner. So, do prioritise what lies above the neckline.

Next comes the middle area around the heart. Feel your woman. Take note of the contours of her heart, wallet, social circle and human relationships. This area has also to do with eating disorders. Stay away from women who have not overcome them or are (in the process of) developing them. Contrary to testimonials, it is entirely possible to overcome one’s prior disorders (of the juvenile variety) and start cooking and eating healthy, hearty meals. However, anorexics get one thing right to their credit: caloric restriction is the key to a fulfilling and sound life that lasts long.

The last thing is the area below the belt. Basically it’s just an aggregate of droopy flesh that hangs from the crotch. You may ask her and yourself simple questions like: ”Are you OK with your sexual self?”; ”Do you skimp on sex or allow it to yourself more than once a year/decade?” If the answer is Yes you may proceed with mating and copulating.

The problem with people today is that men start their woman-hunt by staring at the mid-region, centering on the wallet. This thing has been ”confirmed” by Henry Laasanen among other academic (men) in their controversial books on the subject of pair-formation and courtship. Capital, be it sexual or financial, seems to be the gravity that pulls people together. The result is a divorce rate that lies astraddle the 50-percent line. One half of marriages, in other words, are tied into a knot in vain and futility by the officiating priest. Somebody should shout from the audience when the priests ask about if there are any objections.

Unfortunately, people do not care nor take note of what I’m saying here. Their eyes are trained to look @ potential partners in the order of facecrotchcleavagebum (crack) → legsbosom → neckmind. Their eyes wander like lemmings. This way they will frequently if not always fall for the wrong candidate.

If you take my advice, start looking @ (each) other (people) from top to toe. You don’t have to stare, in particular if the other person is rough to look at, but it may help. Only, remember that, even if ”there is no consumer protection in human relationships”, you are not obliged or supposed to buy a ”pig in a poke”. Start by looking at what you understand about the ”merchandise” and not just what you imagine there to be ”under the covers”.


Puheen kesto: 4 min 18 sek
Arvio: * * *. Puhe yrittää todistaa hallituksen esitystä vääräksi esittämällä ja kehittämällä itse ne kriteerit tai määritelmät, joilla oikea löytyy. Näin se ei hae tukea objektiivisesta vaan subjektiivisesta arsenaalista. Tämä ei ole kiellettyä, vaikka se voikin olla hieman harvinaisempi ratkaisu. Lähestymistavasta omaperäisyyspisteitä, mutta itse puheessa voitaisiin onnistua ehkä paremminkin.

Cap It, A-List

Normaali

Viikko 12


 

Motion: THB that we need more capitalism in order to overcome the problems in Capitalism in the world today
Role: Chair (opp.)


Dear Assemblage, Chair[wo]man, Ladies and Gentlemen,

There are four so-called ”hard fields” or ”hard professionals” in this world in any given society. They are the following: doctor, lawyer, economist and engineer. Everyone else’s job or workplace is less coveted or less appreciated or less remunerated (as these ”prestige” things go together). Let us take a look at how these professions have shaped the world so far.

It would be safe to say that medicine has made the world a better place. Life spans have soared. We can now expect to live to a hundred, unless cancer = shit happens. Infectious disease have been conquered, and AIDS can be controlled through medication. When 50-year-old women can today declare grandmother status, looking as fit as fiddles, without wrinkles, we know that pensions-age has to be lifted upward, so that money will suffice in society. Medicine has made our lives better, but this does not mean that all doctors do good or are honourable. The field in itself has been fruitful with astute enough practitioners and generous help from pharmacology, biochemistry and so on.

Engineering, likewise, has made our lives better. All the new technology that we use has made it easier to adapt to the world, travelling and business. Houses have become more comely and comfortable, roads less bumpy and vehicles more reliable. Home electronics is a success story, with always some novelty in the shops in the autumn or for Christmas, usually something that adds to our comfortability. On the other hand, big breakthroughs in cars, space travel, fossil fuels, ecology and waste management have been dragging their heels and may never appear. We haven’t made any real progress in decades on those things. Recycling does not eradicate dumps that can be seen from space. And some feats of engineering may be downright dangerous to humans and animals, such as GPS phones and the link-tower revolution. If bees dies, we’ll all die soon.

Justice, or jurisprudence, aims mainly @ the maintenance of the rights of conservatives to keep and retain their properties. The biggest innovation in justice seems to be the so-called class-action suit, i.e. a group of people seeking damages instead of one-on-one justice or cases of the state vs. the individual. On the other hand, litigation per se has become a problem when things could be settled or suffered in silence instead. Petty crimes slow down the wheels of justice when it comes to battling more serious felonies. If I was a judge, I’d deny the right to suing just as gladly as I would grant the right to appeal. Law is treading water, and it has a corrosive effect on society in that its ties to the economical elite and its reluctance to send certain people and certain criminals to prisons weakens its creditability in citizens’ eyes. Law, after all, was to be independent from the other powers that be per Montesquieu.

Of the four strong fields, guilds or trades outlined in the beginning of this speech, what kind of measures, promises and plans for improvement have economics and economists taken and made then? Let us take a look. Bear with the very adverse list…

Liberal and libertarian economists believe in not contributing to taxation and not distributing company ”gold reserves” to others than top brass, proprietary families and shareholders (who often are the very same people). The culture of headhunting has made CEOs mobile (and expendable), while outsourcing has ”redunded” employees. Where there once was responsibility, there is now greed. Trade unions have been squashed by moving all factories that can be to the Far East, where labour is cheap. From Asia the factories will most likely move to Africa, where labour is even cheaper, if Africans learn to work as hard as Asians. Rating agencies cheat their paying customers in hopes of bigger payoffs. Real-estate agents and sellers blow hot air into their prices in order to get heftier commissions. Easy credit is available to people who cannot pay back, or who are extremely vulnerable. MTV is filled with online gambling advertisements during evening and night time; no other kind of advertising exists anymore. Young people do not want to work for a living but ”shine for a living” in positions of fame and celebrity. Things were not well in the past, but there was some sort of equilibrium and temperance in place. Now there is little of that left.

Of the four fields, medicine has advanced the life expectancy of humans to nearly a hundred, while economics and the industrial and commercial life have turned the clock back about a hundred years, when it comes to factory workers’ rights in foreign, strange countries. This is the state of things.

Medicine is the mirror that divulges that some things are being strange or surreal (~ 50-year-old grannies), while economical practices are the thing that IS WRONG, or the abscess, the curing of which will likely make everything else fall right into its place.

Unfortunately, the smoke screens by which we can hide from the world and hide everything else that is amiss in our world prevent us from seeing this. 

Thank You.


Puheen kesto: 6 min 34 sek
Arvio: * * * *. Puhe ottaa hampaisiinsa kapitalismin ja sen mannekiineiksi ekonomit. Se yrittää todistella, ettei jälkimmäisissä ole juuri mitään hyvää. Näin se vihjaa, ettei hallituksen esitys voisi viedä asioita eteenpäin. Toisten on helppo jatkaa tästä haluamiinsa suuntiin. Puhe on myös pitkä ja täyttää aukkonsa melko täydellisesti.

Castle Wolfenstein 3D

Normaali

Viikko 11


 

 

Motion: THB that Westerners should go to Russia to make money rather than bring democracy
Role: Chairman (opp.)


The Govt would want us to believe that Russians are a wicked people who don’t commit themselves to ordinary morality and that they should be colluded with when it comes to their propensity for moral turpitude.

Progress will come to Russia inevitably. It’s understandable that the country should be the Wild East for some time, but as material riches accumulate the need and push for better legitimacy will increase. Putin may be the last rogue ruler of this Eurasian Empire.

What is the lever, the wending of which will cause something inevitably to happen? Putin could be stopped in his tracks by using a strategy consisting of a) freezing of his assets in Cyprus or elsewhere, b) bolstering the democratic movements and press combined with c) becoming independent of Russian riches/assets/commodities globally.

Boycotts are one way of dealing with Russia(ns). Olympic, Eurovision (EBU) and FIFA committees play a significant role in deterring Russians from using their power against their own kin. More emphasis should be put on increasing their role in pressurising Russia into affirmative actions and measures FOR its citizens, not always AGAINST them, including all those dissidents who are tried and jailed unjustly.

Russians are not different from other people(s). They need morals and they have traditions of morality: their own Orthodox brand of church, which has long-standing traditions in saving souls and doing good. Only, the Soviet era erased away Christian spirituality for the duration of some 80 years. Soon thereafter, priests were reinstated.

If Russians are allowed more moral leeway, the problems stack up with other countries, too. African, Asian and other dictatorshits have a harder time abusing their peoples, if and when we don’t allow depredation by Russia, either. If Russia leads the pack of unruly wolf-nations, it has to be smoothly subdued and made less hostile by not allowing it to prosper that freely.

In fact, ”wolf control” is the proper metaphor for reining in Russia. The number of wolves in Finland is (below) 200 (at the most), now. Most wolves don’t dare move near civilization. They keep to the dense and wide wilderness. If wolves come too near human dwellings, they get shot or banished. This should be the way to deal with Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Korean or any other kind of rogue Govts that do not abide by civilized rules. Be a wolf or be a man. Lycanthropy is not an option. Thank you.


Puheen kesto: 3 min 52 sek
Arvio: * * *. Puhe ottaa varsin kielteisen kannan itäisen naapurin nykyiseen hallintoon. Se voidaan nähdä myös (kierolla) tavalla(an) kannanotoksi vastapuolta vastaan; edustaahan vastapuoli myös hallintoa tai hallitusta, ilman että se olisi vastuussa muiden hallintojen tai hallitusten asioista. Tämän tapainen puhe saatettaisiin esittää YK:ssa, kaukana Venäjän vaikutuspiiristä, mutta tuskin tämän vaikutuspiirissä. Kaikille venäläisille/Venäjän etuja puolustaville tiedoksi, että tämä puhe on vain retorista harjoitusta, kuten Recuerdos de la Alhambra on vain näppärä sormiharjoitus.

Screen Doors of Perception

Normaali

Viikko 10


 

 

Motion: THB that modern reality TV does not teach people anything about life
Role: Chairman (opp.)
Date: Oct 14th, 2013


Recently, Celebrity Edition Big Brother ended in Finland in the victory of Jori A. Kopponen, known for his sorcery. It was the first time I watched the show in any capacity. In the past, I could not be bothered, a bit in the same way that I don’t care about the goings’ on on Twitter, especially if the tweets do not come from celebrities. Twitter, as well as Big Brother, is so much better if run by celebrities.

At this point, we could ask what Big Brother represents. It began about ten years ago and quickly established itself in the canon of reality TV. Reality TV, in turn, grew out of the necessity/need to cut costs on entertainment productions, provide contents for the expanding gamut of different channels and answer to the call of the specific zeitgeist of our time. What is the central message of Big Brother? How does Big Brother relate to time and humanity?

As I see it, Big Brother is an experiment. Most people agree upon this, saying that it is an experiment into the human psyche and how well it can bear isolation and exposure and subjugation and forced camaraderie. These things are not rare or new in human history. After all, if we think back, sailors and captains aboard 16th and 17th century trade and battleships lived like that for the most part. Aboard those ships, the captain was the Big Brother and his crew were the participants in the ”house” (=ship). There were also punishments of the sort that we do not see on Big Brother, such as keelhauling, flogging, isolation under the deck and desertion on an island. The worst that can happen to the modern Big Brother community is a bit of wanton violence and an eviction/expulsion. Losing one’s chance @ the prize money is the actual, real punishment.

One aspect of the Big Brother experience, I claim, at this point, on the record, is to mimic the Doomsday Scenario or what follows after the apocalypse. We can assume that the living conditions after a nuclear fallout would not be that much different from the conditions presented on the show. There would be a) cramped living, b) rationing of food, c) socialising with the same people time and again, d) slouching on the coach, e) smoking, f) consuming alcohol (to vent off steam), g) the occasional shag or h) jacuzzi dip. That’s what people do. They need that kind of s**t on a day-to-day basis to survive emotionally. What comes on top of that is called civilisation or cultivation. What has given rise to Doomsday thinking is shows like the Doomsday Preppers that tell earnestly about earnest people bracing for the imaginable worst in a decidedly anti-cyberpunk spirit; the collapse of infrastructure and prevalence of anarchy and an uncivil society. For all that, much greater numbers of people watch shows of the BB sort than shows of the DD sort. BB and DD are obverse (side)s of the same, queer coin.

My personal take on the Big Brother community is that it is not interesting who gets onto the top of the dungheap as the top dog, for we do know instinctively that it mirrors quite well what we have already learnt at school. Namely, we have learnt that one’s popularity has little to do with one’s overall performance and future. Those who do well inside of the Big Brother house do badly without it, and vice versa. However, Big Brother is, deep down, about a test in extroversion: How well do we do, when our mental faculties are stripped to the bare minimum, and all we have to chew on in terms of survival is the social and physical dimension and all their combinations?
I ask you to think about this point of view, while I leave the podium, and let my fellow speaker(s) walk you deeper into the world of reality TV and its different corners. Thank you.


Puheen kesto: 5 min 21 sek
Arvio: * * * * ½ tähteä. Tämä puhe oli jämäkkä ja asiaan menevä, kohdettaan puolustava mutta ei kuitenkaan tekopyhällä tavalla. Puhe vastaa haasteeseen, opettavatko R-TV-ohjelmat meille mitään. Se on luistava ja antaa 2 vastausta haasteeseen aihettaan kuitenkaan tyhjentämättä. Tästä on hyvä jatkaa.