Go home, Occupy Movement!!

Consequently, all cyber-social Networks and related search engines are far away from what they are portrayed to be: a decentralized but unified intelligence (navigated by gravity of quality rather than of a specific locality). In fact, they primarily serve the predictability, efficiency, calculability and control purpose, and only then they serve everything else – as to be e.g. user-friendly and en mass service attractive. To observe the new dynamics of social phenomenology between manipulative fetishisation (probability) and self-trivialization (possibility), the Cyber-social Platforms –these dustbins of human empathy in the muddy suburbs of consciousness– are particularly interesting.

Facebookitself is a perfect example of how to utilize (to simulate, instead of to stimulate and empathically live) human contents. Its toolkit offers efficient, rationalized, predictable, clean, transparent, and most intriguing of all, very user-friendly convenient reduction of all possible relations between two individuals: 'friend', 'no-friend'. It sets a universal language, so standardized and uncomplicated that even any machine can understand it – a binary code: '1' (friend) '0' (no-friend), or eventually '1' (brother/sister), '1/0' (friend), '0' no-friend – just two digits to feed precise algorithmic calculations. Remember, number is the king. Gott ist tot, dear Nietzsche – so are men.

Be it occupied or besieged, McDonalds will keep up its menu. Instead, we should finally occupy ourselves (e.g. by reducing enormous tweet/mob noise pollution in and all around us).

It is a high time to replace the dis-conceptualflux on streets for a silent reflection at home.

Sorry Garcin, hell is not other people. Hell are we!!

Post Scriptum:

In his emotionally charged speech of December 2011, President Obama openly warned the US citizens: "Inequality distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists (…) the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century (…) Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1%. One per cent! (...) The free market has never been a free license to take whatever you want from whoever you can…"

(The Oswatomie High School, Kansas, 06 December 2011, the While House Press Release).

Two months before that speech, the highly respected, politically balanced and bipartisan Budget Office of the US Congress (CBO) released its own study "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income between 1979 and 2007" (October 2011). The CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by: 275% for the top 1% of the US households, 65% increase for the next 19% of households, less than a 40% increase for the following segment of households of the next 60%, and finally only an 18% income increase for the bottom of 20% of the US households. If we consider an inflation for the examined period of nearly 30 years, then the nominal growth would turn to a negative increase in real incomes for almost 80% of the US households; a single digit real income increase for the upper 19% of households; and still a three-digit income growth for the top 1% of population.

According to the available internet search engine counters, this CBO study has been retrieved 74,000 times since posted some 3 months ago. For the sake of comparison, an average clip of great- granddaughter of ultra-rich, billionaire Conrad Hilton is clicked on YouTube over 31 million times. Roughly 3 million Americans would represent the top 1% of its population. Who are other 99% – pardon, 28 million individuals – interested in trivial clip/s (with obscure but explicit lines: They can't do this to me, I'm rich) of Miss Paris?

Remember what I asked at the beginning of this article: If humans hardly ever question fetishisation or oppose the (self-) trivialization, why then is the subsequent brutalization a surprise to them?