GuidoWorld

In my last post I used lyrics from my song Mob Rule to point out the similarities between modern Democracies and mob rule. In both cases it really is the majority which has the power whether that be noble or bigoted. Obviously most people are just part of the heard so in actuality it is the people who motivate the herd who have the power. Likewise in mob rule the same holds true the power is in the mob, but mainly in who incites the mob.

In Puppeteers I deal with another aspect of rule and influence and that is the power of the audience. Modern democratic elections are little more than popularity contests with a great deal of attention paid to polls and presentation managed by handlers. Political platforms are more fashioned by public reaction than personal conviction. Speeches are molded by public reaction as a politician fine tunes his speeches based on applause and poll information from previous addresses.

The only thing that keeps modern politicians from becoming complete slaves to the voting public’s reaction to them is their ability to use perceptual management techniques (propaganda). In this regard people are conditioned to support or reject views and policies of the candidates and the government in general.

Modern politics is a blend of power of the political machinery through perceptual management in which emotions such as fear, hatred and patriotism are molded and the  power of the populace as a voting machine. The only true power we have as a group is in our role as voting audience in which our politicians are truly public servants dancing to our tune.

The following lyrics are from  Puppeteers a song I wrote years ago when I was performing out. The song was born out of my recognition of the power of my audience. It was their applause and indifference which molded my stage performance and guided my artistic development. No matter how revolutionary of an artist one considers oneself one is always beholding to one’s audience no matter how iconoclastic that audience may be.

This song was written in the late 70′s. You can hear it by choosing the TeenAngster album in the music section and clicking of the mp3 icon for Puppeteers.

Puppeteers

I did pace all night long as others celebrated
Everything felt all wrong, my fears elongated
I just read a book by a man so educated
The inner workings that usually hide, his vision penetrated
But where is he now, where is his voice?
My vision is not so complete, yet I’m compelled to speak
My insight is far surpassed by I cannot, I will not live this way
If I could I would remain quiet, and modest, aloof from your gaze

Fearing losing my form to the puppeteers
My steps, you take, you’re mistaken you tug at my strings

My body shivered in the sweat that grew from my compunction
I thought and thought and prayed, till I could no longer function
I wish somebody else would take my place
For my body is folding under the force of your weight
Please don’t pump me up, have me look at what I’m saying
As I gain I lose control, the power to make a statement

I’m not sure where I begin, I’m talking, you’re talking, I’m talking again
Like my silhouette on the shade it’s growing, it’s shrinking
The light cuts my shape

Fearing losing my form to the puppeteers
My steps, you take, you’re mistaken you tug at my strings

Take these strings from the top of my head

Jim Guido

Our current form of Democracy has more in common with mob rule and anarchy than one would think. The following lyrics to Mob Rule highlight some of these similarities. You can listen to the song by clicking on the music section and going to the album Edge of Eden. Mob Rule will be the second song.

Why do we teach kids to share? It surely is not a value we hold for adults, or even kdis as they get older.

Adults who advocate for sharing in a soceital manner are labeled Communists or Socialists, and these terms are bandied about with the same attitide as mass murderer or parasite.

I remember seeing old sitcoms from the 50′s and 60′s in which couples dealt poorly with the perils of lending friends a tool of some sort. In fact most couples who had neighbor couples as friends were sure to almost lose their friendship over a lent item not being returned. This was true in comedy classics such as Dick Van Dyke, I Love Lucy and the Honeymooners and even cartoon families such as the Flintstones. In each case the episodes were almost a carbon copy of each other whereby a central character gives his neighbor a tool or possession and soon wishes he/she had it back. After much complaining to their spouse and countless visually humorous hints the situation escalates to where the couples long term friendship is endangered.

Even after the situation gets resolved with some good old fashion direct communication the moral of the story is quite clear. If you want to keep your friends do not share any tools or possessions, just go out and buy your own things and encourage all your friends to do the same. In early television, season after season the sponsor oriented script basically told people that the best way to keep friends is not to share.

Sharing and giving people things and services for free is deemed highly detrimental to their character and personal development. People who “get things handed to them” are spoiled, lazy and feel entitled. Sharing and helping insure that someone has life’s necessities is enabling them to be a burden to society.

We live in a competitive culture where losing is viewed just as deserved as winning. Those who are wealthy have earned their good fortune. Likewise those who are poor only have themselves to blame. Those who don’t make it to the top just needed to try harder or be more resourceful.

This results in us having a culture which encourages and rewards characteristics such as compulsion, obsessiveness, ruthlessness and selfishness. When success is a race the person who takes the time to help a friend, spend time with loved ones, or pick up a person who has fallen down will lose the race.

Anyone who balances ambition with any form of diversity or humanity will be at a huge disadvantage.

When you think about how our culture works and how we are taught to view the world of social success we really should be telling our kids to be more selfish and focused. Instead of telling Chad to share the ball with Andrew we should be shouting for him to keep the ball and take pride in his ability to provide for himself and be successful. Chad’s parents should teach him the value of being ambitious and using your talents to get what you want. Being a kind person only leads to character weaknesses and a lack of success. The more Chad shares with his peers the weaker he becomes and the more he is disabling his peers from learning how to succeed in our culture. The little wimps who are crying need to not expect hand outs in this world and not feel entitled to having things given to them.

I, of course, feel that sharing is a good thing. I do not feel that I deserve more than someone else just because I may be smarter or more clever than they.

Actually the belief that the most talented, smartest, inventive and gifted rise to the top and become the most successful is a myth. I’ve been a musician most of my life and those who have “made it” or been the most financially successful have not been the most talented musicians. Likewise I’ve spent over 30 years in Human Services and I can tell you that the most gifted and therapeutic workers have often been poorly rewarded or recognized.

Being successful has more to do with some of the characteristics I mentioned early such as ambition, drive, ruthlessness and manic focus. Also success often has more to do with connections and fortunate circumstances.

Personally I’d rather live in a society that rewards kindness and empathy and tries to dissuade selfishness and ruthlessness.

I would rather have Chad give the ball to Andrew and look at giving and sharing as positive qualities to exercise all through life.

Yet teaching Chad to share when he’s in his early years and then deride him for this same skill as he ages makes no sense at all.

Jim Guido

First, I want to apologize for the site being down for a couple of weeks. There were technical problems that became major communication issues with internet infrastructure.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. In fact, I would say that I currently find the entire political system in the US to be unworthy of my personal investment. This is because the US government and the political system do not meet miminal expectations.

The ancient Greeks and Romans understood that personal happiness and freedom were the basic values of quality human existence. Aristotle in particular stated that the only true purpose of government is to create a social environment capable of allowing individuals to find happiness. A good government would try to insure that my happiness did not preclude or hinder the happiness of someone else.

A government or a society cannot make individual citizens happy. What they can do is provide its citizens with the  resources and structure to improve their quality of life. A good society would be one that has ample food, shelter and clothing and that provides for the basic needs of its citizens. A good society would provide the means to a satisfactory quality of life while protecting its citizens from unnecessary harm and suffering.

No society is perfect but at least its intentions should be noble and life supporting. These should be minimal expectations.

No society or government is worthy of its existence if it acts in ways which are contrary to or in opposition of individual happiness and freedom. A government which acts in ways which purposely increase human suffering or refuses to act in ways which reduce human suffering is not worthy of our support and appreciation.

Our society and government choose to deny people health coverage, act in ways which encourages homelessness and hunger. Our government acts in ways and makes decisions resulting in the suffering and starvation of millions of people throughout the globe. We are imprisoning people without a trial and denying the means to have a trial. We are currently torturing people, and have a history of training others how to torture their citizens. We are bombing innocent citizens in lands with the hope of killing a few people we deem to be “terrorists.” We are using banned substances such as white phosphorous resulting in the melting of human flesh.

Though I could continue this list of heinous acts executed by our government on its own citizens as well as others around the world, I prefer not to. I’m sure many would take issue with some of this partial list and many others would defend our actions by stating our need to defend our freedom or the need to act and live in a real world filled with violence and pain.

I find it difficult to support any politician who takes these heinous policies as a given. Since no politician has found our inhumane policies worthy of a hunger strike or making it their first priority, then I cannot support them or make them my first priority. If human suffering and the quality of human life isn’t the first priority of a public servant than what is?

Some may think I’m asking for too much or am not thinking practically, but all I’m asking for is for us to act towards others and ourselves in a caring manner.  Why is that asking too much? Why is that unrealistic?

What parent says that trying to provide their child with food, shelter, clothing and health care is an unreasonable goal? Who would claim a parent, no matter how nice they appeared, who did not provide for their child’s welfare and basic needs a good parent?  Think of how angry you would be to find a child hungry and cold when the parent’s are wealthy and well fed.

Our society and government act and function as our protectors and our guardians. Any decision to feed some and let others starve and die from lack of care is unacceptable, and I for one refuse to ignore this and move on. These are my minimal expectations.

If someone wants me to be proud to be an American or a citizen of the global community than we need to start at job one. We need to start at the level of providing all with basic needs and not make it something to be earned. I’m sure some of you could make a case for why some people do not deserve our care and kindness, but I doubt if you could make a case for the millions of children and civilians who die needlessly from malnutrition, disease and political conflict.

Care and kindness may sometimes be hard to justify but not as often as hatred and bigotry.

When did we decide that being a nice person was unrealistic?

Jim Guido