Review of Melt Up Documentary – By Robert Bennington Wier
This blog entry is a review of the documentary titled Melt Up, released in early-ish 2010.
It is 55 minutes long and explains many aspects of the current U.S. ‘debt crisis’ from a U.S.
nationalistic-perspective. Much of the economic information/ statistics that was presented in the documentary is useful for me to see again, as a reminder.
-But my primary point of focus with this blog is the ‘main message’ of this documentary. My review deconstructs the belief-system represented by this ‘main message’, and concentrates ‘it’ to it’s most simple format; my review isolates and clarifies, in simple terms, what beliefs and perspectives are ‘behind-it-all’/ ‘at-the-core of everything’ within this documentary, and places these belief-structures in a global, social and economic context. -When I am finished here, every single person reading will be able to make up their own mind as to the validity and legitimacy of the conclusions and claims which are promoted by the ceators of Melt Up.
(It is not required to watch the entire 55 minutes of Melt Up in order to understand and participate with my blog. I include material from the documentary as it is necessary to illustrate my points.)
Let us begin:
There are two scenes in the documentary where this ‘main message’ particularly stood out to me amongst the sheets and sheets of facts and statistics.
The first scene (Scene 1) plays out like this:
The scene begins with the narrator comparing the United States educational system with the Chinese
educational system. The narrator says that Chinese colleges are graduating more effective workers than the U.S. colleges are- even though in China, College tuition costs much less than it does in the U.S. From this point, the conclusion is made that the reason why the Chinese have more effective colleges, is because the Chinese people do not have governmental domestic financial support (like the “welfare checks” and “food stamps” that we have here in the U.S.– I.e: money that the government takes from the middle and upper class people and gives to the lower class people); and so the Chinese people are “motivated by the fear of starvation” to work harder [than the Americans] to get a college diploma; resulting in their becoming more productive [than the Americans], and in-that, creating a more powerful economy [than the Americans]. At this point in the video, images of Chinese people working in the fashion industry are displayed on screen.
The narrator then continues on, to compare American people to Chinese people. Americans are said to be, on average, lazy, manipulative and unproductive people who will take money from the government when they know they haven’t worked for it (as in theft/ fraud).
[Transcription of Scene 1: “The average annual tuition for a private, 4-year U.S. college in 2009 was
$26,273, up 41% from the average tuition in 2002, of $18, 596. In China, approximately 25 million students pay an average of $400 – $2,200 per year for public and private college tuition. Not only is the cost to attend college in China less than 1/10 the cost in the U.S., we bet it’s pretty safe to say that the Chinese are becoming better educated than Americans, because in China, they don’t have unemployment and food stamps to fall back on. The Chinese are motivated to become educated and work hard to add production to their economy, because if they don’t have a job, they will starve.
The average American has a mind-set where they want to get paid, and live well, while being as lazy as
possible and doing as little work as possible. Why have a job in America, if you can sit home and get paid for doing nothing?”]
I will now simplify the process of logic that is present within Scene 1 into three simple statements:
Statement 1:“Chinese people are economically superior to American people because they produce more.”
Statement 2:“American people are economically inferior to Chinese people because they produce less.”
Assumption 1: “Economic productivity is absolutely required for a stable society.”
Assumption 2: “The dishonest, greedy and manipulative tendencies of people (I.e: stealing money through welfare fraud) are unchangeable on any significant level; there is nothing that can be done to significantly change humanity’s greedy, dishonest and manipulative tendencies.”
Assumption 3: “Because the dishonest, greedy and manipulative tendencies of people are unchangeable on any significant level, and because dishonesty, greed and manipulation within a country/ society is corrosive to economic productivity, it is beneficial to dominate the minds of human beings (with things like fear of death), to mind-control them, control their behavior, and maintain a stable (and productive) society.”
So, now let’s break-down everything that we have established so-far with the presentation of Assumptions 1, 2, and 3. Lets go through each assumption, one-by-one, and take a closer look at their individual ‘parts’, to see what each of the ‘parts’ is all-about, how they relate to the statements made in Scene 1 of the documentary, and what that means about the core beliefs inherent in the philosophy behind Melt Up:
Analysis of Assumption 1:
[Assumption 1: “Economic productivity is required for a stable society.”]
Assumption 1 seems to be the general, central belief which exists within the statements made in Scene 1. -and indeed, it is required for a nation to somehow produce suitable clothing, housing, health-care, functional laws, adequate education, nutritious food and clean water in order for its citizens to live a stable and dignified life in the modern world. –-but are these basic necessities what is being referred to with the word “productive” as it is used in the documentary?
What is being referred to as “productivity” in Melt Up could be more exactly defined as: “promoting materialist consumption”. -because we could “produce” all the crap we wanted, that’s not important, what matters in economics is that other people want to buy it. -Stocking the shelves at your store is not as important as selling your product. Thusly, a society that is designed around “maximal selling” is a society that is likely to develop methodologies and justifications in order to stimulate a maximal quantity of consumption on part of human beings; with this maximal quantity of consumption also having an extremely high likelihood of being destructive to human beings- in some way or another, sooner or later. -This can also simply be said, that: a society which is primarily designed to promote “production”/ “maximal selling” is a society which is not primarily designed to promote the well-being of humans.
Above in this blog entry, I included the images of the Chinese fashion industry, that were used in the documentary, to illustrate just this point. -Because ‘fashion’ is a wonderful example of how “selling a lot of stuff” (and how, through that, having a productive economy) does not make a society stable on its own [as is the belief claimed by Melt Up with Assumption 1].
So now, to double check the statement I made in the paragraph above [that a productive economy does not make a society stable on its own], and doing this using the same evidence that is presented by Melt Up in it’s illustration of it’s claims [a productive fashion industry], let’s ask the question (Question 1):
Question 1: What is fashion?
“Fashion is treated too much like news rather than what it is, what it does, and how it performs.” -Geoffrey Bean
“Fashion is made to become unfashionable.” -Coco Chanel
“Beauty of harmony and style and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity.” -Plato
“Fashion is the science of appearances, and it inspires the desire to seem rather than to be.”
“Fashion is all about eventually becoming naked.” -anonymous
“Fashion is a fashionable vice, and all fashionable vices pass for virtue.” -Moliere“So
soon as fashion becomes universal, it is out of date.” -Marie Von Ebner Eschenbach
“Fashion condemns us to many follies, the greatest is to make ourselves it’s slave.” -Napoleon
In the modern world, fashion is a socially destructive industry controlled by the textile corporations and media tycoons that promotes social-status-related competition between people, intentionally stimulating insecurities, doubts, fears, and ambitious desires; with the end result of these reactions designed to be the development of behavioral and emotional dependency associated with the act of purchasing/ consuming a product, like a particular television show, magazine, perfume/ cologne, makeup, pair of shoes, or piece of clothing.
The fashion industry, much like the war industry and much like the industries that produce pollution,
is an example of how a society designed around “maximal selling” will likely develop and produce self-destructive tendencies. Fashion results in a good many psychological/ emotional disorders within people, male and female, with some of the more common syndromes commonly being defined as: Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia Nervosa, and Body Dismorphic Disorder.
Therefore, after having isolated all of these ‘parts’ [of Assumption 1], we are able to see how Assumption 1 is a statement equivocal to the following:
“The stability of modern society is dependant upon its ability to maintain institutions that produce a mean of destructive influences in order to prompt maximal selling and maximal consumption on part of human beings.”
-so quite the ridiculous statement indeed.
-from here, let’s now continue on to analyze Assumption 2 and Assumption 3:
Analysis of Assumption 2:
[“Assumption 2: The dishonest, greedy and manipulative tendencies of people (I.e: stealing) are unchangeable on any significant level; there is nothing that can be done to significantly change humanity’s greedy, dishonest and manipulative tendencies.”]
In concert with what we have established in our analysis of Assumption 1, we can continue the wording of Assumption 2 onwards, to include the statements that:
Assumption 2b: “Because these greedy, dishonest, and manipulative tendencies are unchangeable on any significant level- greed, dishonesty and manipulation are to be accepted as they exist in the world today, without further question, and immediately dismissed as unchangeable.”
Assumption 2c: “Because these greedy, dishonest and manipulative tendencies are unchangeable on any significant level, no solutions to the current situation of the world exist in which greed, dishonesty, and manipulation can be significantly reduced”
Assumption 2d: “To seriously consider a solution to the current situation in which greed, dishonesty and manipulation can be significantly reduced is irrational/ incognitive.”
We can see, by the development of the statements claimed and implied in Melt Up, that the premise for the documentary is actually quite limited. – This point will become clearer as we analyze Assumption 3 and Scene 2.
Analysis of Assumption 3:
[“Assumption 3: Because the dishonest, greedy and manipulative tendencies of people are unchangeable on any significant level, and because dishonesty, greed and manipulation within a country is corrosive to economic productivity, it is beneficial to dominate the minds of human beings (with things like fear of death/ starvation), to mind-control them, control their behavior and maintain a stable (and productive) society.”]
-What we are seeing within this documentary’s fundamental process of logic certainly sounds a lot like something you would have expected to hear from Stalin, doesn’t it? -It sounds a lot like: “people don’t know what’s good for them so they have to be forced”. Yet- hilariously enough, the creators of this documentary sell themselves to be ‘champions of freedom and democracy’, as you can see in the link below. (This is a clip from Melt Up, played at the very end of the documentary, just before the credits, of a director/ creator of giving a ‘wrap up’ to the movie’s general message.)
-thats what all this talk of ‘production’ is about. It is blindly believed that high production creates a stable society for it’s own sake.
And that’s really, incredibly, funny- because what is being intoned in this is that: ‘what is important about freedom is that people believe that they are free, and not necessarily be-so in-fact’.
I continue our analysis of Assumption 3 with a question (Question 2):
“If we presume, as it is believed, that humanity’s greedy, manipulative, and dishonest tendencies cannot be changed- how then, can mind-control through fear be believed to stabilize anything, if the self-destructive tendencies with humans are not abolished? How is fear going to make anything any better?”
To which I answer:
You’re absolutely right- nothing can be stabalized that way because nothing has actually changed about the human being, who is, of course, the fundamental building-block of society.
So to help clarify the confounding contradictions of this belief-system from Melt Up, I will make a reminder of two points that have been established so far in my blog:
Reminder 1: For Reminder 1 I redirect your attention to Assumption 2b: “Because these greedy,dishonest, and manipulative tendencies are unchangeable on any significant level- greed, dishonesty and manipulation are to be accepted as they exist in the world today, without further question, and immediately dismissed as unchangeable.”
-So while it may seem obvious to many that mass-fear [of death by starvation, punitive action from the state, default, forclosure and bakruptcy] can never stabalize society in the long-term due to it’s destabalizing, destructive effects on human well-being, the underlying/ overall belief-structure implied in this documentary seems to be as I proposed earlier with my presentation of Assumption 2b: not considering the human being at depth; but instead shallowly dismissing such considerations [as what was inherrent in Question 2], because it is believed that the human being cannot be changed at any significant, or ‘deep’, level. -From this kind of limited consideration, solutions are being sought to a human problem without adequately considering the human being.
Reminder 2: For reminder two I quote myself from earlier in this blog:
“This blog entry is a review of the documentary titled Melt Up, released in early-ish 2010. It is 55 minutes long and explains many aspects of the current U.S. ‘debt crisis’ from a U.S. nationalistic-perspective.”
Second: The only ‘temporary aversions’ that are to be considered are the ones in which the people who live under the control of the United States government are the primary beneficiaries (-I.e. “U.S. national self-interest”).
-and then, from this distorted perspective, the ideal possible “solution” to the current ‘economic problems’ of the world is proposed as:
“Solution” 1: Having the U.S. citizens content with consuming things.
“Solution” 2: Having the U.S. citizens occupied with producing/ selling things in order to consume more things.
“Solution” 3: Having the U.S. citizens afraid of the consumption/ selling cycle to stop.
“Soultion” 4: Completely disregarding the rest of humanity.
So, within the context of this belief-system, were we to apply it globally, and not just to the U.S., the phrase “World Peace” could be defined as:
“a situation where as many people as possible on planet Earth were so terrified of committing an
action or speaking a word which would inhibit the international systems of U.S. consumption and selling, that throughout their entire lives they would never dare to commit such an action or speak such a word, resulting in endless and uninterrupted U.S. selling and consuming of resources until there was no more –or, until some miraculous miracle comes out of nowhere, to take all the responsibility, and save us.”
(Maybe Jesus will show up. It is more likely, however, that if humanity does not change, desperation will fuel some kind of Green revolution that will evolve into a revolving cycle of endless consumption- like Soylent Green: Link)
In ‘Scene 2’, just before the end of the documentary (and also just before the ‘wrap up’ I showed earlier where the creator/ producer sold himself as a ‘defender of freedom’), the narrator describes what is believed by the creators of Melt Up to be “the solution” to the problems that were identified in the documentary, specifically referencing back to the conclusions and statements that were made in the comparison of U.S. citizens to Chinese citizens within Scene 1. In Scene 2, The narrator claims that if 20% of the American population watches the 55 minute documentary, they will change their behavior and become able to economically compete with China more effectively- and the ability to best China in economic competition is considered to be the ideal solution to the current situation.
In watching the link below, and considering all we have discussed here, you will see that ‘the message’ of this documentary is in-fact cohesive with what I presented in Assumptions 1-3 and “Solutions” 1-4:
[Transcription: “If we can get just 20% of Americans to become educated about our economy by watching
this documentary, the rest of America will try to emulate us, so that we can together strive to be better than China and prevent a total collapse of the U.S. economic system.”]
Now let us analyze scene 2:
It was established earlier in the documentary that the Chinese people are required to produce and ‘sell stuff’ just as much as people are in the USA.
So theoretically, let’s assume that 20% of the U.S. population does watch this documentary, that they all change their work ethic and become more effective producers and salesmen, that the rest of the U.S. population emulates them in this manner, that the whole plan works out, and that the U.S. takes a position of global economic superiority –like it had in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
What happens to China’s people?
Theoretically, they will starve, like they did in the 1950’s and 60’s.
-but wait, let us start over now and flip it around: Let’s assume that 20% of the U.S. population does not watch this documentary and that current economic trends continue in the direction they are headed. Let’s assume that the U.S. defaults on it’s debts, goes bankrupt, and becomes a poor nation while China takes the U.S.’s former place as the dominant economic world power.
Who starves in that scenario?
Theoretically, the U.S. citizens will starve/ will become poor, and have less buying power and a lower
quality of life, ect.
-One might say that the makers of this documentary believe that there exist inadequate resources to maintain Earth’s population. In response to this, I remind my readers that this documentary was most likely created by a highly educated group of economists who should be aware of the following:
“For decades, the world has grown enough food to nourish everyone adequately. Satellites can spot budding crop failures; shortages can be avoided. In the modern world, like never before, famine by and large is preventable. When it occurs, it represents civilization’s collective failure.”
[-Thurow, Roger; Kilman Scott. ENOUGH: Why the World’s Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty. Perseus Book Group, 2009. Print.]
[Now it is time to begin our final analysis of Scene 1 and Scene 2:]
But let us now play the devil’s advocate and assume that, in fact, there was not enough food. -Even in that situation, would the destructive and exclusive struggle and competition promoted by the ideology of Melt Up be justified? Is it justified to promote the statement: ‘lets all work together to put the Chinese people into a situation where they might very well starve’?– when there are other options? What if the Chinese people had no Food Stamps or Welfare Checks but we, as Americans, did? That can be said to be the current situation already (with Chinese having no financial social-support programs and Americans having-that), to a degree, so in this sense: why should Americans force the Chinese people into poverty? Why should the Chinese nation be forced into a position where they must struggle with all their might to keep their head above the water- when Americans have Food Stamps and Welfare checks? Why not work out a balance of wealth between the nations that is as minimally exclusive, painful and destructive as possible?
The statements made underneath the glossy, patriotic veneer of this documentary are almost sociopathic.
Now it becomes pertinent to ask: Why would anyone espouse such an extreme, destructive and drastic course of action?
-and our answer has already been outlined in our analysis of Assumption 2.
There exists within humanity the belief that no solutions are possible to the global situation that can consider human beings equally, because it is believed that nothing can be done about human’s greedy, dishonest and manipulative tendencies.
[Assumption 2: “The dishonest, greedy and manipulative tendencies of people are unchangeable on any significant level; there is nothing that can be done to significantly change humanity’s greedy, dishonest and manipulative tendencies.”]
Yet the context in which this belief is set [ using our specific example of China and the USA] is rather absurd, because:
If it is impossible for 1,000 million Chinese people to cooperate with the 300 million Americans, what makes it possible for the 300 million Americans to cooperate with one another?
Is it because the similarities of Americans result in their all getting along with one another?
If that was true we would not have such a high divorce rate in America.
If that was true then so many American teenagers would not be pregnant, suicidal, depressive and drug-addicted.
Well, then it might be argued that while Americans’ differences promote conflict amongst each other (I.e: high divorce rate)- Americans are ‘even more different’ from the Chinese than they are from one another, and so Americans will fight even more with Chinese. (–the mentality assumes that cooperation is impossible, and that this justifies isolationism and this ‘fuck the other guy’ mentallity.)
But how different from one another are the Americans and the Chinese in actuality?
To address that question, I will go back to the comparison made by the documentary itself in Scene 1,
where the Chinese were identified as “being productive” and the Americans were identified as being “unproductive”.
So continuing to structure our analysis in conjunction with all the points raised so far, let us inquire now into the nature of “productivity” and what it is able to reveal to us about the true differences between the Americans and Chinese people:
To do this, I will again set up a theoretical situation, similar to one we used earlier :
Let us assume that current economic trends continue in the direction that they are headed, and that China gains and maintains economic world dominance for the next 100 years, so that in the year 2111, two generations of Chinese have been born and raised as successful consumers and salesmen, never having really known the fear of not having enough; -and in this, becoming a mirror of the situation that Americans are in today, having had two generations born and raised as successful consumers and salesmen, never really having known the fear of not having enough.
In this situation of our theoretical future-China, the meaning of life will be as it is in America today: to prepare oneself to buy and sell; and likewise, the purpose of life will be: to go through the motions of buying and selling for the sake of avoiding some vague, forgotten notion of ‘lack’; which, after 100 years, really appears more than anything else to be nothing but a superstitious paranoia that the great-great grandparents developed in ‘the more primitive times’. (-as most middle and upper class Americans can be said to view the notion of lack today.) In this situation of our future-China, would it be likely that the Chinese people would become apathetic, entertainment-addicted and uninterested in life, just like the people of the U.S. are today?
I would say so,
Because what child enjoys being told that they are required to spend their entire lives for the sake of becoming a successful producer and seller? Who plans on that when they are 5?
-but how does that prove that the Chinese and American people are more similar than different?
Because what is not good for Chinese is not good for Americans.
The curent global political and economic situation indicatetes that it has never been seriously considered by any modern society that this system of ‘maximal selling’ (which is currently shared by the U.S. and China) is not supportive of the well-being of humans, of anybody. It is also it indicated that it has never been considered that this system of ‘maximal selling’ cannot possibly last forever, because it is inherently self-destructive.
This disregard for what should be such basic considerations is a difficult mentality/ psychosis to explain, but a great example of this self-destructive mental paradox was displayed in the Dr. Suess book (and movie), The Lorax. In the story, there is a character called ‘the Onceler’ (“Wuns’ul-er”– “Wuns’” as in “Once”). The Onceler was a salesman who became a business tycoon by over-harvesting the Truffula Trees for industry, for “progress”, for “productivity”- and in the process, completely devastating the local environment (obviously an analogy to the devastation of modern capitalism.)
At one point in the story, the Onceler describes his methodology for justifying to himself the continuation of his self-destructive behavior. He described the experience of questioning why he wants to destroy his own world- and in the end he justifies himself, to himself, without explanation, by claiming that “but others would do it if I didn’t.”
(-and again, it is difficult to explain; but Dr. Suess puts it into clear perpective contextually. Please watch the video down below these pictures from the animated version of The Lorax book. The video makes what I am describing very simple to understand.)
[Transcription:“Every once in a while I sit down with myself asking:-‘Onceler. Why are you a Onceler?’
and I cringe, I don’t smile, as I sit there on trial, asking:-‘Aren’t you ashamed? You old Onceler. You ‘ought to be locked in a hooskow you should. The things that you do are completely ungood.’yes, but if I didn’t do them then someone else would.-‘that’s a very good point Mr. Onceler.’Progress is progress; and progress must grow!”]
So the Onceler is demonstrating to us the same ideology that is influencing the Melt Up documentary, that we described in direct language in Assumptions 1-2d.
[Assumption 1: “Economic productivity is absolutely required for a stable nation-state.”
Assumption 2: “The dishonest, greedy and manipulative tendencies of people (I.e: Stealing money
through welfare fraud) are unchangeable on any significant level; there is nothing that can be done to significantly change humanity’s greedy, dishonest and manipulative tendencies.[2b] Because these greedy, dishonest, and manipulative tendencies are unchangeable on any significant level, greed, dishonesty and manipulation are to be accepted as they exist in the world today, and immediately dismissed as unchangeable.[2c] Because these greedy, dishonest and manipulative tendencies are unchangeable on any significant level, no solutions to the current situation of the world exist in which greed, dishonesty, and manipulation can be significantly reduced. [2d] To seriously consider a solution to the current situation in which greed, dishonesty and manipulation can be significantly reduced is irrational/ incognitive.”]
And as ridiculous as these notions are, what we are seeing here in Melt Up is a demonstration of some beliefs that are fundamental components of not only the American economic system, but now the generally accepted economic and social model- worldwide.
So some questions that are pertinent here: What causes so many educated people to use such shoddy logic? What force influences the apparent ‘best and brightest’ of us to jump to conclusions so recklessly? Why have we all gone crazy?
It is because of fear. Fear always makes you stupid as hell.
It is the fear of loss. It is the deep, terrible, penetrating terror of knowing at the core of your being that society is not watching out for you, that you are in effect ‘on your own.’ -It is more than fearing to loose your house in financial collapse, it is a fear too terrible to concieve: a fear of losing absolutely everything you have ever known.
Nobody wants to realize this fear until they are faced with the reality of actually having to experience a situatuion where ‘everything I have ever known or trusted falls to pieces.’
This is the fear that possesses nations to build armies, to constantly create more weapons even when there exists no use for them.
This is the fear that possesses the creators of Melt Up to justify using fear of “starvation” to force ‘an unmentioned populace’ into ‘working harder’, because that is what they, themselves, are already possessed with.
This is the fear that possesses the creators of Melt Up to justify acting to create a world where the Chinese can possibly starve to death.
because acting out of fear always makes you greedy.
Thusly, the intellectuals of the world do not believe, and do not want to believe, that it is possible to share the world with anyone else outside of their respective group (as in: culture, nation, religion, ect.) -because we are all aware that by acting out of fear to protect ourselves, we will create a reality where what we fear is pushed onto somebody else.
This insanity makes the impossible possible: a world of lack when there exists plenty. A world where some starve while others have more food than they can eat. A world where we a have all the tools needed to feed and clothe cevery child on the world, but lack the willpower to do it.
All the technology, all the intelligence of the world is useless without having the dignity and honor within ourselves to honestly face our fears.
If the people of Earth do not lean how to face our fears, everyone will be forced into a situation where we lose everything- because everyone will be trying to force the suffering onto somebody else. With this fear currently infecting the entire global economic system, losing everything you know is curently inevitable. Likely the disaster will happen within our lifetimes.
The situation of the world will only improve when people learn how to share with one another.
“Sharing” does not mean: ‘donating some money to make yourself feel better’.
Sharing means: being willing to consider giving up that which you know in order to ensure that all people are considered equally.
Let us say that two kids have a watermelon while they sit in a feild. If one child takes 90% of the watermelon and then gives the other child 10% of the watermelon because he feels guilty, is that sharing?
Sharing means “being willing to stop the fear of having no watermelon for yourself, so that you can act rationally and split the thing 50/50. Equally.”
This is kindergarten-level learning that we do not understand at a global level.
Watch this clip of a young girl speaking at a United Nations meeting and be amazed at how simple the solution to our economic problems really is:
[Transcription: “Hello. Im Severn Suzuki speaking for ECO, the Environmental Children’s Organization, we are a group of twelve and thirteen year olds trying to make a difference… We have raised all the money to come here [to a European Union in Brazil] ourselves, to come five thousand miles to tell you adults you must change your ways.
I am only a child yet I know we are all a part of a family, five billion strong- in fact, 30 million species strong, and boarders and governments will never change that. I am only a child yet I know we are all in this together and should act as one single world, towards one single goal. In my anger I am not blind, and in my fear I am not afraid of telling the world how I feel.
In my country, we make so much waste; we buy and throw away, buy and throw away, buy and throw away; and yet northern countries will not share with the needy. Even when we have more than enough, we are afraid to share. We are afraid to let go of some of our wealth.”]
Influenced and possessed by fear promulgated by the struggle to survive, we as human beings have become stupid and greedy, believing and cherishing ideas like “Nationalism” for their perceived abilities to protect us from our own fears, from ourselves. But as, out of greed, we fear to share with our fellow-man, the world has become a system of exclusive, destructive, and brutal competition that results in starvation and war. The current social and economic global systems are designed to inevitably self-destruct, creating an era of suffering and desperation on a magnitude which will surpass the depravity of the dark ages.
I am here to tell you that it is possible to stop. It is possible to stop the cut-throat competition and exploitation. It is possible to stop starvation. It is possible to stop economic collapse. It is possible to stop your fears.
It is possible to share.There is enough for everyone.
I am here to tell you that it is possible to live in a world where the basic necessities are guaranteed to each man, woman and child- including you.
Plastic Surgery Guide. George Lindemann.
September 10, 2007. Plastic Surgery News. May 28, 2011 <
Thurow, Roger; Kilman Scott. ENOUGH: Why the World’s Poorest Starve
in an Age of Plenty. Perseus Book Group, 2009. Print.
Fashion Gates.com. May 11, 2007. May 28, 2011. Beauty.com.ua