Blog

The questions of a bewildered poor man

By Major General Konstantinos Argyropoulos (ret.)

I admit that I am unable to reach the knowledge of the things that govern the vector of the life of a rational being on Earth. How is that possible? Things are infinite and their synthetic combinations are covertly infinite. And the interpretations of all these things roll endlessly into the vastness of infinitely contracting-expanding concepts.
Nevertheless, I attempt, with my remaining sanity and meditative competence, to overcome the eternal concepts, so that I may approach knowledge at a satisfactory level. To approach at least the boundaries of myself. In other words, to know myself, in relation to the currently forming environment. This effort, as I believe, is not mine alone. It is a common trait of those people who make the effort to activate a faith that is oriented towards the modern receptive concern about knowledge.
The above quotes constitute a minimal attempt to excite readers, so that they may share in my confusion, the astonished stranger.
Naturally, some will react jokingly. Others neutrally. Others indifferently. They may say: “So what? What does this mysterious gentleman have to do with me?” Let us bid farewell to these non-consensual readers and move on with the patient rest.
One of my main questions is how the scientific lexicon of modernity"Papyrus" explains to us that it is the trend towards the new, innovative spirit, modernism. "Bambiniotis" tells us that is the situation brought about by the European Enlightenment in the field of science, philosophy, aesthetic theory, etc., and which is characterized by the critical function of reason at all levels, thus determining the physiognomy of industrial and post-industrial societies.
And I ask if modernity is globalization. And how is the correct discourse of the dictionary applied? And at what levels? I see that the global community, to a large extent, revolves within frameworks of tolerance. Poverty is expanding. The transformed land areas are exhausted. Fertilizers and herbicides limit the purity and nutritional value of the earth's products. The water has been polluted. (Do you know, by the way, that the sewage network of the town of Lidoriki ends in Lake Mornos?)
We hear that available land is being "seized" by large interests to create beach or mountain resorts, golf courses and other related uses, or is it even subject to the pressure of emerging structural adjustment programs to yield more agricultural products? Has the living space of ordinary individuals begun to be limited?
I see a high degree of probability, based on the version of capitalist modernity, that this modern capitalism tends to be strangled by the waste it produces uncontrollably. Waste that it can neither assimilate, nor eliminate, nor render non-toxic. Therefore?
Do we understand the long-term consequences of the growing masses of human waste on the political and social balances of human coexistence in an emerging globalized world? And then what happens to the "unnecessary people"? , which are currently produced on a mass scale in regions that have already been immersed in the pool of the idea of ​​globalized modernity? What happens to the disappearance of the expectation for a modern way of life, without differences in a globally homogeneous environment? It is most likely that it has been assessed that this possibility poses risks for the possessing groups of the privileged.
The “superfluous population” is no longer a theoretical object of sociologists. The superfluous population, remaining within the examined social enclosure, is conflated with the other “useful” and “legal” ones, resulting in a worrying ambiguity in the dividing lines between “normal” and “abnormal”. Who is classified as waste? This potential prospect can knock on the door of each of us. The social position of each of us enters a phase of oscillation. I began to wonder, in what would the social, economic and insurance system consider me useful? Am I waste?
The ethnic cleansing massacres, the proliferation of guerrilla and terrorist groups, the bandits, the pirates, the drug traffickers and the other merchants of flesh of all colors, all of them have donned the helmet of the freedom fighter and are engaged in decimations, mainly of a competitive nature. The above-mentioned also contribute to the cause that generates refugees. Consequently, when I hear about refugees and fugitives and asylum seekers, I ask myself whether and why I should be sympathetic towards this type of intruders. Should I have reservations, thinking that these uninvited invaders will transfer their own perception and practice of laws and things to my own "fenced" space? At least this is what crime statistics testify to, despite the assurances to the contrary from the governments of each time, which are distinguished by the tropism of their representatives, in order to keep the flock quiet in the fold.
An honest policy, within the framework of a global modernity, would be to dispose of superfluous people and not to “produce” waste. Instead, however, we see the rich West demolishing or getting rid of, as counterproductive or economically unsustainable, all the old arrangements of preventive measures against waste generation. And not only that, but it is also waging “globalizing” wars, resulting in the destabilization of many centralized societies.
Every day we see that even the phenomenon of the flood of economic migrants creates sources of income for willing "businesses" of traffickers. In this atmosphere of lawlessness, those who have and whose "might is right" survive and also that the high-ranking and powerful can ignore and bypass the laws that apply only to the poor. Is it or is it not true that wealth and power determine not only economics, but also morality and politics? (What a stupid question?) Therefore, they also determine the conditions of my own life. Am I wrong?
Even the classic form of wars, which until yesterday we read in history books, have today become deregulated. As those who know say, this is a threatening consequence of globalization, where most of the actions that resemble wars are carried out by non-state entities (e.g. Black Water) and are not subject to laws and international conventions. And I ask. Are these phenomena not a result or collateral causes of the erosion of the prestige and sovereignty of what were previously known as state entities? And if so, does not all this seem like a new condition of an anarchic world, which sets its own terms in order to prevail in a supra-state globalized space?
And then I think, that all those who escape from a place where lawlessness prevails seek out spaces of the civilized West to protect themselves and who ultimately play the role of bees that transport the material (particularities of the place of origin), which they know and perfectly process, to other hives, and who - fugitives, refugees, immigrants - without being stingers contribute to the birth of a new, all-encompassing society. The New Wild West. Because these "refugees" have other racial constants. Other national characteristics and other personal affairs of each one for which, moreover, it is impossible for us to clarify the degree of their virtue or the criminality for which, moreover, they are persecuted(?) in their country of origin. This heterochromia, the dissimilarity, the contrast of characteristics and the obvious misery, makes them "different". They themselves feel stateless - and they themselves declare it - where they place this alienation of theirs on a level that does not correspond, due to the indeterminacy of their presence in the new space, to any of their political status. They are individuals who exist ambiguously and accidentally sail alongside the - specific route - ship of the natives.  
And if this is so, why do the party mechanisms, through various tricks, count on the votes of such entities, since they know in advance that tomorrow's special situation will require the imposition of conditions of a nature that alters social norms, on the part of the newly contracted masses of people of different beliefs?
And don't tell me that a Muslim will assimilate and integrate into an area of ​​extensive Christian density? I would say that the opposite will happen. It is the Christians who will be Muslimized. At least the global statistics testify to this.
But the willingness of the native inhabitants of the countries-containers of immigrants, to accept the uninvited guests, as legitimate and recognized members of the newly formed multicultural and "humanized society", is weak. Neutral, we would say. The ones who are the most vocal about the presence of foreigners are the journalists and those who in any way shape common trends and currents. And we clearly suspect the motives, intentions, plans, orientations and what is being leaked. And let's not forget the symbolism of the "thirty pieces of silver" and the polygamy over the interpretation of the concept of "selfishness". Immigrants are essentially unwanted. However, they are convenient in the service of native individuals, who use them mainly on the condition and basis of a shadow economy, and the official state does not seem to have any participation in this parallel market. But again, am I wrong? Is the state reaping the benefits in a wrong way? Because if taxes were paid normally by the villagers (I am referring to the Greek reality), then the local small employer would suffer double losses. One loss would be financial. The other loss would again be financial, because the state would have to increase taxation in order to establish, organize and operate strong mechanisms to control the hopeless immigrants, who, hungry and thirsty, would proceed to uncontrolled criminal acts. Unless he has decided to feed them, since he accepts as an axiom that he lacks the will to free himself from the presence of such a voluminous pulp of an impersonal mass, which, in its depravity and ignorance, would explode like a supernova, signaling the end of an era and the beginning of chaos.
But the natives, exhausted by the absence of the possibility of using slaves, but regular collaborators and in the future partners, are likely to enter a state of economic drain. Unless they revise their theories on labor and activate the unemployed descendants, first degree relatives, who, having obtained a sufficient number of degrees from domestic universities of the highest ranking, claim in the cafeterias that their qualifications do not allow them to take humiliating jobs, and even those slightly inferior to those of managerial executives.
In any case, the degradation of moral structure, the waste of the luxury of expectations and the impoverishment of the lifestyle of the individuals of society frightens governments, because when the masses consider themselves to be annihilated, then they rebel against authority. Hence the phenomenon of government tolerance. Or am I wrong? If you do not agree, call me.
Some of you, perhaps more thoughtful, may decide that this is a phenomenon that shapes a specter of “global powers.” Powers that are faced with fear and discomfort because they act without consulting those who will be affected by the results of their decisions. You will tell me that a ruling elite of the globalized world has emerged, which is responsible for the phenomenon and that this elite has no ties to any specific place and that the beings that make up the elite are deceitful and unpredictable. Some may formulate the version that this invisible world is the epitome of the unfathomable “space of flows,” where the roots of the current precariousness of the human condition and the feeling of insecurity, regarding the physical existence, must be sought in great depth. So this elite is indeed too powerful for anyone to oppose and challenge, even if the details of its exact address were known.  
On the other hand, these refugees, immigrants, and all the unfortunate and hopeless are the easy target to vent the excess anger of those who are under the pressure of whatever elite regulates our lives.
We have entered a negatively wonderful new world of vanished and perforated borders. We swim to stay afloat in an information flood. We helplessly watch in awe the rampant globalization. Our consumerism blinds us so much that we are unable to see the future of our children. We are deeply excluded in the microcosm of a misinterpreted self-consciousness, which forbids us to distinguish ourselves as a member of an external world. A world with the provision of virtue, as taught by wiser than us and which once gave the stigma of complete human character.
Finally, we see a consequence. The consequence of losing the validity of the essence of the interpretations of all existing wisdoms about life. Has the need for a profound revision of life's orientations been created?