The young managers of the Shoah Party
Every time I read stories like that of the "Shoah Party" in the newspapers I drop my knees, because I always read the same story: they are always "bored" young people doing things. It seems that no journalist can write about a juvenile crime linked to sadism without mentioning the word "bored".
There are several reasons for this stupidity: the first is the simple ignorance of journalists. In general, we are not talking about people writing articles in about 10 minutes, like me, or people who don't have the tools to correct proofs. Journalists write this way simply because they have in turn learned journalism by reading newspapers and listening to the news.
For this reason we always feel the same topos, trite and hackneyed: "tragedy of loneliness", "bored boys", to which the "femicide" that now stands like parsley, etc., has joined. Journalists in reality are practics, who do not form themselves in any school of journalism since there are none in Italy , and they try to imitate what they hear. They are in fact amateurs in jeopardy. The complete absence of great journalists in Italy after the death of some "sacred monsters" (Biagi, Montanelli et al.) Has canceled any chance to train capable journalists.
But there are also ideological residues in this way of writing. Because boredom could also be an excuse, if modern children do not live in a time that is (compared to the time of my adolescence) incredibly exciting and varied. We really want to say that a guy who can talk to the entire world of the world can play fantastic adventures on any video game, he has every opportunity in the world to meet new people and learn about new fashion trends, be "bored" ?
Crap. The comparison is not acceptable: when I was their age I knew of a concert only if I read it on the "culture" page of the Unit, we learned of the existence of "rockabilly" thanks to a comedian who mentioned them to Drive In, we had to go to libraries almost a month to understand what a "voice scambler" was and build it for us to get it, and you're telling me we weren't bored? The most exciting thing of the year was the "Summer Unit Festival", the nearest gym was 25 kilometers away and it was a workers' after-work, to play in front of an audience we had to ask for a PCI room (and so the music had to be approved by the Party), and today you tell me that kids who have visibility of every party in the area with a search, can perform on Youtube / Tiktok / whatever, can access any interest with a search on "google" are bored?
Bales.
And do not tell me that this is due to the fact that they have TOO things, because the Hegelian bullshit that the opposite of the thing is the thing you can stick them in your ass. Boredom is the LACK of stimuli, and CANNOT be defined as EXCESS of stimuli. Otherwise I will tell you that your wife is gangbanging African masons because she is an excessively devoted bride and loves you too much.
It does not work: the boredom is LACK of stimuli, therefore their EXCESS is not to be considered "NOIA" unless we follow the Hegelian idea according to which "synthesis" of "thesis" and "antithesis" can be made, which is not because if one thing excludes the other, what we get by putting the two together is a paradox . And the paradoxes do not explain anything, because they do not contain any information (Shannon et al).
So no: no modern youth is BORED. If what you want to say is that having too many stimuli they try to be stronger, then the correct word is not "BORED", the correct word is "ASSUEFACT".
But that's not what you mean, dear journalists of my zebedeans.
All you want to say is that it's a "bourgeois vice". For it to be clear, both "boredom" and addiction are "bourgeois vices". When it is said that the boys do these things "out of boredom" they are trying to prove that their malaise does not exist: it is a "bourgeois vice", therefore a vice of "bourgeois families", and therefore must be resolved in the family and however it is due to the loss of the healthy values of the honest proletariat.
This ideological thesis has its roots in fascism and fascist mysticism, and has been taken up by the PCI (which developed in the post-war period in the birth zones of fascism, inheriting its cultural paradigms) and by its intellectuals (almost always grown up in the GUF , therefore educated to the "fascist mysticism": Scalfari, Montanelli, etc., were all a product of fascist education).
For this reason, historically the left has considered young people as "a social instance" meaning that it was a problem to be boxed and brought back into the tracks of political acceptability. It was the fascist conception, transformed into communist culture in areas where the PCI was strong, and had inherited the previous fascist culture.
In saying that these young people are "bored" they are desperately trying to reduce their behavior to "a bourgeois vice", of children "who have had too much, therefore spoiled petty bourgeois", and therefore they try to blame their bourgeois family that they he was bored / addicted, forgetting the real proletarian values .
A one-ton JDAM bomb dropped in an industrial dunghill would shed less shit. This dialectic is the Mother of every Shit, the CZAR Bomba della merda. The human product of this shit originates in the culture of the PCI, and to tell it would take dozens of posts.
But the point is simple: calling the young who commit crimes "bored" was part of a fascist political design, which was later inherited by the PCI, and today is carried out by journalists who are too stupid, ignorant, incompetent and unprepared to understand what they are doing when they use this word.
When I say this, the intelligent man who mentions "Orange Mechanic" always comes to me saying that he talks about the juvenile discomfort that becomes violence. Demonstrating that they only saw the trailer of the film, maybe they saw themselves with the rape scene, but that movie is about a regime that thought it would solve problems by conditioning the minds of criminals. And failed miserably.
But I challenge you to find a review that puts at the center of the film the repressive regime and the re-education tool: especially in the left-wing newspapers, any synopsis or review of "Arancia Meccanica" does not begin by saying "A repressive and inhuman regime practices reconditioning the criminals through Pavlovian brainwashing, and in this context they … ". No. The reviews all start with "a band of bored young men who commit heinous crimes". The regime takes a back seat. And there's a reason. (and it's not just about the saws that the reviewers take at the rape scene).
It is precisely this argument that puts us on the right path to understand what solution is sought when those people are called "bourgeois". What did the communists ask for to cure the "bourgeois vices"? Rehabilitation.
Ultimately, that is, this bored bourgeois dialectic tends to instill in the masses the idea that someone should somehow re-educate them, that is, recondition them. And that is why the Communist reviewer of Arancia Meccanica insists on the atrocious crimes of the group and its deviated culture, instead of mentioning the fact that in the film the reconditioning turns out to be a failure, and finally Alex becomes Chief of Police.
Kubrick's film is "of the left but not too much", in the sense that Kubrick speaks to the only audience that can accept the film (at the time, the one on the left), but releases a message that is indigestible for the left: the re-education (so dear to communist regimes) is worse than evil.
So, to metabolize and digest it, the left moloch has always glossed over the history of re-education, insisting on the viciousness (also because re-education comes at the end of the film, but usually the saw that the comrades shoot themselves ends immediately after the scene of rape, so they never get there), but “forgetting” the message of the film, that is, that re-education fails. And especially, forgetting to analyze the fact that Alex eventually becomes chief of police to vent his instincts.
Explained why the term bored is used, let's say the brutal truth about it.
All members of the Shoah Party clearly show a tendency to be perfect business managers. Everything they did should be written on their CV, because it is the portrait of the perfect manager in any big company. There is not one of their actions in this affair that does not show the CORRECT aptitude for company management.
Now you will tell me that I am exaggerating. It is not possible to watch videos of exaltation of Nazism, scenes of terrorist guerrilla warfare, people being slaughtered for fun, children under-fucked and women raped (in short, everything in / gif / su 4chan) is the portrait of the modern manager.
Really? Have you ever analyzed the problem? What did the boys of the Shoah party show, that is not "desirable" in a manager?
To be insensitive to the suffering of others? Sorry, in management this is "seniority", the management uses "emotional decision" as a derogatory. To love violent oppression? Sorry, sadism and overwhelming pleasure is the norm in the ideals of management. The sexism and submission of women? Rape dreams? You see that you don't know them well. And you don't know their "exclusive" parties. The cruelty session? Never seen in a manager, right?
The young people of the Shoah Party are perfect natural managers, they are destined for a brilliant career as a manager. They will be your leaders, your bosses, the people who will decide on your life, on your work, the primaries of your hospitals and the directors of the banks you depend on.
Does it upset you? And in what? Those kids simply understood the values of the effective ruling class (the so-called "managers"), acquired them, processed them, turned them into practice and sublimated into a form of art.
The Shoah Party is a normal mailing list of business managers in any modern multinational.
It embodies all its values, and limits itself (in the brutal, direct and sensual manner of adolescents) to expressing it directly, explicitly and immediately.
And here we go to the point: in Mechanical Orange the pack of cruel, sadistic bastards were not the "Drughi". The sadistic bastards were re-educators. But the re-educators were the sadistic bastards paid by the regime, while the Drughi were the sadistic bastards who did it for pleasure. Not for nothing, eventually Alex becomes police chief.
And here we return to pleasure, because the Sadistic Bastards of the Shoah Party are different from the sadistic bastards of your bank's CDA for just ONE reason. They did it for pure pleasure.
If you hear about a manager who has just decided to fire 3,000 people, the first thing he will say is "we as a company don't like firing people." Sure. If it wasn't that firing is the practice that serves to give a signal to the market, it would be credible: if you get a bonus for having fired, recreating the trust of the markets because you have shown that you are doing something to address the problem, tell me that " you don't like doing it "is at least ridiculous.
But the point is that the management has tried to exonerate itself not from the fact that it sent 3,000 families onto the streets, but from the ACCUSATION to do it FOR PLEASURE. The same exact act, if excluded is done FOR PLEASURE, becomes acceptable. It is as if it were different to say:
- I raped that girl, yes, but it was for duty and I didn't like it
- I raped that girl for fun, and I liked it a lot.
Now read these two sentences well, and tell me if you find that one of the two rapes seems less serious than the other. If the answer is that one of the two has an aggravating circumstance, and the aggravating circumstance is pleasure, then the point escapes you, that is that between the two there is no difference.
So let's get back to the Shoah Party bomb. Those guys shared videos with killings in war scenarios, and they enjoyed it sadistically. Aha. On the contrary, those who declared or caused that war are not united to those boys. And the fighters will be celebrated as "veterans", if not "HEROES".
Why'?
Because the politician who declared that war will say that it was a painful, painful decision, a forced choice in the face of a superior good, and he will say that he did not procure any pleasure in it.
On the contrary, the boy who watches the scenes of war FOR PLEASURE, is more guilty and inhumane than the one who looked at her on video in his horror, because "he does it for fun". And he's even more guilty than those who fought that war.
The crime of those kids is not related to the contents of those videos. Because those videos take up a reality, but we do not see the condemnation of those who PRODUCED that reality: wars are continually unleashed, fascist / Nazi parties are legal and go on TV, the sexualization of the female body is continually moving on younger girls, soldiers are not considered part of the violence and horrors shown in the war videos. But they do it "for work", and let's be clear, "he doesn't like doing it".
When, after selling the weapons to the guerrillas, someone takes the video of a soldier whose skull is crushed by an artillery blow and grins, then it is THE GUILTY, for the sole reason to TRY PLEASURE.
The blame is no longer that of having committed a crime or not: the modern inquisitor asks you if you liked it or not, because ONLY THAT today is the fault.
If pedophilia were so disgusted, Italy would not be the number one country for sex tourism. But what you will do will be to say that pedophiles who go on holiday in Thailand, but also Romania, are "sick", and therefore you will exclude pleasure from the scene. And once the pleasure is excluded, it does not seem alarming.
On the contrary, if someone takes the footage with the actions of those same pedophiles, and enjoys them, then it becomes a horrendous crime. Crime is not in action, but in pleasure.
You are willing to let it go on any horrible action, as long as it is clear that the perpetrator has NOT enjoyed doing it. On the contrary, you are willing to condemn any action, provided that there has been PLEASURE in doing so.
If kids watching "Nazi videos" horrified you with Nazi videos, today you wouldn't have openly filonazisti left in parliament and on television. The reason you condemn those kids is because they ENJOY watching those videos. It's not the content, the problem. It is pleasure.
And so I repeat: the Shoah Party is just a mailing list of young, future managers.
Future managers who have not yet learned to say "we don't like doing it, but we must, and don't think it was an easy decision".
It will have been a very difficult decision to choose which abused girl to share, and we all imagine the atrocious suffering in the choice of the best scene of pulping human bodies during a military action. It's never an easy choice, and he didn't like doing it …
As soon as they can say it, in a credible way, then you will forgive them anything, and the same identical passions will be called "management attitude". As soon as they have learned to say that fighting wars where humans are crushed, declaring them, making weapons, is "a necessary evil", as soon as they have learned to say that firing thousands of people "never pleases them", as soon as they have learned to say that they pay minor escorts "because they are sick and need help", (and not because they were eating inside), then they will be perfect managers. Leader. Successful politicians.
And Alex will have his place as Chief of Police.