A Gain to One---due to a Loss of Another
When looked from a less popular angle, the so-called "world of success" could be seen as based upon people's foolishness---which could refer to all those gullible, timid, misinformed, and those with a certain weakness.
To define that angle, we could say that Muhammad Ali was such an undisputed boxing legend for so long only due to the fact that in all that time there was no one better around to kick his butt. It's that relative, folks.
With no association intended, even Adolph Hitler wouldn't have been all that persuasive in his pre-war Germany, if there had been someone much more persuasive--- and also of a healthier mind--- to trash his Arian supremacy crap.
You see where I am going with all this? Something ---per se---may not be impressive at all, until and unless, someone agrees to see it that way in an absence of something more impressive.
Thus, maybe the most of our favorite understanding of reality is nothing but a crap-on-a-cracker and a pathetic illusion that we just can't give up, with nothing more life-promoting and rewarding offering itself to replace it--not even to mention something far more "enlightening".
All values are relative, and so often people falling for one don't see the relativeness of it. For another example, if I offer you a little box of toothpicks for $10 saying how "last week the price was $25", and then you fall for that "incredible discount"---it's your gullibility that made me a "good salesman", not my ability per se.
So many times my wife and I comment on some Hollywood actors who have absolutely nothing special about them that would justify their presence on the Red Carpet; and if they are "standing out" in that crowd it's not because how good they look, but how bad they look.
So, how did they get there? Easy, by a connection with someone of some standing in Hollywood, and if I didn't know better I could speculate that it had something to do with their last name and the shape of their nose.
O.K., not everything is about "looks", they must be "talented", you may say. What talent? For that kind of money, everybody would quickly pick up a talent. I can't forget the words of my old-times favorite Robert Mitchum: "Acting doesn't take any talent; it's a job like being a butcher or something".
And then Rock Hudson's humble admission: "When I first started I was so stressed out that I couldn't say a single line right". Then he became a star. A big one too.
Gazing at the Stars
Being a "star", or even a "superstar" in movies is a simple matter of just another industry advertising their products by attaching some impressive names to them. Ever heard of "quantum hamburgers"?
Any average Joe or Jane could be trained to act---after being motivated by that money and making a name for themselves. After a certain number of repeats, or "takes" as they call them, they are bound to do their part right. The rest are all those hi-tech props and a cliché story that plays on our emotions of anger, fear, sadness, humor, and sexuality.
As we are watching the Oscars, my wife, now in her early seventies, may say: "You slap so many coats of makeup on my face and put me into that expensive dress, and I'll look better than she does". O.K., it could be a major exaggeration, because she could look better even without that much of war-paint on her face.
We all love Hollywood for what they do, and for many of us life would never be the same if our imagination didn't have that lavish help to express itself through all that fiction that's basically depicting many aspects of reality.
But then it gets to the point of fetishism, where so many of us blow things out of proportion by overrating their real value. I may like an ice cream on a hot summer day, but I won't say that "it saved my life". Likewise, industry is only industry, they work by using some proven patterns that appeal to the consumer.
If "fool" seems too harsh a word, then forget it, but we are not far from it, as we almost religiously adore those professionals who do it all for themselves. For some reason that will forever stay mysterious to me---it becomes such a colossal and juicy story when one of those "superstars" gets divorced, or cheats, or gets re-married. How about making the advertisement even better by reporting when one of them gets constipated.
In any case, those "stars" are overrated and overpaid, just like those guys running after a ball on a stadium---and we still pay for those expensive tickets, almost "grateful" that those performers are doing it for us. Well, they don't do it for "us", they are career people, and we are the consumers falling for that glamor.
I hope you didn't think that Oscars are really about handing out those awards; they are the advertising reviews for their products; something like Film Festivals, but with a glamour attached to them, that's all---entertaining as they may be. I get entertained by certain commercials, but they don't make me buy their "concern" about my using a "right" product.
Some of Us Seem to Be Born to Cheer and Bitch
Now we come to that somewhat tricky part of my article which may cost me a number of "admirers"---just kidding---that's what happens after talking so much about Hollywood. Namely, let's touch the subject of politics; and I can't do more than just a touch because I am a cynic about politicians. To me they are all careerists pretending to care about our welfare in a drive to secure our votes.
To me politics is merely an entertainment stuff, and that's how I also view all that anti-Trump hysteria going on down south of the Niagara Falls---myself being a Canadian living in Canada, for those who don't already know it.
It simply makes me wonder, as I see how far and for how long that massive brainwashing could go. Come on, folks, some of you could save yourselves a lot of nerves by sticking to cheering at football events---it's equally providing an ample opportunity to scream and discharge some of that accumulated private frustration of being pissed at life.
Really, leave the dude alone, look, he is even doing some good stuff for you, and by repeating those empty slogans against him doesn't change anything except in your physiology which gets bombarded by toxic chemicals produced by anger and hate. Which reminds me of that saying by St. Augustine: "Grudge is the poison we drink while hoping that someone else will die".
Look, he even has a nice looking family---since that also seems to be an important part of every president's job resume, along with his hair and size of his hands. And, for Pete's sake, what's so wrong if he would make friends with Putin? Would you rather have Russia as an enemy than an ally?
Some time back I was reading comments about Putin made by a number of Americans who "wished they had a president like that". In a few videos they were comparing him to not so manly physique and will-power of your current president. The dude was shown riding his horse and kicking some butts as a judo fighter.
But of course you were probably not ones cheering for Vlad-the-Russian with those videos. Divide has to exist, since it's not possible to please everyone no matter what. Hypothetically, the only formula to achieve that would be by everyone forgetting about democracy and always obeying the will of those who are the loudest and most obnoxious in their protests.
Can't Afford Enemies---or Too Smart to Have Them?
I bet you, most of you never ask yourselves why Canada doesn't mind taking so many refugees. Let me say it as diplomatically as I can: nobody hates Canada, we just don't have that talent of your leaders to create enemies and lose friends. While American people are such a wonderful nation, let's face it---your leaders suck and they are not representing your greatness.
Besides, thanks to our long and often harsh winters, we never developed much of a talent for that street socializing which you call "looting and destroying for a just cause". So you got some very patriotic individuals who will help themselves with merchandise or burn cars and smash windows---all in order to "deliver a message".
Well, we are not that advanced in our democracy as yet. There has been some increased online criticism about our Prime Minister lately. I have to admit, we never elect a perfect leader for ourselves; maybe because we are not exactly a perfect crowd to deserve such a leader.
Remember? We are "only Canadians", what do we know about democracy and stuff? We still blindly believe that we should all support our leader after the majority voted for him. Hey, ours is also a good looking guy, so learning from your criteria of a right leader, that says a lot about his readiness to run a country---full head of hair, normal size of hands, and the dude even does some boxing for fun.
In my closing words on this topic, let me assure you again, that I love and respect America. Somewhere I read that "anybody criticizing Israeli politics automatically gets to be called an anti-Semitic". I certainly hope you know better than that, and nothing within this article will make me look like an "anti-American".
Just like that good, late dude Walter Cronkite, I like saying things as they are, not what people would prefer hearing. If for not any better reason, but to deserve to be covered by the title of this article.
Not Debunking---Just Questioning
In that same spirit of "saying things as they are", I may also question many things that most of others won't touch with a ten-foot-pole. Like, don't take me wrong---I am not homophobic or anything, and it's not my damn business what people choose to do behind their bedroom doors, but here I go with a little question about homosexuality.
In the first place, I have never seen anyone correcting its spelling, so let me do it here. It is not homosexuality---but homeosexuality. "Homo" in Latin means "man", and the word homosexuality means "sexuality of man", which says nothing about the phenomenon of being gay.
"Homeo" in Greek means "same" (like in "homeopathy"=fixing the problem with the "same" agent that causes it). Thus, "homeosexuality" properly means "sex between same gender".
Now, let's get to some food for thought. Say, what if our smart scientists come up some day with a definite proof that it's about some neurological glitch, not about a "sexual preference" as it gets "officially" called? Even gay folks shouldn't mind this question, because if there is any logic in them, having sex with the same gender is not proactive, hence "unnatural" to the world of all living beings.
Again, and again, I don't give a rat's ass, even if sex with our pets would become legal, because I am not either a Republican, (not liberal either), or a hard-core Christian, or a bona fide moralist of any denomination imaginable.
Nothing about homosexuality "bothers" me, I am simply hypothetizing here. So, if it would turn out to be that "glitch" somewhere in that highly complex brain, would there still be Pride Parades? And if yes, would that mean that all diabetics should also start with their similar tradition?
No, I am not mocking anything, and I apologize if it sounds that way---I am simply being myself, a dude used to my thinking out of the box. You must understand, in that respect I am like those gay folks---going against the grain, and never falling entirely for what appears as "obvious".
There is so much more going on in this world that looks strange to me, but I don't have either space in this article or even an ambition to cover it all. If you ever spent that much time digging into all aspects of covert and obvious hypnotism at work as I did---you would be of the same inquisitive mind as I am.
The whole cultural paradigm has a firm foundation on this one quality of people---a capacity to be someone's fool. We are falling for all kinds of crap coming from those "all-knowing authorities". We are so brainwashed that we even carry that predisposition in our genes to obey, to follow---without using our own minds.
Or, at least it's true for the great majority of us. This article tried to hint---it's not "all" of us.