DISCUSION

Urbanization is a process little understood in its real complexity. Since

the beginning, man struggles to obtain survival, but that reached levels of
sophistication that culminated in towns and cities.

These are the extremes of human experience on the planet , how it was
adapting to what first seemed discomfort and loneliness, and that seems poorly
understood in relation to the real need to reach levels that will lead to a
sedentary lifestyle , in preparing this unsustainable environment , with the
remaining distorted dynamics of this frenetic construction without defined
parameters , which had the center of change in its structure and organization, the
nomadic reality of the individual subverted , which was not organized as family
units , but living in mutation in search of hunting and shelter and then slowly
came to prepare the familiar way we arrived at, today.

The preponderant starting point seems to have been the need to stand
on land to produce its own food, its domestic creation. This gave rise to a
sedentary life, institution of consanguinity, and values that justified it. The
institution of morality, which coined a behavior consistent with habits and
repetitive acts, routine, which were losing the sense to the point of having to be
stimulated. Consequently industrialization would be the next step, including with
regard to sex, where the libido would be natural in the context of procreation in
nomadic environment, where what was defined by family was the tribe. And the
fellowship was not restricted to identical parenting.

It seems that we will have to look at the options that have been designed
in this process, so that we can understand why the tendency towards an
unsustainable "structuring". Had that been inescapable? As if we had no other
alternative than the unsustainability, as a result of the change from nomadism to
a premeditated moral structure, which would give force to the increase of
purposes, to the appearance of objective valuation?

It is good to make it perceptible, the alliance of morality with the force of

alienation, of purpose of the actions, which are made stronger with the dogmas.
Through the need to compose larger domain cells. Nations, which came to
emphasize the domain of ideas, each without a clear purpose, with the increase
of this force to the present day, without greater clarity that justifies the
impoverishment of the dominated, complementary parts, in a continuum that is
not capable to resent the unsustainability of the created system, incapable of
overcoming the mechanism of brutalization, of domination by domination ... The
alienated search for the absurdity of the exhaustion of natural wealth, by a purely
quantifiable result, no longer justifies the alternative that sought only improve at
first, the natural satisfaction of man's basic needs.

Indeed, it is absurdly unlikely that we will come to the conclusion today

that uncontrollably producing agricultural or industrial inputs that stifle the
system is no longer possible. And that the equalization approach of the world as a
whole should be an urgent matter as it should. And that the family that so
potentiates all this should take conspicuous contours, perceptible in the animal
kingdoms, biological, that do not attack to any pretext the reality. Since it does
not seem reasonable to regard any child as our own child, or to see on any old
lady the pretext to seeing our own mother ... The few remaining primitive tribes
still carry some of these nomadic principles, even though most are contaminated
by lack of alternative and slowly open space for incomprehension, indifference
with their own, whom in their conviction were always considered brothers, a
natural part of a biological alliance, where there was no room for sickness ...

We need to be prepared to tackle this flexibility. We are aware that the

increase of the productive means are frantically sought to fuel a vicious circle that
exhausts all the riches, by absurdly disregarding that there should always be time
for the recovery of the system.

Think about how to break the imperialist structure of fomenting and

encouraging wealth, which does not serve to equalize and make reasonable the
good that is produced. Not to admit that mechanically potentiating the
productive means would have a beneficial end, without intelligently constructing
a sustainable mechanism, not ignoring the integral coherence of the system, or its
inevitable natural biological fragility ...
 The question of flexibilization of frenetic, industrial production
mechanisms does not seem to be easily understood and easily absorbed. In
practice, even if one speaks of implementing energy production mechanisms that
no longer make global warming and the emission of gases so aggressive, such an
initiative does not seem to evoke the stimulus to the necessary effect, such that
once and for all, do not lose sight of the biological meaning of nature and
consequently extinction of the species. For an expressive and lasting reversal, one
would have to do a deep analysis and understand what is behind this whole
frenzy of production that anticipates the facts and traces pre-established paths,
so as not to allow the discovery of new alternatives which would not predispose
life to continue accepting a decision that morally confiscated the freedom with
the promise of just the formality. That it did not have to be invariably within the
perspectives of a moral world, of relations that were coined with the
determination it aroused at that moment, the first productive, sedentary
formatting represented by family, state, and population formatation, which
departs from the natural biological composition that incorporated the nomadic
tribes, without canons of behavior, unified exclusively by the similarity of the
species. We have to think about what this change represented …

But what we see today is purely the attempt to revert mechanically the
foreshadowing of the extinction of biological niches through actions that are not
adequately clarified or that can not have a lasting or even minimally effective
effect to circumvent the situation. The extinction of the biological profile of
existence would have to be properly understood in order to define a composition
favorable to the equilibrium necessary to recover its primary bases, which would
give rise to the detachment from formality, from improper extension structured
into purely quantifiable reasoning.
 In this composition over time, the brand of process quantification, in
order to make choices based on values not properly understood as such, but as in
an arms race, the criterion of choice and prioritization is done with the support of
comparative methods, tracing formal priorities that will shape contours without
diversity, without the inherent strength of the natural stimuli that enable the
range of creation. Frankly repelled the ability to expand the criterion of creation,
and the option for the production of consumer goods, instead being always
reinforced beforehand as a normal thing and a sign of "progress".

As these processes have been guided by a pre-established

standardization, they are not well understood and propel themselves under their
own tendency to fortify themselves in the created concept of progress, as regular
discipline, capable of repeating itself in this unquestioned criterion, because a
dogma with respect to the domestication of values, with belief forged in a
composition that was defining a concept of social structure, established with
attractive appeals by moral force, creating a temporal good, since it brought in
this narrative of adherence to the processes that were transforming the medium
in something more and more transmuted into artificial nuances, that brought the
favoring to the conquest of primary goods, appearing in a way to bring a
conviction of superiority and strengthening, approximation of conquests that
would otherwise be distant and costly, bringing the withdrawal of the biological
linking, the diversity of creation.
 Time makes the need and thus the construction of civilizations, human
and wild. The search for a stabilization in meeting the primary needs, with the
construction of alternatives, elaborated throughout a story of great struggles,
adverse situations that aroused in the individual most trivial instinct of
improvement for better conditions, facing the most recurring challenges.
The displacement posture of the original axis, which comprised the
processes arising from the primitive means of life, of a relationship without
discriminatory connotation becomes more and more evident, which only
becomes preponderant, as this conquest is shaping more restrictive attitudes.
We slowly see a sophistication arising out of that rusticity that lodged the
individuals with a preservation instinct of the tribe, who had not yet cleared the
bonds that would be discriminatory, since they will think by restricting the
affective ties to the offspring of consanguinity, by giving precedence to the
interests of protectionism, gradually making it attractive, a question of
conditioning the social environment by hierarchizing itself through parameters of
dominance, divergent from those that brought the preservation of values in the
primitive tribal struggle. Conditioning that has led to a lethargic approach of the
people involved in the natural measures of preservation of the species until
then. A continued appetite for distancing himself from the foregoing options,
coined in the unfolding of the adventures of the conquests of the milieu, hitherto
devoid of any nuance that would have pleased the enigmatic artifice to design
itself as a strange thing that would transform the adventure of conquest into
power to refrain from fight for elementary and primary.
It was the easy outline of promising methods concerning safety, and
attainment of ends that should have been shared before. The destructive
dimension that such individualization would entail could not of course have been
glimpsed at that moment and circumstance, such a greatness of natural forces at
that existential threshold.

But the tragedy of the shared communal means now approaches as a paradox,
forgetting totally the man of the origin of this announced catastrophe in a
philosophical scope, it can be said. What is discouraging is the human perplexity
in stating that the common media will be inexorably exterminated and that this
tragedy can not be equated.
As if the existential human condition had never had a format consistent
with the biological nature of the cosmic system and the alternative to equate such
tragedy was unthinkable and human existence bound to exterminate itself
irremediably.

This dilemma leads human existence to exhaust itself as irreversibly. As if there

would have something profoundly wrong with its nature and we would struggle
unnecessarily to achieve an outcome that would rebalance the annihilation of the
greatness and diversity of creation, which ended up confining itself to the
commercial value of commodity in order to create a parameter in
existence human being, in which he kept us formally coherent with the deviation
of his natural propensity. Is this something impossible to be solved !? To reassess
the process of industrialization that occurred in those primary conditions? In that
eagerness to achieve stability at any cost, without scaling the losses of contact
with the value of original greatness, by definitely providing us with a kind of
warmth and refuge from the force of unpredictability?
It is the unknown, this need to seek for a link, a clarity that had guided
the positions that would have supported the construction of this parallel reality,
from which we cannot ignore, if he launched the resources arising from the
consequences of this new reality. That would come to establish itself as autocratic
processes, which banished from then on the previous need for coherence and
commitment to the previously known original untouchable values. It was the
beginning of a disintegration, even though the human existential cells, were little
communicable and distant from each other at that time, there was the intrinsic
and implied warning of disruption with the reasonableness of biological
existential precepts previously hitherto revered.
We cannot fail to elucidate the question of the structuring of society as
an intrinsic part of the mutations that occurred at that moment. How can we
understand that this trend towards the valorization of predictable habits brings
back to the perception of the need to compose a familiar cell to condition these
new attitudes that were formed, insofar as they consume what will be since then
being supplied as a commodity? Tribal necessity, and with it nomadism, seems no
longer to be part of this facilitation that is emerging.

And here it is necessary to try to understand what this alternative really meant as
a thing that had inbuilt beliefs and dogmas, a set of paraphernalia that sought to
sustain psychologically what was foreign to the way of existence until then free of
conditioning or moral precepts that it brought now the hierarchy in
relationships. The new possibility of building within the natural reality, something
that dared to detach itself from the support that was evident and inseparable
from the diversified biology in the existential niches.
In this we must seek to investigate how this mutation occurred, which
now appears to us as something absolutely natural and consequent to the
evolution of man, who ended up settling on earth.

But does this process of fixation conceal a reflection of the deliberate

degenerative option with the dissociation of the healthy instinct of sociability that
lives the adventure of endless travel ... and understand it as a way of investigating
how this mutation occurred opts for the safety and degradation of an
inexhaustible medium in consumer products that does not resent the
consequences of breaking the organic system? A device that allows us, perhaps,
to reorientate what may have been only the occasion of continuous discoveries
that have been so opening the promising spectrum, which has otherwise become
a plaster of what could have been mild if the connotation of the conditions was
not an expression of the perplexity of the human races that were under the
animosities and perplexities of the instinct of preservation and domination
imperative at that moment.

It would have been this effect at that moment, a real duel that did not
leave room for a binding bond of mutual knowledge to occur as humans who
were, evidently, expanding the discovery of their purpose and acting in a way to
redirect their conditionings by other means, adventure of the ongoing
discoveries. But what happened was the propensity for unresolved agency in the
form of creating mastery devices to meet their primary needs. Launching
parameters that offered the bias of the illusions and flavors discovered until then,
to serve as paraphernalia to the subsequent paths resulting from improvements
that came from the domination that was seen as an alternative.

And from that moment onwards a form of departing from the unexpected was
created, giving rise to the dubious path that presented itself as a more complex
alternative, since no means had been elaborated until then to establish the assent
of the most elementary needs.
But we know that according to what has unfolded, these affinities seem
to have been seen or placed in a less important place because an inarticulate
expedient had already been drawn up as a way to accelerate the path that would
already be under the influence of sedentarism, protectionism, fidelity to the
dogmas of those who did not feel compelled to recognize accentuated bonds
outside family consanguinity.

It is true that the beginning of the commercialization was not in such a way as to
bring profit or advantage to those who offered a product ... Or it could be said
that they were practically exchanged and the fact of having access to products
that were not produced by itself, was already a great advantage. But over time
there was the introduction of a currency to facilitate the transaction, and from
then on the notion of fairness that should prevail was lost. Accompanying facts
that could facilitate or hinder the transaction, ended up valuing or devaluing this
currency of exchange, taking this notion of fair exchange for a great variety of
factors that passed, sometimes unjustifiable but accepted. This brought the
glimmer of accumulating this currency of exchange to impart greater capacity for
achievement and domination. Then prosperity begins to generate prosperity, of
course, giving a misguided trade orientation of the initial purpose of exchange,
prevailing as a necessary device to carry out the negotiations that have been
expanding and delegating greater powers by the volume of which has come to be
commercialized.
We need to contrast that exchange currency with what has now become
the economic market itself. Not wanting to make a judgment of judgment, which
matters little, but bringing a relation to what it lent itself and interpreting what
this brings us now, to that mentioned dissociation of the primitive tribal life, and
the structure of purposes that accelerated the actions, establishing a a framework
inherent in the dazzling of the diversification proper to life itself, which has as its
main characteristic the amplitude and robustness of existential links.

It is neither strange nor novel, to speak of the losses that the environment has
accumulated rapidly. Nor can we find it irrelevant to the fact that the relationship
between the created structure of consumption since then puts us in a situation
where we cannot try to equate all this without moving in this structure that
promotes and is promoted by the mechanical act of marketing distorted of the
primary purpose , in subterfuges that gave rise to the concept of technocratic
superiority.
We must try to understand this gap between the pure and simple
exchange that took place as a way of streamlining the distribution of production
and the current stage that gave values to the currency of exchange, when there
was any fact that would disfavor the business, causing this currency to be more or
less valued, having an effect of anticipation that aborted the true meaning of the
coin, to be able to find factors that multiplied it, instead of favoring the service to
which it would have been invented.

And here we begin to see clearly that this tendency is highly technocratic and is at
the service of those who do not produce but of those who anticipated the facts
created as a result of unpredictability, and there installed itself as manager of this
exchange currency, without there being a support for the purpose that was
proposed, and today they are shown as promoters of non-productive
investments.
It would be very convenient to study and understand how, at any given
moment, this currency industry prevails, and to grasp the structure of
consumption itself and the consequences thereof. In this way we might not even
need to be desperately trying to save the planet from the harmful mechanisms of
aggression it suffered, leading to the exhaustion of resources. If what is produced
no longer has a direct relation with the need of the human being or at best brings
in its core a reflection of the complex impositions of a market that needs to
survive, but it is intoxicated the more it produces and poisons this market. So we
are clearly faced with an equation that could not work, because its relation of
sustainability was at the mercy of the arbitrariness of the currency and not of
necessity.

We can consider the fact of the first evidence of discrimination, as

correlated to the promotion of the use of the exchange currency that restricted a
given offer to the detriment of what first appeared to be just a fair compensation
device. But that was also intermingling with sophistication and growth of the
value of the currency of purchase and the outsourcing of productive work as
something less dignified. The accumulation of this coin gradually brought the idea
of managing future productions, relegating the fact of production itself to the
background. And as a consequence of this continuous tendency to manage the
production, it was formed consequently blocks that corresponded to the most
diverse activities, coming from what had been demarcating castes through
attitudes with reference to the respective activities.
It was a productive society that emerged and had as primary cell, family,
protection and bond with the respective domains. The echo of command and
systematic availability could be clearly felt from the opening of the range and
diversification of these productions that could be raised by one and the other,
which expediently lent itself to calculating its advantage and ability to acquire
facilities that would provide it and to your family, a factor of greater tranquility
and sedentary lifestyle, promotion and accommodation!

From this point on, the tendency is to foster these productive facilities and to
continuously increase the family's cellular space as something that will
increasingly justify this search for sophistication and strengthening the idea of
being extremely effective in its promotion and enrichment needs!

Of course, we are getting to the exhaustion of a model of unquestioning

representation of the human being, to enable a central power that promotes the
defense of those who would not be fit, nor could society possibly
organize unanimously if this government, this policy had not settled.

But there is much controversy about this argument and consequently the
exploitation of the workforce as a natural thing, and the structure of the state
with its laws and suppression of the freedom of being.

Utilitarianism, Marxism, and the Contracts that govern the state structure address
the exploitation of this labor force that has transformed what would be the
simple reason to live in something absurd and meaningless. We are exhausting all
the natural goods that are gratuitous in exploiting these resources with no sense
of their wealth and inexorability, with the insatiable market laws and the
mediocre majority sense of the cowardly individual.
 Which leads us to have an opinion on what is best, should not be
something backed by the opinions of others. There is not necessarily and should
not be a reason for recognition, the opinion we make about quality aspects of an
object, environments, behaviors or whatever, should not merit the validity of
simply being coincidental with other opinions.

It could be a coincidence, an opinion on practical aspects that developed and

gained the format of even an invention, that would facilitate the life or work of
the individual, but instead of gaining an overly standardized connotation should
merit resistances that would delay the loosening to new attempts, new ways of
implementing solutions.
The solutions were too sophisticated, in the sense of losing sight of
aspects that should be considered.

We can consider the fact of the first evidence of discrimination, as correlated to

the promotion of the use of the exchange currency that restricted a given offer to
the detriment of what first appeared to be just a fair compensation device. But
that was also intermingling with sophistication and growth of the value of the
currency of purchase and secondaryization of productive work as something less
dignified. The accumulation of this coin gradually brought the idea of managing
future productions, relegating the fact of production itself to the background. And
as a consequence of this continuous tendency to manage the production, it was
formed consequently blocks that corresponded to the most diverse activities,
coming from what had been demarcating castes through attitudes with reference
to the respective activities.
It was a productive society that emerged and had as primary cell, family,
protection and bond with the respective domains. The echo of command and
systematic availability could be clearly felt from the opening of the range and
diversification of these productions that could be raised by one and the other,
which expediently lent itself to calculating its advantage and ability to acquire
facilities that would provide it and the your family, a factor of greater tranquility
and sedentarism, promotion and accommodation!

From this point on, the tendency is to foster these productive facilities and to
continuously increase the family's cellular space as something that will
increasingly justify this search for sophistication and strengthening the idea of
being extremely effective in its promotion and enrichment needs!
Of course, we are getting to the exhaustion of a model of unquestioning
representation of the human being, to enable a central power that promotes the
defense of those who would not be fit, nor could society possibly
organize equanimously if this government, this policy had not settled.

But there is much controversy about this argument and consequently the
exploitation of the workforce as a natural thing, and the structure of the state
with its laws and suppression of the freedom of being.

Utilitarianism, Marxism, and the Contracts that govern the state structure address
the exploitation of this labor force that has transformed what would be the
simple reason to live in something absurd and meaningless. We are exhausting all
the natural goods that are gratuitous in exploiting these resources with no sense
of their wealth and inexorability, with the insatiable market laws and the
mediocre majority sense of the cowardly individual.
Which leads us to have an opinion on what is best, should not be
something backed by the opinions of others. There is not necessarily and should
not be a reason for recognition, the opinion we make about quality aspects of an
object, environments, behaviors or whatever, should not merit the validity of
simply being coincidental with other opinions.

It could be a coincidence, an opinion on practical aspects that developed and

gained the format of even an invention, that would facilitate the life or work of
the individual, but instead of gaining an overly standardized connotation should
merit resistances that would delay the loosening to new attempts, new ways of
implementing solutions.
If the solutions were too sophisticated, in the sense of losing sight of aspects that
should be considered.
 Time makes the need and thus the construction of civilizations,
human and wild.

The search for a stabilization in meeting the primary needs, with the
construction of alternatives, elaborated throughout a story of great
struggles, adverse situations that aroused in the individual most trivial
instinct of improvement for better conditions, facing the most recurring
challenges.
The displacement posture of the original axis, which comprised
the processes arising from the primitive means of life, of a relationship
without discriminatory connotation becomes more and more evident,
which only becomes preponderant, as this conquest is shaping more
restrictive attitudes.
We slowly see a sophistication arising out of that rusticity that
lodged the individuals with a preservation instinct of the tribe, who had
not yet cleared the bonds that would be discriminatory, since they will
think by restricting the affective ties to the offspring of consanguinity,
by giving precedence to the interests of protectionism, gradually
making it attractive, a question of conditioning the social environment
by hierarchizing itself through parameters of dominance, divergent
from those that brought the preservation of values in the primitive
tribal struggle. Conditioning that has led to a lethargic approach of the
people involved in the natural measures of preservation of the species
until then. A continued appetite for distancing himself from the
foregoing options, coined in the unfolding of the adventures of the
conquests of the milieu, hitherto devoid of any nuance that would have
pleased the enigmatic artifice to design itself as a strange thing that
would transform the adventure of conquest into power to refrain
from fight for elementary and primary.
It was the easy outline of promising methods concerning safety,
and attainment of ends that should have been shared before. The
destructive dimension that such individualization would entail could
not of course have been glimpsed at that moment and circumstance,
such a greatness of natural forces at that existential threshold.

But the tragedy of the shared communal means now approaches as a

paradox, forgetting totally the man of the origin of this announced
catastrophe in a philosophical scope, it can be said. What is
discouraging is the human perplexity in stating that the common media
will be inexorably exterminated and that this tragedy can not be
equated.
As if the existential human condition had never had a format
consistent with the biological nature of the cosmic system and the
alternative to equate such tragedy was unthinkable and human
existence bound to exterminate itself irremediably.

This dilemma leads human existence to exhaust itself as irreversibly. As

if there were something profoundly wrong with its nature and we
would struggle unnecessarily to achieve an outcome that would
rebalance the annihilation of the greatness and diversity of creation,
which ended up confining itself to the commercial value of commodity
in order to create a parameter in existence human being, in which it
kept us formally coherent with the deviation of its natural propensity. Is
this something impossible to be solve!? To reassess the process of
industrialization that occurred in those primary conditions? In that
eagerness to achieve stability at any cost, without scaling the losses of
contact with the value of original greatness, by definitely providing us
with a kind of warmth and refuge from the force of unpredictability?
 It is the unknown, this need to seek a link, a clarity that had
guided the positions that would have supported the construction of this
parallel reality, from which we can not ignore, if it launched the
resources arising from the consequences of this new reality. That would
come to establish itself as autocratic processes, which banished from
then on the previous need for coherence and commitment to the
previously known original untouchable values. It was the beginning of a
disintegration, even though the human existential cells, were little
communicable and distant from each other at that time, there was the
intrinsic and implied warning of disruption with the reasonableness of
biological existential precepts previously hitherto revered.
We can not fail to elucidate the question of the structuring of
society as an intrinsic part of the mutations that occurred at that
moment. How can we understand that this trend towards the
valorization of predictable habits brings back to the perception of the
need to compose a familiar cell to condition these new attitudes that
were formed, insofar as they consume what will be since then being
supplied as a commodity? Tribal necessity, and with it nomadism,
seems no longer to be part of this facilitation that is emerging.

And here it is necessary to try to understand what this alternative really

meant as a thing that had inbuilt beliefs and dogmas, a set and
paraphernalia that sought to sustain psychologically what was foreign
to the way of existence until then, free of conditioning or moral
precepts that it brought now the hierarchy in relationships. The new
possibility of building within the natural reality, something that dared
to detach itself from the support that was evident and inseparable from
the diversified biology in the existential niches.
In this we must seek to investigate how this mutation occurred,
which now appears to us as something absolutely natural and
consequent to the evolution of man, who ended up settling on land.
But does this process of fixation conceal a reflection of the deliberate
degenerative option with the dissociation of the healthy instinct of
sociability that lives the adventure of the endless voyage ... and
understand it as a way of investigating how this mutation
occurred, opted for the safety and degradation of an inexhaustible
medium in consumer products that does not resent the consequences
of breaking the organic system? A device that allows us, perhaps, to
reorient what may have been only the occasion of continuous
discoveries that have been so opening the promising spectrum, which
has otherwise become a plaster of what could have been mild if the
connotation of the conditions was not an expression of the perplexity
of the human races that were under the animosities and perplexities of
the instinct of preservation and domination imperative at that
moment.
It would have been this effect at that moment, a real duel that
did not leave room for a binding bond of mutual knowledge to occur as
humans who were, evidently, expanding the discovery of their purpose
and acting in a way to redirect their conditionings by other
means, adventure of the ongoing discoveries. But what happened was
the propensity for unresolved agency in the form of creating mastery
devices to meet their primary needs. Launching parameters that
offered the bias of the illusions and flavors discovered until then, to
serve as paraphernalia to the subsequent paths resulting from
improvements that came from the domination that was seen as an
alternative.

And from that moment onwards a form of departing from the

unexpected was created, giving rise to the dubious path that presented
itself as a more complex alternative, since no means had been
elaborated until then to establish the assent of the most elementary
needs.
 But we know that according to what has unfolded, these
affinities seem to have been seen or placed in a less important place
because an inarticulate expedient had already been drawn up as a way
to accelerate the path that would already be under the influence of
sedentarism, protectionism, fidelity to the dogmas of those who did not
feel compelled to recognize accentuated bonds outside family
consanguinity.

It is true that the beginning of the commercialization was not in such a

way as to bring profit or advantage to those who offered a product ...
Or it could be said that they were practically exchanged and the fact of
having access to products that were not produced by oneself, was
already a great advantage. But over time there was the introduction of
a currency to facilitate the transaction, and from then on the notion of
fairness that should prevail was changed somehow. Accompanying
facts that could facilitate or hinder the transaction, ended up valuing or
devaluing this currency of exchange, taking this notion of fair exchange
for a great variety of factors that passed, sometimes unjustifiable but
accepted. This brought the glimmer of accumulating this currency of
exchange to impart greater capacity for achievement and
domination. Then prosperity begins to generate prosperity, of course,
giving a misguided trade orientation of the initial purpose of exchange,
prevailing as a necessary device to carry out the negotiations that have
been expanding and delegating greater powers by the volume of which
has come to be commercialized.
We need to contrast that exchange currency with what has now
become the economic market itself. Not wanting to make a judgment
of judgment, which matters little, but bringing a relation to what it lent
itself and interpreting what this brings us now, to that mentioned
dissociation of the primitive tribal life, and the structure of purposes
that accelerated the actions, establishing a framework inherent in the
dazzling of the diversification proper to life itself, which has as its main
characteristic the amplitude and robustness of existential life.

It is neither strange nor novel, to speak of the losses that the

environment has accumulated rapidly. Nor can we find it irrelevant the
fact that the relationship between the created structure of
consumption since then puts us in a situation where we can not try to
equate all this without moving in this structure that promotes and is
promoted by the mechanical act of marketing distorted of the primary
purpose, in subterfuges that gave rise to the concept of technocratic
superiority.
We must try to understand this gap between the pure and
simple exchange that took place as a way of streamlining the
distribution of production and the current stage that gave values to the
currency of exchange, when there was any fact that would disfavor the
business, causing this currency to be more or less valued, having an
effect of anticipation that aborted the true meaning of the coin, to be
able to find factors that multiplied it, instead of favoring the service to
which it would have been invented.

And here we begin to see clearly that this tendency is highly

technocratic and is at the service of those who do not produce but of
those who anticipated the facts created as a result of unpredictability,
and there installed itself as manager of this exchange currency, without
there being a support for the purpose that was proposed, and today
they are shown as promoters of non-productive investments.
It would be very convenient to study and understand how, at
any given moment, this currency industry prevails, and to grasp the
structure of consumption itself and the consequences thereof. In this
way we might not even need to be desperately trying to save the planet
from the harmful mechanisms of aggression it suffered, leading to the
exhaustion of resources. If what is produced no longer has a direct
relation with the need of the human being or at best brings in its core a
reflection of the complex impositions of a market that needs to survive,
but it is intoxicated the more it produces and poisons this market. So
we are clearly faced with an equation that could not work, because its
relation of sustainability was at the mercy of the arbitrariness of the
currency and not of human necessity.

We can consider the fact of the first evidence of discrimination, as

correlated to the promotion of the use of the exchange currency that
restricted a given offer to the detriment of what first appeared to be
just a fair compensation device. But that was also intermingling with
sophistication and growth of the value of the currency of purchase
and secondaryization of productive work as something less
dignified. The accumulation of this coin gradually brought the idea of
managing future productions, relegating the fact of production itself to
the background. And as a consequence of this continuous tendency to
manage the production, it was formed consequently blocks that
corresponded to the most diverse activities, coming from what had
been demarcating castes through attitudes with reference to the
respective activities.
It was a productive society that emerged and had as primary
cell, the family, protection and bond with the respective domains. The
echo of command and systematic availability could be clearly felt from
the opening of the range and diversification of these productions that
could be raised by one and the other, which expediently lent itself to
calculating its advantage and ability to acquire facilities that would
provide it to your family, a factor of greater tranquility and
sedentarism, promotion and accommodation!

From this point on, the tendency is to foster these productive facilities
and to continuously increase the family's cellular space as something
that will increasingly justify this search for sophistication and
strengthening the idea of being extremely effective in its promotion
and enrichment needs!
Of course, we are getting to the exhaustion of a model of
unquestioned representation of the human being, to enable a central
power that promotes the defense of those who would not be fit, nor
could society possibly organize consistently if this government, this
policy had not settled.

But there is much controversy about this argument and consequently

the exploitation of the workforce as a natural thing, and the structure
of the state with its laws and suppression of the freedom of being.

Utilitarianism, Marxism, and the Contracts that govern the state

structure address the exploitation of this labor force that has
transformed what would be the simple reason to live in something
absurd and meaningless. We are exhausting all the natural goods that
are gratuitous in exploiting these resources with no sense of their
wealth and inexorability, with the insatiable market laws and the
mediocre majority sense of the cowardly individual.
Which leads us to have an opinion on what is best, should not
be something backed by the opinions of others. There is not necessarily
and should not be a reason for recognition, the opinion we make about
quality aspects of an object, environments, behaviors or whatever,
should not merit the validity of simply being coincidental with other
opinions.

It could be a coincidence, an opinion on practical aspects that

developed and gained the format of even an invention, that would
facilitate the life or work of the individual, but instead of gaining an
overly standardized connotation should merit resistances that would
delay the loosening to new attempts, new ways of implementing
solutions. If the solutions were too sophisticated, in the sense of losing
sight of aspects that should be considered.

We must now contrast the model of productive society with the primitive
one, which had as its first characteristic the non-dissociation of the wild life of
human life. Everything merged as something properly structured, perfectly as it
should be, but the human being struggled to become influential in that
environment that still had no definition of mastery, and the dimensions of
everything was perceived in a way that felt almost insignificant through the
exuberance of that structure with no trace of destruction

But we know that little by little man became more intelligent, or at least
avails himself of resources that other animals did not use for lack of it or because
they instinctively accepted their condition to be part of that state of perfection.

So it is logical to admit that man concluded that this condition was costly and
that he could transform it if he wanted to see himself in a position of less danger
and safety. It turns out that from this premise he had to idealize new alternatives
that would give him an advantage over the natural ones.

We see that it was a way of experiencing other ways of surviving

and discharacterizing the existential profile that seemed religiously dangerous
and perfect!

What challenge hung over human existence that probably had no notion of how
he could ensure what was indispensable to him day by day? It would be very
difficult to imagine the degree of necessity to which it was daily submitted and
the fact of trying to systematize at least the satisfaction of the primary needs,
seems to have been an iniludible way. But would it be dissociating itself from the
natural process in the attempt to shape the productive society that would actually
be the consequence of these early initiatives?

Primitive society seemed to have no essentially moral traits, which would

only make sense when it was necessary to create a systematic environment or be
more conducive to the satisfaction of premeditated needs, since everything
would be molded a priori to nourish the wills of a domain that would justify the
pursuit of perfection in what concerns the intelligent act, which would ensure the
improvement of daily life, solving the difficulty of natural obstacles, making them
part of a reality more favorable to man.

That is to say: if the individual needed to fish every day to feed himself, by the
simplicity of fishing, he developed more efficient mechanisms that would spare
him this repetitive effort so that he could take care of other tasks that he found
more edifying. But what happens is that other secondary needs arise with other
inventions that appear with the construction of an artificial world, of a society
that does not live simply by living. It becomes a productive society, which loses
sight of the first idea, which would be to conquest its liberty.
The very dedicated commitment to the search for efficiency in the
material aspect has so dominated everything that concerns man's activity, which
remained unknown to what extent, as in the previous case in which he stops
fishing his fish daily to get ahead with in relation to other aspects and thus in
everything else, he seems to have no control over the need for autonomy, and
this balance seems less important because he imagines that common goods
would be inexhaustible? At any moment he realizes that he is immersed in an
environment of limited resources and as such does not seem to him in any
credible way that he may have to ponder over his dependence on that exuberant
and seemingly endless source of resources.

So the man, in an attempt to make his life much easier, invariably

focused on improving the acquisition of material goods, ignoring the finitude of
resources that would certainly not be there at the mercy of his ignorance and
already show signs of bankruptcy.

The productive society is instrumentalized and exploits diverse natural resources,

with the increasingly restricted capacity to direct the focus to other actions that
are outside this productive activity that degrades without glimpsing the
subjective, noncommercial development. Strangely, life that is mysteriously
conceived and marked by the beauty and glory of life itself seems to lose its
meaning when it ensures too much access to primary goods as if nothing else
deserves, beyond these expectations, the degree of exhaustive importance given
to productive processes that degrade the environment and interfere with the
degree of beauty that hangs over everything that is alive. As if this were
something irrelevant, of less value!

At least it is what in practice happens because the values without

commercial connotation undo mysteriously. Everything is clothed in an attractive
beauty with commercial intent, which stifles simplicity and real values because no
one will defend the obvious, and the image of suggestion leaves no room for this
obvious as such is not deceptively, artificially supplanted, while the spectacular
goes in extravagant mediocrity and vulgar, gaining new clothes.

We will be able to discern and understand that the battle of the truism does not
find support outside our consciousness and that all this excess of commercial
suggestions in its autophagy has been relentless and annihilates without mercy
the life even more voraciously when it uses of fanciful refinements, to imply that
one is preserving it!? ...

When the exchange currency begins to gain values that will make it
intermediary of this dialogue between producers and consumers, the values
become elastically quantifiable and this will yield the sponsorship of all sorts of
undertakings, making the quantification irremediably become a multidisciplinary
tool, by inviting the ballast of a power that has been built since then, demarcated
by the speculative degree that lends itself to the derivation of these values, in the
meanders of strength by the capitalization generated, from the domain coming
from the acquisitions of the currency by the currency.

And from this systematics that may seem obvious, it is not perceived that this way
of mediating the transactions became a tool of lethality, of imbalance and
destruction of the common good. In this way everything becomes the domain of
someone and the exploitation of resources does not take any consideration for
the gratuity of natural assets.

We can not consider the pricing of all natural resources obvious and
think that everything should be exploited as a monetary value. No, it's not so
obvious! Price is a way to exterminate the resource. Contrary to what the
monetary artifice instills in us, it is linked to the power of independent exploration
that exists as something that could not be different, precisely because this power
acquired in a devious way will not blame itself by, without the exhaustive studying
of the irreversibility of these distortions and disarticulation of this structure,
which subsists as something sacred, which finds didactic support such as would be
justified by the power of destruction it enhances, and thus we inexorably accept
the disfavor of this condition, as if we were pariahs of a regime without solution!

Something sensible must be put through an act of primary justice. We can not
feel carried away by the system that is claudicating. Not only by the force that has
to arouse a mistaken and illusory individualism, but by distorting the notion of
good, which is gratuitous, in the possibility of franking it in the presumption of
providing something of a different value, for being paid by the coin. And with this
we inflate the market of formality which reflects the inability to assent to the
natural. It relates to something far from being recognized, due to the lack of
market value. That arises only when the perspective of individualization surfaces
in continuous spasms of enlightenment under consumerism that may seem to
justify such a derisory feeling.

So we can no longer stop moving momentarily from this current

globalizing reality, to make a critical analysis of everything that has seemed
perfectly normal and unavoidable.
 All countries are obsessed with the production of energy that is giving signs of
harmful and precarious, being treated as merchandise with multiple purposes and
transgressing limits of sustainability. We do not question the model of society
that continues to admit that it believes in those millennial values and therefore
we make every effort to correspond to what others expect, even though we know
that such beliefs no longer exists as such, but it seems that we cannot substitute
them , since the dynamics and complexity of present-day society no longer fuels
the moralistic notion that underpinned the conviction of the values once
advocated. But the productive society was structured in such a way that the
questions about the maladies inherent in the systematics of its institutions do not
exist and all are seeking to establish themselves within this perspective of
progress, which no longer knows where to arrive and as neoliberals, we treat the
subject already within an absurd perspective of correctness and equation of the
distortions within its own problematic dialectic, that has in its reaction the
eventual and probable consequence, the encounter of their solutions.

And we continue day by day, striving to respond to this absurd society of

production that idealizes its objectives in a standardized way, in such a way that
we feel compelled to compare ourselves with the merit of individuals who also
sought similar models and thus we see the time pass without realizing that the
clarity and manliness that had been so dear to us in childhood seems strangely
laden with interpretations that do not help us look at all this in the way
to resent the aberrations of economic power.

Therefore it would be essential to acquire the notion of the change that has
taken place between one society and another throughout this time, to
understand the content of the inversion of these values and why they exist and if
there is how to flex them in order to bring coherence with the necessity that
it makes, the current situation of disaggregation that we live.

The values that should be clear, obvious, and relevant to contemporary

modern man have much to do with their living in a medium that has been
projected through more recent images and episodes, by the ready and
instantaneous diffusion that seems to erase the most remote ideological
influences. One can say that values were constructed throughout civilizations and
at a certain moment there was a saturation of this millenarian wisdom that
happens to be radicalized through unilateral terrorist expressions, when it does
not seem to assimilate the speed and deterioration of these values.

If these values are being ignored, one can consider: or that there is a strong
influence of any sort that would be weakening the sense of ownership that was
born with the use of money and with it the whole scope of the formation of the
institutions and states, or this weakening is due to the natural dynamic process of
global cybernetic communication, where the anarchic is emerging as a
consequence and weakening of the construction proposals until then, which
finally translate into the non-viability of the inorganic aspects in the productive
processes hitherto created, which did not take into account the finiteness of
natural resources.

And at the same time, a critical view sees clear evidence of mass
manipulation that still believes in those blindly expanded values as a way of
morally pressing the social environment in exchange for advantages. And in this
mechanism one can basically understand how they have been made over the
years, the construction of the popular environment, which in turn lacks a greater
increase in the productive structure, ends up staying on the fringes of this
liquefaction that has become a constant festival of facilities that gain power of
influence, by an excessively rapid spread, by the force of persuasion of the capital
monetary projections, inflated of cybernetic power and commitment to self
propellers with unquestioned aims.

Perhaps we could compare to a desertification process, when the crops that were
hitherto in force, being supplanted without any question, by new aggressive
techniques used more and more to supply a market that grows the more it is
driven, as part of a disaggregating and resource-limiting mechanism , in order to
achieve their own economic-obsessed incentive in itself!
 We see that the means of rendering procedures of daily dealing in the
present world, have been sought, according to virtually fictitious needs. One can
not imagine that the necessity of dressing or feeding, always required so much
expenditure and sophistication. There wasn’t any doubt that it was not necessary
to produce so much food and store it or to produce such sophisticated clothes, so
that we could better position ourselves in a social environment, or rather feel
better suited ...

It is necessary to evaluate the degree of commitment of the resources,

which these and other options have brought to the imbalance of the system,
when it would not be necessary to hijack certain resources to the point of being
useless or disposable, in order to increase compulsorily the degree of supply
of existential nuclei, which has become standard and with it the morality and
customs that underlie the property, which became evident but distorted life for
its organic edge , in unsustainable expenditure of the livelihood, which already
fades from the diversity inherent to organic integrality, which complemented
each other through cycles that self-composed, without waste or accumulation of
tailings.

It is pertinent to emphasize the bond of moral appeal that creates, on

the one hand, the degree of supremacy and in parallel artificial devices that make
them evident, so that in them there is capacity to be made feasible the degree of
accessibility and therefore property requirements issuers of ballast of
protectionism and power. Able to prevent natural processes, healthy, in favor of
the mere condition of elaborate privacy.

I see all current articulation in favor of the environment and

sustainability being instructed mainly by the media that dilapidates it, and its
mechanisms of projection could even be convincing, amid the urban artificialities
that do not measure the degree of excellence as a natural thing, but are costly
didactic artifacts, technically applicable only to flashy concepts of pictorial design.

How could one think of relaxing this sedentary structure with the aim to
achieve results that make it appear coherent, the urbane brightness of mega
million dollar constructions of fanciful appeals, such as the entrance of light,
water saving, etc., through which the eminent commercial notion crystallized in a
contemporary bias of the good, as a disposable and private thing in the
individuality of the inaccessible, by force of rejected values in the property, to the
detriment of the omnipresent diversity of the collective primitive?

Events are somewhat overheated and somewhat unified before a news

factory that reinserts us in this experiential dialectic, without knowing more
where to stand ... Our faith will always exist but we already feel that much has
changed, and because of this globalized communication we become more critical
of the various religions and no longer admit some that have gone so far as to
visibly incorporate a destructive legion that terrifies mankind.

But in the face of this situation of eminent catastrophe, of a lack of

unification of conceptions of life, which are counter posed by the excess of
individuality, which receives attributes of freedom distorted by the frenzy of
consumption. Which has become official as the head of civilization and which
seems to be very difficult to exclude us from its conception, which apparently
everyone has a clear perception of their fragility, but we are innocently
benevolent with the contamination of the various forms that run us down, day by
day. We are somewhat grateful for the ease that has brought us the offer of
products that give us the contradictory feeling of being well, but we lack the
condition of harmony in the collective space, from which we distance ourselves
more and more.

We feel that when we eat a fruit or drink a juice, we will never feel as if
we are ingesting something palatable as we have thought, and we know that for
this reason nothing is reliable, everything is running out of vitality. The diversity of
these natural productions is crumbling and the ones we still find in the fairs are
the most ordinary, because they are the ones that still resist. Not wanting to be
an alarmist, but these things are important and even the most financially
privileged, they will not be safe. They only buy better packaged products …
There was an over-concern with scale production because the currency
gained the ability to finance larger productions.
But the consequences of this heating of the value of money by the
currency is not done within criteria approved by the notion of unanimity of
civilization. In order to safeguard productive mechanisms, those who enjoy a
favor that lacks appropriate criteria, could not gain much evidence. We should
consider at a certain moment that, in view of the colonization that the remotest
places have suffered, of the degradation to which they have been subjected, it is
inadmissible that they are still the greatest debtors and the poorest and most
miserable. Why consider that the financial system carries something incorrigible
in its essence and that we will be forever prisoners of its blind and voracious
incongruity? There must be a way to start over. An equation should be sought
sooner or later and one can no longer leave civilizations left to the economy that
was of a party or people, as if the market did not have an effective remedy to
reverse the impoverishment and lethality of a mechanism lacking in coherence
which should be proposed.

We no longer live in the middle ages and the geographical limits of

present-day civilizations should have lost the force of imprisonment, which had
been conceived in the advent of commercial transactions.

An effective value as a form of payment to enable a parallel management of

resources that were not susceptible to the speculative distortions and
protectionism of state and private entities that dominated the economic power.

It may seem too idealistic, but with all the unfolding of the concentration of
power, at the same time it subsidized the disarticulation of the conception of
primitive life that should exchange the commodity, not as a way to take
advantage but instead to take to the other, the product that he didn’t know how
to do it, to win something in return.
With the currency, the notion of the natural act of sharing the various riches was
lost, for introducing a value of money with capacity to acquire the products,
because they represented that value that was quantified on a first moment,
but began to grow in highly questionable reasons, that in the last instance
surpassed the purchasing power and strengthened the value of the currency, the
more it distanced itself from the primitive values and the nomadic structure of
living, giving place to the sedentarism, the productive society.

We have to understand this process. What meant the introduction of

money with purchasing power, successively, and the formatting of protected
haunt by this power that gave birth to the people ... The power to acquire such
products became the essential rule of this new society that became to
experience the detachment of considerations of mutual trust, to give way to
objection, of actors who ended up feeling the will to choose the "best". And
whoever offered the product should also have a similar power so as not to feel
like they have to deliver it without a compatible counterpart. Or what seemed to
be a less judicious exchange, was gaining airs of confrontation of forces where
cooperation was no longer the main factor ...

It is important to understand where precisely the birth of the productive society

took place, in order to negotiate these goods in a systematic way and the
distance, the weakening of the primitive society that was not articulated with this
intention. Or because in the face of the distortion of primitive ties, which had
criteria which he did not seek to acquire systematically, or naturally he did not
experience the necessity of pursuing this objective with accumulation of goods, to
protect himself, or to those who seemed to him most worthy or similar . What
might even seem an act of bravery, also seems to have been weakness and
discrimination. Naturally in those conditions were people who had varied
contacts of greater or lesser proximity. Enemies strangled for some reason
probably did not get to exchange merchandise. So we must reflect on the
discrimination that occurred naturally, without explicit adjectives that subvert the
part, that for some reason had to submit and seek the exchange, because it would
also be opting for systematization, with the similar idea of protecting their peers.
But it should be noted that although they share the same purpose, some
communities are weaker and less capable of the same prosperity or because they
use more backward methods, or because the more prosperous part no longer
struggles with the production work itself, but has become an intermediary only.

It may be noted that, whether you like it or not, the improvement of the
conditions defines clear, hierarchical positions, in order to bring the structure
equipped with methodology understood by itself, as aptitudes that are rising with
the possibility of ascension or the difficulty of maintaining effective exchange of
production for its real values.

How, then, did the distention of the process take place, surpassing the value of
the work of some who were less guided in order to potentially accumulate the
force of production, because they were closer to the primitive? We then influence
that this change occurs at the moment in which the production is schematized
with the essentially analytical strategy.

What difference is there in this attitude that does not emit weights of
commitment with the work necessary to pay off the ventures? In this mercantile
attitude, which arises from the very understandable necessity of giving more
balance to the human race, because it was at that moment appropriate and with
it the disproportionate appreciation of money, did it not need a revision, without
which we would simply endorse the unpreparedness of the situation which
unfolded by that moment, as if it carried necessarily embedded the ballast of
injustice, since the always?

What mechanism is this that it does not transpose at all, the fragile
conception of profit as a form of struggle that was designed in the early days of
exchange relations, where inappropriately linked devices of paradoxical
appropriation to the unequivocal benefit that one wanted to lend to the act of
exchange?

Will we inevitably be compelled to endorse this break with the true sense of
sustainability, which now presents in other versions this impoverishment of vital
species, not only as a consequence of this brutality, but otherwise presents
distorted causes with eminently scientific aspects that do not touch with any
effectiveness the question that corrupts the nature of the human being, exactly in
a bias of pseudo love and protectionism. We might even reasonably understand
that there is in any case a greater approximation between consanguinities, but
the fact that it has such clear objections in the sense of repeatedly invigorating
them, only weakens the legitimate argument for wholesome conduct, as one
expects from beings of the same specie, in the tireless exercise of its
revitalization.

At times I wonder if this path of alienation and heating of the productivity of

civilizations was inevitable or whether we could have unfolded ourselves without
committing so much to the arising adversities from the exhaustion of natural
resources that once seemed endless. Or perhaps this path has been inevitable
and the complexity and technological development is that which will bring us a
new and unexpected arrangement that, by the wealth of the developments of so
diverse origin of civilizations, will at last enable the dissolution of the
insurmountable juridical framework of the nations, which is what in the end gives
continuity to the belligerent system of the economy once instituted by the
exchange currency.

So we are left between two important premises that need to be taken into
account. The first one that would seek a way back to that semi-productive
nomadic structure and the second that tries to dissolve the institutional
commitment of the economy from the productive alienation. And it seems that
the first and second are the two sides of the same coin. Because we could not
return to nomadism without solving the riddle that looms over the preterit
solubility of the economic system.

The structure of the economy that developed from the currency of exchange
enabled the productive society and the means of production to form new beliefs
that enabled the development of the science that in its logic built the
investigation of the integral system of natural diversity, and expanding ever more
its premises, as such are built with the objective of increasing the production of
goods and consequent dissociation of the integrality of these organic
mechanisms.

So we can not or it does not make sense to talk about reversing the mechanism
that has exhausted natural resources without somehow intelligibly understanding
and dissuading the frenzy of systemic consumption. Of the society that remains
excessively productive. Only from the contrast of the primitive integral values,
with the appeal of the imponderable quest for individuality, which was born
incontestably from the possibility of achieving independence through financial
resources, which put freedom in perspective as a search for achieving goals
without informed guidance.

Only by pondering on the probability of the pursuit of a diminished freedom, not

by repression but by the increase of the collective, dissuading the competitive
objective values that lie between the discriminations constituted in the formation
of the peoples that incorporates the different nations. Only by looking for a way
that finally exhausts the need to combat the remnants of inferiority that
suggest disproportionate assertion of appropriation, ensured by the economic
system.

Of course, we will always see the obstacles that our mind builds to justify our
comfort, our material equilibrium that arises from the opportunity to have had
the good fortune of not belonging to the less favored offspring, which in some
way would not justify the sense of justice , which could cover our conscience
timidly.

We know that this offspring as justification is very fragile, and our conscience will
always be emitting signs of nonconformity, when we see people starving around
us, or involved in situations of risk in the social disintegration that our country and
many others in South America or Africa, the Middle East. The endless war in Syria,
Iraq, Palestinians, etc.
 Our conscience is sound and the excesses of the rulers are a great obstacle. They
hinder any possibility of understanding and the popular articulations are so
inconsequential and dumb. They usually end up tackling issues that are irrelevant
to the root causes and bring a strain to the articulators of the mobilizations.
Especially those on the front lines, who often end up being absorbed by the
spurious interests of the institutions.

And so we continue to lead our lives, even with a certain relief, by seeing the
world crumbling around us but we are still safeguarded by what we have won
with effort, since we were lucky enough to belong to tight families, but we can
not justify ourselves indefinitely for this and to be thus impotent with respect to
the aggression that others suffer, and end up composing themselves this other
side that is deteriorating and collapsing the values of solidarity that are now
known, as more for dialectical justifications of the politically correct.

Politicians always have a discourse that inspires justice, and they are always
creating laws for the less fortunate, but they are increasingly distancing
themselves from the objective for which they have been elected.

And every sense of justice could be contained in the word "democracy," which
everyone evokes each moment to place himself in an unassailable position. So we
listen to speeches that promise everything through this infallible instrument that
the Greeks have idealized since so long but that has not been adapted to the
passage of time and rests only as a concept that everyone knows and admits
would be ideal if it worked.

But we know that the population has grown to the point where no one really
knows who has been elected by the one, and their real intent and ability.

What's the point of electing someone you do not really know, to represent you
in parliament? Where are we going to get this way? Since everyone agrees with
the apparent discrepancy of this non-representativeness in practical terms !!

Because we think and we were told that there is no other way and we must
insist because we would end up hitting it, maybe for luck !? We do not dare to
think that there are other means such as simple awareness and deliberation of
ideas ... But time does not stop and the current regime is of alienation and the
system subsists in order to deceive, not give chance to those who do not descend
from individuals compromised with the sustainability of the system.

But its support is getting more and more pulverized and camouflaged, by the
complexity and size of the machine that was formed to manage the country. We
no longer know who is who. Whether right or left and which ideals they really
stand for. In this way everything became a show of populism from time to time.

So we will continue to struggle for issues that seem important as the sustainability
of our planet, but which is nothing more than opportunism to make superficial
the understanding about the real destructive force that consumes the diversity
that should be an asset of everything that exists, by the simple force of harmony.

It seems strange to us not to take into account the fact that we do not live to be
part of an infallible organic system. And the range of attitudes that should be
preponderant by the link of the balance of the integrality of the vital system,
which is moving forward to reach a goal, is becoming more and more distant.

We ignore all this to be faithful to all sorts of mechanisms designed to

manipulate us to become prey of ourselves.

It is understandable to suppose that at the beginning of convergence,

the birth of the currency of exchange and the emergence of the seeds of peoples
and nations, there was not much reason for the economic activities that were
born not to be loaded with discrimination and protectionism, since the
differences between the tribes primitives were sustained and no notion
was had of the macro context of future events that would unfold ever since.

But we can not justify the successive distortions that have made the
system to this day unsustainable, as if it were a purely rational and scientific
question that one wishes to lend to the nefarious factor of unsustainability, an
empirical notion of unjustifiable favors today and because they originated in the
emergence of nations, which does not imply consequently what could be a
justification for the consistency of the facts, nothing that has to do with a
presumed certification of legitimacy, where distortions seem to receive a shield
within the state, which continues treating these economic issues as a true war
strategy and endorse all this with naturalness, with well-favored favors, to the
point of suggesting improvement in the level of superiority and status of one
ethnicity over another.

Of course, if we continue to address the issues of unsustainability of

the environment and depletion of natural resources, as something that does not
come precisely from this incongruity that repatriates land assets and resources as
a matter of war economy and power issue of each state, we can refer all the
mitigations presented by the scientific milieu and we will never be minimally
coherent when we realize that then we are going around in circles, without being
able to treat the subject objectively.

Unable to recognize that the congruence of any issues will not be

different because the state of which we are part would assertively be one of the
pioneers in not adopting a posture that would put him intimidated before the
financial race of the world. Where the remnants of primitive discrimination seem
to be growing more potent and the diagnosis of the economic war only softened
between these states that decide to create clubs of 8, 20, etc.

Everyone has GDP as the benchmark of growth conditions and there is

nothing else. Industries can not stop. Man has to work every day and retire more
and later, and everything sounds like absolute truth, from the point of view of the
financial race that has its foundations increasingly impregnated by mere political
conjuncture that builds, based on theoretical concepts of democracy or whatever,
prolongations and strengthening of obstructive practices of the finally modern
and dynamic environment. There is no other influence that could have real weight
in the decisions because once again we turn democracy into a myth, as if it really
reflects what the concept proposes. But parliament really does not stand for
anything. And how can we still hope that these decisions will imply a course that
can bring us optimism and any confidence in the future?

This in turn continues to foment pseudo-ideologies in a pragmatic protectionism,

which is sustained by the apology that it does to the detriment of the diverse
economies in the millenarian strategic foundation, of consenting discriminatory
origin.

So it does not seem to make sense anymore this way of life that
distances itself from the real sense of living, which is the ability to engage in
dynamic processes because we already live in the moment, this opportunity that
makes the previous condition of supplying the primary needs, something
surpassed in view of the condition we have built.

But you will have to turn this page. It is not only this that we are
entrusted with, as human being that we are. Is it not too simple to realize that the
source of life is an inexhaustible source and there is no reason to make it
incompatible with the level of occupation in which we hijack its resources
because of inappropriate, outdated operating systems at the current stage in that
one has the clear prerogative to reverse the scope of excessive and dispensable
predictability, which we once adopted without question, because the
incomprehension of the fundamental reality of resources seemed to us
inexhaustible.

It is essential that we dimension once again the concept of vital

prerogatives of supply, with due caution, and do not continue to pursue vicious
options concerning the almost brutality of the method primarily created, within a
perplexed reality in which the human species was still discovering itself as being
capable of to form as a leader of what he misunderstood, but in the face of
prolific situations of unpredictability, he urged to listen to instinct and no more
than to seek the essential to make possible the aspiration to remain in leadership
of the events lived.

So, basically the fuel of this characteristic of human development, of

discoveries, with the advent of technology, from the format of the development
of raw material as a way to leverage the improvement of the living condition of
human populations. This fuel was first and foremost the necessity of putting all
antecedent discoveries within a single great order and perspective, which then
came to complement itself with greater and greater impetus, culminating in the
cybernetic and immense capacity to store data that we have today .

But this is very recent and the search for development has not always been
favorable and contagious, as it is today in most countries. The economy gradually
became the spirit that ends up processing the whole system of contracts and
industrialization of productive means.

But as a spirit that gives life to the raw matter and puts it equally
imbued with an intelligent commitment to the properties that it has, each
component, in order to generate the impulse of the organicity, like when realizing
the photosynthesis for example, as well as the discoveries of several properties of
the environment combine in an intelligent mechanism of economies and
productions for the consequent facilitation of life and greater chance of survival
of nature and man on the planet.
But the first organicity of matter was perfect and coherent in its
mechanism. This other one, with an apparent implementation of the discoveries
with a primary economic purpose, already seems to be without an end properly
delimited and after raising the living standard of the human being in a first
moment, is now deficient and unsustainable, for not having considered the
evident aspects of the limitation of these resources and to have created a
propensity to the convulsion of this intelligence, because it has not been
sharpened to the point of leaving the lack of perspective of the purely economic
opportunity. To the point of never seeming to have been unified but instead
showing intrinsically to rely on a dubious spirit of individual epiphanies and justify
competition as a healthy stimulus that would imbue this chaotic spirit with what
could logically have resulted in accommodation and equanimity of peoples
rather than segregated and colonized, with no prospects of dignity within an
apparent state of disorder and injustices homologated by remaining moral
concepts of conditioning and religiosity, inferiority justified by this economy.

As for this intelligent spirit that animates and gives life to matter, I can not say
that it is the same as the one animating the discoveries of science and the
commercial transactions of a world that ignores the fact that in the preceding
nomadic phase, there was no such psychological conflict by restricting
procreation to the family sphere, creating the fantasy of sex as a forbidden thing
and precisely there, created the lack of control and marginalization of a
population that grows disproportionately because of this lack of coherence that
feeds the apparent congruence, invented in the wake of discrimination. And with
this, unsustainability is not only affected by the condition of limiting the resources
of living, but it is again evident that sedentary lifestyle and religious consanguinity
creates this disproportionality and lack of a being who is naturally responsible for
its spring, as would do any animal or biological being.
So perhaps population growth and many facts correlated with freedom and not
immersion in beliefs created to artificially sustain an usurping and fictitious
power, perhaps and probably so would all follow its natural course, and lack of
control would not be falsely attributed to what we use to believe to have been
natural and an existential human uncontrolled fate !?

I would also like to make a consideration regarding the possibility that

there was no such alienation, with the emergence of a productive society, but
that everything would have been a consequent path of perfectly natural
progressions and yet the sedentary life and fixation on the primary aspects, a
form to prevail the survival instinct.

Of course, we are getting to the exhaustion of a model of

unquestioned representation of the human being, to enable a central power that
promotes the defense of those who would not be fit, nor could society possibly
organize itself unanimously if this government, this policy had not been settled.

But there is much controversy about this argument and consequently

the exploitation of the labor force as something indefinitely usurped, and the
structure of the state with its laws and suppression of the freedom of being.

Utilitarianism, Marxism, and the Contracts that govern the state

structure, addresses the exploitation of this labor force that has transformed
what would be the simple reason to live as something absurd and meaningless.
We are exhausting all the natural goods that are gratuitous by exploiting these
resources with no sense of their wealth and pretense inexorability, with the
insatiable laws of the market, and the mediocre majority vote of the unconscious
and manipulated individual.
 What might lead us to have an opinion on what is best, should not be
something backed by the opinions of others. There is not necessarily and should
not be a reason for recognition, the opinion we make about quality aspects of an
object, environments, behaviors or whatever, should not merit the validity of
simply being coincidental with other opinions.

It could be a coincidence, an opinion on practical aspects that have

developed itself and gained the format of an invention, for example, that would
facilitate the life or the work of the individual, but instead of gaining an overly
standardized connotation, should deserve resistances that would delay the
loosening for new attempts, new ways of implanting solutions.
The solutions were too fast sophisticated, in the sense of losing sight
of aspects that should be re-weighted, without being transformed into objects of
consumption.

10

In politics, there was never a type of contract where the government

really celebrated a real agreement with the people, but rather a pseudo-contract
with representatives of a minority of the people governed, they denominated the
majority voting element and the expression of a generalized will, but that in truth
was never enough to translate the longing of the ones driven by them, but only
the points that are randomly included to be voted. You are far from expressing an
agreement, but the result of a competitive campaign of interest that exists
without a resolution to reach a real consensus, because there has never been a
mechanism for this in any system of government, even if it has been possible to
deliberate with the order to serve the population. But what it is, is an implied
accommodation of concepts to the workforce as something completely natural,
but which has never resulted as a consensual thing, the role of the policy of
administering the force of production of a country through the labor force of
citizens and laws that have been built with time to sediment concepts of pseudo
liberties that should not last for an undetermined time, because on one side, with
the technology, nor even your work will make that much sense by certain time
and will not really be indispensable to the human dignity as this fictitious
construction of the factory of life would not make that much sense anymore.
 It was not believed in the construction of the idea, as a natural law,
with which the notion of justice would be intrinsic, and because of this, the
commitment of politics with the others was not really necessary, and that a
notion of imperatives was proposed such that to naturally orient the priorities of
human nature, and according to the needs of the moment, it was then through
politics that one drew, in whatever form, without a definite law, as Marx or Lock
meant, but as constructed, participatory as Aristotle said, and more recently
Rawls.
Not that justice was based on the concept of labor exploitation
compensated with a distributive value, attributed to that willingness to perform a
productive good in favor of society, as Marx or Utilitarianism proposed, the
notion of fair compensation related to the capacity to transform and be
proportionated to the degree of satisfaction and contentment. An artifice
proposed in the construction of a just society that translated the spirit of
scientism, the enlightenment of the time, but which did not embrace the
complexity of human nature and its vocation less associative than one wanted to
admit innate and only compulsorily applicable to social purposes since then .
The whole question is that there must be a better understanding or
whatever about the initiative that leads the individual to participate in society. If
it must be a matter of personal choice and it seems reasonable that it should be
so, for the essence of existence is freedom, but under existing conditions there
seems to have been an imposition and mastery of some order which in practice
does not give the option of not abstaining of what society or even a small
population admits, without penalizing the individual with harmful consequences
that will place him in marginality.
Or it might be thought that the process would in any case involve the
initiative of one who sees further and leads as a way of anticipating the common
pitfalls of living, bringing with it a new perspective that goes beyond the simple
unprepared way of accepting the danger or misfortune without any reaction. But
it is necessary to contrast what is this initial idea with the purpose which has
become sophisticated until the present day, ceasing to be an inclusive
articulation, to give a certain form of privilege to the particular category without
taking into account the possibility and necessity of the proposition that goes back
to the beginning of everything. Or you lose focus of what would have been the
initial proposal, or the gratuitousness of a leadership that was strengthened by
the cooperation and free contribution of those who wanted to participate in a
certain action.
 If today's society articulates itself politically through decrees and laws,
contracts, it can not maintain that initial coherence, causing deformities, and the
conscience shouts words of mere formality to refer to the system that does not
reflect the minimum of quality and does not have how to correct it. If we distance
ourselves and lose ourselves from the initial coherence that found strength for
the challenges, as a result of the co-operation agreed and somehow well directed
by the common freedom advocated in the integration of the environment, we can
assume that the present system is only formal but not communicative as it should
and uses forms and images without a feasible feedback to give rise to
propositions that arise from the needs involved, with this peculiarity, in the lack of
communicability and approval of the parties, walking a path of oppression that
does not measure the consequences of these deformations, being guaranteed
with the creation of more norms and military power of oppression, without
consideration with the original option and without taking in account of the
degradation of the environment. As if indeed the conditionings and the artificial
form of the world constructed with proposals badly regimented or without any
restraint whatsoever considered an option outside the commercial factory that
becomes inconsequential for prioritizing the uncontested profit, which gives
deliberate origin to these deformities.
And has been pointed out before, this propensity for the idea of
connivance with profit from the creation of money in parallel or artificially
propelled, motivates insurmountable disproportions as to the possibility of
discrimination and unrealistic justifications of the factor that ends up being the
source of oppression in its origin.

11

There is a huge chasm between the marginalized and society. It is as if

all the attitudes were part of a theatrical scene and everything that we live does
not have the curiosity of the novelty, and the future that awaits us is confined to
the behavior of who is only a creature submitted to a script that is no longer
enough attractive. The subservience and the fear of being considered
incompatible with the system, ultimately politics counts the productive force as
being what really matters and the consequent distension coming from this
mechanism of alienation that formalizes everything and places the people who
participate in this projected life within old and outdated parameters, places
people under conditions that prevent us from naturally helping ourselves with
mutuality.

We know that it is difficult to help someone who is experiencing

difficulties because the system causes a certain creature to have ties that grant its
acceptance and overcoming that occurs as the creature dresses of this formality
that becomes more and more sophisticated, forming hierarchies, castes that get
isolated in its implied importance and the solitude and isolation becomes a
matter of honor and power still.

This is the script of the life of any person who is born and prepares to
be part of a system that is getting more and more technical, specific and
sophisticated. Nobody dares to ask if it is tedious to be a predefined person in
parameters that does not seem to have a historical ballast that has appropriated
the purpose for which all engage without questioning and thus this abyss among
the people and inability to be human or in solidarity like any living being naturally
is, without constraint and originally sympathetic with its fellow man, gets limited
and the marginalization is clear consequence of the imposition of an exclusivist
mechanism.

The fact that we feel powerless to reach out to those who have been
marginalized and go through difficulties, hides the chain of reasoning that
permeates the true meaning of our society and which we strangely assume to be
something immutable and that has always existed within this pernicious logic,
that ultimately we attribute to the spirit of evil.

Is it not time to undress society from this embarrassment that takes

on formalism as a remedy for an evil that only makes it grow with the reiterated
use of the intensification of the economic regime, which make people to distance
themselves from each other, making them proud of a vexatious condition within
obvious existential parameters?

We know that discrimination is and was the origin of everything. But it

is even understandable that in the existential beginnings there was a
predominance of some races over others, since the struggle for survival did not
differentiate or take into account creatures that suddenly appear and begin to
form part of a context not very favorable and full of uncertainties.

But we can not admit that the logic of that context is to this day, the
only one that permeates and gives meaning to the subsistence of nations with its
judiciously analogous politics everywhere on the planet. Now diffused by instant
information technology that makes the warlike criteria, of the supremacy of one
race over the other, poorer and more uniform.

Will this bellicosity and the clear delimitation of the territories that
pervade the nations and the continuation of this exhausted politics that no one's
interested in will continue to exist as something normal and harmless?

The democratic political system has been largely instituted in the

world as the most developed, but there are serious questions about the
generalization of the decisions taken and the inability of the system to oxygenate.
To leave an unquestioned purpose, in which we are cowardly subjected to a
regime that is repeatedly discriminatory and which uses the population's labor
force as a single and implied alternative. And the differentiated condition of the
marginalized can only find any perspective with much overcoming, as if it were
natural the dictatorship of the economic spirit that permeates the relations.

Strangely, we find ourselves struggling for a social position and

without conditions to question the struggles we seek to meet aspirations that can
not be originally ours ... because we are bombarded with beliefs implanted in our
ordinary citizenship, to oil the machine that go against the potentially decrepit
democratic system, when it should deal with options to be opened and not
conditioned to the vote of mere generalizations without status, strictly economic,
impoverishing the original initiatives emanating from leaders of the people, at the
level of advanced development, that we should meet.

........... ............. ............... ....................

 We sometimes do not know if what we are witnessing is a situation as
our perception has discerned or fruit of our imagination ...

I say this because I work with a huge diversity of people at the airport
and end up having a strong impression of behavior patterns from different groups
that are distinctly very specific. Certainly as the language itself, being the result
and reflection of this trajectory, the irrefutable expression of the character of
these peoples that has been shaped over time.

It is logical that certain influences are very marked and predominate,

making us even notice a different characteristic in each culture, with respect to
honesty. Not to say also that a developed culture will certainly be honest, since
the relationship between citizens is undoubtedly rather moderate, but that of its
leaders with the world is predominantly of exploitation, giving excessive
advantages to people they represent, who dare to put themselves in a high
standard of honesty and lack of corruption, disregarding that all comfort and
longevity end up being tedious because of this strong leadership that passes the
advantages of a discriminatory, paternalistic, exploratory and bellicose foreign
policy.

But what attracted my attention was the crew of our daily flights from
Panama, because it is markedly different from other crews in other countries.

While the others are generally extroverted and communicative, because

they are perhaps from countries that advocate freedom and equality as essential
ingredients of democratic spirit, that of Panama does not contradict this, but it
does not do something with which it should express itself emphatically, that his
posture seems a bit more formal and outdated. Even a bit out of international
standards.
 I do not know Panama and I may be talking a lot of nonsense about
these impressions that I try to give a meaning here. They seem to be very much
aligned in the way they dress (a crew is usually like this but not all have a
markedly austere trait) and do not mingle with other people. They only
communicate with one another, as if on a mission they can not neglect at no time.

But the interesting thing is that it occurs to me that they seem to be

struggling to respect each other, like a couple, do not seem to have reason to be
all the time relating to other people.

I do not know if I would rate this as positive or negative but the

impression remains that the honesty of that people is not artificial as of the
developed nations I have mentioned. And from this, it is inferred that within the
formation of each people, the criteria for the valorization of each characteristic
trait, has an intrinsic specificity, linked to the real facts that preceded the culture,
its true history that is not always honestly revealed as it has been.

I am doing this parallel to arrive at the conception of our extroverted

culture, as it has always been touted as a fact resulting from our pacification, joy,
etc ... I wish I had had contact with Brazilian crews in other countries to make a
very characteristic impression as I see in each one, where I work today.

But continuing the inferences that I intended to draw here, I was filled
with curiosity to really understand what honesty would be for each culture ...
being that for the Brazilian is not a very clear concept and the Brazilian is not so
inclined to be very categorical with what this should mean. Maybe because, do
not feel like in other cultures, protected by the rulers, who here emphatically
profess a culture of peace to the other nations and do not intend to pass on
advantages to us, as do other nations, from the exploitation of other peoples. But
on the contrary, they serve as a link to the foreign nations in favor of a continuous
exploration that repeatedly removes the whole characteristic border of
nationality and protectionism, such that the Brazilian grows in truth as an
abandoned minor. That it does not have a format of honesty conceived like the
untruthful jingoists of the prosperous nations, where the concept of democracy is
clearly a dissimulation, where they dare to be example for the explored and
indefinitely colonized.

12

The labor force

So if we look at when the population still did not need to produce in

scale, we conclude that the individual was also involved in the mystification of his
human condition, as how to be obedient to his offspring and origin, as well as to
be protected by it. Such was the conception that was coherent in those times, and
the labor was intended to subserviently render services to those who were
considered worthy of it or bore the reward of the majesty.

So this conception was naturally losing its adherents, and in England,

when the means of production were gaining a strong tendency to increase in
scale the supply of demand, that grew as the notion of subservience was inverted
and the well being was disseminated as something common to all. But on the
other hand the contradiction in the lack of equalization of the labor force
necessary to supply this demand and the first impulse of emancipation that now
brings in its bloom the democratization of goods but with the brutality of
industrial production and the need of a proletariat without perspective of
emancipation.

What we saw was a tendency to captain this workforce through

intellectually well-formed men to guide the direction of this force in a way that
seemed more consistent with that moment that saw several promising facets
with the impetus that discoveries and inventions gave the mechanism of goods
and services.
 But it can not be said that because of this, the situation had of these
intellectuals, a direction that would go to the balance needed to distribute with
good criteria the goods and services as advertised, and as they flooded a world
geographically dispersed and little influenced.

Theories such as utilitarianism, deontologism, Marxism and so many

other versions of how the state should assume the monopoly of the labor force
and not allow the collapse of the idea of unification by different factions, losing
sight of the rights of each person to be free . With the possibility of falling under
the domination of violent leaders who did not bring environment for social
interaction.

However, the whole problem has been the question of the deliberation
of this leadership for the development of peoples. But the idea of development
can not be consensual and then it is possible that in priori this problem is a
consequence of the dominion that certain peoples always had about certain
regions of the world and what should be the participation of the individual in the
deliberation of concepts for the regional leadership, as something natural.

But from the point where it is noted that this leadership distances itself
from this common stimulus by being influenced by new conceptions, which does
not concern this natural consensus, then this leadership can conflict and cause
the division of the led. And this is what happens when the economy becomes
confused with the interest of the individual and means interests that massify the
orientation that should be backed up in concepts of order and morality that
would mean the interests of the collectivity, in one true direction.

However, the time factor and the hasty decisions to fulfill schedules
from colonial exploration do not leave room and again brutalize the social
environment. The justifications become a matter of trying to get out of the
unfavorable economic environment disseminated as a natural order of things, but
where the reasonable control of the mechanisms escapes the consensus of
Kantian priorities, rather it remarks the individualist conception that gave rise to
the movement of enlightenment emancipation, disregarding frontally the natural
law of the common good.

As if the equalization of this force of production was not a problem to be

solved.

One seeks coherence in politics, with ideas in parallel with the

economic environment, where the space dispute of who offers the market
solution is for politicians, as well for consumers would be the voters. And so
everything would be the evoked solution of the "invisible hand" the result of this
competition !!? It is proposed that the vote will support the good political
idealizer, just as the consumer will seek the best market solution ...

But as we see, what would in priori be a solution to the questions of

leadership and equanimity of the workforce, becomes a parameter arising from
the market of consumption and competition that supposedly has inscribed in its
DNA, the force to achieve a result that would bring the achievement of common
goals ...

What results would these be!? If it is meant that competition is the only
way to make politics lose theirs vices of authoritarianism, etc., as if we could
expect from the politician a similar aptitude of those who dispute the market!?
But even if it still were, if he had the posture to offer a leadership that deserves
our vote and that of the majority, because we would be sure that our choice
would be contemplated and if it were not, then we should think we would lose!?
That the political game is to lose or win ...

It seems that one should think that democracy is a means of always

arriving at an answer as soon as possible ... whatever it may be. The evocation of
this invisible hand as the infallible author of an improved option is more a matter
of lubricating the mechanism of a machine that could not fail to yield the
dividends to those who do not admit to making room for any deliberation in order
to hear new leaders, even if the system is bankrupt and resources are scarce ...
Should we wait until they run out!? Even the most elementary ones like the water
we drink and the air we breathe, because they were not yet owned by an entity
that would have done it if they were rare as gold, although it is not very useful ...
Is this the law of competition, of the invisible hand, which would automatically
make us have preference for the best and thus be able to erect a just society at
last, with the myth of democracy!?

LEADERSHIP POLICY

Political systems were formed within a temporal logic, as the leading

role of the human adventure on earth evolved, moving from the initial
paternalistic stage to the present day, culminating in the attempt to represent the
individual who is emancipated and attuned to the world. He knows that he should
have an active voice in the direction and resourcefulness in the crucial terms that
the present world must prioritize, not to lead his race to extermination.

After so many systems of representativeness have been tried, in tune

with the pertinent discoveries of each epoch, we have come to assume that the
theory is something always didactic, and as such, simplistic and static, without the
real value it seemed to have had in its temporal design.

In addition, because it is precisely didactic and carries in its essence the

ambiguity of the dichotomy, to open up a predominant space for the bureaucracy
and the alleged power of coercion of the state, which would be weak if it did not
exercise its forces. And gradually the precariousness of the preterite functionality
of leadership has gradually established itself, while moral values with its
rationality gain new garments for miscegenation, and no one else can enjoy
authority and exercise the paternalism charged with populism and moral appeals
now conflicting and meaningless in the context of the inevitable globalization of
cultural diversity.

And we were insisting on this or that system as if they were each within
their local peculiarities, something insurmountable because they created in this
distant process an almost unbreakable framework, a protectionist armor that
seems to have no more mechanisms to assimilate the gravity of the moment and
need to reestablish a real system of representation of the individual. A system
that is created with the real modern needs of fluidity and debureaucratization if
we pretend to survive the extortion of the deadly obsolete mechanisms that have
come about as the alleged representation of this individuality, which no longer
bear the domain of manipulation inflicted through the media and marketing,
excess power, which pass unharmed between repercussions of injury to
humanity, which should be imputed to them in some form, when we know they
are active fomenters of the excess of activities harmful to life, to the
environment.

The power of communication is crucial and operates outside regulated

parameters, unrelated to the effective representation of this individual, who
despite to having been emancipated over time, the chains of myths and
criminalizations, now finds himself hostage to the disproportionate power of the
ideas planted in the defraud of the real role of enlightenment.

But as we have no way to further complicate things and make it legally

impeded, duly media in its diverse range, we know that in the exercise of this
individuality and current ability to seek its own communicability, this individual
should have more and more the notion of the need for such representativity to
become increasingly unrelated to the installed monopoly of power. But with their
ideas and local coexistence, to establish long lasting with the unpretentiousness
of their informal relationship, the environment more conducive to the
reestablishment of collective and original creative processes, slowly breaking the
systematics created by these means of propaganda and precariousness of the
biological system, of the diverse character prominent of life.

Then one can no longer compromise with any system of

representativeness or forms already experienced of past or present governments,
without taking into account the misconceptions that have seriously heightened
the imbalance in the biological life-system of creation. We need to take into
account the disproportionality of the lethal force of these presumed certification
mechanisms created in circumstances of belligerence and domination.

If democracy has been the system that has found acceptance to the
most modern nations today, as if it were something hybrid that carries the
perspective of representativeness of the individual, in spite of mutations that
suffers according to peculiarities even paradoxically contrary to what inspires the
best, which is the egalitarian distribution of the resources produced by society,
one has to investigate then what makes it so acceptable: whether its supposedly
infallible prospects or if its poorly defined identity ends up giving it manifestly
theoretical specificities?

What is democracy really? A system of government that has as a priority

to deny space to possible adventurers, alluding to the equal distribution of goods
produced by the nation making the population enjoy a higher standard of living!?
And what parameters could evidence demand in the direction of fulfilling
aspirations that are not a way of normalizing these human conquests to a
properly deliberate identity format, to guide better conditions of a being that has
become only a victim of manipulations of power or forced to follow the
dictatorship of the majority, without appeal. And as such, it will not see an
alternative that goes against the sense of real improvement and emancipation.

Democracy is still a reflection of this power that emanates from the

principle of conditioning and fixation of man, seeking solutions, which as a
reflection of this paternalism was creating alternatives, which has not yet
properly glimpsed this search as a way of resizing the situation in the current
context, which no longer aspires such a primary redundant aspect of formalism
and objection of individualism. This aspect always ensured that protection was
the most appropriate way to guarantee perpetuation for a continuity of the
predominance of the human being over existence.

But that from a certain moment it can no longer be denied that the
momentary truths that justified the leadership of a power validated by a period
belief, no longer legitimize itself in what was revealed the exercise of the
destructive force of exploration, to give continuity to what had been justifiable
before the actual formation of the individual and the real force of freedom, now
coming from overcoming moral concepts of the time created within that reality
that no longer fits within dynamic concepts.

Leadership thus aims at the formation of an individualistic culture,

necessary to discriminate and access the coexistence of the various habits of
character, for the sake of freedom that does not self-destruct as a result of the
perplexity that takes the previous steps to self-discovery, and for that reason the
dichotomous content supported by the moral values that permeated the society
until then, due to the precaution and assumption of consequences taken to the
extreme, for not yet having the exercise of intuition in the collective control of its
own will.

CONCLUSION

Finally we will have to reconsider this pro-democratic doctrine. We must

consider this automation, to which such affinity should be partly supplied, in
order not to become a myth, the construction of a vague ideology that is self-
proclaimed just because it echoes the majority.

But there is nothing in priori primordial such that the assertiveness of

the majority is the certification of truth, but only the reasonable consideration
that the majority come or may choose the path by the consensus that it
represents, but that it should not be true just for that, or in the incongruence of
the leadership that should be trusted, but it was granted mechanisms that made
it congruent with the premise of the majority, through the automation of
electoral lawsuits as an unequivocal translation of representativeness ... We know
that this is not the case with the deliberated questions by the lack of significance
in itself in relation to the aspirations of a plural society, and that the issues are
more wide-ranging and should not be fully justified by the fact that there is a
need for a government that can pre-emptively defend the citizen from the abuse
of a society without laws.

Or would not real living be possible without this fictitious mechanism of

representative politics? The governance of space without leadership polarization.
 Perhaps we do not know how this coexistence or this society without
law would be, but we probably fail to disregard that the principles of conviviality
are already universally known and reinforce them with more laws and
bureaucracy, will instead bring towards depreciate conflicts by false regional
beliefs instead of having the science about which the period of indoctrination is
already counterproductive and reinforces outdated nationalisms.

Is not it that the policy of defending moral and nationalist precepts,

became anachronic with the advanced devices of communication that we have at
our disposal today, so that we can fully assent ourselves to the paths that will be
emerging in the face of the opportunities arising from the effective liberation of
such dogmas!?

Democracy is thus conceived as an ideal form of government, not

because it could represent the general desire of society, because this has been a
myth until then, and society has no idea of what would be feasible in the present
and in the future, but only the basic notion to get around the greater distortions
of the current system. And then we would just be running after losses, far from
making the right projections for a promising future !?

This is due in particular to the lack of understanding of how one could

achieve deliberative forms of common social desires, because democracy comes
to treat issues with such superficiality that the result more and more squanders
the available natural resources as if there were no mechanism for balance the
production of consumer goods. And profit is not even at least suspected of
defrauding and ruthlessly exhausting collective resources for the benefit of
individual property alone, as if it portrayed the collective yearning in a audacious
system of representativeness of a majority allegedly bound up with allegedly
infallible devices, in the context of an alleged unquestionable legality, which has
become the inviolable framework of bureaucratic authoritarianism.

It takes courage and lucidity to diagnose representative leadership, in the

longing to correspond to a retroconcept of action, questionable for theoretically
balancing only what has been agreed by the effectiveness of the democratic
system, lacking definition and can not continue being the mystification of the
solution of all evils.
 If society could not organize itself in the advent of productive
industrialization, what was structured were outdated echoes, in order to at least
distort the pretensions of domination that, through the strengthening of
commerce, thwarted the path that emerged as imponderable success in the
enthusiasm of that advent of highly manipulated and pioneering progress, which
has thrown its premises, never truly revised retrospectively for the purpose of
moderating those momentary distortions of domination and power.

This is what has to be done. We can no longer live in the wake of

decisions taken in unknown instances, which call themselves tutors of the social
good. Freedom is the only truly circumstantial and definitive good. Nothing or
nobody can deny it based on initiatives that could put any obstacle to this simple
configuration of the social good par excellence. It makes no sense to claim
anything that does not pass first for the effectiveness of this natural premise of
existence. There is, in fact, no possibility of denying that the objectivity of
existence in the particularity of the untouchable good that is primarily assenting
to us is fully evident there, when we begin to perceive the options of existence,
and subjectively we perceive that we are free, each with your perception.

Any violence that against this eventuality could occur, if by any genuine
dysfunction, could seem to us too much to enjoy, what is unanimously feasible
with the man of normal sensibility. It could brought us embarrassment such as we
are naturally capable, with no special merit being attributed to us, such an
apanage of usurpers citizens of the suitability of an infallible existential system in
its completeness, and without any bias of compatibility with the science of
categorized good, in the meanderings coming from this available progress only as
a single way of universality.