Roland Dürre
Monday April 6th, 2020

(Deutsch) Die Geschichte vom Gelee-Fisch.

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Saturday March 21st, 2020

(Deutsch) Korona: Was wir alles falsch machen.

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Wednesday January 15th, 2020

(Deutsch) Wie macht man einen Vortrag?

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Thursday October 31st, 2019

(Deutsch) Der zweite große Fehler.

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Thursday October 3rd, 2019

(Deutsch) RUPERT LAY LESEBUCH

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Saturday August 17th, 2019

Growth.

Chess is not the only area where, once in a while, you should use your brains.

To me, it seems clear that humanity, that is we all, must produce LESS. That means

– fewer cars,

– fewer planes,

– fewer tanks,

– fewer machines,

– fewer streets,

– fewer electronic devices,

– fewer buildings,

– less concrete and tar,

– fewer wars,

– less plastic,

– less waste,

– less meat,

– less CO2 …

– and so on.

It goes without saying that we also have to use up, or, better said, “destroy”, less oil, coal and gas, as well as soil and nature. Perhaps we should also stop making more and more water reservoirs, because in the long run, it is rather doubtful if they are very beneficial, whereas the damage they do is quite obvious. In general, we should completely stop with how we affect nature.

I see a lot of GROWTH potential for this list that tells us all the things we should do LESS of. To put it broadly: we should do fewer stupid things!

In other words, it is clear that growth as a general healer is a thing of the past. Thus, whenever you hear news about the economy growing, this is bad news. And if you hear about “negative growth“, then this is good news.

As always, the huge political and economic goal of our times is GROWTH! And what do the institutions we humans installed, such as governments and central banks, do? With their money market policy, they try to support, even force, growth world-wide. Even such strange tools as “negative interest rates“ are applied. Just to give the great fire of the economy some fuel at all costs.

The BREXIT is a good example. Whenever I hear people who criticize the Brexit, the main argument I hear is that the BREXIT will not only minimize the prosperity and economic growth of the Brits, but also that of all of us. But wouldn’t that be good news for the world? One might conclude that we need many many BREXITs and a totally new and different form of globalization.

For the sake of growth, we have negative interest rates. However, they do not bring us “social justice”. On the contrary, they create an even stronger polarization between the poor and the rich. I never understood them.

Whenever I let someone else have money, there is always a real risk that I will not get it back. So why would I let someone have my money if I know in advance that, in addition to the risk of losing it, I also get back less than I gave?

The evolution forces our society both individually and collectively to struggle against growth. By now, we even have laws that require LESS. And since politics do not want to act, they now appeal morally to the individual person. Fly less, eat less meat, and similar calls are heard all over the place. Since politics are incapable of doing their job, the problem is now handed back to the citizen.

Thus, we get a schizophrenic system. To me, our perverted economic system looks like a steam engine. The banks and politics put in more and more, thus increasing the pressure. The people try to impede the machines that are processed by the steam engine in order to minimize the mania.

Normally, what you get is a big bang. Which is the consequence of very ordinary system failure.

However, it is more than doubtful if, in a capitalist system, it is possible at all to break free from the growth-oriented environmental destruction and from the fossil exploitation in favour of a sustainable and circular economy without questioning the basic principles of capitalism.

But why is LESS so hard? My personal experience with LESS is very positive. Consequently, I tell myself: how nice would it be to have a voluntary, creative and collective LESS policy.

Less noise, less waste, less destruction. That would really be a huge transformation with lots of change, including the governing capitalist metrics. If we had such an innovative process, a lot would be destroyed. Because innovation is creative destruction.

However, there must be someone who controls the transformation process and tries to assuage the consequences. Who could that someone be?

Politics? They currently discuss the soli. It might be a good idea to re-organize it, instead of abolishing it. Let us forget about re-unification. And let us use the soli in order to alleviate the downward spiral for those who, predictably, will suffer from the transformation that is necessary in order to save the planet. After all, the consequences of said transformation will probably be more dramatic than those we had after the re-unification.

The transformation will come no matter what. And unless we get under way instead of procrastinating, it will come by itself. And it will probably be rather disruptive and hit us even harder.

Our politicians are definitely procrastinators (Prokrastination).

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Sunday April 28th, 2019

The Holes in Your Trousers

It feels best to be in the nude.

Summer is nice.

Mostly, you do not have to wear too many clothes in summer. In spring, autumn and winter, however, it is important to wear clothes if you live in our regions. Because otherwise you can easily fall ill.
And since we live in luxury, most of the people in this country have far too much hanging in their wardrobes.

I find it hard to throw anything away.

There are several reasons for this… firstly, I am sorry to throw something out that is still intact. You never know if there might not be a chance to wear exactly this one piece, even though I have not worn it in many years. Also, I am economical and do not wish to just destroy things that are ok. Also, some clothes are linked to memories. That is also true for towels, bed-linen and other textiles.

It is evil to run around wearing sloppy clothes.

When I was a child, my mother was quite strict about teaching me that you do not run around wearing sloppy clothes. I often had to throw away a pair of trousers just because one knee had a hole in it. And mended trousers were also sloppy. Besides, they were a symbol of poverty. In those days, you wanted anything, but you did not want to be poor.

The upbringing worked.

Later, I was very careful to never wear clothes with holes. I bought many suits and ties. I always wanted to look chic. Shorts were the exception to the rule and only worn when I was at leisure. Well, in business, they were unimaginable.

That changed. Today, I only wait for warm weather and then I wear shorts. If my short jeans look worn and have a few holes, then this makes me proud. After all, it shows that I no longer throw away clothes. I also like wearing washed-out pullovers and t-shirts.

Someone is still complaining if I run around like this. It reminds me of my childhood, except it is now no longer my mother who gives me the warning. Because she is already dead.

In my case, ranting does not help these days.

I am still happy with it. And even during holidays I take a detour whenever I see at-shirt sales outlet.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Hans Bonfigt
Monday April 15th, 2019

(Deutsch) Postdigital mit Heinz und Karl

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Saturday January 5th, 2019

RADICAL.

Long Live the Radical Heretics!

When Hans Bonfigt’s article was discussed and commented on, the term “radical“ played an important role. This motivated me to become contemplative about the word RADICAL. Because, to me, it seems that being radical is very important.

According to de.Wiktionary.org/wiki/, similar words are either 
[1] hard, ruthless, reckless, stubborn,  or 
[2] clearly, thoroughly, noticeably, definitely, all-encompassing.

{
Laut de.Wiktionary.org/wiki/ sind sinnverwandte Wörter entweder
[1] hart, rücksichtslos, unerbittlich, unnachgiebig
oder
[2] deutlich, gründlich, merkbar, merklich, umfassend
}

I found no useful definition of the word “radical” in (the German) Wikipedia. In the political context, there is a link to radicalism . Sociologically, radicalism is a characteristic of change, see social change.

Well, at least in the German Wikipedia, there is no definition of the often-used word “radical”. This shows clearly how difficult the discussion of the term is. To me, this sounds almost logical, since we humans are famous for having arguments about things the meaning of which we do not know. Simply because we tend to put particular emotional stress on terms that we do not understand or cannot define.

Let me make some guesses as to what radical might mean. Or rather, how I understand it. It took several days of contemplation for me to come up with an answer. Then I discovered that, to me, “radical” is particularly important when it comes to thinking. That means we are talking radical ideas. Which, as I see it, Hans Bonfigt time and again does not apply.

To my way of thinking, “radical ideas” mean that our ideas can develop in straight lines without having to consider moral fields. In other words, our ideas should not be influenced by the restriction: “You do not want to think along these lines“.
And I believe that radical ideas will soon make you a heretic. I rather like heretics if they are capable of questioning their own so-called truths.

Let me describe a few theoretical results that can spring from radical ideas.

  • Religions and God were invented by humans. How can a person call something an absolute truth if he himself invented it?
  • Who are those who benefit most from war? The weapons industry. Consequently, the weapons industry needs war. And whenever there is no war, it will see to it that there will soon again be war.
  • First and foremost, I must be considerate of myself. Because only if I love myself, I can also love other people. Consequently, martyrdom is socially detrimental and should not happen – nor should it be glorified.
  • Humans are not evil. If anything, then their actions are evil. Consequently, you should not condemn humans but instead their actions.
    (Rupert Lay once said that Hitler was probably not an evil person, because maybe he mostly followed his conscience. Perhaps his conscience was rather alien, if not pathological. To be sure, Rupert said it during a festive presentation for famous guests of a big German Bank. And legend has it that he was then interrupted by the managing director and escorted from the premises. Because he had broken a taboo – there are things you cannot think, let alone say).

Well, I guess I had better stop writing before someone comes and escorts me from the writing stage.

RMD