The creators of Debtocracy analyze the shifting of state assets to private hands. They travel round the world gathering data on privatization in developed countries and search for clues on the day after Greece’s massive privatization program.

The documentary uncovers the forthcoming results of the current sell-off of the Greek public assets, demanded in order to face the country’s enormous sovereign debt.

Turning to the examples of London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow and Rome, Catastroika predicts what will happen, if the model imposed in these areas is imported in a country under international financial tutelage.

Slavoj Zizek, Naomi Klein, Luis Sepulveda, Ken Loach and Greg Palast talk about the austerity measures, the Greek government as well as the attack against Democracy on Europe, after the general spreading of the financial crisis.

Academics and specialists like Dani Rodrik, Alex Callinicos, Ben Fine, Costas Douzinas, Dean Baker and Aditya Chakrabortty present unknown aspects of the privatization programs in Greece and abroad.

CATASTROIKA – ENGLISH SUBTITLES by infowar

the modern world is immersed in idealistic ideology. what i mean to say is that most of us, without even thinking about desire for things to be whole, have an end, and somehow make sense as a totality. we are searching for the ‘whole’. but, let’s be honest, this is nothing more than an illusion.

psychoanalyst jacques lacan posited that language is born out of desire (i.e, we speak because we want); and also that we are fragmented people (and that this is a good thing; how i read it) and that we keep desiring things to fill us.

one possible way people desire the vulgar illusion (aka, idealism) of the whole is through communal connectivity (community). we want the ‘other’ to fulfill us (is this not also how some view marriage, narcotics, and so on?). and so what occurs is this version of the false whole is sustained by the illusion of being made ‘complete’ and in doing so rejects the fragmented self (the ‘real’ self).

imagine ourselves as a body (different from ‘having a body’) and one of the features of most bodies is the sinew. which is the tissue uniting flesh to bone. it gives us the ability to move and flex our muscles amongst other important things. what i would like to posit in a metaphorical sense is that our desire for this idealistic connectivity is like this sinew in that it presents itself to us as that which connects us the ‘other(s)’ in community, but in doing so (and in reality) is the very thing that tears/will tear us apart. for me this term is part of a developing lexicon of work i am going to be exploring on the end of idealism and the entrance of the fragmented self (aka, the real self). which also means we are a plurality of selves. to find one’s self is to only encounter a part of one’s self, not the whole self (because the whole self does not exist). what this then means is that we are compelled not by things to fulfill us or the perverse illusion of the whole, but rather we are drawn to discover the plural in the very essence of our being (ontology.

sinew is a bad thing because it projects wholeness when there is none. at one point a biblical author employs a body as a metaphor for how people should ‘work together’, but interesting enough he doesn’t end with us as a possible ‘truth’, but rather focusing on the fragmented self (i.e., some are an eye, foot, ear and so on). it is in the tearing away of our sinew where we are free to discover ourselves in the other, not because we ‘need’ them to fulfill some partial-object, but rather we have the choice to participate in discovering is part of ourselves in the other ( and vice-versa).

Noah means rest.comfort.long-lived (think: legacy). so what if the ‘Ark’ (which in Hebrew: means boat or ‘word’ – as in language) — along with the ‘two of every kind’ is a metaphor for humanity (as in, left/right, gay/straight, man/woman, black/white, good/evil and etc.) coming together allowing divisions to collapse for a greater society. Numbers always mean something in Judaism, the fact that 8 humans were on the Ark means the following: “It is 7 plus 1. Hence it is the number specially associated with Resurrection and Regeneration, and the beginning of a new era or order.

When the whole earth was covered with the flood, it was Noah “the eighth person” (2 Peter 2:5) who stepped out on to a new earth to commence a new order of things. “Eight souls” (1 Peter 3:20) passed through it with him to the new or regenerated world.”

Then this new order would be an event where society (as we currently know it) collapses itself and out of this collapse, both resurrection and a new era will emerge…

let’s think of the word grace as a gift – in fact, the hebrew notion of grace is that it is uncontingent (it does not/can not be defined by the reliance on something/someone else or their behaviour) it is freely given. Alasdair John Milbank refers to morals as a gift, rather than something to be sacrificed. let us also redefine sin (not as somethin that separates us from god) to mean that which leaves/or is a gap of some sort within ourselves (not because of a separation from god either) – and so when paul says this: “should we keep on sinning so that grace may abound” – he is not referring to the current understanding of the orthodox christian narrative – but something about the gift (see above) – that if we constantly give of ourselves without an exchange then a gap within ourselves occurs (sin – in the pervasive sense; in that we are separated from the greatest aspect of ourselves – god).

now, if grace isnt contingent, then it can only be given from someone without the intention of something else, this is the paradox. because you cant keep giving and giving, this is not grace, this is a form of self-negation into nothingness. that isn’t grace, that is stupidity without boundaries. and i don’t mean stupidity in the sense of a character flaw, but the perpetuation of an idea without thinking about it.

what this then means, is grace cannot be used as a tool for power or hierarchy. one gift is not better then another. and because i gift this to you, does not mean i now own you. this is what happens in those relationships where one of the friends/wives/lovers manipulatively says: “if you love me, then you will do X” – this is not grace, this is a control device rather where counselling might be more beneficial. a gift is that which is given out of a person. it is born of nothingness. no intention, no agenda, but only that this uncontingent gift somehow make the receiver a better person (which becomes the sole responsibility of the receiver).

i think because its the nature of a gift, to encapsulate into one narrative (the typical christian one is that everyone NEEDS grace to be acceptable and so on) is to disregard this uncontingent grace. in fact, i would go so far as to say this is no grace at all, but something grotesque and perverse because this interpretation demands the gift. and we know when someone demands something as if it is their’s in the first place that this too is not a gift but a misrecognition and mis direction of appreciation of identity in the other. for grace only can come alive, in the face of the other.

at times, i think this was jesus’ response to oppressive systems in place…is this not the role of the holy spirit – to convict of change? to challenge our ontology (essence) to awake us from the slumber of un-thinking??? the holy spirit is ULTIMATE MIDDLE FINGER…

Galatians 2:16 “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

– works of the law pertains to a ‘big other’ (a structure, idea, ‘truth’ in place; i.e., law, society, ‘god’ and etc. that promises to give us an identity and ultimately turn us into a subject). the big other is that which frames our whole understanding of existence: ethics, love, relationships, truth and etc.

- Paul ultimately states that the big other should not define us. but rather christ should. and not simply christ, but christ as a gap/absence/form of christian a/theism. why do i say this? because faith is defined as ‘the hope of something that is unseen’. what is that which is unseen? that is something not present, something that has not arrived, an absence. although it is the promise of the arrival of something, that something has yet to arrive.

and so we hold onto the absence of christ, in hope that christ will emerge (in us). and when we do not await for this moment (whether it arrives or not is not important,the waiting is) we then subjectify ourselves to the big other’s in place. we give into the ‘law’, that which constitutes our identity for us. paul uses the word belief here in connection with faith, which is not the same, and most of the time gets confused as the same. faith is the promise of the unseen/the thing that has yet to arrive.

belief is the acceptance of something verified. however, i define belief as a parasite not as something that we simply accept on face value, but rather, something by which we accept loosely and are ready to leave when something else takes its place. this is not some postmodern take on the denial of any truth, but rather the opening to truth itself and realizing the inherent potential of truth as something alive and breathing. that truth is on the same journey with us. and so to believe is to be continously believing beyond the belief itself. not in some objective sense, but rather being aware that something more lies beyond the current belief. when someone cannot do this, they then imprison themselves under the guise of belief. paul is saying here when we dont await the christ within us, then we give into belief under the guise of belief.

that we end up living a lie. and are not justified (who we are meant to be). we then live a fantasy, and then over time, if we live it long enough, we begin ‘believing’ the very fantasies that are not true of us and begin defending the systems that believe for us but that are in reality thinking/oppressing us. maybe this is what the exodus was all about – leaving the big others that enslave us, divorcing ourselves from thinking that we cannot think for ourselves. this is such an important journey to make….

Cartesian anxiety refers to the notion that, ever since René Descartes promulgated his highly influential form of body-mind dualism, Western civilization has suffered from a longing for ontological certainty, or feeling that scientific methods, and especially the study of the world as a thing separate from ourselves, should be able to lead us to a firm and unchanging knowledge of ourselves and the world around us. The term is named after Descartes because of his well-known emphasis on “mind” as different from “body”, “self” as different from “other”. (Wikipedia)

this cutting up and slicing into pieces, one another, is nothing but the perversion of cartesian philosophy. the world and the other are separate from me. in essence, the world then will always be at a distance. so will the other. in the cartesian model, we are separate from everything, even ourselves. our neighbour then becomes something we cannot love because they only can exist ‘at a distance’, and so to truly love your neighbour is a form of violence against this way of thinking. it is an attack against this dispersion of reality.

it is fighting against the mediation of anything and discovering that reality itself is and has never been mediated. let’s make sense of this here.

anxiety takes an object and makes that object/thing ‘god’. it puts the item center stage and we worship that object as truth. it, in that moment, splits our reality, self and the other. if you like a girl or a guy, the anxiety creates even a wider gap between you and that person, because it forces you to create things about that person or situation that have yet to happen. but because you might be anxious to meet that person, the anxiety removes the person from the equation all together and consumes your every waking moment with every ‘what if’ possible. and when that consummation haunts you it eats away at reality itself and thereby implicating the person you want to communicate with a ghost. because, you are more concerned about a person you dont know and have created then the person themselves.

this also happens in violent themes such as the ‘gay question’ or sexuality as displayed by those in the religious right. they simply dont’ care about those in the gay community and are more anxious about defining genitals. and even so, in defining what one can/can not do with their genitals, they, in their minds are somehow doing this in love, but are actually promoting violence because they mediate their relationships through anxious definition. if anxiety continues to lead, then power and control dictate to us how we should react, live, love and etc. thereby sitting in the ‘driver’s seat’ and ultimately do the same as above, create ghosts of the issues we are passionate about. and in the end we end up defending caricatures and not the real thing…

if anxiety is present, love will never be found.