Waching daily Nov 1 2018

(I) Given the above, it would be interesting make a general reflection of everything, that

allow us to have a more complete vision of the situation, and a better scope of the

motivations, and possibilities.

We have a heavy political structure, unusable,

old in the forms, at the service of a system sick. So old that part of parliamentarism

of the knights, and their interests, veiled by the accountants of the kingdom. There they were

the king, the knights, and those who stole or thrived to look like them, knowing

that there were two ways of being in the world, the one above and the one below.

Two ways to face problems. The one of those who have the decision and

the means to solve them and that of those that are subject to the decision of the

first. Two types of problems. Those who disappear before taking shape and those that

give rise to endless disquisitions, or none, and they are eternal in society.

Your own and those of others. Those that matter and those that do not.

Politics (right and left) is that they allow to do the true powers

to make us think that we govern our lives, but it is they who determine,

those who mark the true guidelines. Political power what it does is fold

to the demands of money and reticence of certain pressure groups (including

the street like another one), in addition to its own group interest, so that it is practically

unused to transform deeply this society.

While there are issues that you prefer to keep with a deficient performance, in some

cases because of the expense issue, and in others by pure strategy.

Since in a problematic society the people are basically delivered in

solve their avatars, take their lives forward, and out of breath, therefore, to think

where the vital knot really is, where is the funnel of all this, and deception.

However, all this sum of imperfections

could be admissible, even when the actions, despite the injustices and

deficiencies, give the appearance of carrying an impulse meant to pull everyone towards

above, but we have already seen that it is not like that. And it is not, even though, at first glance,

our world is presented as the most evolved of the worlds known by Man.

(II) Certainly, if it were not for the reality what's under what we see we might think

than our world, even if it is ravines, walk towards a better place, "that

we give more paternity permits "," that legislation against hate ", and a whole series

of elements of social perfection, included the knowledge of our own nature

human and the overcoming of its limitations. People even have fun, go to fairs,

baby and dance. And there are contests on TV. Part of that mirage is that it truly

15% of the people are richer. Reality is that the remaining 85% is getting poorer,

and that many who were not, begin to be. The two elements together is called bipolarization

social, descohesion. It is true that the world is being perfected,

but only for that 15%, for the other his life is so lacking in progress that except for

some miscellaneous questions would not know very well if you are not in the 50s, the

same as in the 90s, they seemed to be in the 70s. How many of the medical advances

futures will be available to you if the current are already monetarized and are economized,

and, consequently, are they limited? That is the paradox of this progress, that while

some seem to have taken possession of the century XXI, others seem to go the way

back, towards the nineteenth. And that all improvement is really only

an illusion derived from the technique, which gives a point of modernity, which does not correspond

with social reality, at least with the of that 85%.

The practical concretion is that our wonderful Today's world is the same as yesterday's, because

we had it yesterday, but we have already bounced somewhere, and we're seeing it along the way

back. Meta-knowledge has left in evidence our social irrelevance and we

leads to the forms of the past. Who does have that relevance, will have the opportunity, and

will continue to be used by Capital, participating in all the welfare that Capital is capable of

provide or generate.

The practical concretion is, also, that we remain the same or worse in the fundamental, and

that we will continue, for generations, for dissolution of the social glue of the middle class, which

will make society irretrievably separate in its extremes, divide again, in what is

it constitutes as the main evolutionary movement of our culture form, involutive, in this case.

(III) The confrontation of the right-left models,

or perspectives regarding the course of life and society, it's fine for a curve

ascending, but not for a descending curve. It's about differentiating the fundamental movement

or primary of secondary movements:

those on the right and those on the left.

In front of the primary there is no right and left, there is need, historical perspective,

compared to the primary, being descending, there is only

the obligation to turn it around and understand that any feeling of well-being, it is a mirage

that we are creating with our own sensation of well-being, that of 15%.

Like a Matrix that is disfigured if we scrub the eyes.

The upward curve allows oscillations,

Sawtooth. The descending, no, because It is descending. because it has a certain

trajectory, an inertia.

Social inertia is one, and some people do it

palms with hands with measures that already they see from a distance that they are not ambitious,

that do not aspire to anything: work for more than 50 years, or less than 30, etc., removing from here

and putting there from there. They come from the meetings giving blows in

the chest because they have taken the 0.5 instead of the 0.4 on a minimum part of the budgets

When the rest is fixed by default. Politics right-left is that, take out a small

differential over a game, forgetting that There is a higher reality that is not countable.

Forgetting that big policies they go before the numbers.

If political power is conformed or given for satisfied putting plasters ... well, but

Do not be fooled, they're band-aids.

(IV) Each politician, then, has to decide

what kind of politician do you want to be, if a politician of primary movements (who does something truly

notable for the evolution of this country, world) or of secondary movements.

The politicians of primary movements distinguish them clearly, especially in the US, because they are

those who tried to break what was installed in society.

Create a country project, break a mode of pernicious life, facing all that power that

he opposes (at the risk of his life, even). Let's talk of the Kenedy, let's talk about Obama, with his Obama-care

or his attempt to regulate weapons. Here, It is harder to find one of those.

About this. The question of weapons, and racial discrimination there (outside

of all logic), protected precisely by the powers that be, serves as an example

of how something against nature coexists with a country, which is because someone determines that

change (sometimes protected by a social half)

And it's something you think about: "How it is possible that this coexists with the people

and that people live with this and do not rise up in that kind of protest that does not accept

other answer than the solution? "That is, the corresponding legislative changes.

The answer is, that, for the same reason has coexisted with all kinds of outrages throughout

of history, because there has not been an option.

For the same reason that we live with what our, with no option, unless the option

we invent it, and we make it unique.

Here in Europe we have it easier, here

we do not have to face this nonsense atavistic. Here we just have to realize

that, among the other powers, the old Europe has only one possibility of leadership,

which derives from its social height (the one has always had), or the path that leads to it.

Way, that can not be another than to make society complicit in the

commercial and financial relationship, and this one of that. Raise our social height,

is to bring the others to a situation of comparative underdevelopment, and establish about

this the foundation of all rivalry. It may seem strange what I say, but it is not

Let's think that the United States promoted globalization, and that now promotes the opposite policy

because it has not been everything profitable that I imagined That is, the powers do that

who believe that they will come well. We we can not compete (or want) in armament,

neither in population, nor in prices, nor are we going to win the fight by adapting

our system to those degraded lifestyles (which base success on degradation).

It can only be good for us to make a qualitative leap as a society.

And then, the others who follow us, if they want.

That is, maintain and incorporate elements of social hygiene (that's the social investment

and the truth principles) aimed at explore socially what the Capital itself

is already promoting within some of its cutting-edge companies to optimize

its development and differentiate itself from the others: its social climate.

The social climate, the environment, is not only important for the brainiac, for the developer, it is important

for the whole of society. Zero social resistance.

The only thing that can also absorb, deflate,

all the stress of geopolitics, once suppressed internal tensions:

constitute us in an immense backwater.

The question is to know which message is the one

you have to elevate and with what degree of integrity not to be smoke politicians, gray men.

If I say 5, someone will say 4, and someone will say 6. Yes I say let's remove the tax fraud,

Does anyone imagine that another can say something different?

That's the difference between talking about things important that they serve, and nonsense that

they only serve as political food. That is the difference between the possibility of reaching

serious agreements, because each other is taken seriously in their pretensions, not to reach them

because they are built on a spectrum too broad and fickle.

Built on categorical claims which then are not so.

Neither the solution can be that of Capital, nor can it be the majority of a parliament

interested, nor the arithmetic mean of a selfish society, or the problematic of the strongest.

It will have to be the one that derives from the social purpose.

That is, from a principle of truth.

Citizens will have to distinguish between some social formulas and others, between

politicians and others (if there are any): between who present small insignificant changes

that try to please an audience or another, and those who show those five measures

that attack root problems. And choose. Especially when the repercussions of our

decisions are transcendental and at the same time transcend other areas, to another importance

of things.

And that's what I'm going for now.

(V) I started this work by comparing our social system with the Roman, and I want to finish it

same, calling attention to some issues of History and how to develop

the facts in it. For starters, there is not only one of the Empires

from the past that has not fallen, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Carolingian Empire, the Byzantine.

What shows the mismatch between the social system and society, which

leads, after splendor, to exhaustion and to subsistence.

There are many elements that help to understand the development of this process, for example in Rome:

Civil wars, barbarian invasions, crushing defeats, constant siege on the borders,

overcharge of its administration, payment of mercenaries, economic ruin, social deprivation, hunger,

even the advance of Christianity, The Plague of Cipriano, population decline with resources, and increase

of taxes: deterioration of the middle class Roman (that already sounds to us). Until you reach

siege in Rome V century, where 90% of its population perished.

All of it it comes down to the following: not money.

Gold and silver does not circulate, it hides.

The process is always the same. A curve-negative sign, that is, of negative slope,

until a moment arrives that becomes irrepressible: negative but of high value.

In the Roman case it took us to a period of subsistence, a desert between the III-XIV centuries,

where there were empires of feudal court like the Carolingian.

After which a new resurgence begins, that is, a positive indictment curve that is then made

unstoppable Positive but of high value.

We reached the fifteenth century, with the Renaissance, characterized by knowledge.

There we would have Copernicus, and the recovery, for example, of the books of ancient Greece,

surpassing, precisely, the feudalism, and its religious aspects also. Then there would be the sixteenth century,

the development of trade, science, more knowledge. We would already be in this phase where Keppler is,

or in the seventeenth century Descartes, which subsequently gives rise, as we see, to another curve negative sign:

the meta-knowledge, already in the twentieth century, specifically, as I said, in the 90s.

We see that feudalization, which is this period, derives from the degradation of romanization,

that is, the current social system.

That degradation is based in the impossibility of giving the level of well-being

social situation that up to now was taking place, and hence the inflection point.

In the current system, degradation is also based on the impossibility of giving this level of

welfare, but it does not derive from the degradation of the system, but of its perfection, that of knowledge

meta-knowledge that is accompanying us throughout the 21st century.

In more detail, we see that in a case there is no money in circulation for fear of exposing it,

or where to apply it, and in the other because it is not necessary

expose it for labor costs, which is the that really circulates and impacts on society, while

that for other purposes it moves virtually or between corporations.

That is, in one because there is no activity and in the other because, to a large extent, the activity

it does not require the use of money. The stage fails of application in both cases.

From here, starting from the figures are similar, we could play similarities

and the differences. In one case we already knew the degree of degradation

necessary to give rise to another system (to feudalism) in the other, we do not know how much road of perfection

of the meta-knowledge system is precise to fall to another system, except that the system

be the perfection of bipolarization to the one that has given place. Another way to say it is

Another way of saying it is that in the Roman Empire the cause gives rise to another system (feudalism) because the cause

is the fading of something (romanization) whereas here the cause is the improvement

of something that can not be faded, only sophisticated, leading to gradual regression,

as we postulate.

That then may or may not develop depending on the resistance that you find in step.

Feudalization has economic consequences,

of social order, and in relationships of production. Superstructures fall

and major forms of relationship are made emerging that until then were in

background or that they even formed by the need to give an answer.

For example, the scary money (gold and silver) hid and barter was initiated as a form of commerce.

There is also the appearance of the settlers characteristic of fiefdoms.

Metacognition as a turning point or breakage also represents the transit

between two systems, the guided integrator through knowledge (let's not forget that

the Renaissance put man at the center of things) to this other blaster, in

that man loses his role again, ceases to be at the center of things.

He was in the center because he was the bearer of knowledge.

Not now, because only men are in charge of knowledge, not man in general.

In one case it expands and universalizes, and in the other it is contracted and sectorized.

Actually, saved this, the meta-knowledge it is more knowledge, that structures development,

we just mark the point from which it occurs, because that knowledge allows,

to different production relations, nefarious, and socially disintegrating.

(VI) We have talked about the causes that motivated the fall of the Roman Empire, and we've talked

of two phases in that process, of two slopes, but we have not talked about what happened

one phase to another, of the detonator. The trigger, to say the last considerations

in this respect it was a persistent and prolonged drought, and falling temperatures, caused

more than likely by a sudden proliferation of volcanic eruptions: covering the

atmosphere of particles, rays do not enter of sun ..., which ruined the reserves

of grain, caused bad harvests, hunger, and the decay of the domestic economy,

and all the exterior susceptible to be invaded and plundered.

And everything else, because it was also the cause of the different invasions, first the

from the north, because of the cold, and later East, as a consequence of the change of

the weather conditions in the East. I mean, we have a scenario, we just need

an accidental fact for the disaster. That is why I introduced climate change as an additional issue.

It can be this or a solar storm, or overpopulation, or the irruption of the third world.

In our case, for the explained, without that

additional and traumatic element already points to these new production relationships and, therefore, to

widespread poverty. But, there is always something that produces an avalanche effect

or exponential growth, which catalyzes a behavior, a way of working as

the one that has, precisely the transistor in one of its form of work.

That's when we realize that everything what we thought controlled was not so much.

And that, in fact, it is not. Now, that we depend of things about which we do not have the domain ...

meta-supply / virtual channels ..., less than ever.

It's time to think about this. This work has started from other budgets, but let's think

than the creation of a parallel system (almost autonomous) that supplies us with the main thing

it can only be the path to a society better but also the guarantee that, in

any accidental facts, our system be preserved In the main functions,

and in the recovery of the system. That is, it is not only a political issue,

or of social justice, is a matter of survival

Everything said, thinking of us servants, because the gentlemen, who will not be 15%,

maybe 1%, whatever it is, they're always going to find a horse to ride on.

That is, they will have the resources Guaranteed

We have on one side what systems do in a natural way, and on the other the possibility

to move forward, to take it to another side, of taking as a society the best we have

to force his movement. Actually it is more than that. We not only have

the possibility but the obligation to do something (different, good, better) that takes us out

of the cycle. The obligation to realize that while

we remain the same, the cycle It will remain the same.

We do not do it, nothing, we'll have another opportunity. It will be in a thousand years, and

We will not be us, of course. Just left Imagine calling this Empire when it falls?

For more infomation >> CRÍTICA DE LA RAZÓN SOCIAL 10/10 - Duration: 23:36.

-------------------------------------------

EPIC: Pour que l'égalité de rémunération devienne réalité en 2030 - Duration: 2:14.

For more infomation >> EPIC: Pour que l'égalité de rémunération devienne réalité en 2030 - Duration: 2:14.

-------------------------------------------

Manu Gavassi chama atenção de astro internacional e ganha resposta amorosa - Duration: 1:35.

For more infomation >> Manu Gavassi chama atenção de astro internacional e ganha resposta amorosa - Duration: 1:35.

-------------------------------------------

Charlotte Casiraghi, comment l'ex de Dimitri Rassam a tenté de saboter leur couple ? - Duration: 1:35.

For more infomation >> Charlotte Casiraghi, comment l'ex de Dimitri Rassam a tenté de saboter leur couple ? - Duration: 1:35.

-------------------------------------------

CRÍTICA DE LA RAZÓN SOCIAL 8/10 - Duration: 19:48.

(I) From what has been said until now, the main thing is that is trying to make us see the difference

between any crisis derived from growth from the system to that other one that arises after a point

of inflection and that sets in motion mechanisms regressive socials that can very well grow

exponentially and make an avalanche effect. Consequently, the main thing was to characterize

conveniently that turning point. That I have placed in the meta-knowledge,

because it is what makes all a social class, the middle class, as we know it ...

And it establishes for the first time, in times of peace, from the Renaissance a human involution sequence

social, since all expectations have been lost of reaching a higher social height for that

social class of reference, that is, higher than the known one.

It is also important to have characterized our social development through the effect

transistor, and associate the different phases of growth to it.

Saved this, what I am going to say now is the main object of this work because

is what the vocation has in some way to be a contribution to the problem, when dealing with

of an analysis of its structure. As I have developed here in "The Reverse Society"

more extensively, and you can find in good measure on the WEB, together

to all the social schematic of the first part.

Consequently, now we do not develop everything a repertoire of practical deficiencies and

of the corrections to which they give rise (as in the two previous videos), but its elements

structural, which is the only way to achieve some expectation of solution.

Well, about those elements structural, there is a question in our

social system that is poorly designed and that it can not take us anything other than disaster,

that has taken us and takes us in fact. Our system is based on the principle

of uncompromising competitiveness (this is his first systemic deficiency),

that gives rise to two issues that are part

of its systematics. On the one hand, the scenario economic is like that of a poker game

in which only one can be left with all the deposits, like the beasts in front of the

prey that they have to own it yes or yes for survival.

What leads to the failure of all in front of only that remains, that is, to some form

of totalitarianism, which is already being seen in how Capital is grouped into a single Capital.

On the other hand, because that process of elimination of competitors is done by suffocation

economic, that is, taking the limit all the possibilities of survival,

to drown him financially and stay with your part of the business. While wearing

to that drowning of the entire economic fabric, because the mechanism to achieve that end

is based on the price reduction in that that there is competition (to the rise in

not), which brings with it the descent of prices of that network, including labor.

Consequently, it is a system designed to bring your own potential to the maximum and,

others, to the minimum, to zero, to extreme poverty, making your reference system can not

go up from that value. In front of what we said of 0 and 8 volts or 2 and 10, as an alternative, it is the first

as the only option and forever. Our economic system does not allow lifting

of those that are unnecessary for the Capital and those that represent a competition,

which leads to the conditions of indignity or economic calamity to increasingly larger sectors

of the social mass. This, in addition to being a systematization

perverse, is an absurd systematization because it does not pursue the benefit so much,

how to survive the dynamics; [benefit, that is going less because of the dynamics itself (the

of the price drop)]. But in addition to a deceptively inescapable way, because

it seems inescapable that the end of that dynamic it has to be zero potential, and it is not.

That is, if something is decremented and not we put you limit will reach zero (as

could reach -5), but if we put that limit, the system actually works exactly

the same, or better. I will address it later within the framework that

I'm going to develop, for now just say that a reference is just that, a reference,

that the system takes as such, whatever it may be, that assumes. You just have to see that they raise the

production price of things (reference) by certain provisions, for example,

for environmental respect, and nothing happens, It is the new reference for the cost of the product,

for its production. The respect to the environment happens to be a factor when evaluating

what in economics is called the border of production possibilities (FPP).

That is, the possibilities of producing our products efficiently, considering

that new factor, that added burden. Well, social welfare would be a factor

more for production: it is produced and commercializes by guaranteeing social welfare,

even if it represents costs. This would mark a guideline, that is, mark a master line.

You just had to make the corresponding laws to bring it to reality.

A factor that could very well be compensated by other factors,

in a perfect symbiosis between society, State and company.

Very different from the suppression precisely of that symbiosis occurred during the 80s,

in which they were in charge of annihilating all the companies by means of the Capital criteria.

Optimization criteria for those who do not allowed, among other things, that a company

could be helped state, in that "you alone, as far as you can, if you are profitable, and if you do not close".

That has led us to this, because they represented the first concessions

to Capital, to its model, presented as the only possibility or way of development.

Also protected by social democratic or even socialist governments, as is the case of Spain.

The question is, according to the framework, when it is

subsidy to inefficiency, when it is unfair competition, and when it is the perfect resource for

the occupation of citizenship and the viability of companies that would otherwise be doomed to

disappearance with all that entails. Unfair competition disappears when you are

in a position to tabulate a consideration. And you can answer, amortize the aid.

And when you are in a position to tabulate a consideration, then they are not policies

of subsidy but of Communicating Glasses, which are the ones that should have been promoted at that time.

It now touches to develop minimally the labor policy

of VVCC, which could very well be the germ of everything that is intended, an intermediate phase,

that could be installed without further considerations in the current economic framework,

in the context of a labor reform, as I already said.

As an urgent, elegant and effective solution, to all existing economic problems

what are we trying First of all, as point one, we should say, apart from

everything said and what can be said, or, if you will, as a fundamental part of

all this, that we must correct a matter of bulk Regarding labor costs:

1st Since the number of workers goes unless, the whole Society + State has

likewise to receive a fixed for this concept. Apart from the real workers.

Let's say 25% of the gross profit (before to discount salaries)

In other words, the employer must pay 25% fixed regardless of what you later have

the worker in salaries and contributions. Regardless of the workers you have.

Everything that is done that does not contemplate this, is Chinese story. It doesn'' T work.

And it does not work because does not contemplate the main cause in shrinkage

from the economic flow to society: the optimization of these workers or replacement of them by machines.

Then you can put a fee, but that does not compensate. If we want to distribute wealth, we have

that have wealth to distribute. Having said that:

2nd Workers have to charge a minimum charge of that 25%.

Not only the minimum attached to the minimum interprofessional salary (SMI), which could actually remain

as a social minimum. But a real professional minimum that we could establish at 2000 euros.

1400 of salary plus 600 of contribution to the social security.

You can also set a maximum (5000 = 3700 + 1300), regardless of what can be overcome

by the salary range of companies, in a particular way. The quantities and% are for the example.

They are not necessarily these.

3rd That 25% would cover the number of workers whatever it is, on that minimum of 2000, and

without exceeding the maximum. So that: (4th) if it exceeds the maximum, the differential would go

for the state. That is, if the 5000 E for the number of workers does not reach 25% that rest would go to the State

(5th) Equally if the company does not arrive with 25% to the minimum to pay the minimum salary

it would be in charge of the State, which would compensate it, at a time of contrasting its viability.

These are the VVCC in a first approximation,

that would solve 90% of the problems in society. Present and future.

The employer can choose to have more workers or less on the same value of 25% (according

to their needs and the characteristics of the positions or of the companies). Some may find it interesting

fatten the salary until reaching the maximum and others use that differential

for new hires. The State knows that 25% reaches society,

well through the workers (in the form of salaries and contributions) well directly.

In one case, there is a greater occupation and a redistribution of wealth first

order in charge of the employer, and in the other, to the economic resources for a redistribution

of 2nd order by the State. In both cases the reference level is maintained.

The worker, on the other hand, is on a minimum, and, derived from his dedication and the possibilities

of the company can have a real and substantial economic compensation, advanced from

the 2000 to other quantities, without exceeding the upper limit

And you can also have an accounting idea of ​​the value of it, of the possibilities

which, in addition, would make the performance more visible real companies face taxation

from the same. We see that this system not only reduces the

social and economic fracture, but that incorporates a series of hygiene elements

business and tax, and a clear maintenance of salaries according to economic power

of the companies ... And their corresponding quote to social security, with the consequent

maintenance of pensions. It can not be said "there is no money".

The benefit has to be necessarily that which remains reasonably after

to guarantee the sustainability of society and, of course, that of the company that generates it,

and its legal benefit.

We can make policies designed to bring distant poles, or make policies that

Contribute to increase your distance. Policies these last ones that also bring out the worst in us

because they carry that distance in the form of mismatch, to what we are, to our way of understanding

things, to the psychological plane. Which in turn materializes in social behavior

(as the competitiveness at all costs, already reviewed), as soon as things are the expression

of our way of understanding them. This is the case of another psychological maladjustment,

I would say moral or emotional that constitutes, together to competitiveness, one of the great hindrances

of our social system (the 2nd systemic defect), and which is the one that derives from the historical concept of charity

(of charity), or, to be more exact, of its adulteration.

(which will be rendered meaningless by the model in that framework of occupational sanitation that we have just presented.)

Indeed, as Diana Wood indicates:

In the 12th century, Gratian gathered patristic texts about the criteria necessary to give charity ...

Summing up Wood: in the same way that

the conception in front of the wealth was changed and the work was modified with respect to charity,

coming to consider a devised practice for the maintenance of bums (another tie

of the Church broken by the bourgeoisie). This thought (1), together with the situation

social (2) and personal choice (3), has established a dividing line, by which we differentiate ourselves

to ourselves more than any other thing: between the subsidized and those who do not.

Many times (and will be more and more) without having opportunity (especially the first ones) to be able to leave

to be. And that we differ more than other

anything, because it has is at the level that is, as long as there is a level

inferior to the sight, a sensation

of pillage or bleeding. Largely by the arbitrary administration

of the flows of wealth, because of its ineffectiveness, or the weak social foundation.

What shows that not only is it necessary to redistribution tools but also,

of a theoretical body that makes them understandable: a social model.

We could say, as a sufficient principle of that theoretical body, which in a strict sense

nothing that we have belongs to us, that we can only and should use things what

best possible (we could also go to Locke's philosophy), but until

we are able to assume this or make it ours, to revalidate it with irreproachable behaviors,

We will have to look for other arguments. Without a model we live with all those things,

with all those feelings and with all the provisions that are derived. Without model we live together

we also live with all the impositions of Capital (without possible replication) that are implicit

the annulment of the individual, well, social, for not being able to reach the resources

basic, good, moral, because that demands leave what they are as people aside.

What we are as people

We have no idea of ​​the power that being the owner of another's resources. You guys

they know what a tyrant that can be the owner of a shoe store (for example) with

a dependent of it? That is the cancellation of the individual 4, 8, 12 hours a day. Then,

or there is no legislation about it, or does not respond in time and form, or enjoy the imbalance

general that enjoys all the legislation and the whole scheme that we are dealing with.

Whoever commands, does not have to be delicate,

neither exact in his statements, nor have reasonings smart For its part, everything is graceful,

what makes starting two classes of people in society. The economic force

is subject to the power of money, and moral or the staff, too.

That's one of the things on my list of 100 things In the 21st century we want to solve

the problem of gender abuse and leave behind the one I mentioned, which is as deaf and as old as

that, the abuse of power in all its forms (this is the 3rd systemic deficiency), and that of alienation,

the loss of dignity that comes with it. That establishes a continuous conflict between

poles and a degradation in the flow because defines a separation, not already economic but

moral, among them. Contrary to any understanding, and, consequently, to any

collaborative or productive process.

We see that, together with the extension of the FPP, the VVCC is the cornerstone of everything we are dealing with

or we have tried so far, but not only of this, also of everything we want

try. For example, we talk about equality between

man and woman, and it is a lie, there is no equality nor can there be: only communicating vessels.

It's not about doing the same two things that they are not the same (2 poles) but they have

the optimal communication. We can say it otherwise you can not pretend to make them equal,

only reach a symmetry relationship between them, as asymmetry is what

worse than there may be in a relationship. We can talk about symmetry or the relationship

equal between poles or VVCC, referred to any order of life, as a measure

of its height or level of harmonization, something that is made up of parts can

function as a whole (as one) from the harmonization of its parts or since the imposition

of one of them. Referred to the subject that occupies us, also ...,

but it will be after exposing some questions essential, and other formal, which are the

which are what will allow us to make the VVCC something more than a tool, that is, let

of being an economic tool to be a foundation Social.

For more infomation >> CRÍTICA DE LA RAZÓN SOCIAL 8/10 - Duration: 19:48.

-------------------------------------------

Charlène de Monaco, comment a-t-elle ouvert la porte aux enfants naturels du prince Albert - Duration: 1:29.

For more infomation >> Charlène de Monaco, comment a-t-elle ouvert la porte aux enfants naturels du prince Albert - Duration: 1:29.

-------------------------------------------

Avène | Costume | Stjæl de franske kvinders skønhedstips - Duration: 1:02.

For more infomation >> Avène | Costume | Stjæl de franske kvinders skønhedstips - Duration: 1:02.

-------------------------------------------

CRÍTICA DE LA RAZÓN SOCIAL 9/10 - Duration: 28:46.

(II) The social system is a dynamic system which has a main movement and others

secondary, like the earth in its orbit. Here you are only acting on the secondary ones.

The right one way, and, the left, of another similar in what matters, because

not acting on the main movement, the impact is minimal, and possibly

contrary to each other. Nor can the planet be removed from its orbit,

and, that is why, it can not be removed, that we need more than shock measures,

we need social engineering. To address that social engineering, you have to

Know the nature of your movement. A movement that is limited to begin with

to their own dynamic possibilities, confined to your reality as a marble would be

that rolls on the inside surface of a box.

Inside the box, all solutions are already known, especially when there are dependencies

unavoidable between some variables and others, well as they exist in society.

The marble can only escape escaping from that reality by breaking those dependencies or opening up

step up the box, giving yourself a

new degree of freedom, as I said, a new social paradigm

I'm going to say it again. Our socioeconomic system it is not sustainable without bringing it back seriously.

Consequently, what is said here affects to the most vulnerable individuals, but also

to the survival of the system. The solutions ordinary they serve, they are a shock treatment

to contain its inertia, but they would be insufficient to redirect this particular way

of progress. For this last, it would be necessary to design that

another form of society, from other premises, and start it now that it's just

start the social regression and that the deterioration is limited.

This work aims to trace that project, that new social paradigm, that is, a scheme

of operation that goes beyond the interests of Capital and the doctrine of

need. That need for which some earn money and exclude socially, and others, excluded

and alienated do not harbor anything other than feelings of impotence and social reactivity.

You can not make a better society without having a clear idea of ​​what you want, either

if what you want is nothing more than a sets of patches, actions and reactions,

and that's it. We all have to overcome our interests

and our attachments. The economy has to play their role, and society theirs that

it is none other than presenting for the economy with zero resistance, transparent, because

she is in herself transparent and absent of conflict.

But that implies giving society all the material means that make it so, transparent,

absent from conflict. With zero resistance, any V implies I infinite, just precise

a minimum inequality between poles to reach that current.

We arrive at the physical concept of superconductivity,

in this socio-economic case, and overcoming of bipolarity / inequality as a condition

necessary for the establishment of flows of wealth: with a balanced society

the economy is highly productive. That is the form of the new paradigm, its scheme

final economic The extension of the FPP and the VVCC, already seen, are its precursor economic elements,

its physical architecture. And what comes, the way to achieve it, its

logic or operating framework, which -as I said at the beginning - part of a single requirement:

understand ourselves as a system.

There are two aspects that I find essential for the social transformation we want,

and that constitute its foundation and its architecture of operation.

These are "the principles of truth", that is, the establishment of clear objectives in

the model of society (what we want to be as a society), and "social investment" that

it is a rational formulation of the occupation destined to achieve social benefit,

efficiency, and personal opportunity in optimum degree of use and equality

of opportunities. All this with respect to the five big blocks

of occupation (basic public and private, special public and private, and that of life as an occupation).

The principles of truth are issues that

without truth they are shown to us as sufficient truths, objectives that are taken out of the political arena

because it is understood that this society wants them A) Yes.

We could say, that with respect to a law, its principle of truth would be the spirit

of the law, what was wanted with it. In an analogous way, the principle of truth in society is

what we want as a society, its basic and elementary idea, so that everything we do

go under that idea.

We could include social welfare as part of the extension of FPP, as a principle of truth.

This forces the hierarchy of our

wishes or our demands, so that it is that hierarchy determines the principle

basic social justice or its priorities. In this sense two yearnings of the same category

will come into conflict, we will not resolve unless there is a higher truth that

Give each one of the above your site. What I am saying is actually a

superior tool that goes beyond This is what we are trying, because it is

the natural way to resolve any moral debate on the issues, any conflict, that is, that

handling it we have to do it by force more capable people.

So, for example, a principle of truth is what it tries to overcome emotional conflict

of the "pious lie" and the like, and it does it through something of a higher hierarchy,

for a purpose. Taken to the social, represents the way to solve our dichotomies,

if we bet on social truth. If we treat the independence of Catalonia,

from this point of view, we see that for the Catalan right may not have

conflict, but for the left yes, that It reproduces in every decision. The anti-capitalists,

for example, they voted 50% on something, looking that hierarchy. Only 50% found it.

The other necessarily breaks the hierarchy. That's when our speech is lost

and we can not be categorical, or we put the accent on that which supports our affirmation,

not in the truth, and we become politicians in the pejorative sense of the term,

that we all know. There are many other examples that mainly affect the left because,

contrary to the right, which has the principle of money, or money as a principle

and the free will that God gives him, this one, the left, he does not have his own and he is involved

in contradictions when making a creed. Already I said that the left does not have a common thread,

what I say should be its guiding thread: a social dogmatic.

A dogmatic that is capable of facing the dogmatics of a part of Capital,

we could say the religious,

and to the nihilism / standardization of the other party. Social investment, on the other hand, is based on the idea of

occupy society from top to bottom, that is, the promotion or social elevation is not regulated

through competitiveness criteria but the social descent for reasons of necessity.

Consequently, social investment is supported in the idea, also, to occupy the sectors

misfits of the society in the functions basic, and thus leave maximum availability

possible for tasks associated with development, and the whole of society for those

others associated with one's life. Contrary to current job competition

increasingly disloyal, as a consequence of the principle of competitiveness, which adds to the

shortage of employment, precariousness and rivalry for get It.

Social investment also goes under the protection or full compliance with working hours

necessary. The hours necessary for this society will work will be made by

those people who can not offer to themselves, or to society, something differentiated,

in the phases of life that this happens. Let's put the example of the 70000 prisoners, let's put the

case of people without skills or training out of date, elderly vitalists, young people who

They have not found their way, but without However, they want (must) participate in society,

to contribute, to be occupied, to feel useful. While that all those that can offer themselves something

different, have the opportunity and coverage Social.

By the way, surely there would not be 70000 prisoners, since many are products of necessity.

Social investment rationalizes the occupation

and distributes it, promotes social commitment and efficiency, while providing

an emotional and psychological balance without precedents, by giving the individual the opportunity

to be useful and to occupy your time, just in what he can and wants to give, well formed,

well applying his training, and to choose what, how and when, without pressure or social urgency.

In the current system, unemployment is synonymous

of failure, and it is this failure that is eventually subsidized through coverages

Social investment, on the other hand, subsidizes excellence and rewards it with time to develop

as such until you find your application or its application time.

It's about going back to the logical, to the natural

in a village. Everyone does what he can, what he knows, in the part that touches him.

Each one in a section of his life can have a default function if he is not developing another better one.

In this sense, maybe the grandfather has

to take care of the grandchild, and then the grandchild of grandfather. That can be done if there is no other

kind of social pressure that makes us be in a continuous state of survival.

We are doing that already, in fact, in that survival status.

It is therefore a question of returning to attend things that we have to attend, and that each

It will be more necessary to attend, naturally, as part of life, without thinking that

we are missing something, because we will know that everything will have its moment.

But it is about something else. We can give ourselves account that the social investment that is

the investment in occupational coupling, that favors the occupation by default or massive

of the specialized sectors (and, with them, global), favors, in addition, the deletion

of a good part of the social benefits derived from differentiation or exclusivity.

While, as cause or effect, it is replaced Competitiveness of competitors

that of the competent ones in a good part of the social spectrum.

That is, at the expense of saying more things, the "Social investment".

Now it remains to develop the general social structure

sustainable, and congruent with all the above ... That with the previous thing it will conform the model

of "The Reverse Society", that we are presenting.

And that has to go to more because the problem It is even greater.

Because not only do we have to order the occupation as a foundation

of business activity and ensure the economic viability of the social fabric

through it, but occupation as a foundation of one's existence. Or, if you like,

the non-occupation. In that doing things that are not natural, we know

that in our society two funnels are produced, one with respect to people, who can not

get their livelihood, and another respect to society that can not benefit from

knowledge of people who, even, has formed.

Two funnels that structurally finish to solve, but not at the operational or functional level.

The funnels are produced as a consequence

of capital accumulation, which may be without application, and the fact that everything

what is done in this society is done (done) through money.

In some way, we have to release the activity scheme that we have designed

of his dependence on money.

In fact, if we think about it a bit, the

requirement is not so strange. An advanced society, of knowledge, not

may be subject to the existence of a payer to see transformed its potential wealth into real.

That is one of its main systemic flaws, the 4th on our list.

One to which Capital pushes us. This leads us to the fact that a society must take

the basics we can produce and the basics that we have to consume from the financial circuit

so that you can transform that potential wealth, in real, leaving the money for the accessory.

This money, in addition, guaranteed the basics, It would be a less fearful money, easier to mobilize,

More productive. Having guaranteed the basics, the money

remaining we could use it to go from vacations, for consumption, without fear of tomorrow,

introducing it into the financial circuit. The basic that we consume can come covered

for an income. The basic thing that we produce for all those things that a society may need

advanced and knowledge, in care, education, etc., outside of productive or specialized circuit.

Let's notice in detail that we began our historical course as

men, as people, being a society that exchanged things and services,

then one that bought them.

We have to become, if we want to leave forward, a society that bases its development

primary in the exchange of services basic, with the State as mediator.

It's about keeping the commercial activity but (as I already anticipated) about a minimum

reference. That reference minimum consists, from an instrumental point of view, of not

let zero potential be poverty extreme, or in other words than the minimum

is not zero but a minimum wealth of subsistence that we establish or match with the

social background energy derived from communication permanent of the poles ..

According to the occupation, there would only be the basic income concept for the

basic occupation, retirement, and training, and then the different levels of occupation

not basic, with their respective income in function of whether they were public or private.

It could be shown that by raising life commercial about that reference level nothing

changes in the commercial sector, and that continues same about that reference level, because

uploading it, although it is true that there is provide supplies and services,

it is also provided to companies of a certain activity.

On the one hand because the surplus money already mentioned, would be used in the services

not contemplated, of another because that provisioning it would actually be amortized with contributions

in the labor market from which companies can benefit greatly, while

basic services can be self-managed. Serve as a demonstration of the above

currently the reference is lowered the costs and nothing is gained or improved,

the subsequent decrease in the price of the product (as I already referred).

From what is taken out that raising this cost for including expenses such as those described or

those that derive from ecological treatment of the goods (which is already done), neither

it would vary or have a negative impact. Naturally this would demand, as I said,

change the way to tax companies, which we have already developed, but on what we will deepen.

Companies would not pay taxes for a job but a fee per activity that would include

scales related to absolute income, the absolute and relative benefits, as well

as the productivity derived from mechanization. Canon that would free them from any other

concept and it would give the right, exceeded the 25%, to the eventual increase in the number of

workers paying only the differential. That is, the need for work

or even certain circumstances as they could opening business, etc., could be

practically exempt from tax charges and labor, the first for not having performance,

and the second because society would take over of the basic and the business only of the differential.

This would be a 2nd generation of the VVCC. To a large extent, it would be an economic system

flat fee, which can be understood from two ways, one between the business that

is who makes the contributions for the rent basic, as if they formed at the

State a large corporation, and two, in the set of the State since the work

it is part of the elements at zero cost that the State or society provides.

(Something similar to when you run out of megabytes, and you have additional megabytes at lower speeds.)

I do not intend to leave everything settled just give

an idea of ​​how it could be used the activity in this framework.

Here, the survival of the flow through natural subsidies far from being, such as

was initially raised, a matter of charity, and then social pragmatism, is

a matter of system hygiene, and a a matter of necessity for the system itself

because it's the only way to guarantee that the system continues its march, that all the circumstances

social, far from being a problem for the financial system is constituted in

a background flow that guarantees its survival even when that part decayed.

There would be two systems, that of money and that of non-money coexisting in harmony and communication.

This system (Reverse Society) preserves all that is good that can give us a market economy,

taking advantage of the social base, which is thus shown as a parallel system that interrelates

with the other and that can even work autonomously if necessary and

disaster, also responding to changes that we have there in front, and that

we can not avoid. While in an operation normal behaves like the society that always

Capital has wanted, that does not present resistance and therefore gives a maximum

productivity with the minimum contribution. As I said a society that bases its operation

in superconductivity, not excessive bipolarity.

As can be deferred from our development, there is no concept

of "retirement" or compensation for that reason as such, only "withdrawal" in the logic that

yes there is an age in which the person no longer wants or can not be productive, that would go

a priori it would be very linked to the impossibility biological, because in reality, all for

we usually want to do things while we can do them There is no retirement because no

there is a clear or marked differentiation by stages between activity and non-activity.

This, with the shortage of work is already like this, The issue is to recognize that reality and organize it.

We see that the solutions in some cases they may resemble those given by Capital itself,

and this one is about the need to disregard the active life of the passive, or how could

be the existence of jobs that we could conceptualize as minijobs, or you could even

think of a system that frees of tasks servile to the capable, but only if we do not take

in consideration what happens now, and all the safeguards of the system in the model

of "The reverse society". The question is not what else but in what

frame, that is, the same thing are different things according to intentionality, of helplessness

of urgency, of rigor. In one case they increase the social resistances and in the other,

they diminish. In one case it is an individual solution to life or death, and in the other it is a consensual social fit.

In effect, there are a series of realities that we can not avoid, such as longevity,

overpopulation and lack of work monetarizable that leads us nowadays

to a poor active / passive relationship and some Late and intermittent working lives.

The solutions can not be the one we already said that could not be, can not be a solution either

walk through life by jumping to death trying complement our contribution with jobs

untimely that as a consequence of the shortage would affect the occupation of

who do have an age or work situation, and that only leads to ridiculous policies

that encourages placement ... Less than 30 years, over 50 ... And that's where the

imagination. That is, when there is no shortage you can think

in a long working life, but when there shortage, no.

Nor in extending the working life or making it coincide with the biological force, in

a climate of precariousness, and more uncertainty of which already has life already.

You can only detach it, that is, do what what, and when, you can.

And similarly separate the retribution of what, and when, can be done,

that would lead us to lose the concepts of assets and liabilities,

and their differentiated payments. In this case, the contributions out of time,

that we call labor they would enter inside the logic of the system, within that reference level,

or background current.

The question is: how much does this cost?

Well, dealing with this has an initial cost that with the current society scheme could be,

pulling long, in the 15,000 million euros (6000 euros for 2.5 million people),

but that would be without associating any activity, bareback.

And that would not be the case because it would take

associated with an activity and consequent compensations of various types, derived, precisely,

of communication between glasses. On the one hand because of the possibility to establish

endless activities or counterparts social, for the benefit of the population

busy, that is, a universalization of support for that population.

Activities related to home care,

elderly, children, dependence, assistance academic, etc. That would be standardized,

for which only one differential would be paid, that would later revert to society,

product sellers. Activities that, on the other hand, our society

increasingly older, will have to implement yes or yes, if you do not want to fall into abandonment

systemic of the old. Of another by the business activity of low

cost, already mentioned. And, finally, because allowing that form of income

differential in the years after the current retirement age eliminates that idea

of bulky payment for a period each time greater as a result of life expectancy.

The State is calm, pays what is necessary, the person is calm, charges the necessary,

possibly having access to income extras, while making a social benefit.

Behavior that today is usual in doctors, teachers, and others

who have made their profession the meaning of their lifes.

This without counting the amount of things to social, infrastructure and development level

that can be done with a willing social mass and satisfied

Consequently, this would have a cost that it would be amortized, and that it would not even have

that reverberate in society. And if it rebounds, for that we have our 60000 million euros per year,

that would allow us to adapt in time one system with another and go implementing it

step by step, social transformations and the economic needs that it entails.

The system does not eliminate the personal, social and economic difference between more and less capable individuals,

more and less prepared (although it dampens it). It simply places them according to their level of

training, occupies them, gives them a place in society, guaranteeing them the economic resources.

And it allows them to prosper without limitations and without fear of not doing it.

With all this we arrive at a model of society which eliminates the four main problems

systemic of the current. Where all the world can do something, everyone does

something, according to social investment, without absurd competitivities, without domination

contractual, without being an object, neither active nor passive, of beneficence.

And where all human processes find a social scenario without social resistance

for its development, and in a particular way, the economic one, that is,

the process of creating wealth flows.