A revolution in motion via sportswear. “Show them what crazy can do.”

As The Beatles said, we all want to change the world. For women and girls sports is one powerful tool and area of self-development to be able to take part in, a hobby or profession, healthwise a good decision throughout all of one’s life, but something your own always, as we all have personal likings and what we are good at, but good is to understand you don’t have to be good at it. Comparisons when doing sports are hard to avoid I have noticed. It is not a competition. It is something to concentrate on, focus and have fun. Because that’s what it is. In a world where everything is a competition, do try to get over yourself.

Revolution is a performance which to succeed must be planned carefully, but there is an element of irrational and emotional without which the whole thing may not work, I suppose passion for a cause, a necessity. There has to be agenda, plan, people who are committed to the cause without self-interest involved, what else? Something being very wrong, unequal and people don’t want to be told what to do. Planning must exceed way up to the future in order revolution to function as bettering of people’s lives not against people, which I see now happening. A completely new way of making and thinking which all must absorb in their lives and accept. It is the impression we give wanting equal rights, is that we really want, thoughts shared, thoughts not censored, the side we take plays a big part, part we play today either silent for fear or not, the acts we commit and we choose to perform and for what cause which must be chosen wisely, for whose benefit do we work, buy, do anything. With this I claim every act is a revolution of its own or a continuation, better or worse, frency doesn’t seem to help. Active part-taking in society and especially in one’s own life make society, passivity does that very much too, scared silent passivity or uninterested passivity. Changes in our lives, in our bodies, in our minds, change our environment which impact of one person can be quite much. Everyone is an influencer. How we see it, the environment and our chances as makers and thinkers, how we see the change today and what is it. These days if we cannot part-take, have a say over and are shut out, fear easily comes along. Today a person can suddenly lose everything for a tweet and have so-called global fame. 

An individual performance performed by many, performance which all still do individually becoming as good as possible by doing this performance over and over again. Performing may be at the same time at the same place done by many people who choose to act the same way, running. NIKE has Revolution brand for sports shoes. Evolution of a shoe is itself pretty huge and quick, how well shape of a foot can be supported, which brings something more to the individual performance, adds its power to the individual and what he/she is doing, how well they do what they do. We have such good shoes, but we don’t move much. Shoes being the accessory and luxury items instead of practical things making us move better. Nike’s is a lifestyle ad of course for the well-off Westerners, a product for ‘forward’ thinking people, I suppose is the idea, where you try to find with help of a product the best there is in you for you, so you can show your best, be the best, look your best, be better, compete, achieve, perform and look good and repeat this with lots of other products by brands that perform their best. Shoes make you jump and run well, because they are light, fit your foot perfectly, become part of you as you move as hard and heavy as you can and go further than what you expected perhaps. Revolution the word in products is what makes people do? They get shaped and fixed to fit perfectly the performance, the intent and purpose, people buying and wearing the revolution shoes. Better is a bit strange word here, but I’ll use it, because it describes the essential aim, essential and we want to think what is good and always be better at, better than. Technology and tools play a big part in making the most out of people and resources. People have to know what to choose, what to buy and how to use the products.

It is a kind of peaceful revolution until you start thinking further about making of those shoes and choices the consumers must make and what do they know. Who chooses for you for example. How nowadays it is so that almost all sportswear is made in Asia still, maybe soon in African nations, with the help of extremely cheap labor, the corporations have grown massive, which fact makes ad revolutions sad cases and interesting ones culturally. Revolution in this context begins to sound ridiculous (think about the first Apple ad), pompous and really really effective,

but thinking females who aren’t allowed to do sports and today men invading the whole of women’s sports as women, that is men as women. How much does it cost to make an adequate sports shoe that we who like to sculpt our bodies by running can consume and enjoy? It is a fact that industry in Asia is lucrative and locals benefit from it too in many ways, and in some ways they get the worst textile industry has to offer, pollution, long days of work, low pay, lack of day care, use of child labor, inhumane working conditions nonstop without nothing changing etc. How is it with NIKE? Do you really care or what is this revolution about? Sales? Being trendy? Growth for business and muscles? Not labor rights. Many movements we are experiencing now are influencing on trend level. Hype and groupthink grow astronomical, impact the youth in a huge same way as clothing and beauty businesses do. Brainwash isn’t far-fetched.

In Asia it is exactly the same as it was in the West when textile industry was a big employer and worker rights were not at the same level as they are now. Businesses go elsewhere to escape legislation, environmental and labor legislations and labor costs, industry is doing a service and disservice at the same time, the biggest disservice is for the environment and the worker in the West. I do like shoes that I can afford, but still as a thought everything is made in China is the problem’s name on large scale. We have made China very powerful. We had a revolution, many of them in a row nonstop, but so did many countries in Asia, China included. World is a result of revolutions that impact still. Revolution is a tool for the mind. Interesting thing about revolution is that it can be anything, nowadays there is someone telling something is a revolution, but of course you need a movement and results and events and whatnot. The efforts made to change the world seem tiny when looking at the environment and labor. What kind of results are we having right now? Does naming an event help? Does naming happen before or after event happens and what happened, who reports, what is happening exactly now? Revolution in use in advertising does strike an interesting string of paradoxes and makes me think, what do we mean with the word and the event. What is our obsession with the word? Events aren’t much fun, fun isn’t what revolutions are after.

Mocha Pocha, kiitos, taskussa puhelinsydän

Kartonkimainosteksti josta kirjoitin muistiin, On the edge of Nigaraguan rainforest, ja josta jatkoin koiraan joka on koulutettu seisomaan istuvaa lintua.

Mocha pocha, kiitos, ilmastoinnissa liikahteleva sämpyläpaperi,
lusikanjälkiä lasikupeissa, suklaanpalasia suunpielestä


Milloin sodassa, milloin rakkaudessamilloin missäkin. Taskussa puhelinsydän jota odotan.
Kosketan, avaan sen.

RIKO SLIIKE, persikat puuttuu.


Tänään tajunnanvirtaa + TV-tarjonta yhdistelmäperäkärry. Päivän lause – Hulluudella on miljoonat kasvot; tähän mieheen liittyy parkkipaikalla oleva tumma mersu, josta löytyi tän jätkän lompakko ja katkaistu haulikko. On ollu kaikenlaista projektia. SEIS!! Maahan, maahan!! Otimme hänet kiinni.

sittensittensittensittensittenglad glad, glad, dgal lgda glda agld jne jne

nain lisata hyvaa mielta ja ihmisten jaksamista ja elamanhallintaa.


Rat poison

What is mentally ill? Emotional coldness, inability to understand feelings of others, unwillingness to see situations of others, that they are more than  what you can see and how different kinds of issues affect lives, what lies behind: inability to comprehend and sympathise with emotions and happenings of anybody, realities of different kinds. What is it all about when only when something is felt and experienced personally comprehension and sharing can happen? What is mentally ill really when sharing is one-sided and interest lies in the personal, in visibility, gain, and emphasis is on what do I get, what is in there for me, who is this person for me or to anyone?

What are the methods for personal growth? Pointing a finger? Depending on where you point at and what does it mean.

How do we measure growth and what is the goal? To be a good, valuable person can mean what is your net worth and worth in the eyes of others. Amount of appreciation is shown in many ways as is contempt… Are you worthy of trust, being liked, appreciation on your field of expertise, an individual who is a knowledgable master and someone to look up to? Public opinion defines a lot, but is it trustworthy and where does it lead us or is meant to lead us? Personal growth as we perceive it and examine via where we come from and where we should aim at is tricky and looks can be deceiving. What is the essence of us that is to be cultivated, what is the good to be had, what do we think we are capable of and what could be the unknowns to reach out for. What is the starting point and what are the possibilities there for us, for anyone, individual potential and our interests leading the way: are we what we look like, where we come from?

How we perceive our individual growth as human beings is a matter of other people not only us, their influence on us which is not to be underestimated. To know your worth comes from others on large part till we recognise ourselves and our individuality. How necessary growth/change is in terms of one’s place, making a living, how it all happens for you what is the happening of life, what is possible and living a decent life, what we want of life, what it becomes to be by you and what does it mean in terms of effort and measuring growth, spiritual, personal, financial, whatever growth there is and what is the worth/value of making, looking like, connecting etc. Is our growth visible, measurable in material, how do we feel the change around and in us as we do change all the time? What is it to be liked for us, how much we yearn to be successful and likeable? Do we believe in ourselves via other people’s approval, what other people say and think seems to be of the essence, a matter of appreciating life is to belong, what do we appreciate in life and how of our own it can be made? Do we fit in and is that what makes us happy and life worth living? What is the needed change here and there and how change happens other than via consumption and visual validation and belonging? To look good means you feel good and are well? Is change something to be afraid of as it can be unwanted and a bad thing, to change into what? How misery changes us, makes us grow, do we accept it as part of life or do we get bitter? What is personal growth worth when the best thing to do is imitate? How can such and such life be had, what is the cost and which qualities do we like seeing in us and others, are we growing with the world or is the world growing small?


Alchemy of building a shopping center: Critical points of view to formulating a paradise for consuming.


1. Pounding a Mall
2. How architecture creates thinking as a structure for society. Ideology and model behind mass consumption
3. Architect as a fascist or is it him to blame?
4. I call them space invaders.

An article trying to define and understand, look at to the core of the mental landscape we now possess and own as familiar and acceptable. Modelling the body of profit architecture, what kind of purposes and meanings lie behind creating our consuming based social structures, architecture we inhabit and dwell in, which has overwhelmingly conquered the planet and the style to construct is total and fast. Trying to understand  power there is in use and how this type of architecture is used to control us, our behaviour and thinking. Also my concern is what kind of public spaces within the frame of consuming are offered for us. How we are in and outside, how these spaces exist and what they do, what is the function there and the lasting effect. Issue of time is essential as buildings stay put a period of time, are made in factory style and manufactured in similar fashion all over.

1.Pounding a Mall

I was told that behind us was a supermarket being built. This was in Pori where there are old factory buildings of which some are restored others aren’t. That we were inside what is left of a cotton factory, which dates back a hundred years or so. I was also told that in this little town called Pori, there are three shopping centers within one kilometer radius (not to mention supermarkets). So thinking to myself and continuing, how is it possible to imagine infinite growth and consumption, that there are people who can afford and are willing to spend their money and time at malls and thinking building malls is progress as is continuous consumption. How is it possible for one to have customers for all of them all the time? Other puzzling issue is how is it possible to get a permission to tear apart old historical factories for this kind of use. Since it has been done, the demolishing of our heritage in Finland, since the 60’s and seventies at least, it has been part of bringing down our visible history to make profit and call it progress.

As a small country, as people, wouldn’t it be crucially important to preserve our cultural memory which is visible, a sight and kept in use? Yes, I could see it a vital issue for many reasons. To see the construction site and feel the pounding of concrete pillars getting hit in to the ground felt physical and alien. Such heavy-duty raises questions. Walls of our classroom were trembling. One hammering pound per second. I looked up at the clock on the wall, it was like a heartbeat. Sweet metaphor for grey concrete stumps to hold it all together, engineered. Isn’t it heartbeat that synchronizes, resonates, comes to bring us enjoyment in music, like music of building up a house. A simple monotonic beat made robotic as we are in a hurry and made look effortless in a way in its massiveness. But when you listen to your own heart, the squeaking and bumping makes you feel nausea. This pounding irritated everybody and the thought of a new market was a sickening idea. Wondering this happening everywhere we got a new perspective, when Yik Chum someone from Hong Kong told us that, she had worked in an office and listened to the same kind of sound every day for three years, a nonstop pounding. Also that in Hong Kong this kind of sound is constant. She lived upstairs to a mall and it is very common in HK to build such high buildings, which contain every possible service one can possibly need in order to live there. Well, we were stunned. How small Finland seemed and how small it is. It looked like Hong Kong lives in different time that is science fiction here in Pori Finland. To adopt this kind of progress probably is inevitable, one cannot live hating it can one? Well one can question the inevitability of it. One thing being what does questioning on one’s own do and being irritated by this progress. We are the ones they are for, these malls, right? Question mark is that I’m not sure. Users, the customers, passerby, owners of the premises, owners of the land, what is it to use a building?

To build is a practical practice, daily sight in a city. Cities are being reconstructed, modelled for our purposes in a democratic or undemocratic way to sustain and restructure our lives. At least in Finland attempt is to be as democratic as possible and process is public. Though it puzzled me to hear an architect say that the system is too democratic, making the decision-making avoid any experimental or bold solutions and in the end everybody mostly follows the same safe patterns fearing something different would not make the wanted profit. In Finland it is clear to see this since the old has been gladly removed and cubical architecture has invaded our land. It is difficult to find which democratic ways are in use when it comes to constructing when it all looks the same. I have my doubts. One approach to view this dilemma is to see who is building and what are the main reasons to construct. Quick look tells me behind my back a supermarket is getting started and another one and another one. Is there a demand for it? Who investigates the demand, who designs these shopping places? It must be calculated and the system manipulated. Calculated so that it emerges as ultimately what people need. Profit architecture which has a purpose and which does good for all.

Profit architecture is to get value out of us during and after having built the site, it is us who are abused, but do we feel abused? We are supposed to like it as it is convenient, easy and part of way of life. Reasons for such houses to exist, to exploit, to have ground to stand on. It could be called fascism wrapped in a package with a smile and sold to us or forced on us and we go where things are cheapest. Just as fascism it lures a crowd with cheapness and slogans with looks, something we think we can afford and must have. So in this line of thought, it is not for us, it is for those who profit. Not just talking about the supermarket behind me, but of the genre of malls, supermarkets and shopping centres are brainwash. There is plenty of reason for harsh critique, but does it sink in there where critique is aimed at? For some it’s a kind of progress that cannot be stopped and should not be stopped. People like malls, they go there to spend time and have fun. That we like and live in capitalism emphasis is on enjoyment and be able not care for the consequences is part of the enjoyment. To live we have to consume products, we need products as we do not have time or energy or capabilities to make all by ourselves, malls and shopping centres easily provide us cheaply what we need and beyond in a pounding-like way.

How malls are brought to us is one way to tell there is nothing ordinary citizens can do, somehow. Companies building their empires are enormous forces. What comes to capacity in funds, employees, connections, planning, they are getting their voice heard in ads and via lobbying via ideology of consuming is the only way modern people must live etc. The whole idea of a mall is to be an ad and a container. Malls, as I see them, are shaped for storage, to have simple routine-like maneuvers practiced, for people to move with trolleys, for the shopkeeper to bring in huge amounts of goods, to cash out, rip off as many people as is possible in rows like in a factory. Interesting article on the issue on www.thefunambulist.net # Weaponized architecture///Architecture for profits Optimization: The Supermarkets’ layout (2012). Which remarks ‘the evil’ from above gazing, an architect laughing at us when we think we are free, but are carefully put in use, used like puppets and under control as our behaviour and thinking is studied, how we need and how we want to be seen. Thought of an evil individual behind architecture may be a bit coloured but there is clearly a group of people who profit a huge deal and there is cynicism and pure exploitation that should not go without critique. How architects/constructors/politicians can and make an impact on the culture of building and consuming is an interesting one. Do architects have to be heroic master minds who stick out via competitions until they can make a difference and are listened to? Do architects have opinions about profit architecture or do they just fulfil needs of constructors who pay architects to not make architecture but constructions for money? Template buildings need obviously very little creativity as it is repetitious, new or old architectural ideas get simplified as concrete elements and other building materials are factory goods and time is money.

2.How architecture creates thinking. Ideology and model behind mass consumption.

To enjoy a shopping center there is entertainment, cinemas, cafés, restaurants, floors, elevators, stairways, carousels, fountains, trees, glass ceilings, lighting, ads, lots of ads and lights. Interior design posing pretty or what happens to be in style, kind of cheap but glittering, mostly depending on what is sold in the particular place and for whom. We can spend time there looking, sitting, walking, buying, dreaming, seeing people, spending money and time. The main issue bothering me has been how this architecture influences us, our behavior, mental state and health, thinking, imagining and understanding what is good and valuable. How such places engage us, harass, puzzle, disturb, change our attitudes that we are not harassed by being harassed or the way we see the world and ourselves. Or on contrary malls make us feel good about ourselves giving inspiration, peace of mind, maybe healing and protection. I’m asking because pounding up structures like malls next to each other is a very impressive and aggressive act, even humiliating. Secondly to lure thousands of people to consume is another gigantic happening, which like chain reaction has started movement like no other which is monotonic and similar. I examine the phenomenon as a pedestrian, biker, careful consumer, artist and a Finn. Also, because I’m concerned as it is a global phenomenon, a consuming and living disaster.

An interesting case began when in the 1950s scientist Jonas Salk was working on polio in the basement of a Pittsburgh laboratory. Work was not proceeding. He left to Italy to rest in a monastery. After the breakthrough, which led to the vaccine for polio he felt that the monastery had deeply effected him as a place and as a building. He invited architect Louis Kahn to design The Salk institute in La Jolla in California hoping other scientists would benefit the serene surroundings. Since then in Salk there has been research on how our surroundings affect feelings and behaviour. “In the current issue of Scientific American Mind, Emily Anthes describes how ceiling height, colors and other design factors influence attention and creativity. Scientists are just beginning to address these questions, in part by studying changes in brain activity as subjects make their way through virtual reality rooms.” “Mose Bar, a neuroscientist, speculates that our brains are hard-wired to avoid sharp angles because we read them as dangerous.https://www.fastcompany.com/1278814/your-brain-architecture

What does research give to building new if it is not taken into consideration in no other way than how to make the most of us as consumers and psychological beings? What comes to being efficient at the place of consuming, work, living is to be a machine and in use for profit purposes, being useful. How workers enjoy working in a place has a lot of value for employers and of course for workers themselves. Same goes with were you live and spend time at. What we see and how we react to structures around us is interesting. Does monotonous dull city architecture depress us or make us violent, for example.

The thing I wonder is do we create new points of views at all or do we build the obvious taken for granted state for the monetary value is the primary value and an interest for small group of people who have too much power? Do we live in science fiction already where efficiency and amount is what has number one value? To go back to something that we are losing is impossible, something is lost entirely in terms of architecture. Possibly all that which we value as beautiful and worth having around and go see abroad, the history which has brought value cannot be made again.

3.Architect as fascist or is it him to blame?

In Finland we have small-scale and a short history of profit architecture in comparison to for instance the United States. In the US there are already generations who go and see malls of their childhood which may be abandoned and empty with parking lots, to remember what it was like then, how it was maybe better. Would you be nostalgic for a mall? For example website www.deadmalls.com is filled with pictures of abandoned malls. Companies owning these not-in-use buildings don’t want this kind of publicity, but the site still exists and it is quite interesting and has a fun side to it. Documentaries like Malls R us from year 2008 by a Canadian Helene Klodawsky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAIDAzTtoCA gives a good picture of impact of malls to people’s lives, picture of people who have spent a lot of their leisure time at malls and around them. The idea of a mall has become to statue something else as well. Has bad profit architecture and bad architecture eventually come up to equal the same as bad television? People love both, but feel guilty for using and liking them. As I see youngsters in Finland using mall parking spaces to meet friends, skateboard, bike, spray graffiti, have fun etc., I wonder is it so because they don’t have any or many other places to go to do these things. Conclusion to this is that options are given scarcely and one has to make the best out of places that are there. How to imagine something else can be a difficult task. To find and create alternatives is hard work. What makes malls problematic as public spaces is that they are privately owned, monitored and similar. What one owns one also controls. “By designing this space as an interior area accessible by definite entrances and supervised by dozens of video cameras and sensors, corporations were able to minimize the number of undesirables that were allowed in “their public space”. “The design is also oriented in order to compose a whole interior fantasy world that is supposed to be perceived as better than the outside reality. This world is safe, clean, warm, entertaining and attractive. It is a disappointment to leave it says a consumer who forgot/denied reality. The main characteristic of capitalist design is to leave nothing at chance. Indeed chance provokes uncertainty and uncertainty provides an illegibility that can be unproductive for Capitalism.https://thefunambulist.net/architectural-projects/politics-capitalisms-architecture The mental landscape hyper-controlled public spaces create is oppressive, paranoid and delusional. Other mental emotional image given is the feeling that consumer is in charge, choosing and being cared for, nurtured and given the best chances, opportunities and goods available. The customer can feel enjoyment, pleasure of consuming and freedom. “The unreliable, possibly dangerous group of people is kept outside.” Capitalism’s Architecture tells that: the contemporary mall is said to have been invented by The Austrian-American Victor Gruen in the 1950’s. It is supposed that it was him who thought of the pure capitalist architecture as an element of urbanism. Firstly shopping malls were intended for the middle class as the equivalent of old European city centers, a pedestrian place of gathering and activity. Doing it differently the United States placed this new kind of public space within the framework of privatized supervision, security and control. www.thefunambulist.net # POLITICS///Capitalism’s Architecture. This is the insides of a mall in short, the gathering of crowds and almost inhaling the same ideas has some scary visions. How about the shells around, cubes as I call them, shapes built? Still controlled by cameras, even the trashes behind are watched, locked up.

4. I call them space invaders.

There is a field, wasteland or a meadow of some kind, bushes and it’s been there like that for a longer period of time surrounded by small-scale shops and supermarkets. Like in Tampere where I live, there is Lielahti which is one part of the town where many malls are situated and are all offering a bit different varieties of goods, but none of them is for spending time, dwelling. Such dwell in malls are in the center of town. Shopping centers are booming in Finland. Is it hysteria or just convenient acceptable progress? Interestingly the biggest malls are not the biggest sellers according to the statistics on shopping centers in Finland in Wikimedia about 20 biggest shopping centres, 2010. The website of the Finnish Council of Shopping Centers says that a successful shopping center is the pounding heart of a community and gives a definition: shopping center consists of a commercial building in which retail outlets and services open inwards onto a walkway or concourse. The gross loanable area is generally at least 5,000 sq. m. Shopping centers have at least 10 retail outlets. A mall has one or more anchor tenants and a number of key traders as well as other retailers and services. The services may be either commercial or public. A single trader may not exceed 50% of the total commercial space. Shopping centers have joint management and marketing. www.kauppakeskusyhdistys.fi. Though year 2012 yle.fi reported a decline in building shopping centers in Finland in the next few years. Finnish real estate company Citycon is a pro-active owner and long-term developer of its properties. It is a major owner and builder of Shopping centres in Finland, elsewhere in Scandinavia and in the Baltic. They say on their website they take on account of environmental aspects and the well-being of the areas surrounding its retail properties, which provides solid foundations for the company’s success and growth in the future. www.citycon.fi. In the light of having seen and visited many shopping centres anywhere in Finland and my skepticism I very much would like to see one of their properties to be what they claim. Very often those interested in constructing shopping centers are multinational companies to whom project investors can invest in. But there are good news too as Rautalampi municipality has taken chance and is looking for funders to build wooden 1000 square meter shopping center, which would focus on locally produced goods such as local food and organic food. http://www.investinfinland.fi/web/invest-in-finland/search-results?p_p_id=3&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=2&p_p_col_count=3&_3_groupId=162753&_3_struts_action=%2Fsearch%2Fsearch&_3_keywords=rautalampi+shopping+centre This is a soon hopefully to become a trend, because so far in Finland the repetition of the same models is a major fault and worry. Monotonous landscape of blank straight forms, blank colors, cubes with gigantic ads are rising up to the sky in favor of vast amount of traffic, visibility, exploitative industries for mass consumption. Made consuming look easy, unproblematic and light in weight and problems like abuse of employees’ rights seem far away. There are projects that have designed different kinds of malls, for example for a mall to create it’s own energy and experimenting new kinds of appearances. It is called climate protection supermarket and one is located in Graz Austria. Also designers have had emphasis on using sustainable materials and environmentally friendly economical construction to reduce the life-cycle cost of buildings. Critics assume such projects to be only local and exist only to polish the surface of the big players in the industry. One way or the other there definitely is a demand and hurry to develop new ways of consuming and constructing.http://www.archdaily.com/805071/shopping-nord-graz-behf-corporate-architects 

written 2012

2001 Barcelona was visited by 3,37 million tourists. How many tourists visited the city 2017?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/27/barcelona-cracks-down-on-tourist-numbers-with-accommodation-law “Last year the city’s 1.6 million residents were heavily outnumbered by an estimated 32 million visitors, about half of them day-trippers.”

We all agree travelling is exciting. Maybe moving around is expected of us. It is fun leaving our everyday lives behind and go on an adventure, an essential part of lives of modern people and what comes to taking photographs, it is to take the city with you, where we have been, how was it to go there is part of the experience. How we think about the problems we face during and how effortless a trip must be, stressless. We can share the experience by showing our shots and talk about the trip, own it, having been there is a possession and an add-on to our lives. How does travelling change us is an interesting question as it is said travelling broadens horizons of ours and our perspectives. It is also an experience to those locals who can experience the tourists, visitors, those who come and go. The thing is what do tourists do and give other than a money flow, what is the cultural heritage there as tourism is a cultural issue, it is culture and we do it because of culture, because of the culture of travelling. Question is what motivates us? We want to know more or we just want more in comparison to others? Do we go back to our normal lives with something extra special which makes our lives better or is it a sigh as a relief that going away and leaving is possible? Maybe having done something we cannot do at home. To take a trip when mood is to get loose we may do the forbidden, go over limits of behavioural rules which we do not cross at home. It is interesting what we think about our freedoms and rights as travellers, travelling lords or the prohibitions that there are when going and do we take them into consideration, what is the respected issue when travelling. It is the traveller. Going overboard freeing body and mind completely is something connected to travelling. We become more experienced and fluent in travelling, our lives more fuller via being able to move freely, be able to decide for ourselves where we can go, enjoy ourselves, look around and wander. Do you go to see the hotspots, the sights or do you see places that are more outside that normalcy? How do we do travelling and how much effort goes into taking a trip is what we want of a trip. Do we just go on a whim and how much is left at chance? How do we choose our destinations? The more important the city the more important we feel? Grandiose, history, story of the city, what the city adds on us as we go there. To feel more elevated, part of the city, part of energy a city has is to feel alive.

This means travelling is one of the most positively felt activities for modern people. It is an organic part and an expectation that everybody does it, takes part in this excess, luxury and freedom. It used  to be something only rich people could afford and enjoy, enjoy exploration and become civilised. It is seen only as a positive thing by cities who want to lure more visitors. Mass tourism does not get much critique or when it does it is an insult against those who say the money-making industry is so important and lucrative there is nothing wrong with it. How can anybody be against such good money, how can anybody be against tourism, tourists and travelling which is a good part of modern lives, it broadens thinking and educates people. If this was the case we would have really broad minds and educated individual everywhere. Surely you know better already. Lessons here are cultural. What do we learn via travelling to strange countries? As cultural education seems to be more like glued on and the emphasis is on the experience, my question is what really changes people? To gather items such as photographs from our trips is to collect an altar to worship our egos. What is the lesson there one might ask. Sure we learn how to move. Do we learn how to see differently or do we repeat something, repeating a way to travel, how to see, how to think?

Miksi puhua vallankumouksesta?

Me olevinaan ymmärrämme mikä on vallankumous kun sanomme sanan. Siinä on jotakin todella voimakasta ja viettelevää. Tarkoitamme termillä ja idealla jotakin oletettua, ajatuksellista ja visuaalista, jokainen jotakin omaa, aivan kuten väreistä puhuessamme näemme ne subjektiivisesti. Joka subjektiivisuus kenties yksi poliittisen vallankumouksen perusongelmista: jokainen haluaa jotakin tiettyä, kuinka saada kaikki haluamaan samaa asiaa ja löytää yhteiset keinot päämäärän saavuttamiseksi. Väkivalta on ollut tehokas keino. Väkivallan ja kuoleman pelko saa ihmiset taipumaan. Uhkailua käytetään edelleen jotta ihmiset saadaan toimimaan halutulla tavalla. Ihmisten vapaa tahto ja oikeudet ovat oleellinen osa modernia ja demokraattista, mutta kuinka istuttaa ihmisiin velvollisuuden tunto, myötätunto ja kunniallisuus? Nämähän ovat  perusarvoja joita on pidetty arvossa Jumalaa ja herroja peläten. Toisenlaista kunnioitusta ja velvollisuutta tarvitaan tässä ajassa. Kunnioitus ja velvollisuus jotka ovat kuin reliikkejä, koska arvostamme vapauttamme päättää itse kaikesta, myös siitä kuinka käyttäydymme. Oma päätäntävalta ja itsenäisyys ovat arvossa niin kauan kuin ei ole riippuvainen ja koe velvollisuutta kohdella toista ihmistä ihmisarvoisesti esimerkiksi. Kun kokee olevansa niin vapaa, että voi tehdä mitä haluaa eli ihmisellä on valta ylitse muiden. Tämähän on tilanne kiusaamistapauksissa. Kyseessä on vallankäyttöongelma ja vääristynyt käsitys omasta vallasta ja tärkeydestä.

Elämme vallankumousten muokkaamassa maailmassa ja väkivalta on oikeutettu niistä suurimmassa osassa. Gandhin väkivallattomassa vastarinnassa Gandhi itse kuoli luotiin, arabivallankumouksissa pääpaino oli väkivallattomuudessa ja tiedon levittämisessä ja kumoukset on tukahdutettu voimakeinoin, laulavassa vallankumouksessa Baltian maissa Venäjä yritti kukistaa kapinalliset ja useita ihmisiä menetti henkensä eli kun kansa nousee tyranniaa vastaan väkivalta joka tappaa tulee voimalla jostakin muualta ja oikealta. Oikeisto on nykyään se joka puhuu vallankumouksesta juuri sen historian kautta haluten vallankumousta jossa vallankäyttäjä vaihtuu sopivaan. Vallankumous on perinteisesti vastaus vallankäyttöongelmaan ja kollektiiviseen kiusaamiseen tai hankkiutuminen eroon vääränlaisesta johtajasta ja johtamistavasta, kuten esimerkiksi Chilessä tapahtunut sotilasvallankaappaus 1973 https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilen_sotilasvallankaappaus_1973, jossa sosialistijohtaja Salvador Allende sai surmansa ja alkoi diktatuuri Yhdysvaltojen tuella. Historia jonka kaikki tuntevat. Vallankumous-sanan positiivinen varaus on useiden vallankumouksellisten ansiota jotka ovat kuoleman uhalla muuttaneet yhteiskuntaa. Oman hengen menettämisen uhalla, koska asiat ovat tärkeitä ja se mitä on mahdollista saavuttaa on sen arvoista, vaikka ja koska tuo saavutus on asetettu mahdottomaksi tehtäväksi. Tämä mission impossible on sankariteko joka vaatii äärimmäisihmisyyttä, äärimmäisiä tekoja, vaikeita ratkaisuja yleisellä ja henkilökohtaisella tasolla joihin on oltava valmis, koska asia on tärkeä, tärkeämpi kuin oma hyvinvointi ja mukavuus.

Asettaa itsensä alttiiksi kritiikille, kidutukselle, halveksunnalle, kuolemalle, hylkäämiselle, ulkopuolelle jättämiselle, katoamiselle, vaientamiselle jne. Ihmisen lannistamisen keinot ovat lukuisat ja kun menettämisen pelko on voimakas, kuka uskaltaa ottaa riskin jonka johdosta menettää kaiken. Mihin siis uskoa, koska uskosta on pitkälti kysymys, kun tavoitellaan mahdotonta ja miten tuo usko määrittelee mitä ihminen elämässä valitsee ja tekee. Millaiset voimat ovat edessä jotka yrittävät estää tavoitteen saavuttamisen? Sama pätee taiteessa, politiikassa, elämäntavoissa: kuinka elää elämänsä kun ulkopuolelta ja koko ajan toistetaan samaa ja halutaan pysyä junnaavasti samoissa toimintakaavoissa ja ajattelutavoissa. Ne jotka ovat silmätikkuja ovat niitä jotka erottuvat joukosta aina yhä uudestaan. Joukosta erottuminen on edelleen huono juttu. Se on se erikoisuus josta otetaan kiinni joka halutaan muuttaa samanlaiseksi kuin kaikki muutkin ovat. Uskalluksen puute ja laumasieluisuus vievät meitä yhä edelleen. Tästä kertoo yhteiskunnan sisäänlämpiävyys, luottamuksen puute, haluttomuus ymmärtää eriäviä mielipiteitä tai täydellinen kyvyttömyys siihen, oman edun tavoittelu ja oman aseman pönkittäminen, johon ei mahdu asioiden muuttuminen tai muuttaminen,  koska silloin voi oma etu heikentyä. Sitä voi pohtia miksi suomalaisessa yhteiskunnassa yhteisten asioiden parantaminen on kovan työn takana, kuten näyttää olevan kaikkialla, ja näiden kollektiivisten etujen ja parannusten huonontaminen on kovin helppoa ja tapahtuu käden heilautuksella.

Yhdysvalloissa on heittona sanottu että huonompiosaisten tilanteen yhä jatkuva huonontaminen voi mahdollisesti johtaa siihen että vallankumous on käsillä. Tilanteen huonontumista voi miettiä, että mikä se piste on, joka on niin huono josta huono-osaisten vallankumous alkaa. Huono-osaisten vallankumousliikkeet ovat olleet vasemmistojohtoisia. Sitten on se toinen leiri eli vastapuoli, joka ei kestä Marxilaisia vallankumouksia, vallankumouksellisia ajatuksia, joissa yhteinen hyvä jaetaan. He tekevät myös vallankumouksia. Kiinnostavaa on tämänhetkinen Yhdysvallat ja kuinka huono-osaiset äänestivät presidentinvaaleissa. Mikä on huono-osaisten agenda tällä hetkellä? Onko heillä agendaa? Onko heillä aikaa, voimavaroja ja kiinnostusta kapinallisuuteen? Pelko omien etujen menettämisestä taitaa olla päällimmäinen ja ymmärrettävä pelko, kun vähästä viedään kaikki vähäkin, mitä jää jäljelle. Mistä köyhä ponnistaa ja miten surkeiksi on asioiden mentävä? Ne jotka käyttävät valtaa voivat käyttää sitä hyvin murskaavasti. Puhutaan yleisesti fasismista ja fasismin uudesta tulemisesta, vaikka ei se poissa ole ollutkaan. Fasisteiksi kutsutut ovat tehneet vallankumouksensa varsin hissukseen ja ehkä se on oljenkorsi köyhälle, joka näkee eliitin ulottumattomissa tekevän mitä haluaa ja jonne köyhällä ei ole asiaa. Eliitti tekee asioita jotka ovat olleet ristiriidassa eliitin sanottuja arvoja kohtaan ja vastoin lupauksia eli eliitti on valehdellut ja ajatellut omaa etuaan liikaa. Voidaan kysyä millä tavalla vallankumous mitataan, onnistuminen ja epäonnistuminen, muutoksen tapa, laajuus ja kuinka muutos saavutetaan eli kuinka vallankumous tehdään, mikä riittää muu kuin asetettu tavoite? Millä tavalla muutoksen ajatellaan olevan vallankumous, onko vallankumous tietoinen vai tiedostamaton, hyväksytty vai kielletty, vapaaehtoinen vai pakotettu valinta? Millä tavalla valinnoillamme teemme vallankumousta ja mikä on vallankumouksen charmi? Charmi on ilmeisesti onnistumista, koska se vokottelee. Ehkä vallankumouksessa on lopulta kyse johtajuuden löytymisestä.

Ketkä sitten ovat fasisteja tai vallankumouksellisia fasisteja? Slavoj Zizek ei pidä nykyhallintoja länsimaissa fasistisina, ei edes Trumpin hallintoa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8f41HqGbnA. Linkki keskusteluun jossa Zizek keskustelee Will Selfin kanssa vallankumouksesta ja kuinka se tapahtuisi tai onko muutos mahdollinen.

Fasismi määritelmän mukaan on autoritaarinen äärinationalismi yhdistyneenä korporatistiseen järjestelmään, josta lisää löydät https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasismi. Määritelmän mukaan fasismia on vaikea rajata ja määrittää, koska liike on hajanainen ja paikallisesti sitoutunut. Itse ymmärrän tämän juuri samaisena oman edun tavoitteluna jossa puhutaan ja toimitaan eri tavoin ja joka on vaikea tavoittaa tahi osoittaa. Puhutaan niin että saadaan mahdollisimman paljon ihmisiä asian taakse ja kun on tullut menestystä ryhdytään toteuttamaan tosiasiallista suunnitelmaa. On olemassa asioita joista ei puhuta niinkuin ne ovat, koska julmuudelle ei löydy avoimesti tarpeeksi suurta kannattajakuntaa kun ryhdytään politikoimaan. On puhuttava kuinka asioiden pitäisi olla ja puhutaan kuinka eliitti tekee hallaa työläisten asemalle. Työläisten asema on aina se joka saa tunteet esille. He jotka tekevät ruumiillisen työn, yhteiskunnan toiminnan kannalta tarpeellisen ja tärkeän perustyön josta palkka on minimi tai vähän enemmän, vähän koulutusta vaativa ja suurta massaa puhutteleva, vähän arvostettu ja aliarvioitu työpanos. Aliarviointi ja vähättely ovat sosiaalisen epätasa-arvoisuuden kulmapilareita. Ihmisen arvo rakentuu työlle. Mitä työtä hän tekee ja millaisen palkan ihminen saa, hän on sen arvoinen. Joten vallankumous on aina kytemässä koska vallankäyttö toisen yli on ihmisyyden perustarve. Mikä parempi tapa käyttää valtaa kuin halveksunta.