“In France, in 1789, the people revolted because they were starving to death. Their lives were at stake.”—Anonymous, alias “220” Today, especially in developed countries, nearly none of our lives are at stake. Almost no one is starving, not even most of the poor. In fact, most of them are very happy to perform a tedious job and receive a miserable pittance that serves only to maintain their basic life; then they can go shopping, watch “M. United vs Arsenal” on Saturday night, go clubbing, and play TV games—how can these people be convinced of the need for revolution? I’m not talking about the middle-class people who I know for sure will do nothing, but rather about the people who fight for a basic daily life. Even these types of people won’t take to the streets to fight, so revolution is much less possible than it was in 1789 France. What a sad certainty! The condition necessary to bring forward a successful revolution that can emulate the French Revolution doesn’t exist anymore. People have no hatred inside their heart. They have no complaint at all. How can you get the people who worship the masters into the streets to revolt against the masters? Impossible! I am so tired of “informing” the slaves that they are slaves.
This is our greatest sorrow: to see that revolution occurred only when people were nearly starved to death. If we choose to move forward via revolution, surely it will fail, since we don’t have enough manpower; if we choose to sit and do nothing, surely we are also doomed. The masters are not going to recommit the fatal error of 1789 France, that of putting people’s lives at stake. They are no fools. Instead of putting your life at stake, they elegantly provide you a safety net, such as an unemployment fund. Do you think they sympathize with you? No, they do it for their own sakes. They don’t want the unemployed mob to become their threat. From this point of view, I can see no sign of revolution in the foreseeable future. Where should we go in the end?? Should we take some “abnormal” action not ever seen in history?
In this modern society, there is an oddity: the poor keep blaming themselves for being poor, and keep praising the rich for being rich. They have difficulty realizing that the reason they are so poor is that the rich take their wealth; the reason the rich are so rich is that they take all the wealth, that waits to be fairly distributed, from the poor. That’s it!
The propagandist has been so successful that the slaves have no idea of the reason for their grief. Instead of fighting the true enemy, they choose to accuse themselves, accepting it as their fate and as the result of their own ineptitude and laziness.
Bono, lead singer of U2, likes to present himself as some great benefactor, a hero in the fight against world poverty. Yet this man is one of the richest people on earth. It is precisely because people like him exist that others are so poor. You can’t eliminate the poor without eliminating the rich. The existence of each is heavily related to that of the other. The poor are a direct and inevitable consequence of the existence of the super rich: it’s simple cause and effect.
This is exactly what happens: the super rich never tire of showing up in the so-called charity show, and the mainstream media is never ashamed of portraying the rich as great philanthropists—some sort of good people who set their own interests aside for the sake of other people. Students in school have been indoctrinated with the idea that donations are the best way to express care toward society. Anyone who donates the most is the best guy, no matter how rich he is or by what means he has gotten his wealth. Even a man who steals $10 from the poor’s pocket, and gives them back (or donates) $0.20 is still a good man. In every charity show, the super-rich shake hands with the poor, listen to their words, and bewail their poverty; how nauseating are these people? They are anything but benefactors—they are parasites. They suck (by controlling the resources) the blood (our sweat) out of society; that’s why they are so rich and we are so poor, while they are lazy and we are diligent. The picture could not be clearer.
In Hong Kong, there was a nasty TV program in which the rich acted as poor, lived in a “common home” (it is still no guarantee to the poor in our modern society), worked in a restaurant for 12 hours a day (so claimed the director), took “common transportation” (bus or train), and ate “common food”—for merely 3 days, in order to experience the life of the poor. After the “task”, a rich man pityingly said, “I am with them (the poor) now.” After spouting his words in a compassionate tone, he got back into his BMW, instantly under the escort of a private guard, and started checking his e-mail. That’s the end; thank you for watching the show. They are all hypocrites. Why do we let them insult us? Why don’t any of us drag them to the coal mine in order for them to truly experience it? Our society has descended into their playground, humanity has been reduced to their little trinkets, and our diligence has been transformed into their extravagance. But what the heck are we doing? Watching junk TV, listening to junk music, wandering junk shopping malls, buying junk LV handbags, trifling junk I-phones, doing junk routine jobs—this is our daily life. What a tragedy!
In the movie “Batman”, the lead character, Bruce Wayne, an awesomely rich man who lives in his awesomely grand apartment, with his awesomely expensive wine and Lamborghini and his awesomely sexy woman, likes to appear at “just the right time” when there is a crime, as though he has already set up thousands of CCTV cameras in the city for surveillance, in an attempt to win the night of the beautiful victim. If Batman has so much time and money to invent his extraordinary armored car and little trinkets, and if Batman wants to eliminate all the injustice, why doesn’t he give up all of his wealth, of which ordinary people won’t be able to get a tiny piece during their whole lives, no matter how diligent they are, and work amongst them? Wouldn’t it be easier compared with jumping down from the skyscraper with his classic Batman mask and armored suit? What makes Batman think that he deserves this mass of wealth? It’s this selfish control of masses of wealth that results in its unfair distribution; in turn it gives rise to inequality, and then crime. From this point of view, is Batman himself the source of the chaos? Is the city itself the playground set up by Batman in order to play the role of “hero”? Is his armored Batman Lamborghini just the little trinket to win the love of his beloved lady? If so, is the Joker, Batman’s enemy, the “Real Hero”? Is the Joker the real man on whom we should in fact rely? Batman is a very obnoxious figure whose existence is not justifiable in any way. He pretends to be so hateful about injustice, but he himself is breeding this injustice. In the new episode of Batman, “The Dark Knight Rises”, Bruce Wayne said, at the beginning of the show, “I’ve retired.” Certainly this scene was made merely to create tension, and we all know that Batman is not going to retire. The city is still full of crime, no matter how many times Batman slides from the skyscraper to the ground, and performs the unnecessary fight in which the stakes could be the night of his beloved lady, since the Batman, the true root of misery, never retires.
Is there anyone who is brave enough to stand and retire Batman? The Joker? It must sound preposterous to common people that the Joker is our savior. Nonetheless, Batman is an arrogant, selfish, and pitiless psychopath; he is by no means far from the Joker. Who should be considered eligible to defeat the psychopath? A liberal? A moralist? A pacifist? Or a psychopath? The answer is right here.