Second page IV

 

A busy Monday morning. How much from habits we convey to what we feel? To what we claim we feel? How strong is this we’re hoping that we don’t take it as just routine? Can we tell the difference? I confuse them more often that I admit it. It just occurs to me that one must follow the other one: I came here hoping, and  eventually I keep pushing as habit. I guess I remain a believer as a habit too. Evidence places my thoughts inside a void and I navigate from there, wondering, and understanding,  or getting, getting that this sadness could be some sort of Stop corner, from where you start over after trying to assimilate why you did what you’ve done. What have I done? How do we talk nowadays? Someone comes in during a Venezuelans' reunion. Who do you meet there? There will be always that political enthusiast who sees himself as a chairman if there were no dictatorship in the country. Obviously,  that person belongs to the ones who claim never voted for Chávez, and of course, he wouldn't let go unnoticed his pride at it in the same way that his judgmental attitude towards those who did.  You'll meet all kinds of college people, which is an interesting thing to bring up (and break down if possible) they will talk to you about how life was from their profession in a country allegedly prosperous in so many ways.

So many ways indeed. I listen to some of the music bands from Venezuela and you can find great pieces; great artists. If we take a closer look at the past, it wasn't so bad, after all.  We could say everything started to fall apart with the rise of he first government that came with the internet revolution.  I want to call it that way because it was with the use of internet that came this need for access in the palm of  the hand. Cell phone existed before that, so the Walkman and the palm computer, but they were not so eager to put them all in one device then. I believe that it didn't happen because creators then didn't feel like usurping moments proper from each activity.  I mean, who would want to interrupt the guitar solo of Comfortably numb to attend a phone call, or read a text message? The other thing that evolved in a very interesting way is the picture shut. I mean, this impulse for taking selfies and post them like it was something people needed to see, which it seems in fact that people do, and on top of that, the need for commenting about them as a significant duty. Even with the digital cameras on the market,  people tried more to capture a memory than showing a routine. I wonder if it has something to do with how people are interacting nowadays. The younger ones have developed this skill of being (being is so interesting in English language) on the screen of the phone, and at the same time, in a actual conversation beyond the phone,  switching from one to the other at their convenience. We, the ones in our forties, have been trying it in an attempt, I think, to still be cool, but it looks rude, awful. It doesn’t matter how hard and often we try that. The best we can do is put down the phone and look each other’s eyes when talking. 

Being. Spanish language breaks it in two different momentums: for a Spanish native speaker, to be something for a instance, for short period, or for lifetime, not always come with the same verb; to be loyal and to be tired don’t use the same “to be”. In other words; being where and being what are two different verbs in Spanish. The presence determines the existence. How do we understand presence? College people.  Does it mean the same everywhere we go? I know its worth varies from place to place. I found out that your worth as professional tends go rated by the potential connections you  may carry with when you get to be in the field. You can tell it when you have already spent years of study and time working as an apprentice. You realize you are not going to be as wealthy as you imagined when you have already given your best years of youth, and those years won't pay back. To some, it might happen that they fall in love during the process, so they graduate actually loving what they are going to do in their career.  Others were just raised believing that a major degree will change their income. To those, it is hard, and to this point, all that people want their revenge. Everyone is bitter up enough to star wondering of other people's life. Social Media creators got the perfect audience; the perfect population of content consumers: People who  relate jobs with failure because they don't love what they do as it were something everyone gets. But it can be worse, there are people who lie themselves by the affirmation of loving a job they don't only because of the trends that rule the mediaverse. Thinking is also deconstructed. The block chain of thoughts. Back to college. In my country, having a degree it's not only something for salary expectations. It is more like a status. In public administration, people call each other by the degree they have but it's not just something to point out: You sort of feel distinguished from those who don't have it. If you go to what it’s called "the country", meaning, not in the city, which it's funny, and pertinent, at the same time when joking about it, because despite of what I may be trying here, Venezuela kind of have just one city, which is Caracas. And yes, sorry for the rest but Caracas is the only metropolis. The other cities are more like towns that have grown with the years. Some of them great thanks to tourism or industry, but when you get to talk to someone who's not from Caracas,  you will definitely get what I say with this attempt. Of course that those people kind of get offended for this type of distinction, and yet, what can I say? I am from Caracas and spent a couple of years in El Tigre. I could say I know what I'm talking about. 

Second page III

Resentment is something very tight to our society over these years. The kind I'm bringing it up is the immigrant kind. Those who left the country are in its majority resentful on anything related somehow to the government and, based on what it's missing in them, they do have point. We’re here because we lost something. I just wonder if there might be a chance that some of such resentment may have been taken from the media's deconstruction, and I wonder about it because it is a bit hard for me to be convinced that a huge group of people can have the same opinion over the same thing embracing the same feeling. I mean, a way for that, it occurs to me, such a thing get to happen; is through indoctrination, but the point is that most people feel it is spontaneous, and with that inside your head, it is hard to break it down. Every argument that is swallowed entirely leads to a conviction that takes you to a fanatic state. I was thinking about those famous "two minutes of hate". I see  this resentment of ours  to a certain point, that way. I mean, media brought these thesis to, let's say, justify, in a way, that what took the country to the crisis, and what forced so many people to leave, might hold several people accountable. Media needs to sell a narrative convincing enough to their consumers, that they can understand it as a political problem, and, very important,  that it could have been prevented by choosing different when it came to vote. Politicians need believers and, a way to preserve them, is through blame. Whatever happened must be someone’s fault. Social media brought up these theories then: one of those was, that people then got tired of the political establishment before Chavez's era; and therefore pushed for this change that ended up in a disaster, phrasing it in a way, that those who once believed in the dictator, couldn't see what was coming with such political turn. The other one was more like a segregate type. The other one went on stating that ignorant people,  and by ignorant they meant the poor and the uneducated; and by uneducated they mean those who did not go to college; blinded by their alleged resentment (not the same resentment from the present days, and that is interesting too) instead of keeping up with the political establishment,  went and voted for Chávez. Both theories shows a reality where regular people had some power, indeed, of setting the path for the future of the country, and by choosing wrong (understanding wrong as Chavez's movement) such a promising future allegedly heading with the former political crew, lost its chance of achievement.
 
Many people bought those theories at their own  convenience.  Those who once believed in Chávez support this argument in which they were promised something it did not become true. It is more like they were scammed. If we think about it, it is so interesting and intriguing realizing that there are in fact people out there convinced that they could have done it otherwise but they were fooled by the political power, or worse; by a politician. I suppose that those are the same people who think that taking basic English classes will make recruiters consider them for high position roles. Now the others are something else. First, we can't know that for sure, but assuming they stand from a position of truth,  these ones have always claimed they never voted for Chávez; and that they never believed in him, which is something that, judging by how everything ended up, they were right from their angle,  so they have been taking pride ever since to a point that they see themselves elevated, or distinguished, from the ignorant kind (which means everyone else) and of course; those were mostly who started leaving the country. That sort of dichotomy was well sold. Some people feel regret from what I think it is an induced guilt, and some others stick with their anger as pride.
 
As time went by those arguments became pretty much the only logical explanation for understanding the disaster.  The deconstruction was total. But what if we take a few more glances, I mean. We can allow ourselves to wonder, for instance, who paid for Chávez appearances on national TV? Who paid for all those trips to Cuba? He started campaigning not so long after he was discharged from prison. All the media who interviewed him when he was in jail, I mean. Do you guys really think that voting had something to do with it? Do you think it ever mattered whether you believed in him or not?  Chávez held meetings with almost every single important ruler of his time: from Bill Clinton to Saddam Hussein. From the Queen of England to Fidel Castro and so on. Was it there any important protest from the media, or those who didn't believe in him then, when he reformed the constitution? Chávez arose because Real Power wanted him there. Wherever such real power comes from, which is not my intention to talk about. Power is power, Cercei would say. The thing is that these arguments won't cover all the doubts but people agreed with them only because of the social media rephrase, and while one group points out at the other for their self glorification, the obvious consensus should be that we're all to blame but not for any choosing, but for thinking that it has been an actual cause of it. It seems only a minority is willing to accept it. In the meantime,  every new immigrant must adapt his story to one of these thesis. Every immigrant who might have agreed with any project of Chávez, regardless how quickly that person stopped it,  or came around, must, either deny it like he never did it, or carry with such a burden and acknowledge his regret. We are going to hear a lot about it until the deconstruction turns these conceptions into a new gate of perception. Just like they've been doing within the music business.