7 Year Old Has Low Iron

How to have a snobbery in advance? Huxley and Orwell

While the masses flock to the exhibition Basquiat without knowing that his interest has evaporated provocative, others prefer to have a snobbery in advance, and will see Gerome, and his hyper-Classicism firefighter.

Why the snobbery and how to use it?

I) But what snobbery first?

Frederick Rouvillois admirably studied snobbery and in particular showed a reversal of logic that exists between dandyism and snobbery. I have not read the book in which he operates this distinction but I mention it so as not to plagiarize unintentionally. (History of snobbery, Flammarion, 2008)

Snobbery is primarily a gregarious attitude: it makes us imitate. The object of our imitation is the class that we want to belong, we feel superior to ours.

Eastern snob who copies the group he admires, but it is only copy and remains artificial, exaggerated. Unlike the dandy does not belong - so contrary logic.

Appreciation the superiority of a class is subjective. There is a snobbery of belonging to the nobility, snobbishness of belonging to the rich, intellectuals, musicians, bohemians

etc. The assessment is so subjective that idolized classes may intersect. A full copy may rapper, rapper copy the rich. The copied

generally likes not those who copy, and therefore it changes its behavior. So be careful.

In any event, the social snobbery is a given, you must accept it or close by misanthrope. Be desirable and for that you need is the snobbery advance.

II) drink and disappointments of snobbery

In imitation of the class admired the heart of snobbery, there is some projection of fantasies.

A) rich
If the rich are remarkable. The rich appears to be an extravagant person and full of arrogance. Being rich does

however no a priori orgy of vindictiveness nor a luxury. Instead, many wealthy have a thrifty mentality and if they live in comfort, they do not spend unnecessary - indeed a cause of their wealth. Too often we imagine the rich and flamboyant spenders, wondering how they could become and remain so.

If the rich seem extravagant, it was because of snobbery ... upstarts, also called "new rich. . They want to show their success, they want to prove that they belong to this class desired. And the only way they can get is to spend their money.

Thus the new rich are they spending not because the rich are spending but because they want to show rich in the eyes of all, they want their new status to oppose all.

doing enough for the rich they do not make extravagant spending to thrive in turn these new rich.

is the game of fashion described by Ernst Gombrich in his writings.

But the image of the rich and arrogant spendthrift has been installed permanently, resulting in a necessary process that can not be upset: the snobbery of upstarts.

This conclusion is certainly generalizable to other classes: the hatred which they suffer is not so much to their elements as snobs who affect to be. For what they basically copy: not the reality of this class, but the projection of this class such that their prejudice their own shows.

Lessons: If you have money, spend it so refined; stand out imitators



B) Marks

Another application of snobbery: the marks. There is a hierarchy of clothing brands.

The more one holds clothes whose brands are on top of the ladder, the further we move from peasants dressed trademarks of low prestige. The more one thinks rise. But it simultaneously reveals his need to distinguish themselves from the masses and imitate the best - in our eyes. Therefore it is betrayed. It has escaped no one that many brands supposed to be great luxuries are carried by vulgar people. So the good

snobbery will not wear marks, or at least no visible mark. Dear reader, hast thus avoids you in advance snobbery brands.

But you earn a time for those you want to copy you distinguish yourself in turn.

Although ... imitation is not easy. Our bad taste show the class to which we belong and that to which we aspire. They betray us. Hence the usefulness of snobbery in advance.

Lesson: Do not wear visible marks

III) snobbery applied to exposures

postulate that in our time we do not ask as to the art of representations of a fragrance beauty of suffering.

Currently we have in Paris, Monet addition, exhibitions of Basquiat and Gerome. The snobbery in advance will be to go see the show's most original, that will not see the masses.

From October 15 to January 30, you can see Basquiat Pompidou.
From 19 October to 23 January, you can see Gerome Musee d'Orsay.


Gérôme is just the villain of the story art. In the nineteenth century, he championed a style of painting almost photographic representation and recourse to anecdotes: an art firefighter (so named to mock all these historical helmets reminiscent of those firefighters), an art felt heavy and hollow, and demagogic with these historical scenes and edifying for all these naked women on flimsy pretexts. Especially

Gérôme fought vigorously painters ideas and new styles, condemned the famous and glorious salon des refuses.

Ultimately, the story gave Gerome harm and sentenced to oblivion. To highlight the principal author of these firefighter, the Musée d'Orsay has seen fit to justify himself, as if his past glory does not warrant that the viewer can make up their own minds!

Unlike Basquiat image of a provocative and controversial artist. Yet without extending it, he became a maddening conformity to love and celebrate Basquiat for subversion since well wilted. 20 years ago yes, today not.

So the little scent of sulfur is he really - you'll understand - the exposure of the Orsay Museum, and he will flee from Pompidou filled with imitators one step behind.

However, if you believe the weakness of that art has nothing to do with subversion, that this belief is more distressing banality, that art can not be defined without reference to beauty, go your way these two exhibitions, or visit them for information - and win the race snobbery.

Lesson:'ll see Gerome

Non Confidentialityagreement

compared

Here's a cute little cartoon on Huxley and Orwell, it is yours to click to read properly. (Well no: click here to view the format most suitable)

The design is creative, delicious and the text put into perspective brilliant thoughts of the two authors.

Both Aldous Huxley, George Orwell described in novels famous for having shaped the history of totalitarian worlds. But the mechanisms of these worlds differ substantially and it is the merit of this comic highlight it so beautifully.

That said, I did not really like 1984. Orwell's satire I prefer the excellent anti Animal Farm.

Why is it that 1984 leaves me cold? Because somehow anticipated by totalitarianism Orwell was made in the USSR. But it is remarkable that this regime has collapsed from the inside specifically to internal causes, spontaneously. Exit therefore the possibility of an end of history as great minds omnipresent dictatorship.

The cartoon also seems to hold accordingly.

The text is by Neil Postman in "Amusing Ourselves to Death", drawing by Stuart McMillen. I shot the image of this last blog I here.

Pattycake's Model Real Name

The reversal of hysteria in the U.S. The

remember above all that in a bipartisan system, the objective ally of the ruling party an edge is the party Challenges on the other side. I'm not coming here on the various illustrations of this rule.

Two years ago I wrote an article explaining how the right beat left .

To summarize my article at the time, I explained that Presidents Bush and Sarkozy drew a picture of each party governing rightist though in fact the center-right, so what good hysteresis their opposition and divide between moderates and excited. So they based their power.

Remarkably United States today is that this mechanism has turned against the right: tea parties, a movement on horseback between libertarianism and populism, are reinforced with a speech very hostile to Obama, but mostly at the expense of Republicans in my opinion.

So a few years ago the Left was divided between intransigent anti-bush liberal and moderate criticism of Bush, they fear extremism of those. Today the line is divided between the same uncompromising anti-establishment anti-obama and moderate criticism of Obama, they fear the same extremism of those.

Hysteria has changed sides. The reversal was done in two stages.

First he had to unite the left. How to re-link between left Michael Moore and that of the establishment? Answer: by presenting a candidate who embodies the progressive ideals. So it's no coincidence that the bid was played between a woman and a black. Such a candidate neutralized the destructive capacity of leftists, who could only yield to the fear of being on the wrong side of history and block the forward march of progress. Fiat Obama, a man who could embody a leftist dream while being a staunch centrist. Perfect combination.

Then the Republican camp was divided. The Republicans promise eternally late big government but never really give a result in power, that they now criticized by the tea parties.

There is also the downfall of the neocons, associated with the establishment Republican, held accountable for the Iraq war which is perceived badly the foundation and utility. The tea parties, more libertarian, and therefore oppose the war in Iraq benefit.

Finally it is a general rejection of the elites and the authorities, even a conspiracy movement, who knows illegitimate and does not wish to comment as such. He needs to be grafted to another speech and found this expression vector in tea parties - which I condemn Notice the movement forward.

So Republicans are unable to capitalize on errors and Obama will lose in fine tea party movement. The rule set out in the lead article is the test may be even earlier than I had expected because it appears that Republicans could not win the legislative end of the year when he was still expected there is little they are the big winners.

Contemporary Drapery Rods -traverse

-on-me-me-not-the-fact not in battle against the banks

"I do it makes me not! We flew it robs us! "The

-on-me-me-not-the-fact not an entire program. They do not really know what they are talking but ... but ... we they do not! "All rotten! "

You do not agree with them? "Naive! Useful idiot! "Already

Paul Valéry noted that the void of themselves as kings dethroned: blame the system that considers not only the fair value!

Societe Generale loses five billion? Our friends feel robbed. The same

wins its case? This proves that the system is rotten.

The tax refund to the bank taxes it paid on profits vanished? "Stop thief! "

Ah, if given power, they will cut a few heads and will restore the republic, virtue and justice ... Because for monmlfp policy comes down to fight against the Gentiles upset pourrivendus necessarily allies. They are also always on the windward side, supporting a proposal and then another, usually incapable of understanding that may well contradict the well and the art of politics is a lesser evil.

Thus there is no doubt that our friends who revile the court needed to win the general interests of society would be the first to call for judicial independence while being the first cons screaming as the practical consequences of this decision.

And monmlfp will, of letters from readers in forums everywhere groaning, still jeering, spread their ignorance and stupidity.

If we can rejoice at the misfortunes of the trader, how to be sad at the reaction of the hoi polloi in this case?

So where does one find the best concentrations monmlfp? Answer: In letters to the editor and especially among lemonde.fr, which has a section dedicated to the reactions (I do not even speak the National Socialist press). Ah, if there were only heading to read newspapers, I would take the letters from readers. Obviously a lot of people feel there is finally to exist a little small stating his opinion needy. (Well that's true for any internet) What a wonderful

sottisier: we learn that the decision against Kerviel to repair the entire damage of the Societe Generale is a righteous religious orders or so of power, that c 'is a perpetual conviction that the community that pays so.

But this is an illusion that provides Internet: we believe that we are only intelligent when it is others who are idiots. Let us be modest

and rationally refute some of the most common charges. Explain.

No, the 4.9 billion is not a sentence. This is compensation for the damage caused by the trader at Societe Generale. The court charged the full responsibility for the damage to the trader and sentenced to repair it. Thus

Societe Generale is bleached. Even though she might have committed any negligence, the trader has committed intentional offenses causing the injury. And because it is intentional crimes, the possible negligence of the bank are not in the calculation.

Here the decisive decision. For the court, "Whereas it is nevertheless clear discussions and pleadings that Societe Generale was the victim of deliberate act of Jerome Kerviel, constituting the offenses of embezzlement, forgery and using false and introducing fraudulent data into a system of automated data processing, he was guilty, that the negligence attributable to the plaintiff can not be taken into account in determining the extent of his rights to compensation resulting from the commission of willful violations, in fact, Jerome Kerviel was the sole designer, founder and director of the fraud scheme that caused damage to the plaintiff, it follows that Societe Generale is in right to obtain full compensation for financial loss resulting therefrom, "

The ruling also has the merit of showing another failure of the strategy of rupture. Play the card of public opinion turns ultimately an admission of weakness. We can see this article to learn about strategies Bursting .

Counsel for Jérôme Kerviel seems to be more involved in the break by saying that the bank would have earned 1.7 billion of Treasury, that monmlfp immediately understood as an offering to the temple of the state when speculative is only the refund of taxes which the cause of the payment has disappeared: the benefits disappear and thus even the corresponding taxes. Only the best good demagogic sophistry can say that money is paying the French finance mistakes.

Too complicated for monmlfp? There is no doubt about that. And even more difficult: the inability to enter unpleasant conclusion in a small system with small squares; even inability to enter into a new conclusion or conclusions coincide with the assumptions and the arguments are only rationalizations for ugly stereotypes and the setting charge of usual suspects.

For the culpability of banks is not only the result of reasoning monmlfp is still the starting point.

And no matter the reasoning, their truth is that finance steals the brave citizens, that the bank knew that its trader always did, and then a court is too complicated to read, and then the system is sold. And what good arguments for them ... we do not.