The Wall and Beyond (former: Is It Time to Reconsider the Message of "The Wall"?)
  • StrayDogStrayDog December 2012
    DMTisESP wrote in "I am leaving Canada" thread:

    “Normalcy Bias and Cognitive Dissonance are the 2 psychological conditions that are preventing people from awakening.  when the Nazis were Murdering the Jews and the Weak and the Poor, the many of the Jewish people were suffering from Normalcy Bias and Cognitive Dissonance.

    Normalcy Bias is when we look around our world and we can not ever see it as changing.  We THINK the electricity will always be on, the gorcery stores will still have food, the banks will never collaspe, our government will CARE For us.

    Cognitive Dissonance is when you take information that is against information people believe as Truth, no matter how good the data is you have people will still cling on to their beliefs.

    Psychology is the key to awakening them.

    Please tell me how you keep sane, if it is a long story I can take it :)  I am going out of my mind with Zombies born out of the Bernays (Propiganda) to controll the masses by using psychology and turns people (The Mass) into a primal animal based on the survival sex instinct...(The Eleits uses Fear and Sex) to controll the masses.  Where there is Fear there is no Love or rational thought, where there is sex there is pleasure and no rational thought...basically there is no thought.

    How do you keep sane, i can handle it, perhaps it can help others.”

    Since both these questions: how to keep sane under the circumstances and, most importantly, what to do about them may seem somewhat important to a number of people, who have bothered to apply a certain amount of exertion in order to realize what the circumstances mentioned actually are, I thought that it might make sense to start a separate thread to discuss the topic. Let’s hope that some such people are among members of this Forum or will join later.

    First, the easy part - as to how to keep sane. Frankly, it doesn’t seem to me to be such a big problem. I’d say that the state of your mind is mightily determined by your everyday routine (constant awareness/vigilance, meditation, inner silence techniques, proper shaping of one's daily actions and interactions were all invented for a reason). For example, I work alone. I live alone. I’m pretty selective as to people I choose to communicate with, sources I take information from and so on. So I can’t say I feel so much pressure. Plainly speaking, if TV drives you mad (which is very understandable - I made an experiment a couple of months ago of watching different mainstream channels for six hours in a row and physically felt like I was loosing my mind at the end) - do not watch it, if some people drive you crazy - don’t talk to them.

    And I certainly cannot support your attack on sex - taken as a kind of genuine personal activity, not some surrogate crap which is used to boost sales, of course. Actually, I wouldn’t be able to name many other, seemingly perfunctory, ones capable of contributing in freeing your mind to the same extent: maybe just exercising and travelling. But you should take into account that there is a kind of sex that takes your energy and another kind which helps you to accumulate it - embark upon the second option :). By the way, sex is the first thing that happens to be banned in totalitarian societies (remember “1984” or any ones that actually existed). And the United Fascist States of America is, in fact, a very puritan country.

    The second question - what to do about this current state of things? and, sadly, is there still anything that can be done about it? - is a more momentous one without an obvious answer. You quite justly point out that people are suffering from Normalcy Bias. I’d just add that they deliberately opt for this “suffering” as part of playing their favorite game - choosing the path of least resistance. It’s also worth mentioning that the main prize in this dubious game is either the total destruction of mankind or turning its existence into an Orwellian nightmare.

    But if constructive means to deal with this problem involve “preparation, including publicly acknowledging the possibility of disaster, and warning, including issuing clear, unambiguous and frequent notices, and helping the public to understand and believe them”, then no such thing will ever be implemented. Because it’s not only against the elite’s interests - for obvious reasons, it’s against the masses’ interests as they perceive them now - before the actual disaster has struck. Unfortunately, for the overwhelming majority critical thinking is simply a nuisance which, if it’s allowed to interfere, will prevent us from celebrating Christmas (New Year’s, St. Valentine’s or whatever else Day) with “peace and love” or enjoying the Olympics on our huge TV screens.

    So we will persist in our clinging to this Normalcy Bias thing and continue to “resolve” our cognitive dissonances not through changing our behaviour or values but through simply ignoring anything which happens to be inconsistent with our convenient views, concepts, perceptions and beliefs. No matter what. Until it’s too late. As I said the Matrix around us was willfully chosen. So would you care to elaborate on your “psychology is the key to awakening them” to start with? I mean I understand why people make the choice they do. But do you actually see any technical way to approach the unfortunate circumstance comprised of the fact that choosing the path of least resistance is by far our most popular existential option?

  • Gibbin82 December 2012
    I don't think there is a message in the Wall, in fact there are several messages and many of them are different and personal to the writer or listener. In fact Roger Waters has recently reconsidered part of the message and introduced a far more anti war theme to the show and also remembering those lost in conflict. I relate my life to parts of the album and as I grow older and encounter new challenges and experiences, my enjoyment and sadness at listening to it changes and that opens up new meanings. To say "is it time to reconsider the message in the Wall" to me is everytime I listen or think of it. The greatness of the album in my opinion is that it is about life and concealing the hurt that comes with and in someways that touches everyone.
  • StrayDogStrayDog December 2012
    Gibbin82, what you say certainly makes sense. However, I don’t quite agree on the ambiguity of the album’s meaning. I might be wrong but I always thought that the message of “The Wall” was stated pretty clearly. Likewise when I was choosing the title for this discussion I meant a very concrete way in which this message could be reconsidered that is directly related to the contents of the first post in this thread as well as the overall context in which the thread emerged.   

  • Gibbin82 December 2012
    But what may be the clear meaning to one person such as it does for you, may not be clear or even understood by another. So while the broad story may be easily interpreted by most, the feeling and the way it applies to the individual will always be unique to that person. To me that is the great thing about this album and for that matter other great works of art,that continue to give new pleasure no matter how many times you see or hear them.
  • StrayDogStrayDog December 2012

    As I mentioned I was not debating this point of yours. Borges said that any book (we can say - any art piece) is not just one book but as many books as a number of people who read it; moreover, if one and the same person reads it several times it’s several different books because your personal experience has changed; and several books read in a certain order are not the same books as these very books read in a different order. And this approach is undoubtedly valid in a way. It’s just that I was trying to talk about something else in this particular thread - something very specific considered in the given context.

    However, if we touch upon this rather philosophical and  aesthetic than social and political subject here as well, I’m not a great fan of this approach. To me any piece of art is first and foremost an utterance. It’s something said about objective reality through creating a construction of images by means of using a language of some particular kind of art - like cinematic language, for instance. So the real author is always in attempt to endow their work with some pre-conceived meaning. And however different personal experiences of members of its potential audience may be, in whatever different ways they can influence the process of reading, viewing, listening etc., this piece in question was perceived adequately only if its pre-conceived message mentioned was fully realized. If this meaning is incomprehensible for an adequately prepared audience or absent altogether - the author failed. If it’s there and expressed correctly but is still not realized - the audience failed. Of course, I’m aware that there is a number of postmodernist movements which made it a matter of principal that creation should be free from any attempts to assign any pre-conceived meaning to it. But I do not share this philosophy. All genuine works of art that are commonly considered ambiguous - like Antonioni’s “Blow Up” or Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”, for example - have, in fact, very clear meanings, which were, moreover, deliberately put there. Let alone “The Wall”.

  • waveprojectwaveproject December 2012
    in my view, the wall does have a message. the same is to amused death and dark side of the moon. there is an intention to tell something about us people how we are crazy .there is a view looking very deeply into our emotional, spiritual existance in connection with our dayly life acting.and there is a view from a very far position such as the one in amsused to death-the aliens, finding our shadows around the tv sets. i feel there must something very strong making roger see what the masses don´t see or do not want to- he does not draw the picture of our civilised world in the way we are used to see it. you have to look at it with a new distance , seperatet from the education and tradition you have grown up with.

    the clear meaning of the lyrics make consternation and awareness and it takes you away, far away from the potition inside the masses- provided that you get touched by it.
  • 506am506am December 2012
    I'm going to age myself a bit in this response... LOL... But I was all of 14 when The Wall was released in 1979, and my best friend at the time, David, and I poured over every single second of this record. It REALLY connected w/ us - in different ways I'm sure - but we shared this common bond that was the album and later, the film.

    I'll never forget when he phoned me late one night - keep in mind that in 1979-80 we didn't have cell phones - and my dad was infuriated that a friend was calling so late... But David told me to listen to "Outside The Wall" and the whispered message at the end. It was then that we discovered the message at the beginning of the album and realized that Roger was giving us all a subtle hint of the cyclical nature of life. Man, that was some DEEP stuff for a 14-year old to take in.

    But what The Wall meant to me then was that we, as human beings, are born into situations that we have no control over, and some are good, some bad, and some become tragic - like Roger losing his father in the war w/ out ever getting to know him. And we each have our own journey and we build our own Walls and to coin a phrase - walk a mile in my shoes before you try to judge me. You have NO idea or clue what I have been through.

    That stayed w/ me for a long time. Seeing the show in 2010 and 2012 there are parts that are more prominent to me now then they were then. For instance - "Vera/Bring The Boys Back Home." I live in the USA. And our jack-off of a president {Bush} led us into war based on nothing but lies. They {the government} hoisted up people like Jessica Lynch as "heroes" to keep America supporting the war. Only Jessica came out and told the truth - that she didn't fire her weapon and that the Iraqi people treated her well - the complete opposite of what we were told - and during the show, particularly during "The Thin Ice" and "Vera/Bring The Boys Back Home," was the first time I had ever witnessed SO MANY people in tears at a concert!!!

    This tells me that Roger is connecting w/ people and people are getting the message. Sadly, nobody in the government went to see the show and so these tremendously emotional moments were never seen by them, but to be honest, they don't care. To them, it's all about $$$ and how much they can make, and if a few hundred thousand people die, then so be it.

    Roger's Amused To Death is also very appropriate right now! We text, we Facebook, we Twitter... but when do we REALLY TALK to people and CONNECT w/ them on a human and emotional level???

    This species really has amused itself to death...

    To me, Roger is the most brilliant song writer ever! Dark Side Of The Moon - still relevant. Wish You Were Here - still relevant. Animals - VERY relevant!!! The Wall - VERY relevant. The Final Cut - VERY relevant. Radio KAOS - VERY relevant. Amused To Death - VERY relevant!!!

    What other songwriter can say that??? I am so glad and feel so blessed to have seen The Wall - Live six times and to have seen Roger in 1987 and 1999. I've seen him in California {San Jose} and Philadelphia... I've gone coast to coast to see him and may go to Europe in 2013. He's the best. And The Wall - and whatever it means to YOU - is still relevant. Pure brilliance!!!
  • reg_waters_7569 December 2012
    well said 5:06 well said
  • StrayDogStrayDog December 2012

    The rhetorical question: why don’t people bother to read around a bit before coming up with their responses (may I add that reading properly at least the opening post in the thread and everything it refers to wouldn’t exactly constitute a federal crime either)? I have read some of your previous comments before writing this reply - which you seem to have failed to do as far as my posts and comments are concerned. In one of them you urge people to unite. In the last one you emphasize the necessity to “REALLY TALK”. The importance of communicating is an ever-present Pink Floyd theme as well. But how can we really communicate and unite if we do not even find it necessary to get ourselves acquainted with what other people saying, let alone try to realize actual meanings of their utterances? I understand that you may be short on time. But so is everyone else. And if, despite that fact, you still choose to get involved in any discussions, it might make sense to do your homework instead of making other people explain to you things that are already out there. Wouldn’t you agree, mate?

    Anyways, to the point. I never said that any Pink Floyd albums were diminishing in their significance, on the contrary. “Animals”, for instance, is not just “very relevant” - well, maybe with the exception of its sudden and quite weird happy ending (of course, if Roger didn‘t conceive this ending as some sort of forced schizophrenic escape from an excruciating reality - in the same way in which the finale of Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil” is constructed, for example). The first two verses of “Sheep” proved to be plainly prophetic. And as to “The Wall”. “The Wall” is a great work. The reason why I think its message could, sadly, be reconsidered has nothing to do with the album's shortcomings. It has everything to do with our shortcomings. Reading the opening post and “I am leaving Canada” thread which is corresponding to this one may help to put everything in its right place. Because as far as I can see we are talking about more or less the same thing. Someone who realizes that “the greatest trick our government has ever pulled was having two parties” and this “system works for only one faction - the government” may also want to read my “Roger Goes to the Circus (aka American politics) or A Momentary Lapse of Reason” original post - though it’s quite lengthy (you might like a brief poem at the end of it). All this stuff mentioned will help you to figure out what exactly I meant by “Is it time to reconsider the message of “The Wall?”. Which, I’m afraid, is not a rhetorical question.

  • waveprojectwaveproject December 2012
    dear stray dog,

    after having read your thread several times and translated the words i don´t know into german, i can see on your last post that i still could not figure out what you really mean. it is three years now that i am learning to understand english or american ways of expression in words which is rather different to what we have learned at school- you know what i mean. but i must say i love to leave the ways of expression i was used to in my language because it offers very much to discover about others and finally changes myself into someone new.

    so i would like to ask you: am i right when i say that you want the conversation on this thread to be foccused on this quote of yours:

    "The reason why I think its ( the wall) message could, sadly, be reconsidered has
    nothing to do with the album's shortcomings. It has everything to do
    with our shortcomings. " ?

    If yes, please tell me. if not, i ask you to tell it one more time in a few short words for an analphabet like me. i feel there is something very important for me you are talking about or you want to talk about and as i can see  you point out our limited way of communicating in your first paragraph. i agree.

    meanwhile , it will take time when i read the two threads corresponding to this issue .

  • 506am506am December 2012
    @ StrayDog - I atually read your first post - and those that followed it - several times over a few day period. When I made my response I thought I made it clear that I was pointing out why and how The Wall has been so relevant TO ME over the years, but I also addressed some things that you brought up...

    Perhaps my answers weren't as concise and clear as you wanted and/or needed - but when you mention people and their "choosing the path of least resistance," my way of addressing that was when I mentioned that we are born into situations that we have no control over. Some good, some bad, some turn tragic.

    To expand on that - take someone like Paris Hilton, who has never done one thing of worth in her life - well, maybe she loves her little dog, but sometimes I think that dog is just for "show." She couldn't help the situation she was born into, but she's done nothing to take it further. She lives a very spoiled life and acts quite immaturely in her {mostly} daily actions.

    Other people were born into far less fortunate situations and chose to do something about it. And the majority believe whatever they are taught from the time they are old enough to comprehend and understand words and their meanings. Believe me - UN learning something that has been pounded into your head since you were 4 is a tremendous challenge - because it's what you were always told was truth!

    You mention "The Eleits" and I have to assume you meant The Elites - and I touched on that when I talked about how nobody in our government went to see The Wall - Live and therefore, those VERY EMOTIONAL moments in the show were never seen by them.

    You also point out how "Critical thinking is simply a nuisance which, if it’s allowed to
    interfere, will prevent us from celebrating Christmas (New Year’s, St.
    Valentine’s or whatever else Day) with “peace and love” or enjoying the
    Olympics on our huge TV screens."
    And again, I touched on that when I said this species has indeed amused itself to death. This followed my mentioning of REALLY TALKING and - in my eyes anyway - fits perfectly w/ your "critical thinking" part of your post.

    For the most part - people are sheep. There is no critical thinking, because, as you said, it's a nuisance for most.

    I consider myself very lucky because when I was 14 I took a class in school that actually addressed many of the themes on Floyd albums, taught us young kids to NOT be sheep, taught us how to look at the world in a new and different light and the lessons I learned in that class have remained w/ me ever since. Sadly, most people don't have the same moment of clarity and they rush out on "Black Friday" to trample over people to get a "bargain" the day after we give thanks for all we have! Talk about irony...

    So... to make this long response somewhat brief, YES, I do read threads and read them all. I was trying to answer you w/ MY OWN PERCEPTIONS of the album, the film and the tour. Perhaps I was too cryptic in my response, but as I have re-read what I wrote, it makes sense to me. My apologies if it didn't for you. Hopefully this one will shed more light on it.
  • StrayDogStrayDog December 2012
    Hi waveproject,

    First of all, allow me to express my quiet admiration for your conscientious approach - you’re honestly trying to work out the point despite some additional difficulties, produced by your minor linguistic issues. If there were more of us sticking to these ways around, I would have probably chosen some other title for this thread.

    Second of all, you are quite correct in your supposition.  That’s precisely what I would like to talk about here - meaning to reflect on whether “it is time to reconsider the message of “The Wall” in the context of this current state of things and the fact that we are indeed heading for a very morbid destination (I’m elaborating on this point to some extent in those two other threads mentioned). Of course, I will explain what I meant by my title question in detail in due course. But I was just curious if anyone on this Forum would happen to figure out this quite evident thing by themselves. So I’m gonna give it some time.

    By the way, I’m neither American nor British.
    I am Irish living abroad.

  • StrayDogStrayDog December 2012

    Thanks for your elaboration.

    I certainly appreciate your personal take on the album, but my humble intention is still to get focused in this thread on its, if I may put it so, “objective” meaning seen through the prism of the given context (about the “objectiveness” of art pieces see my second reply to Gibbin82).

    As to your points.

    Frankly, I do not quite understand that connection you make between choosing the path of least resistance and the fact “that we are born into situations that we have no control over. Some good, some bad, some turn tragic.” We definitely have no control over things like … well, it’s much easier to name those which are in our control. But the uniqueness of the 20th century was precisely in some other fact - that probably for the first time in the history of mankind some critical number of people was bestowed with an opportunity to actually MAKE A CHOICE, and with everything necessary to make it consciously, deliberately and responsibly. I believe it’s one of the main meanings of Kubrick’s magnificent “Odyssey”, which is movingly, though somewhat unjustifiably for such an intelligent person as its author, full of hope and faith in our species. What have we done with this breathtaking opportunity? As you quite justly point out repeating after Roger - we have amused ourselves to death. It took us mere several decades to turn our existence into a complete fake. And as King Crimson guys would put it I have to “repeat myself when under stress”: the Matrix around us is not imposed, it’s wilfully chosen. We were not born into this circumstance. It was our deliberate choice. Since the mid-20th century it didn’t really take an ancient hero in the Western World to choose otherwise. But we did what we always do - we’ve chosen the path of least resistance. Just like Joe Pantoliano’s character we said to ourselves: “Ignorance is bliss”. Look around. It manifests itself in every aspect and at every level of our “civilized” society. Christianity - at any rate for those who consider the Bible not a collection of metaphors used to express a particular doctrine but a “historical document” - is the path of least resistance (it’s not faith, but a bargain). The liberal idea is the path of least resistance. Our economy based on fiat money/debt, our phoney politics, circuses instead of elections, mass culture, infotainment, propaganda issued by the presstitute bought-and-paid-for mainstream media are the path of least resistance. Everything is properly chosen, not enforced. As I mention in another thread we are living “451 Fahrenheit”. If you remember the novel nothing there was actually enforced - people chose it themselves, at least initially, just because it seemed to them to be an easier and more pleasant mode of existence (that is they, as usual, simply chose … well, you’ve got the idea). But the destination we are evidently heading for now is “1984”. And that’s completely different story. You say that “the majority believe whatever they are taught from the time they are old enough to comprehend and understand words and their meanings”. I agree. You say that it’s hard to “UNlearn  something that has been pounded into your head since you were 4 - because it's what you were always told was truth”. I agree. But we are not living in the Middle Ages nor in a totalitarian society (yet). We have an access to any information, alternative analysis and everything on the Internet. It was also simply impossible not to notice a number of events that happened in the course of the last decade - and it was simply impossible to overlook them if you have seen them. It was impossible not to wake up. As someone rightly put it: “ Today in order to fail to understand you need to choose to fail to do it”.

    Concerning Paris Hilton and her pet(s) I can only say one thing - according to “South Park” it’s a tough kind of love.

    Another slight correction - it was DMTisESP who mentioned “The Eleits” but, as well as you, I naturally assumed that the Elites were meant. As to them. I do not think that the elites are the root of the problem. We (people) are. The elites and the masses are two sides of the same coin (watch von Trier‘s “Manderlay” on this subject - it makes much more sense than Michael Moore’s irresponsible populism). Brainwashing is not maintained through coercion or deceit. It’s readily embraced by the masses because they are lied to by the elites precisely those things they want to hear. The problem is deeper. It seems to be about human nature.

    So, from Kubrick's beautiful and inspiring “2001: A Space Odyssey” to almost hopeless “Eyes Wide Shut”, from Roger's quite grim but still constructive and giving optimism “The Wall” to mercilessly constative “Amused to Death”. Is that all we have left ourselves with?

  • 506am506am December 2012
    @ StrayDog - You asked/stated: Frankly, I do not quite understand that connection you make between
    choosing the path of least resistance and the fact “that we are born
    into situations that we have no control over. Some good, some bad, some
    turn tragic.” We definitely have no control over things like … well,
    it’s much easier to name those which are in our control.

    Here's the point I am trying to make - everybody is born into some type of situation, be it good, bad, tragic, ugly or incredibly lucky. Yet very few actually set out to change their lives or do something good for other people in their lives. Part of the reason is that we - as a society - are taught to always look out for number one.

    Yet, there are those who DO question everything, who do think/feel/believe that what society considers "normal" is just totally f*cked up. So on one hand you may have someone who is born into a family where the dad is a doctor, and so the son/daughter is "expected" to become a doctor - and he/she puts aside whatever their true passions are and does what is expected. The path of least resistance.

    Why not go to their parents and say - 'Hey, I don't like medicine. I like to paint, therefore, I am going to paint!' In some families that would be considered a horrible crime.

    Another example is a poor kid born into a family that relies on welfare and food stamps and the kid could think - 'Well, it works for my mother or father, I guess I'll do the same.' When they could be thinking - 'Screw this - this isn't life, I want to LIVE! I want to be creative and help people and see the world...'

    If you can't comprehend "The Path Of Least Resistance" as it is in families, then all I can say is you are very lucky. Look at The Wall and the song "Mother." I think that perfectly exemplifies what I am talking about.

    Mama's gonna make all of your nightmares come true
    Mama's gonna put all of her fears into you
    Mama's gonna keep you right here under her wing
    She won't let you fly - but she might let you sing
    Mama's gonna keep baby cozy and warm...

    Ooooh babe
    Ooooh babe
    Ooooh babe - of course mom's gonna help build the wall...

    To me, that really sums it up. Our societal ways, the cyclical nature of so many people/families that Roger hints at and alludes to on the album... I really don't know any other way to explain it.
  • StrayDogStrayDog December 2012

    Thanks for your another explanation. Yes, I can see what you mean now. And those lines from “Mother” lyrics do sum it up. Yes, it would be one of the examples of embarking upon the path of least resistance - that is on the road to an abyss. You have to excuse me being slow on this one - I've lived alone since I was at school.

  • waveprojectwaveproject December 2012
    the problems we are in IS a question of human nature. i mean it is the question of the system you are born into AND the question of free choice as well. both parts of the causes comprise different ways of developpments of your awareness. you are always part of influences and you are always part of your own dynamics. in this flow of outer and self- influences it is growing: the individual as a part of the whole thing. it depends on the power around you and inside of you how the mixture will get into action.

    the masses and the individual - what is the difference? and how is the relation between them . how does it work?

    the artist and the audience, the phlilosophian and his pupils, the teacher and the kids,

    roger and the fans- i think in this we can find a lot of inspiration about how the wall can, no, should or even must ,if you want , be reconsidered.


    cause the picture roger is drawing,is too important to be misunderstood and misused by most of the show watching, dvd buying, to the seductive good sounds of music listening , aupplauding, dancing, mobile posting, chetting audience. it has to be reconsidered  what could be done to make it even better.

    or even to create something new out of the old one.ideas.

    how to involve the "path of least resistance"( which i feel is a very good discribtion of human behaviour concerning the masses) into an art project, how to attack that lethargy, this non- awareness without getting unpopulair?

    roger tried. very very well. and i hope he will keep on trying to find the expression even more direct and effectiv( the new album he talked about shortly but does not want to go on telling about, which is understandable)

     but to figure out the whole thing about free choice and system control, i think the one third thing we could start to discuss, share, draw or dream is..

    the alternative. or in relation to the wall: outside the wall. what´s out there?
  • StrayDogStrayDog December 2012

    The direction your train of thought took in relation to the thing in question does not exactly coincide with what I had in mind, but, I think, is worthy of developing as well. As I said I’m planning to return to my version of it a bit later.

    I also agree with many of your points.

    I am pretty much sure that the root cause of this mess we have put ourselves into is human nature itself (“seems to be” was just a polite way to state it) - despite the fact that Peter Joseph, for example, in one of his “Zeitgeist” movies would deny that this thing even exists. But I think that he is wrong on this one - and his position is made even more shaky by the fact that he and Jacque Fresco - the two people who seem to sincerely want to make the world a better place (whether their ideas are technically workable or not) - failed to come to mutual understanding even between themselves (human nature - what a bitch!). I also agree that we are complex - and some are not that complex - products of external influences and “our own dynamics” (while the latter are not to be fully attributed to the impact of the former - including all sorts of physiological and pre-born ones as Joseph suggests - however, I wouldn‘t take the liberty of proposing any ideas as to the origins of this “missing ingredient”). Unfortunately, the way in which this “mixture gets into action” in the vast majority of cases can easily be learnt from history and the analysis of our current situation as well (moreover the history of the 20th century simply extinguishes any remaining illusions on the grounds mentioned in the fourth paragraph of my last lengthy reply to 506am). The typical representative of our glorious species, if provided with a choice, would choose that becoming proverbial the POLR. Which, sadly, means an inevitable catastrophe for our civilization as a whole.

    “How to attack this lethargy, this non-awareness?” is actually the most critical question. “The Wall” was made in attempt to do it - sadly, to no perceptible avail. This thread is essentially conceived in order to try to find some answer to this question. I hate to tell anybody that “there is no hope at all” but the truth is that I do not discern any. Do you see some concrete technically realistic way of approaching this problem? The educational system and mainstream media are totally controlled by the Establishment and reduced to mere propaganda. Some time ago I also thought that art might be the answer - and, in fact, I’m still writing a feature film screenplay - a sort of a philosophical action drama - where I’m trying to reflect upon the current state of things in the world and major problems relating to our civilization from all angles: from socio-political to existential. But even if we put aside the fact that the chances for this script to ever be produced are considerably below absolute zero, even if a kind of  miracle happens and it’s out there, who’s gonna watch it (recently I was talking to the guys who won an Oscar for “Undefeated” and asked them whether they would think about making a documentary about any aspects of this current situation of an imminent global disaster - one of them simply said that it didn’t seem to be any substantial audience for any such undertaking)? For whom it’s going to be distributed, through what channels? Through TV - somewhere between another false account on our economic situation and reporting on Jessica Alba’s latest outfit? Through multiplex stalls - somewhere between popcorn and “Transformers 11”? And the most important thing - who will understand it? I’m afraid that 90% of “South Park” or “The Wall Live” Tour, for that matter, audiences have no idea what the authors are actually trying to say. And even if the message is conveyed through some easily accessible means - I guess you meant that while talking about the necessity to avoid “getting unpopular” - it does not seem to help anyway. “The Matrix”, for instance, provided a quite accurate description of the actual situation. Moreover, it even outlined the way out. And it did it in a very “popular” way. The outcomes? One out of every one hundred men on the planet set off to buy a “Neo” glasses or a “Trinity” cell phone. “Avatar” was a tremendous box-office success. And it said it all about the general ways of our “civilization” and even some specifics - like Iraq, for example. The outcomes? We went on to continue to kill civilians in droves in Libya. So, is anyone capable of offering some actual ideas?

    I hope that our “discussing and sharing” will produce some tangible result. However the hope is flickering.

  • Agree with Gibbin82 totally on this one on how the 'message' relates etc.
  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    You are right, stray dog, when you say( though you hate it saying it) "there is no hope at all". you are right to say this in the postition from which you look at" the current state of things in the world and major problems relating to our civilization ( the feature film sreenplay you mentioned about which a really would love to experience more , maybe by another way of communcation....) .......from all angles"

    from all angles? you mean from all angles you have access to at the moment. looking at roger´s wall for instance or as i would say the even more detailed amused to death´s insight to human abyss you surely agree when i say there is no hope at all as well. i still haven´t seen Matrix except the beginning 10 minutes after which i stopped watching because i felt already at the start it would turn into some nobel and clean action movie for the upper class if you like- but maybe i was wrong. avatar- yes, there was this very frightening clearly drawn picture of human greed. the earth species exploring the universe to find new recources and enslaving "innocent" wild ones living in an idealistic harmony with the nature on their planet - but, in my view, the importance of that conflict could not flow into something like a message because there were two other tipical things to entertain and distract  the audience: the love story and the battle. oh i forgot the third one: the fascination about technical achievements our civilisation is able to manage if you look at how the man slips into the body of the alien wild one. it´s a miracle..... greets from roger. no! in contrast to your point of you i would really dare to caim that to really get the audience to the othher side, you have lo leave the usual way of entertainment and make it in a quite different way.

    i think there are some points we have to work out to find out of the angles we have acces to at the moment and possibly succes in building a circle of it. i want to start it by forming questions.

    the masses. into which groups they could be departed? are we talking about one big sum of , if you take colours if want,the same colour? if the masses have the choice, and they do have it, and they choose, what the establishment offers to them, do they make their decision all in the same way? on the same level? or are there any who have any doupts ?

    let´s imagine the author as individual as a contrast: is he isolated?  peter joseph and jaques fresco , the two engaged artists you mentioned, could not unite. WHAT does seperate them from each other? vanity? ambition? What did sepereate roger from the other members of pf? misunderstanding finally ?different positions becoming their disáster?

    i think if we try to extend these two points and mix them by changing the origin position ( looking at the masses as a production of the individual thing and the other way round ) it might be, we finally come to out of the angles into the circle. for me, the key is always the interactions between two elements and the best way to learn about it is to change the roles. all the time. again and again. as i mentioned in the post before, there is still a third thing left which for me is a question of essential importance! but similar to you i still want to wait a bit to add this to the conversation.

    for me there is hope. but it is not to be found if we exclusivly deal with the human question.

  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013

    Well, obviously not for the majority of us who seem to be pretty comfortable with it - while continuing to ignore the inevitable final outcome.

  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013

    I should say, Dude, that you‘ve brought this thread dangerously close to its conclusion with your last comment. If I understood everything right, it looks like not only have you figured out in what way the title question may be answered (at least you are on the right track to get a solution), but you have also somehow divined the core part of my screenplay’s final message.

    The thing is that I’d initially misinterpreted your “i think the one third thing we could start to discuss, share …” sentence. I thought it was supposed to mean that if we start to “discuss and share” we can consider one third done - you know, like “Making the beginning is one third of the work”. And I didn’t get the gist of this sentence’s dramatically separated ending at all. Now I see what you really meant to say.

    I have a couple of things to take care of at the moment, so, please, allow some time for my proper response - I’ll  try to write it as soon as I have a minute, OK? And I hope you got my reply to your message - because my account’s records say that I’ve sent it to myself.   


  • Scottfultz January 2013
     I just wanted to say this, I saw the video of Roger at the UN, And I was just blown away of the courage and the Humanity of Walters, simply breath taking. I think Roger should be up for the Noble peace prize with out a doubt!! It's fantastic to be alive and to witness and hear this moment in history. Dam! what an artist, and the level of courage it took to speak those words, it makes so many celeberties and world figures look small, the standard of being an artist changed that day
  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013

    About your “technical idea” mentioned in the message. Does it have anything to do with that “third thing” of yours, or are we talking about something that can be implemented while dealing “exclusively with the human question”? Because if it’s the latter you might want to elaborate on it here before I provide my response.

    In the meantime, I’m answering your minor “technical questions”.

    As to the ZM and the VP. I seriously suspect that the main destructive force that ultimately led to the split was not Fresco himself, and definitely not Joseph, but Roxanne Meadows. What was behind it? You’ve called it right - vanity and ambition.

    I’m not quite sure about Pink Floyd. But I think I understand what Roger means when he says in his new interview: “I left Pink Floyd for very good reasons and it was the right and proper thing to do. It was over in 1985 and it’s still over.” It seems that it was essential for the band to stay together to produce fabulous musical material - no solo album (and even “The Final Cut” - the band without Rick) cannot compete in purely musical terms with what Pink Floyd did. But it would take a “full reunion” to make it a sensible endeavour. As to Roger and David joining forces (considering their conceptual difference - compare “Amused to Death” and “On an Island” lyrics, for instance) - why? To cater to the fans? There are more important things. And it looks like Roger understands that. Besides, given the overall current state of things, the question of whether a Waters/Gilmour reunion is ever going to happen seems to me infinitely inferior in importance to another one: is Roger - and, hopefully, other prominent people - going to “make their stand” in political terms. Judging by this interview mentioned Roger is coming back to his senses concerning Obama - indeed, it would have been weird if the author of “Animals” and “The Wall” had managed to “overlook” everything this another corporate puppet has already perpetrated and not apprehend everything he is still going to “accomplish”. I hope Roger won’t stop half-way and not only will cease promoting war criminals but also start to support someone who is trying to confront those corrupt psychopaths in the political arena.

    By the way, there is one detail in the same interview which is directly related to the main subject of this thread. We’ll get back to that later.

  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    @stray dog

    the "third thing" is in fact the" technical idea"  and it is inseperably linked with the human question we are trying to enfold here in relation to the meaning of the wall.
    similar to you, i have been working on something during the last three years- it´s an idea for a kind of cinematic- lyrical and musical project. i will try to tell you a short version: it is a try to take a deep regard into the human crisis in whichs core the emotion of fear of death is the motor for everything that has led us to the state of now. the project keeps ready a way of chances how to get out of the wall, we have to face the fear and try to understand it. human institutions like religions, traditions, ideologies and politics seperate us from each other AND from the world we are living in. to get any self understanding and an understanding about what is surrounding us and how we are nestled into the universe and the universe into us, it needs to unfold the whole evolution from all angles we have access to at the momentand regard it philosophicly . the realization of the project canot depend on one person but on a team of different genres who look for  the honest job to bring the orphans home. a global therapy if you want.
    for me a musician, i choose the way of lyrics and sound to express what i am feeling about so there are several pieces of music from which most are sketches but ready in the head.

    if you want to know more about it i would take it as a big joy to finally share theís crazy thing in my mind with someone obviously very similar. but in  case if,,.i would prefere to propose another way of communication.

    i will get back later to the other points you mentioned in your longer paragraph. ow i am curious about the  response you want to give to the thread finally........

  • PrettyboyfloydPrettyboyfloyd January 2013

    "Days of our fucking lives"


    Poems everybody.

    The Laddy thinks hes a poet.

    Cheers:Prettyboyfloyd :)

  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    @stray dog

    "I was determined this show should not just tell the story of miserable little
    Roger Waters but make it a much broader and theatrical piece about the walls
    that divide us... between north and south, rich and poor, Christians and
    Muslims etc.”is this the part of the interview you meant?

    i agree in many points of your last comments. the one thing is the music of pink floyd and the other part is the core without which the effect of the band´s albums would never have become that well- known. roger chose the themes and wrote the lyrics about them, and, though finally ignored by most parts of the audience, the author´s power influences the way of creating the music. to tell it in other words. the music is the colour and the frame of the picture but without the eye of the painter you won´t see anything and you can choose the interpretation of your own. the music in the case of pf may be replaced but not roger´s messages. no question how wonderful pf music is- but if you take amused to death, it´s musically result is equal in any way.

    it´s a question about entertaining or awaking the audience.

  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013
    Now, I guess, it’s time to really approach the question of whether it is time to reconsider the message of “The Wall”. And in what way can it be reconsidered? It will take some time, space, and more than one post to make my argument clear, but everyone is welcome to comment on any intermediate points as they appear. So, here we go with

    Part 1.

    First of all, let’s get back to those questions posed by “waveproject” that relate to the subject of choice: do we have one? how do we make it? do we make it all in the same way? However superficially, I believe I’ve already addressed them in my previous posts - radical shifts in choice opportunities that happened in the 20th century and the elites/the masses dynamics included. To sum it up once more and, hopefully, provide some a bit more in-depth examination of how we’ve managed to wind up in this mess of today I can offer an excerpt from that stuff of mine mentioned. This scene has a pretty intricate design and many details of its setting may appear incomprehensible if taken out of the context. So, with the exception of an introductory sentence and one or two indispensable explanatory ones, I reduce it here to the dialogue only.


    CAMERA finishes its descending movement and we discover the CLERIC’S solitary figure on one of desolate paths of the park. He stands immobile holding some thing which looks like a charity can.

    CLERIC (to no one)
    Nothing to be done.

    GUY (off screen)
    Does God happen to be in straits

    Along with all of us.

    GUY (off screen)
    I'm afraid, we may be even worse off, sir.
    We’ve got a huge disadvantage of actually

    I wonder for how long now … It’s been
    a while since rats were going down in
    our happy streets … So it looks like
    we want to send them forth again … But
    the enlightening is not very likely to
    follow … All these years … it was not
    even for a flicker of that … But I was
    trying … was really trying to … believe
    … in one thing only - that we were giving
    hope. But we are not. And all those people
    out there … Hope is not what they are
    looking for …

    GUY (off screen)
    Well, I’d say this place still seems
    to have enough benign indifference to
    accommodate us for a little longer
    and you are definitely considering
    a respite from offering salvation in
    retail, so allow me to offer humbly
    a modest repast to you.

    The comic element of this quasi-Shakespearian declamation  sinks in, and a glimpse of life appears in the CLERIC’S eyes. The GUY holds out to the CLERIC some food, wrapped in plain brown paper. The latter seems to be hesitant. The GUY smiles.

    Come on, sir. Food is power too.
    One burger won’t kill. To tell
    the truth, I like this junk from
    time to time. But running such a
    diet would surely be fatal.

    A close shot of the CLERIC. Now he sits, holding a burger in his lap, and breaks off little pieces of bread and other stuff to eat. His energy seems to be gradually coming back.   

    All those people … No one makes them
    nowadays … But they still come … in
    crowds … for illusions.

    Which is the worst part, sir. Nobody
    makes the modern man. We choose our
    path of least resistance all by

    But people have always been more
    or less the same?

    But never had a choice at large.
    So reasonable doubt in respect
    of what’s to be expected from
    human nature could legitimately
    linger. However, the last half a
    century has extinguished any
    remaining illusions. As to what
    we’re inclined to choose when we
    happen to be able to do so.


    While real hope derives from
    facing the truth.  

    But we prefer comfort. Honour, freedom
    … truth … love. No price seems too high.
    To get our regular fix. Our portion of
    that soothing mash we are so in need
    for … Because otherwise we start to see
    the abyss … And our house seems to have
    managed to offer a great stuff.

    The ultimate diversion. It’s funny that
    the author of the doctrine failed to
    recognize …

    … its most notorious implementation?
    That one at least appeared to have
    sincerely mistaken it to be comprised
    of the eternal truths.
    If one sincerely believes that water
    is dry he’s still going to get soaked
    in rain. While the only eternal truth
    seems to be that distorted perception
    of objective reality is the only
    cardinal sin. So he was right in a way.
    The problem is that struggling towards
    any accurate one and that path of least
    resistance wouldn’t exactly coincide at
    all times.

    The latter being by far our favourite  
    choice, we encounter a major
    contradiction. The one that will
    probably do man in even sooner than

    We’re selling illusions and lies. It’s
    called faith. We are murdering children.
    It’s called humanitarian missions. We’re
    already quite dead.

    Just as you say - between comfort and
    truth we tend to choose comfort.
    We don’t want to see things as they
    are. We want to see them as we want to
    see them. Thus these cosy worlds
    we construct to live in are constantly
    moving further away from reality. While,
    in fact, this is lethal.

    But how can we choose so now -
    when we can actually choose at last?  
    And also have all we need to make
    the right choice? How can we prefer to
    kill for chimeras instead? If it’s
    acting out of free will … then …
    we’re really that rotten?

  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013
    We use our mind to make our choices.
    But it may very well operate just as our
    body. That is you need to practise to deliver.

    And there are only two options available.
    You can either develop or you can degrade.
    The former has obviously no limits.
    The latter is a finite undertaking.

    Now, advancing requires exertion.
    It’s not a moral obligation or kind
    of duty, imposed on you by any higher
    powers. It’s a simple but unbending
    natural law. You are never really going
    anywhere with ease. Nor with security.
    Since it’s always something new out
    there, it always takes struggle and
    always means risk. Hence any attempt
    at existence, which does not have a
    failure as its preordained destination,
    has nothing to do with comfort. 
    It is perilous by definition and
    connected with permanent effort.
    However, any other choice means an
    ignominious end. 

    And we waste our choice in the stupidest
    possible way - we choose to ignore it. We
    long for that predictable reality. And we
    sincerely believe that we’re entitled to
    be as comfortable as we want.

    It looks a lot like the main reason
    why we have got away so smoothly with
    the invention of the Devil.

    It simply complemented the whole thing.
    And gave us, gloriously pious dead calm
    lovers, exactly what we craved for.

    In a world supplied with absolute
    evil reality does not prevail any more.

    Responsibility just ceases to exist.
    Things can be seen any way chosen at
    will - with a granted indulgence. So
    the ultimate betrayal of everything
    human is hardly ever a plan at the
    very beginning. But once you embark
    upon a wrong path it can only get worse.
    With each step. Until existence itself
    is just its mere imitation.

    But what do we get for pretending
    the danger’s not real? Even when it's
    fatally so?

    We live eyes wide shut out of fear
    to get even a glimpse of the void. 
    How possibly can we, who have lived
    so throughout, be expected to open
    them at the verge? When fighting     
    this void is a path of thousands miles,  
    and, you, having chosen to live like a
    pimp, realise that won’t make one, the
    only thing left is …

    … to pretend that there is no danger.
    That the choice you have made was the
    right one. And illusion becomes more
    real than fact.

    From now on this is all what you’ve
    got. From now on you’re actually ready
    to kill to preserve it. At this point
    freedom or love are turned impossible

    And truth’s turned the enemy.

    That’s on the subject of choice. The main thing to be continued in the next post with bringing it into the current social context.


    Yes, it’s precisely this part of the interview I meant. And you certainly got one thing right concerning the topic in question in your next to the last comment - which is going to become evident soon. As to your idea - well, if you seriously believe that you know some actually workable way to break through the cyclical ways of our society, traditions, religions, ideologies, politics, education, the mass media/mass culture - all those “walls” and the main one - human nature itself, then either “they must have taken” your “marbles away”, left some “toys in the attic” and so you’re “really gone fishing” “over the rainbow”, or it’s indubitably worth discussing - so I‘ve sent you an email. I also think that a couple of places in the dialogue above happen to relate to what you have said in the same comment. As to your last one - I do not think that any work of art which is devoid of some social message is necessarily meant to “entertain” the audience.

  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    now i´ve come through it. i absolutely agree to all points and this is a brilliant way to figure out the human tragedy. before i will try to say  something to it and to ask something about some parts i would like to present my view of the human disease.

  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    the lyrics of the whole song which is not completely recorded yet.
  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    the question of choice is related to what is going on in our mind.the cleric and the guy both see the very clearly while the former seems to be more concerned emotionally and the latter looks like having a philosophic and alanlytic access.
    "We live eyes wide shut out of fear to get even a glimpse of the void. " for me is the wall we are talking about.

  • wallcrew January 2013

    In my opinion The Wall is important to help us destroying all fears and change something for good in this world...especially for love all humanity even if:

    ..after all, it's not easy

    bugging your heart

    against some

    mad bugger's wall



  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    the dialog above shows very clearly the two essential facts of the choice we make. but what is going to happen in the mind of the comfort choosers if the Promised Land shows itself as non existent? as you mentioned in one paragraph above, there are two ways of systems humanity is developing to- i can imagine both are possible without excluding each other- the total control or the total chaos. in case the illusion of advantage in the comfort life we choose breaks down, possibly in this radical situation an open attitude might be pushed into their mind giving awareness including a kind of curiousity? otherwise if wthey´re slipping into those systems slowly without almost realizing how they change more and more to slaves( just like it is up now), no one of them will be interested in any critical reflection.

    just some thoughts . i am rather exited about the continuation of your dialog!
  • reg_waters_7569 January 2013
    albert try living in Isreal then
  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    free choice- something very important to think about in context with the dialog above.

  • reg_waters_7569 January 2013
    to mush bs and to long of a post long winded and I dont watch vids posted here most are pure rubbish
  • churchmileschurchmiles January 2013
    He is one clever soab but on facebook he looks like a crackhead. funny aint it 
  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013

    “In my opinion The Wall is important to help us destroying all fears and change something for good in this world...especially for love all humanity …”

    It surely is.

    But in view of the harsh reality of the fact that “banging your heart against some mad bugger’s wall” may prove to be not only “not easy” but after all altogether vain, wouldn’t you like to have some backup plan just in case? We are not talking about dismissing “The Wall”, we are talking about reconsidering its message. More on this in the two upcoming posts.


    Hi Mate,
    I’ve got myself familiar with your “Truth” composition. I liked your lyrics - they are precise and to the point (as far as I’m concerned many of your lines are conveying in a succinct way the same meaning as my characters are delivering in many words, so it looks like our general outlooks, at least in their descriptive parts, indeed coincide to a very considerable degree). They may seem to some to be just an assortment of words, but  people who have already been thinking about those things themselves would realize that each word, in fact, takes its proper place. I also liked the music (the melodic supplement in particular) and the way it fits the words. If the rest is at the same level, I’d say that you have a fairly decent material.

    I’ve read your Theoretical Statement on Facebook as well. While I generally agree with most things, as far as I can see this stuff has been out there for quite a while. Like I do not see anything which would seriously contradict the Buddhist creed that has been around for ages, for instance. And which I consider an honest attempt to provide an accurate description of objective reality - though I’m not a practising Buddhist (Einstein’s theory which delivers another blow to Institutional Christianity’s nonsense, in my opinion, just reinforces many Buddhist doctrines). But any such principles will never be accepted by the majority - for the reasons examined in the dialogue. In “The Matrix” (which, in fact, constitutes an introductory course in some cyber-Buddhism) Neo is told by Morpheus on multiple occasions that there is a difference between knowing one’s path and walking one’s path. That is true. Realization is not enough. The only thing with which you are going somewhere is action. In this case it means a long journey which requires concentrated effort and is undertaken at your own peril. No one can get rid of one’s bullshit having just watched some movie for two hours - however it can provide an impetus. But then your are on your own - and without any guarantees. It’s a long path indeed - and definitely not the one of least resistance. So it will never have a lot of subscribers. I’ll get back to this soon.

    And as to your question - if we should consider this problem in the purely social context, I’m afraid that there is no hope either way. People will continue to delude themselves as long as they have a chance, and if (or rather when) the situation gets critical it won’t awake them but will bring “1984” as an inevitable final outcome of their inadequate reaction. That's why the message of "The Wall" needs to be reconsidered.

  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    @stray dog

    dear friend,
    thanks for your compliments and for telling your impressions about the song.your defenition about it in rerlation to your dialog is exactly how i feel and, yes, "it looks like our general outlooks, at least in their descriptive parts, indeed coincide to a very considerable degree". i also thank you for giving attention to my try of wording about the idea. unfortunately, i cannot really follow your implementaion about buddism- do you maybe mean that between my statement, einstein´s theory and the buddhistic doctrin there is a relation and all three" deliver a blow to institutional´christianity´s nonsense"?

    so if i have understood everything right, the one thing left we both should discuss, is the point of hope or no hope, right? maybe this would be worth to open another thread and possibly this is to be done by involving the message of the wall as well. depends on how the dialog will continue.......
    though it seems your headlined question makes anyone to really take part to discuss about except of us, i can imagine that one person concerned directly might follow this thread rather interested, don´t you think?
  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    ...with the dialog i mean the the one of yours between the two thinkers of course.
  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013

    Yes, what I meant was that I might be wrong but I didn’t perceive any serious inconsistencies between your approach and that of the Buddhist creed (while both seem to be reinforced by Einstein’s discoveries and everything which followed them in science later). And all those three things are effectively obliterating Christian fairy-tales. However Buddhism has been around for ages. The Inquisition and Crusades, on the other hand, have not for some time now. But people at large still continue to choose easily accessible delusions as part of their choosing the path of least resistance. Or they can indulge in some secular nonsense - like the Liberal Doctrine, for example. But, in fact, if we consider the latter not in the social but existential context - even if in terms of what is merely proclaimed, let alone any actual implementations - the only its accomplishment seems to be that it persistently denies objective reality - just like Institutional Christianity does. Going back to the social context, it’s quite clear that if we take such an idea as the point of departure the only possible final destination - which, given the aspirations declared, is somewhat ironically paradoxical - is “1984”. It’s equally clear that Christianity, as we know it, inevitably leads to the same catastrophic outcome in existential terms. Thus, despite their ostensible opposition, the contradiction between Liberalism and Institutional Christianity seems to be somewhat illusory. Nonetheless, any sensible theory (yours, Buddhism or any other) doesn’t stand a chance for the reasons discussed above.

    And, yes, barring the “two lonesome cowboys” and few gentlemen who’ve obviously got lost it’s been so lively around here that I’m starting to get the impression that I’m rather talking to a wall than about “The Wall” - and I have no idea whether it happens to be somehow balanced by the invisible presence of “one person concerned directly”. However things shouldn’t be dropped halfway so the main theme will be resumed in the two upcoming posts (I hope to come up with the first one of them within a couple of weeks - in the meantime you may want to ask those things you wanted to ask about some parts of the dialogue). And as to the dialogue - it’s practically complete. There are just three more brief lines left - I’m going to quote them in the final post in relation to the question of hope/no hope (these two dudes have already said way too much, haven’t they?). The second section is supposed to be focused on the analysis of the subject in the current social context, and the third one - on the message of  “The Wall” itself.  

    By the way, I’ve listened to “Amused to Death” in its entirety the other day (something I’d not been doing for a very serious while) - and you’re probably right. I still don’t know if the music is any good if taken separately from the lyrics - but then again I don’t know if it makes sense to ever consider them separately - but if you listen through the whole album while carefully following each word in the process the impression is completely different. So in terms of its message and due to its overall significance it may indeed be on par with the best albums produced by Pink Floyd. Not to mention the fact that it took someone with his eyes wide open for a change to accomplish something that clear and uncompromising in 1992 - when the whole world seemed to be getting carried away with the euphoria brought on by the end of the Cold War (it was just like Orwell with his brilliant and morbid prophecy right after the end of WW2).  

  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013
    The two above posts containing the dialogue constitute Part 1 of the main thesis. Here is Part 2.

    So, in addition to “Mercedes … Porsche … Ferrari and Rolls Royce” “we’ve got choice”. We do have it. And we make it ourselves. Any family, education, culture etc. related influences have been immaterial since the mid 20th century, when virtually every ordinary average man in Western Society was provided with an opportunity to see through them all and make a choice on their own. For the first time in the history of mankind we had this pure experiment (its purity was ensured by two facts - the gun of inescapable historical circumstances, which used to leave no choice at all or impose a certain one was removed from our head; and we were granted an unrestricted access to knowledge): the actually free choosing between the two options - either to accomplish a shift within ourselves, thus bringing the change in the ways of our civilization on par with the emergence of man itself, and then try to move beyond infinity; or to stick to those ways, and continue to move nowhere. For the reasons examined in the dialogue - the most important one being simply that unwillingness to exert ourselves (if not compelled to do so by some external force or circumstances), which seems to be immanent in human nature - we’ve done what should have been expected and chosen the path of least resistance once again. That is the option number two. But this time with absolutely no one and nothing to blame. As a result it took us several decades only to turn every aspect of our social life - politics, economy, religion, art, communication - into sheer fakes. And now we have to face the consequences. So, it’s important to note once more - this mess we find ourselves in today is neither accidental nor a result produced by some unfavourable external influences or circumstances. The only thing behind it are our own choices. Which, in turn, derive from archetypical constituents of our nature.  

    Now about the masses and individuals. The big picture is never determined by some collective choice but by a sum of individual ones. So every one is to blame, always - then, now, whenever. And every one of us is responsible for this current catastrophic state of things. Were there any exceptions - people who chose otherwise? Of course, there were and still are. But the problem is that their influence is miniscule, if any. In my estimation, about 5% of us are prepared to perceive new information and modify their views in accordance with it (even if new data contradict previous concepts or that picture of reality which is considered convenient). Some 5-20% of those 5% are prepared to actually undertake some actions upon their realizations. But, given the way in which our society is structured nowadays (thanks to the elites’ deliberate efforts and the masses’ wilful ignorance), there is absolutely nothing that those people - regardless whether they are philosophers like Camus, artists like Roger, or politicians like Ron Paul - can do to effectively oppose the way and “opinions” of the majority and really influence the process in general.

    And as to this majority, once again, it’s not brainwashed through coercion or deceit, and awaiting some political or artistic messiah to show them the way. We choose to be brainwashed. And we know exactly what we are doing. Let me provide just a few obvious examples.

    I believe in 2006 or something a series of surveys was performed in the US, Australia and Germany in order to find out in what way the information about fabrications, which were used to “justify” the 2003 invasion of Iraq, gone public through the mainstream media, influenced public opinion in those countries. The results of the surveys were astounding. It turned out that, while in Australia the situation was a little better, and in Germany still a bit better, American people were practically unaffected by those publications and still unequivocally “believed” that Iraq had WMD. It seems to be something plainly insane. However, “it all makes perfect sense”. Why to exert your mind and modify your views, especially if the previous ones enable you to pose as some kind of saviour and liberator, but adjusted ones would instantly turn you into a liar, robber, and murderer? Why not to say that water is dry if you think that it is to your advantage to make such an assertion and you will be able to get away with it as well anyway? But the problem is that as they say: you can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring it.

    This is not to say that the Americans are the only ones to blame. However it’s evident that the US has been a vanguard of destructive forces that brought world economy and finance on the brink of collapse and our civilization on the verge of possible global war and dictatorship, the situation is more or less the same all around the world. We, Europeans, are certainly no better. It didn’t take an Einstein, for instance, to figure out what was happening in Libya during six months in 2011. But we preferred to turn a blind eye. And under the blind stare of our bunch of pathological hypocrites, as well as the double-dealing “international community” in general, in the course of another hideous neo-colonial massacre women were being killed and children raped for months a mere thousand miles from our “civilized” shores. We simply didn’t look that way. We watched our TV screens. Those screens said that it was a humanitarian mission. But convenient lies a-la “451 Fahrenheit” will not always be that convenient. Activities of the Ministry of Truth, when supported by the Ministry of Love, will be much less comforting. You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of making such a choice.

  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013
    Let’s go back to America for a while. Americans are  commonly considered the most individualistic people in the world. They also have the Second Amendment - though  it’s not quite clear now for how long. OK, let’s see. Throughout the 90’s American corporations in pursuit of their short term financial gain were outsourcing jobs in droves and completed this process the next decade. Entire industries have been shipped overseas. Did those heavily armed individualists stand up for their jobs? Did they say: “Hey, jerks! What do you think you are doing? You want us to wind up with sky-high unemployment and an unsustainable debt pyramid within a few years?” No, they were offered cheap credit to buy piles of low-priced glossy crap made now in China, and simply shut up. Did any critical number of people open their mouths when the Patriot Act was adopted? No, they did not. And those are not rhetorical questions. All these choices will have their consequences.

    Europe is the same story. Let’s not waste time talking about such an obvious thing as the UK riots - however it makes sense to have a good look at them as being a proper preview of coming attractions. But what do those people who are shouting: “Thieves! Thieves!” in the streets of Athens, for instance, demand exactly? To be given back an opportunity to live beyond their means? For years, or rather for decades, Greek government was buying every next elections through distributing money borrowed from German and French private banks. Just a small portion of it stayed in the pockets of Greek plutocrats, the rest went to the “innocent” masses. But such a thing cannot obviously last indefinitely. The same goes to any other country. Our entire civilization - the whole of the Western World at least - seem to have lost itself completely to this insanity of consumerism paid for with money we do not have.
    But is there any difference between some corporate scum distributing among themselves nine figure bonuses for having lost earnings of millions of people in the midst of a financial crisis and so many of those people who can not stop buying “needful things” with their numerous credit cards, the actual source of credit on which are fraudulently inflated prices of their houses that they do not own, or enjoying a five Euro cup of coffee at a café while living on the dole? What is the difference between psychopathic corrupt politicians, who in pursuit of their special interests start another war of choice, and some “kid from Cleveland” who, not even being drafted, chooses to become not a soldier, but, in fact, nothing other than a paid mercenary, and, “secure in the beauty of military life” with “no right or wrong”, follows the orders of those criminals and kills defenceless people including women and children?

    So the main point is:




    Just watch any Ron Paul’s speech, even those given in front of a crowd comprised exclusively of his supportes. As long as he goes: “The Fed should be abolished and Wall Street banksters brought to justice” (which means that  there is someone else to blame), the crowd goes: “Hooray!” As soon as he goes: “We are hated all around the world and do you know why? - it’s because we are killing people all around the world. And, by the way, those crooks in power - we have elected them ourselves” (which means that it’s we, not anybody else, who are responsible) the crowd goes: “Boo!”. Even in this truly critical situation of today those of us who consider themselves the most progressive are still just looking for scapegoats.

    The conclusions:

    - we are making our choices deliberately;

    - the choices that we make are obviously leading to a catastrophe;

    - it doesn’t look like we have any internal resources that could enable us to change our course before it happens.

    Which is the end of Part 2.

  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    hi fellow,

    please excuse my late response and allow me to react within the next two days for i wish to agree to  your points in part two not only by saying,"yes, this is the result i also get  watching the wholes scene". so you transposed the dialog into the global happening and the examples you choosed show very clearly the circumstances by which we have some so far now. there is nothing to add and no matter what you take or from which angles you look at it , the facts are talking for themselves. it ´s a few years no i feel the coming of the catastrophe you figure out as the consequence of ignorance- what else could be expected?

    same is to the reaction here- just two "fans" of an engaged and critical artist who IS the author of the wall seem to worry about the reflection of its message in the audience....too heavy stuff.

    it took some time for me to understand the first part of yours- the dialog so the things i wanted to ask you about it got clear, the same is to the rest so if you could wait a bit with your final 3 rd one , i would be thankful. maybe i am able to enrich your lonely position here by my try of describing the scene.


  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013

    Hi Mate,

    Sure, no problem. I haven’t even written Part 3 yet, so take your time. And as to this dead calm here - yeah, I’m seriously thinking about switching to Britney Spears’ site. But then again I like solitude and silence - what did De Niro say in “Heat”: “I’m alone, but not lonely”? However, it’s another proof that the message of the album should be reinvented.

  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013
    @stray dog,

    i still should say that for me this discussion is something very important in a personally way and it´s you who gave me something in a rather big dose though you by yourself mentioned several times you´ve got no:


    to put this view of the world situation in relation with the message of the wall will be quite sincerly a very fulfilling debate offering to each of us new chances of ideas,impulses and most important: to feel not that alone. so please keep on telling your story despite this "dead calm here".

    INDIVIDUALS UNITE !!!!!!!!!!!!
  • DMTisESP January 2013
    This was the thread you were refering to I finally Found it :)!!!!!  Took forever, sorry Stray Dog...I am downloading now this thread and reading it later, I will reply to it in a day or so when I am back on line :)  Peace Stray Dog
  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013

    That’s nothing, mate - sometimes it happens to the best of us. By the way, are you still in Canada?   

  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013

    @stray dog


    passing your time in the grassland away;

    Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.

    You'd better watch out!

    There may be dogs about

    I looked over Jordan,
    and I've seen

    Things are not what they seem.

    That's what you get for pretending the danger's not real.

    Meek and obedient you follow the leader

    Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.

    What a surprise!

    A look of terminal shock in your eyes.

    Now things are really what they seem.

    No, this is not a bad dream


    “The first
    two verses of “Sheep” proved to be plainly prophetic.”you mentioned in one of
    your first posts on this thread. Let me try to express how I feel about your
    two parts in which you have as far as I am concerned given a very deep insight
    about human nature. Gaby, my wife, and me,we 
    often talk about that stuff and by the way, she always just gave almost
    1% to the individuals. It might get a bit muddled, but I am not that rhetoric
    in writing like you but I hope that´s ok.


    It´s kind
    of cattle breeding.” the gun of inescapable historical circumstances, which
    left no choice at all or imposed a certain one was removed from our head”… WAS
    REMOVED FROM OUR HEAD:::by?ourselves? surely not. In the process of the elites´
    development the change from absolute power by violence and punishment to control
    by seductive manner of the media ( …we did what we were told, we bought and
    sold…), the new big trap we´re sticking in 
    was born: prosperity for everybody. The “gun” in our head has turned
    into something abstract but still does its job. To keep the promise the elites
    have to save the recources and “Entire industries has to be shipped overseas”

    passing your time in the grassland away; Only dimly aware of a certain unease
    in the air…”.this is what we re now. The farmers made the stables bigger,
    providde the live stock with better food. They even gave to them more free time
    and offered to them toys to play with and yes, after all there even is free
    choice now of whatever you want: culture, education, information, action,
    sex…whatever. Give them the feeling of freedom in the stable , it´s warm and
    save here, it´s COMFORTABLE and we care for you, we keep our promise of
    PROSPERITY FOR EVERYBODY. The farmers´ strategy to distract the cattle from any
    idea to be misused, is to infect them with the same sickness all elites have: greed
    and envy. Let them fight against each other “…..Who is the strongest Who is the
    best Who holds the aces The EastOr the West This is the crap our children are
    learning..”fill them up so they keep lethargic (… no one told you when to run,
    you missed the starting gun…), give them toys and they will only play games



    But now,
    good food getting rare, space getting narrow the fence getting dangerously
    closer, the game of distraction has to be 
    perfected. “ the kids love to disappear into non-existance ( by looking
    onto the screen of their phone)” roger recently said on the press conference in
    London”… and it
    frightens me”

    “you can
    ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring it.”well,
    why not?. If awareness exists just in an artificial reality you may even ignore
    if you´re dying.

  • waveprojectwaveproject January 2013


    The elites
    as a hound of dangerous hooligans , psychopaths 
    on highest level, scaredy – cats in degenerated need of attention and
    protection, finally diagnosed as completely unable to take responsibility of
    their own life, gather around themselves the masses to make them dependant.

    The masses
    as not that frightened but easily to be infected are in need of someone to
    trust in,  to tell them truth, to tell
    them what to think, feel and do. Fear as the central power in the course of
    time has become institutionalized and changed to ignorance, the soft version of
    protection against truth. The masses don´t choose really freely comfort which
    is kind of soft version of reality. They take it because they are used to.They
    take it without asking if it´s good or bad- even if it´s tasting wasted, the
    cattle will eat when it´s hungry. The elites work with the systems of fear to
    give themselves the illusion to have it not.


    individuals´ way of life is different. to ask questions for them is the thing ,
    not waiting for answers. Responsibility is the power to unite with others,
    sharing is fulfilling, not possession. Truth as something to search for and not
    to keep closed and telling tales instead.


    But as you
    say right, stray dog, they have any chance to influence the masses. With the
    exception of some few  doupters who
    defenetely are among the masses everywhere. In relation to the masses they are
    just a few. But if you put them together, they are enough that it´s worth to do


    So in the
    current situation of an upcoming catastrophe in my personal view there is a
    very big chance as well and it´s more than worth to at least discuss about it
    and to share ideas.


    To quote
    roger himself: “In my view it is too early in our story to leap to such a
    conclusion, we are after all a very young species. I believe we have at least a
    chance to aspire to something better than the dog eat dog ritual slaughter that
    is our current response to our institutionalized fear of each other. I feel it
    is my responsibility as an artist to express my, albeit guarded, optimism, and
    encourage others to do the same. To quote the great man, ” You may say that I’m
    a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.”

  • StrayDogStrayDog January 2013

    Since you have brought up some serious points in your last comment, I think Part 3 can be postponed for a while so that we could discuss these things first. Let’s take them one by one.

    “The gun of circumstances”
    As far as I can see the main factor in removing this “gun” was our progress in science and technology. In this sense it was removed “by ourselves” - that is by the best of us. Some had to sacrifice their lives for this triumph  being the only indisputable one that our species can claim. At the same time, in a way, you are right - thanks to this accomplishment the masses at large were rather bestowed with a choice, than actually earned it. However, this or that way, but we happened to have this chance to  choose “really freely”. And we have chosen the Matrix. Not because “we are used to”. But because we could at last make this choice in accordance with archetypic constituents of our nature, and no external circumstances compelled us to choose otherwise precisely as they used to. Of course, the elites have changed their tactics, but continued to exert their influence stealthily in order to impose control and maintain the status quo. But it ceased to be the factor which couldn’t be overcome. At least, we are not going to have any purer experiment - I believe you realize that each and every human being won’t be placed on their own island where they could make their choice while being completely free from any influences.

    I also do not quite understand the way you are opposing the masses and individuals. There are no masses. They are comprised of individuals. And before anyone becomes a member of the herd they make such a choice on their own. Another thing is that some individuals make other choices. But here we go with one more point of yours which seems quite contradictory to me. If I understood you right you agree that these individuals (that is those who chose to remain ones) cannot actually influence the masses (that is those individuals who chose to become “We, the Sheeple”) in our world of today. On the other hand, you state that if this tiny minority unites they will still be able to do something. But would you mind specifying what exactly? They can surely participate in elections and get their 5% at best (the 2012 Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson received 1% of the popular vote in the general election in the US - so it looks like your wife could easily make a brilliant career working for some well-established bookie). But what else? Concretely? So if you mean it in the context of social environment, then in order to be able to do something with lingering effects this united minority would have to physically eliminate the masses first. Which, I believe, is not exactly what you are after. But maybe you have any other ideas.

    You also suggest that this upcoming catastrophe may bring some new chances or opportunities along with it. Some people who seem to realize dangerous implications of the current state of things do think so. I do not. To me it’s the same thing as to say: OK, someone cannot win a single set when they are training, but if they somehow happen to participate at Wimbledon let’s hope that not only will they manage to deliver their best all of a sudden - though they have failed to achieve it on all previous occasions under much more favourable circumstances, but whatever they deliver will prove to be enough to save the day. Both are obvious delusions.

    “The farmers made the stables bigger, provide the live stock with better food. They even gave to them … (and all the way through up to) … give them toys and they will only play games” - it’s very true (with the exception of the fact that you can still choose otherwise today without being Spartacus/Prometheus). But it’s not going to last forever. That screenplay mentioned has two epigraphs. One of them is a quotation from Nietzsche: “They were playing on the sea-shore - then came a wave and swept their playthings into the deep: now they cry.”

    So, last but not least - the "time" thing. Mr. Miles here does not seem to see any critical difference between the situation 30 years ago and today. He believes that the world and, probably, the whole of reality revolves around him, so  the way he perceives it is the way it is - “harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away”. Roger, on the other hand, has never made a "brilliant impression of an idiot". The quote you cite is not so recent while the situation is evidently deteriorating with each passing day. And I think Roger more or less realizes what is going on - that talk with Eric Ripert (despite his obvious “Obama blunders”), in the course of which he didn’t really sound overtly or even “guardedly” optimistic, as well as his new interview alone quite clearly indicate that. The main problem which makes this subject so momentous is that we are not just talking about human nature or any other philosophic “abstracts”. We are talking about very concrete things - economy, politics, powerful groups of special interests pursuing those interests within the very specific parameters of the current situation. We are talking about inevitable financial collapse and possible global war. Unfortunately, it’s highly unlikely that we have many years, let alone decades, before this situation gets really critical. And when it gets so, it will require action from everyone, not just members of a 5% minority. Taking into account everything said in Parts 1 and 2, do you believe that some proper kind of it will be delivered?

    However, more on this last point and the “responsibility of an artist” under the current circumstances in Part 3.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Welcome to the message board. Please be courteous to all your fellow forum users.

Contact with any issues.