Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com Random rants, by An Occasional Failure™ Sun, 29 Jan 2012 06:22:53 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 mokokomamokhonoanahttp://feedburner.google.com The Hypocrisy of Believers http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/8tu_Z7wryjg/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-hypocrisy-of-believers/#comments Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:23:17 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=6360
A four-year-old burns to death because of its mother’s carelessness; it is said to be the will of God.

A man who was already battling to keep up with his bills gets fired; it is said to be the will of God.

A man kills his faithful wife because of his own insecurities; it is said to be the will of God.

A God-fearing teenager loses both her legs in a car accident; because some drunk heathen failed to stop when the traffic lights ordered him to; it is said to be the will of God.

A three-year-old gets raped by four fifty-year-olds; it is said to be the will of God.

Nothing wrong with that. Their life, their beliefs.

Anyway, if asserting that every single thing that happens, especially unpleasant things, should be accepted as they are, for it is the will of God — I have a few questions:

Why do believers wear seatbelts? Why do believers use condoms? Why do believers see doctors when they aren’t feeling well? … Why not leave the outcome to chance; seeing that whatever that happens would be, in their eyes, the will of God?

Why do believers shave? Why don’t they let their hair be? Why do believers go to gym? Why don’t they let their being over- or underweight be?

Why do disabled believers use wheelchairs? Shouldn’t their not being able to walk, too, be taken as the will of God?

Why do short female believers wear high heels? Why do female believers shave — and then redraw — their eyebrows? Why do white believers tan? Why do black female believers wear weave — in their attempt to look like white, indian, or, brazilian women — hair-wise? Shouldn’t how one looks, too, be said to be the will of God?

Why do believers erect borders; while a continent is a piece — not pieces — of land?

Why do believers wear glasses and hearing aids; inventions that we were given by science; a discipline that believers titled “religion’s number one enemy” — merely because its claim as to how the world came to being disagrees with the very first line of the book of Genesis?

(It is either believers are hypocrites, or, they merely convince themselves that somethings are God’s will …. just to escape the harsh reality of an unpleasant happening.)
]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-hypocrisy-of-believers/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-hypocrisy-of-believers/ The Government’s Fat- (and Skinny) Cats http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/wFBJv1pOZN0/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-governments-fat-and-skinny-cats/#comments Wed, 07 Dec 2011 08:56:26 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=6243
Granted, limiting the number of years which a ruling party is allowed to rule pushes the party to get things done (or to, at least, appear to be doing so). Furthermore, it gives the ruled an opportunity to “fire” the ruling party, come the next elections, should they find the ruling party to be incompetent.

That’s the good thing with any form of governance where the people are ruled in turns and terms.

But there seems to be a negative effect that’s inevitably caused by giving a ruling party a limited number of years in office.

A political party is put in power for, usually, four years. Yet they are expected to solve (or, at the least: “better”) social ills that require decades to better or surmount.

That there is a seldom discussed issue that is worthy of our immediate attention. For it breeds an attitude that unavoidably leads to corruption.

What politicians then resort to — after realizing that they’re only given less than 4 years to solve social ills that require, at times, at the least, say, 40 years — is taking as much as they possibly can from the government. For a second term isn’t guaranteed.

So, they think, I presume, that: rather they steal from the government, only to be put back in power, come the next term; than to be all holy, only to be unemployed, come the next term.

(That is to say, rather they be in hell with a full tummy, than to starve in heaven.)
]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-governments-fat-and-skinny-cats/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-governments-fat-and-skinny-cats/ A Man’s Other Half http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/4DzhP9XEgxU/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/a-mans-other-half/#comments Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:10:37 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=6167
Well, depending on how that’s looked at, I have a problem with that.

What needs to be asked is, What can’t a man be or do without a woman?

For almost everything that a man gets from his woman, he can get from any of his friends: Somebody to talk to. Somebody to listen to. Somebody to laugh with. Somebody to cry with. Somebody to eat with. Somebody to starve with … etc.

Any of the man’s friends or family, good-looking or not, tall or short, male or female, can be that to him.

A woman can only logically be said to be a man’s missing other half, if having sex and/or making kids is the man’s primary objective.

However, I would like to go as far as taking “having sex” out of the last sentence. For whether we like it or not, condone it or not, there are countless men who get to subdue their sexual urges from other men. In such cases, the anus plays vagina.

The same can be said about women getting sexual pleasure from other women.

Granted, those women would have used an artificial penis. But, an orgasm or twelve, they would have gotten. For the body cannot really differentiate between a penis made of flesh — and that made of plastic — where pleasure is concerned.

(I don’t want to get into this whole issue as to whether or not homosexuality is immoral. For I find people who hate other human beings merely because of the gender of the people that they prefer to have sex with to be childish and irritating.)

So, what’s left is that, a woman can only be said to be a man’s missing other half, if making a kid is the objective. Otherwise, both the man and the woman are easily replaceable by any random person of any random gender. Seeing that …

A man can cook for another. A man can take a walk with another. A man can clean for another. A man can eat with another. A man can watch a movie with another. A man can choose an outfit for another. And, a man can please another … sexually.

(The assertion that a man and a woman completes each other is asserted with reproduction in mind. That is, the two’s union’s purpose is to produce offsprings.)
]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/a-mans-other-half/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/a-mans-other-half/ Reasons We Breed http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/I3-98CpKsBg/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/reasons-we-breed/#comments Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:53:11 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=6127 lived at all.

As living beings, do we really owe life a life or five?

Seeing that we exist, whether planned or not, as a result of our parents’ having had unprotected sex. They were given life, by their parents, and then, they gave us life.

But, which is more selfish: To be given a life and not give a life in return, or, to give a life for your own selfish reasons?

More often that not, we, as a people, make kids:

(1) To appear complete. For we are made to believe that a family minus the kid(s) is no longer a family, but a couple.

(2) To ensure that our surname, culture, beliefs, ideologies, and, religion, lives on.

Seeing that, if, for example, Christians stopped producing offsprings of their own, Christianity is almost certain to be extinct. Or, if, for example, all Vendas stopped breeding, Venda, their language, will only be read, and, no longer heard.

(3) As an attempt to achieve (through imposing dreams that we failed to achieve — on our kids) dreams that slipped through our hands.

So, maybe, just maybe, when they made you, it wasn’t because your parents wanted you. It might have been that your father, who failed to become, say, a lawyer, just wanted to have a second chance to have a lawyer with your last name.

(That’s more likely if whatever that you have studied, or, is studying, was forced on you, by either or both your parents. In such cases, kids are nothing but parents’ second, third, or, thirteenth attempts to conquer dreams that conquered them.)
]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/reasons-we-breed/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/reasons-we-breed/ Love is Conditional http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/SfYlcuyaAHg/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/love-is-conditional/#comments Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:51:25 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=5963
Though most of us have never really given this a thought; we love our loved ones, merely because they are our loved ones. And, also, because society subtly hints that it is normal, expected, or, a must, that one love one’s loved ones.

It is, for that reason, safe to assert that we love people because of their having met a condition or twelve — not because of them being them.

There are two types of such conditions: One is external. For example, society’s expectation that children love their parents. Or that siblings love each other.

There other is internal. That is, conditions that we demand  — consciously or subconsciously — that people meet, before we can “feel” like we love them. Typical conditions like,  ”I am into tall guys … “, or, ”… I love women with big boobs.”

So, technically, a person cannot really be loved. The closest we get … is loving something (or, if we are lucky: “somethings”) about that person.*

If that is the case, isn’t love, then, conditional?

If love isn’t conditional, why doesn’t everybody love everybody?

If you love your lover merely because of them being, say, a joker, and then, they stopped joking, would you then still love your lover?

Let’s take, as an example, your ex-lovers: What do they have in common?

Your answer to that is what you loved (and, probably, still do) — not them.

Furthermore, the answer, to the above question, is not limited to a person’s so-called character. For a man’s possessions, too, can be a reason that a woman truly believes that she is in love with him.

One might love a thing for its usefulness, its beauty, or, the social standing that the thing gives them. But never the thing in itself.

What one really loves, when they claim to love a meal, is the nutritional benefits that that meal has, or, the taste that they get from the meal — not the meal in itself.

Most obese people do not really love food. What they love is the comfort, as temporary as it might be, that eating provides them with.

People don’t really love porn. What they love is the “excitement” that porn gives rise to (and, possibly, the orgasms that a porn episode usually leads its “audience” to).

Things are means to ends. What people love is the ends, not the means.

To further illustrate my point, let’s bring to mind, how a relationship typically begins:

A stranger meets another. No love is claimed or felt? But after a few months, weeks, or, minutes of “getting to know each other” — the two feel what they call love (for each other).

If it is possible to love a person — not things (character, beliefs, looks, etc.) about that person — Why, then, do we see the “getting to know each other” phase as pivotal?

The simplest point that I can think of, to support my argument, is that of hatred.

We are told that hatred is the opposite of love. Now, question is, Can you really hate something or someone without any reason (conscious or not) at all?

If you answered “No,” Can you then love something or someone without any reason (conscious or not) at all (i.e., without them meeting a condition or six)?

Whether intentional or not, consciously or not, we almost always earn both being loved, and, being hated.

(Love is a by-product of a condition met. To be loved is to have met a condition or four.)

*That statement brings to the table, the question, What is a person? Or, rather, What makes a person that person? That deserves a writing of its own.
]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/love-is-conditional/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/love-is-conditional/ School’s Loyalty http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/wED-elIP2l4/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/schools-loyalty/#comments Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:36:21 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=5802
Knowledge is in itself not important. And so is work. The two, bearing in mind why we live, i.e., the purpose of life, should be means to an end — not ends.

In his pursuit to achieve whatever the purpose of life is — and to overcome whatever challenges that might hinder his holy grail — man employs knowledge. That’s what the logic behind school’s existence, supposedly, is. However, …

School exists, primarily, to serve those who employ — not the so-called schooled.

Yet, we foolishly expect the schooled to solve our social ills. Go figure!

School mostly produces parrots that unknowingly perpetuate their social problems. So, in a way, school contributes immensely in the delay of humankind’s progress.

School equips the schooled with skills to make products that we don’t need.

School equips the schooled with tactics to sell us products that we don’t need.

School equips the schooled with tricks to convince us to buy things that we don’t need; with money that we don’t have.

School prepares the unschooled to be of value to some profit-seeking business; not the society that the then schooled belongs to.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, school does not “manufacture” knowledge. It merely packages other men’s thoughts, opinions, feelings, and, findings. School, an institution that’s sold as “cool” — come the beginning of a new year, then sells those packages to those who dream of one day being titled, “Employee of the Month.”

By definition, and, with the exception of social-entrepreneurs, each and every business’s primary goal is to make as much profit as possible. Everything else is secondary. That is to say, businesses exist, mainly, to please their shareholders. Not to ease our sufferings as a people.

What’s more, more often than not, such relentless pursuits for as much profit as possible, bring with them, more social ills.

Let’s take the automobile as an example. While those who saw an opportunity to profit from making four-wheeled machines that promised to move man from Point A to Point B quicker than a horse can — are indeed profiting — such an invention brought with it: air pollution and noise pollution (amongst other things that the invention has worsened).

School is loyal to businesses, not humankind. Meanwhile, businesses, arguably the majority, do not exist to serve humankind (i.e., solve social problems) — most worsen, and, at times, create, social problems (sexism, pollution, consumerism, etc.).

For not every single thing that is manufactured and sold — is manufactured and sold — in the best interest of the sold to.

(School evolved from being a means to man’s realizing of an end, i.e., whatever the purpose of life is, into a profit-seeking institution that manufactures employees and consumers. Creatures often awarded for selling their people things they don’t need.)
]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/schools-loyalty/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/schools-loyalty/ The Ruling Party Dilemma http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/k4IttMwH0FY/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-ruling-party-dilemma/#comments Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:12:56 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=5723
Be that as it may, there seems to be an unseen dilemma that ruling parties face. A dilemma not apparent to the party, and, the people that the party was hired to please.

Here’s the dilemma: with almost every single social ill that is eliminated; unemployment will be augmented.

Let’s take crime, as an example. If the government gets rid of all forms of crime: every single police officer, prison warder, prison cook, et al., will be unemployed.

And, as “disturbing” as that might sound, that is not where it will end.

While that might not lead to those who manufacturer police uniform, those who clean prisons, those who supply prisons with toilet paper, and the like, being unemployed. They will sure see a steep decrease of revenue. A decrease that will inevitably lead to owners of such businesses having to “release” an employee, or, twelve.

So, technically, the ruling party needs crime. Not only for them to justify the budget that they have allocated to the police department (or, having the police, for that matter). But to also lower the number of the country’s unemployed beings.

In a country of three (excluding its government): All three are unemployed. Person X is hired as a police officer. Now, that’s one less person taken out of the country’s list of the unemployed. Person Y commits a crime. And, because of Person Y’s having committed a crime, Person X now looks like a necessity. Person Y is then prisoned. That country now has only one unemployed person, Person Z.

However, Person Z too will benefit, in terms of being employed, from Person Y’s having committed a crime. For there then would be a need for a prisoner warder.

When a country no longer has crime, all those who are employed by the police system will be unemployed. Which will obviously lead to a steep increase of that country’s unemployment rate.

But also, no crime means no prisoners, too. Which then means that every single prisoner will add to that country’s list of the unemployed; after they are freed.

One social ill solved (crime); one social ill worsened (unemployment).

(So, basically, the ruling party’s failure is its success, and, its success is its failure.)
]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-ruling-party-dilemma/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-ruling-party-dilemma/ The Economy of Unpleasant http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/SFOuoxnwYvs/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-economy-of-unpleasant/#comments Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:08:44 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=5697
Without bullies, Karate lessons are useless.

Without murderers, police officers are useless.

Without suicide, psychologists are useless.

Without impotence, Viagra is useless.

Without pimples, dermatologists are useless.

Without war, a soldier is a useless programmed killing machine with a machine gun.

(Without death, the undertaker’s kids will starve to death.)
]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-economy-of-unpleasant/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-economy-of-unpleasant/ The Illusion of Prison http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/DPtU0C1xWYU/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-illusion-of-prison/#comments Thu, 13 Oct 2011 05:53:24 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=5611
Prison was made to make the parents whose son was killed, the girl who was raped, and, the man whose TV was stolen, to feel a little bit better. But, be that as it may, prisoning the wrongdoers will not bring their son, her virginity, and, his TV back.

People rarely use a gun to steal for fun, or, to kill, just to kill time.

There usually are social ills contributing to such behaviors. But, instead of those in power attempting to prevent the cause, they try to deal with the effects of the effect.

In a word, the prisoner is likely to steal, or kill, again. If whatever that caused him to do so, before he was prisoned, is still there; after he has served his 10-year sentence.

The whole idea behind prison is akin to unwanted pregnancies. Instead of the government investing more money on, say, the availability and distribution of free condoms, they invest in fancier abortion medication and equipment.

(Prison is not a solution to social ills; it is merely a “consolation prize” for the stolen from, the assaulted, the raped, or, the killed’s loved ones.)
]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-illusion-of-prison/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-illusion-of-prison/ Chains of Our Times http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/9fqXfSzASz4/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/chains-of-our-times/#comments Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:42:51 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=5354
Those days have sort of gone by. However, slavery has taken a more subtle, and, cruel form. Cruel in a sense that, then, a slave knew that he was a slave. But today, the majority of the so-called modern slaves don’t have even the slightest clue that they are slaves.

The best way to free a man, is to leave him a critical independent thinker. As that will afford him the necessary “gray matter” to question and/or challenge whatever that authority and/or the media feeds and/or forces on him.

I know not of anything that can better a man’s thinking better than a good book can.

And it’s not that there aren’t enough good books out there. There are just too many things that are fighting — with books — for potential readers’ money and attention.

In their relentless war against books and reading, slave masters of our times are relying on the two weapons below, to impede mental emancipation of the masses.

Entertainment

Entertainment is arguably the library’s biggest competitor. One that is, without a doubt, kicking the library’s butt.

Books are fighting a losing battle. Taking into account, the sad reality that most people have been accustomed to being entertained. No amusement, No attention.

Not only does entertainment distract the entertained from thinking. It subtly feeds the entertained with illusions of things like what a successful person looks like. And, as if that’s not enough, it escalates the entertained’s urge to consume more.

Though I mostly blame our education system for producing a society with only a few avid readers; entertainment too plays a huge role in keeping the number of avid book readers as low as they possibly can be. For, not only does entertainment demand the entertained’s money; it demands their attention (thus: “their time”) too.

Entertainment has trained people to demand, well, “entertainment”, out of almost everything that they invest their attention into. Like Neil Postman remarked in his prophetic book, Amusing Ourselves To Death, even something as “serious” as the news is expected to be entertaining.

In a nutshell, … No entertainment, No attention. No attention, No audience. No audience, No advertisers. No advertisers, No show. No show, No entertainer.

Most of you will not read this writing until its end. For I was foolish enough not to make it amusing. Or, at the least, include a few “amusing” photographs in it.

Entertainment’s “No entertainment, No attention” effect is evident in the advertising industry. When was the last time that you’ve seen or heard an advert that, regardless of the seriousness of the advertised, didn’t, or, at the least, attempt to, amuse you?

Granted, I might be talking utter nonsense, but this writing will get attention from fewer readers, merely because it makes people think. An activity that slave masters of our times have successfully trained the masses to hate and/or find boring.

The ironic thing being that, more than half of the very few of you who have made it this far, will be interrupted by entertainment, in one form or another.

Debt (Money you didn’t have)

In a word, selling on credit is an act of allowing someone to buy something with money that they do not have, yet.

Though only a few do, there are a few ways to exploit credit. For example, one might take a loan to start a business (to make money, not to spend it). And, should the business do well, the business owner (and, possibly, generations to follow) will continue reaping profits. Even decades after the owner has paid his last loan repayment.

Be that as it may, the sad reality is that people, arguably the majority, use credit to fund the consumer, not the producer, in them. That is where modern slavery starts.

Back then, slaves were not really recompensed. They “just” worked for the master.

Today, there is a widespread illusion of workers working for themselves. And, that is merely because it is the worker’s bank account in which a salary is paid into. But looking at how much workers earn, and, what they are left with after paying those that they owe, one can’t help but assert that workers work for people they owe.

Vicious Cycle

By now, most of you should have already noticed how the two above weapons, used to fortify modern slavery, work together to keep the masses enslaved.

Through being entertained, the entertained’s minds are dumb down to noticing the slavery that comes with using other people’s money to buy things that they want to need. That is to say, … to buy things that they do not really need.

To unknowingly perpetuate this cycle, the entertained use credit to buy things like TVs with huge screens. Just to ensure that they are forever entertained. In return …

(The entertained will, in their attempt to look like celebrities, get deeper into debt.)
]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/chains-of-our-times/feed/ 2 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/chains-of-our-times/