Q: Do you agree with this analysis of "hello sexy pants"?  "This whole masterpiece is a analysis of late stage capitalism and its unnability to satisfy the alienated consumer it produce in the very negation of its production.  What is the "pants" ? It's the commodified product par excellence, by owning the pants, you don't only own an object, you wear it and thus you make the object a part of your own identity, while you objectify yourself in the processus : at the end, the pants own you. That's how love work between humans, but that's also how it's manufactured in our spectacular society. As Baudrillard said "seduction represent mastery over the symbolic universe while power represents only mastery over the real universe"  "Where'd you get those pants ?" said the cash cow : someone finally said that the king is naked. Indeed, where did those pants come from ? Isn't it the product of a bengali kid ? More deeply here relies 
a critiq
ue of commodity fetishism : alienation make us forgot that we, as humans, are the producers of this pants; and just like the african tribes who forgot that they were the creators of their fetish, our production became our new god. No response to the quiet scream of the cow, just "hello", again and again. "I wanna know why it hurts so bad" : The ignorance of this alienation brings pain, we feel depossessed without understanding why, and when we see the pants we need to possess it badly by the act of consumption, since we don't feel that we own it by the act of production. We even have the feeling that the pants can "make a wish come true" : that's the final stage of the fetishised entity put above our heads. "Hello sexy pants did you know that I like your pants ?" : The commodity has become more than just pants.  And in Congress all the boys get mad, and not because they oppose capitalism, bill wurtz is more subtile : the politicians are mad because they loose 
control 
over the system, they no longer have a word to say in the direction, just like everyone, they become simple executant of the will of the Capital.  While nature is out there, represented by the squirrels, all we can see is the omnipresent modern propaganda of the media, in this TV everything looks fine and nice, there is happy faces everywhere and it tells us to be friends, but in reality it's divising humans, humans are no longer "friends", they are actors in the representation of a friendship mediated by the society of the spectacle, in wich being a friend is just a question of posture, of "friendly stance".  And then the capital tell you that thanks to him you can go all around the world, and indeed it became "easy as 1, 2" to go through the hills of France : tourism - human circulation packaged for consumption, a by-product of the circulation of commodities - is the opportunity to go and see what has been banalized. The economic organization of travel 
to diffe
rent places already guarantees their equivalence. The modernization that has reduced the time involved in traveling has simultaneously reduced the real space through which and to which one can travel. And, as Debord pointed it "while eliminating geographical distance, this society produces a new internal distance in the form of spectacular separation."  After that the TV subtly reminds you the danger in criticize our society : you are against us ? Do you want to live in North Korea ? However, the nature of the commodity reaffirm itself soon after, North Korea is - like any other places and activities - something that must be subjugated to the ever expanding market, we need to shake some hands even here, for business - and pleasure - since the two must become the same unique thing But there still is hope, We all could wake up in the morning and enjoying a simple yet meaningful life. But is this true liberation ? Isn't it a way to distract us from the true solution w
ich must
 be collective ? Isn't this a pass to being lonely and to feel "blue" ?  "At the clothing store nobody tells you the whole world is changing" : everything is said, capitalism don't tell you about the world it is making, you're here to buy as a mindless robot, you don't need to understand that the world is changing, in fact you mustn't; the world is changing by itself, by the forces of the Capital; and no one truly understand how : that's the ultimate "proletarization", proletarization in its essence is the privation of knowledges for a subject and the privation of a subject for knowledges, first we lose the ability to understand what we are producing, but in consequence we now lose the ability to understand what we are consuming, it's a vicious circle, the circle of the commodity. So buy your clothes and become your products, even if the clothes is always changing, seasons by seasons, we are not even able to see it, we are trapped in the phenomena wich do
n't allo
w us to see the noumena, the Capital instill in us the feeling that we are living in a never ending-present wich always existed and wich will always exist "At the grocery store someone will tell you that what changed is you" : that's the response of the Capital, it's not the world that is changing, it's you, you are the one who is not in phase with the perfect and immuable "present" of the spectacular society, so stop to complain and accept your fate, submit yourself to the system, learn it's rythm or accept that you are excluded from it; and why the grocery store ? Because the control of the spectacle is in the everyday life, in the most basic consumption.  The pants are already forgotten, in this insatiable run for consumption, now we have a new fetish to love : the lamp, a lamp wich is so godly that it can "light the whole darn sky", but only "at 2:pm", never forget that everything is temporal in this world, and again, the Congress could do nothing against 
it, it c
ould not even replicate the modern worship of the commodity, the light became black down there.  Simon is probably the most interesting and intriguing character of this song, he is the double bipolarity of capitalism : he is the worker wich face its own alienation, without meaning in his work he can't "remember anything he've been doing", because of the economic functionnement of capitalism, and perhaps worse, because of the ideological functionnement of capitalism he can't remember "anything he remember", "everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation" we don't live our own life, we live the life of the Capital by the Capital for the Capital, we are just actors of a stageplay wich was written before we were born, instead of being the actor of our own artwork, we don't have our own memories since we're just travelling from one representation to another. Represented by the graphics behind him, Simon is nothing but a number among other. And 
the grap
hics also indicate us that Simon is also the financial world, the highest abstraction of the Capital, he don't know where he come from, he don't know who he is, is just here doing what he is made to. And there is the dramatical problem : They (the worker and the trader) don't care, as long as they find out what they're - supposed - to do. The "supposed" is the key to understand it fully, supposed according to who ? To what ? To the commodity, we don't think anymore, we don't put ourselves in an historical and ontogenetic approach, we are just here, doing what the God-Capital tell us to do, we become nothing more than a cog in a machinery that depass us all, that kill every bit of liberty in us. Simon IS the system, he is the one that tell us what to do, as showed by the use of "Simon Says", Simon wants to fully become us. He want us to become him. The reward ? A sign on your checks.  Also, the lamp is very sexy." 
A: not quite