Bringing The World Closer Together – You Have To Engage!

“When I ask about the risks of contractors developing PTSD, a counselor I’ll call Logan tells me about a different psychological phenomenon: “post-traumatic growth,” an effect whereby some trauma victims emerge from the experience feeling stronger than before. The example he gives me is that of Malala Yousafzai, the women’s education activist, who was shot in the head as a teenager by the Taliban.

“That’s an extremely traumatic event that she experienced in her life,” Logan says. “It seems like she came back extremely resilient and strong. She won a Nobel Peace Prize… So there are many examples of people that experience difficult times and come back stronger than before.” – quote from an article about American Facebook moderators by Casey Newton.

Great strength can be found in completely ignoring the news!

Why would I write something like that? Well for the simple reason that the political “engagement” that is constantly being touted as extraordinary, not to forget “the never ending political conversation” that the people of the West are supposed to engage in is nothing but a sham. At least it is in terms of social media. 

“Engaging” is only valid for as long as you “engage right,” which means that you are perfectly fine for as long as you “react right.” The moment that you “react wrong” to an event you will be guilty of “wrong think,” probably without even being aware of it, for after all you were just expressing your opinion. Freedom of speech is allegedly one of the amazing values of The Western world, a value that our fighters are defending and fighting for, in fact dying for (while fighting in…. The Middle East…go figure)…

A value that enshrines liberty: “Look at us we are not like those others! We can say what we want so our societies are superior! This is a model that ought to be replicated all over the world, even if it means bombing other nations into oblivion. Here, have some freedom!” BOOOOOM!

I’ve mentioned it on this blog before but I never tire of pointing it out that voting patterns are surprisingly even. It is nothing but a falsehood to claim that “progressivism” is more than a 50% world-view (roughly speaking,) it is not a massive majority viewpoint, nor is it “common sense,” this is a cultural political illusion in the USA, in the UK, in Norway, and elsewhere. Diversity is very real indeed and this makes it difficult to generalise. “We the people” could be anyone or anything. It will always be too broad a statement.

Not that it is ever a valid argument to say that: “the masses say so and so hence this has to be common sense or this has to be correct.” There are a number of strange things that have historically been considered “common sense” that we now laugh at…

Nothing is more comical to me than to go out there on the public space advocating and shopping for public engagement only to censor people and shut them off your platform (for ever) when people do precisely what you asked for: engage.

I’m not sure what sort of “discussion” tech people expected, but if there is one thing human interactions and history will teach anyone who bothers to read and observe it is that people certainly struggle to get along, and that not-getting-along seems to be more of a default setting than “glorious Utopia.” If I’m wrong in stating this then I wonder why it is so difficult to get communal living to work out, why bands with only 4 members break up, why small businesses suffer with internal backstabbing and why lawyers are being hired left, right and centre to settle the most petty of arguments.

If anything I think that social media has made political division and hostilities even worse, because as I’ve written before, you’ll be reminded of people’s values and opinions not because you are hanging out with them but due to their online activity….

I’m assuming that it is particularly damaging to declare ones “side” in ones short social media bio, as this can easily be perceived as confrontational and aggressive, even provocative from whatever other side. Do you declare your faith and political affiliation whenever you shake someone’s hand for the very first time? No.

I find it interesting that the political left is consistently being accused of identity politics while the political right is consistently being accused of racism due to nationalism and patriotism. Humanity = identity politics, for we would be nothing without our identity markers, and I think most would prefer to be something rather than nothing.

Abolish the nations (which is what the internationalists/globalists) are going on about and you will only get the emergence of new nations. Abolish new, radical, non-religious, political identities and you strip people of their raison d’être. In a best case scenario they’ll find another one in a worse case scenario they might go insane.

Maybe it can be claimed that social media has accelerated societal meltdowns since civil war and genocide was a factor way before we obtained our shiny little gadgets. The truth however is that there are plenty of people out there who you might get along with on a personal level but who you would end up in a shouting match with if your only interaction was based on “values.”

There are no such thing as “universal values.” These will be different from person to person, and roughly speaking from Nation to Nation, or from belief set to belief set, and a belief set by the way could might as well be a secular one, etc;

The geniuses over in Silicon Valley were seemingly surprised to find this out, which is why they’ve cracked down on “wrong think” on their platforms. They cannot claim moral superiority however, after all their very own social media moderators (who are not even official employees) suffer emotional scars after witnessing the true face of unfiltered humanity, in fact many articles have been written about these “invisible hands” keeping our digital landscape tidy. Muslims have complained of not having their prayer time respected and pan-Africans (in Africa) lament all over social media that American tech-companies are draining African soil for minerals without this benefitting the Natives….so what’s up with all of this senseless morality posturing?

Great strength can be found in completely ignoring the news!

At least it will prevent you from engaging, in addition it will shield you from idiocy.

 

 

Immigration Red Flags, Article 13, & Petitions To Sign & Share.

Please don’t forget about Article 13! Watch the video at the end of this entry!!!

Lately I’ve been mentally drafting an entry about citizenship in an open world. There are so many contradicting laws that makes no sense especially in combination with facilitated mass movements of people. It is indeed a very interesting topic for many reasons:

  1. Just because a government is generous enough to give you legal permission to be in a territory doesn’t mean that the locals will.
  2. Assuming that immigration laws make sense is naive since a number of measures are carried out in an attempt to create an image of governmental efficiency.
  3. Assuming that a territory will be more welcoming towards geographical neighbours also fly in the face of incredibly generous offers directed towards non-bordering territories. A territory might be legally more hostile towards people next door.

Just when I had all of this in the back of my mind I came across The Windrush Scandal that perfectly illustrates my point:

  1. You are allowed entry into a territory that theoretically isn’t yours through claims of ancestry.
  2. You are told by governing forces that you are legally allowed to stay.
  3. All of a sudden you find that your status has been revoked several years even decades after you were welcomed into the territory and that you are all of a sudden being treated as an illegal immigrant.
  4. The digital revolution has wrecked havoc on the old system of file-keeping. So if you were born before 2000 you might struggle to get hold of school records and other “evidence,” because you were born before mainstream digitalisation. When I was little my name was just added in my parent’s passports, you had to have your own passport once you were a teen or something along those lines, so government bureaucracy and technological changes can easily land you in a grey area.

Did anyone say an open world? Think again. This is a topic worthy of a giga entry because the issue puts into question a myriad of things that we just assume in today’s digitally and commercially open world.

Once again:

  1. Just because a piece of paper grants you legal access doesn’t mean that you and your family will actually be safe – because there will always be many layers of “borders” – and if locals are pissed off and unhappy they might create their own border-control “service,” which you probably do not want to deal with, ever.
  2. An authority might change its mind about you or the ethnic demographic that you belong to regardless of whether or not you actually represent a threat as an individual or as part of a generalised group. You might just end up being targeted so that the government can look busy.

If the Windrush scandal illustrated anything it is how dangerous the illusion of an open world actually is. You might be safe in terms of residency for 40 years only to wake up one day to find out that you’ve been labeled an “illegal immigrant” and that you are on your way to a detention facility.

Here are some petitions to share about a more peaceful issue: the environment.

Fracking

Whaling

Plastic Pollution

Exotic Zoo Animals

Trophy Hunting

Detained Whales

Dog Fighting

 

 

 

Trump can’t fire anyone and neither could Tsar Nicholas II

I highly recommend reading this article!

evolutionistx

The late reign of the Russian Tsars was marked by their near total inability to exert their will over anything.

At Tsar Nicholas II’s coronation festival:

Before the food and drink was handed out, rumours spread that there would not be enough for everyone. As a result, the crowd rushed to get their share and individuals were tripped and trampled upon, suffocating in the dirt of the field.[39] Of the approximate 100,000 in attendance, it is estimated that 1,389 individuals died[37] and roughly 1,300 were injured.[38] The Khodynka Tragedy was seen as an ill omen and Nicholas found gaining popular trust difficult from the beginning of his reign. The French ambassador’s gala was planned for that night. The Tsar wanted to stay in his chambers and pray for the lives lost, but his uncles believed that his absence at the ball would strain relations with France,

View original post 1,396 more words